Romney and last nights debates

[stinkpickle]

Romney played the nice guy last night. The Bamster was clearly the more aggressive and condescending debater. Im sure that would make him the winner of the debate to some people. I believe Romneys demeanor was strategic and very much intended. He was not backed into a corner, did not go on the defense, he could have pressed BO on a number of things but left it alone. We know Mitt has it in him, the first debate proves that. So why so calm and subdued on the last debate?

[amc78cj7]

Romney demonstrated calm demeaner and professional presidential personality necessary to lead a nation and coordinate foreign affairs. He stayed focused on the message of what he would bring to the position.

President Obama demonstrated he can be a bully.

"When you have nothing to offer, you make the election about small things; you try to scare voters away from your opponent." - Barack Obama, 2008

[sodapop]

Originally Posted by amc78cj7

Romney demonstrated calm demeaner and professional presidential personality necessary to lead a nation and coordinate foreign affairs. He stayed focused on the message of what he would bring to the position.

President Obama demonstrated he can be a bully.

"When you have nothing to offer, you make the election about small things; you try to scare voters away from your opponent." - Barack Obama, 2008

This doesn't go against your comment that B.O. can be a bully but you did take that quite significantly out of context. In that comment, Barack isn't talking about his campaign strategy but he's talking about John McCain's and the republican party in general. Maybe he's talking about posters like yourself who take things out of context, twist them around, and make them fit your agenda. I don't think so, but isn't that kinda what you're doing?? Maybe Barack's being a bit of a bully by saying that about J.M., but let's be real here, it's not like it's just the acting in this manner in campaign ads and speechs right??? Be a republican, be a democrat, it makes no difference to me as long as you know what your thinking and why. It seems like we'd be a better country if all this other BS wasn't here and we could just focus on the serious shit.

Here's a longer excerpt of his speech when he made that comment. I didn't want to cut to much, but if you want to read the whole speech it's here:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/speec...ama_accept.htm

The comment is at the top of page 5 but you'll need to go back to page 4 to find out what he's talking about. In case you don't want to do that, he's talking about John McCain primarily.

Originally Posted by Barack Obama

But this, too, is part of America's promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer, and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values.

And that's to be expected, because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.

If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.

And you know what? It's worked before, because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping and settle for what you already know.

[amc78cj7]

Originally Posted by sodapop

Here's a longer excerpt of his speech when he made that comment. I didn't want to cut to much, but if you want to read the whole speech it's here:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/speec...ama_accept.htm

The comment is at the top of page 5 but you'll need to go back to page 4 to find out what he's talking about. In case you don't want to do that, he's talking about John McCain primarily.

The quote from Obama is in perfect context. He was criticizing tactics that attack the opponent rather than adding substanitive visions for his platform; which is what he was guilty of last night.

Also, That is AWESOME. Look at that quote and then try to fit it to his performance as President. Maybe Romney should have cornered Obama on his previous statements like Obama keeps trying to do (and not even getting facts right if you read the fact-checks today). Fortunately for Obama, Romney behaved more professionally.

Here is the fact check article with the misquotes of Romney's history by Obama during his attacks.

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-flu...-election.html

[whiterhino]

Back on topic, I believe that when discussing foreign affairs, the incumbent has a huge advantage. He has a high security clearance that gives him information that others do not. He knows when, why, how things were/or were not done. He knows what foreign leaders were contacted (or not) prior to a strike or other military action. In many cases, the rest of us have to speculate.

With that, foreign policy is not Mitt's strong point. So, his better tact was to act presidential and show the American Public that he doesn't get rattled easily and has the ability to deal with volatile issues in a professional manner. Plus, he already has momentum from the previous 2 debates. Why take the bait and risk saying something that could emphasize his lack of foreign experience?

[brewmenn]

Originally Posted by whiterhino

Back on topic, I believe that when discussing foreign affairs, the incumbent has a huge advantage. He has a high security clearance that gives him information that others do not. He knows when, why, how things were/or were not done. He knows what foreign leaders were contacted (or not) prior to a strike or other military action. In many cases, the rest of us have to speculate.

With that, foreign policy is not Mitt's strong point. So, his better tact was to act presidential and show the American Public that he doesn't get rattled easily and has the ability to deal with volatile issues in a professional manner. Plus, he already has momentum from the previous 2 debates. Why take the bait and risk saying something that could emphasize his lack of foreign experience?

I believe the opposite is true of domestic policy, especially when the economy isn't as strong as it could be. The challenger doesn't have to prove that his policies will work, he only has to present them as different that current policy.

[stinkpickle]

Originally Posted by brewmenn

I believe the opposite is true of domestic policy, especially when the economy isn't as strong as it could be. The challenger doesn't have to prove that his policies will work, he only has to present them as different that current policy.

This is true. Obama proved this point running against McCain by casting him as another Bush. BO didn't have to give too many specifics, especially concerning his proposed health care plan. Things weren't going too great the last year or two of Bushs spending spree and McCain being the weakest candidate the repubs could offer didn't look a whole lot different than Bush. Except Bush wasnt as much the flip flopper as McCain. All BO had to do was offer "hope and change", specifics be damned. The difference now is, BO doesn't look as moderate as he did the last election and appears much more liberal, making Romney look less moderate and more conservative by comparison. BO is not offering alot of details about his future plans, just offering platitudes and promises to go "Forward". Romney should have no problem contrasting himself from BO and his mess of an economy.