When President Obama is re-elected!!

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:28 pm

Romney has indeed dramatically closed the gender gap.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:43 pm

Romney up by 6 points in Gallup, but only up by 1 in Rasmussen. Weird polls. None of these figures include data from following last night's debate, of course.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:15 pm

Gosh, I come in on this thread VERY late in the game.

Did you know that Mitt Romney was a missionary in Bordeaux?

I am glad that the 2nd debate weighed in favor of Obama.
But I agree with the Romney sympathiser who siad that he still has lost ground to make up for.

Romney is mostly feared and loathed over here. And let's face it, his religious affiliation does not help...

I think that encouraging lay-offs and making the rich richer is not the way to go.
Therefore, I cannot see how a working person would vote for Romney.
Certainly, his hawkish positions on Iran and Israel are most worrying...

Best regards,
Alex R.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:34 pm

AlexR wrote:Gosh, I come in on this thread VERY late in the game.

Did you know that Mitt Romney was a missionary in Bordeaux?

I am glad that the 2nd debate weighed in favor of Obama.
But I agree with the Romney sympathiser who siad that he still has lost ground to make up for.

Romney is mostly feared and loathed over here. And let's face it, his religious affiliation does not help...

I think that encouraging lay-offs and making the rich richer is not the way to go.
Therefore, I cannot see how a working person would vote for Romney.
Certainly, his hawkish positions on Iran and Israel are most worrying...

Best regards,
Alex R.

It is pretty well known he was a Morman missionary in France.
I wonder if he was very successful converting French Catholics.
Interesting he has a Catholic as a running mate. Connection?

He's telling the American people he's the one with the knowledge to create jobs.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:05 am

I've said repeatedly I think these polls are impossible to understand, but if the latest batch are anywhere near accurate, O is in major trouble. It will be interesting to see the next few days, which theoretically include Round 2. If there's not much of a bounce this one may be slipping away from him.

My own view is that he performed much, much better this debate, but like I said before, these matter less and less as we go. I'm not anticipating a major bump because of that and also because, while his performance was better, it still wasn't an overwhelming victory. The next one is foreign policy, and whatever edge he may be perceived to have there (I'm not necessarily convinced of it) is likely to be complicated by the Libya mess, which he won't as easily skirt next time. It will also be watched by fewer and fewer true undecideds. I will never - for the life of me - understand why they sent Rice out everywhere that Sunday to emphatically deny what they apparently knew to be true. Whatever flak they would've gotten pales in comparison to the appearance of trying to hide the truth. How many times do politicians need to learn that lesson?

Incomparable #2 - what the hell was Obama thinking blowing off prep ahead of that first debate??? History may well look back at that night as the moment....

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:16 am

I agree with everything you say, Scott, but you know what is about the most amazing thing I've seen in this campaign? I have yet to see a single poll from a credible pollster -- not one -- that has had Obama losing Ohio. Even today... at his lowest ebb in the campaign... he is up by a point in Rasmussen in Ohio. And the latest polls have him winning Iowa and Wisconsin. If Obama wins Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin, he cannot lose. I have been completely fascinated by Obama's resiliency in Ohio. As expected, it looks like Florida is collapsing for him. And probably Virginia, too. But he remains naggingly ahead in Ohio, which, despite all their gains, must truly terrify the Romney campaign.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:28 am

This could very easily end up being a popular vote victory for Romney but an electoral college victory for Obama.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:31 am

...which would result in violence in the streets.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:16 am

How does one get a gig being a Mormon missionary in France? Yes, it is a hardship in the sense that it is probably much harder to convert a Frenchman to Mormonism than, say, someone form a third world country. Then again there are many persons from the third world in France, yet somehow I think it is not Mormonism they are seeking. Well, I'll not cast aspersions since I know not what it's like to proselytize or to live in France.

I'm not sure how Romney can say he will create more jobs than Obama, or any jobs for that matter, if elected president. It seems an article of faith of Republicanism, and an anti-Keynesian one for sure, that governments do not create jobs, at least private sector jobs. I guess Romney is referring obliquely to all those jobs he, as BainMan, created somewhere other than in the US? Perhaps in France?

Tom In DC · Post by **Tom In DC** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:15 am

JimHow wrote:...which would result in violence in the streets.

What? The one-percenters are going to burn their mansions and office buildings?????

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:02 am

Hound, yes, converting a Frenchman to mormonism is a bit like converting a Republican to a public health care system...
It happens, but let's just say you can't count on it

.

As for Libya, I think that Obama took exactly the right tack. He *is*, after all, the President and Commander-in-Chief. He was falsely accused of not recognizing the attack on the US consulate as a terrorist act when he did so - twice - within 48 hours. Romney absolutely needed to be put in his place on that one. His barb was indeed offensive to both the man and the office.
Since the Facebook phenomenon, I have been contacted by people from my home town I haven't seen in forty years (!). It's so strange: the guys that in my mind's eye still have long hair and groove to rock music, and used to smoked dope with me, are now advocates of the friggin' tea party! One of them blames Obama personally for the lack of security in Beghazi. What horseshit!

FWIW, the press over here is afraid of Romney, his religion (yes, let's not avoid that topic), his warship diplomacy, his ability to change position on a dime, his advocacy of the rich to the detriment of the poor - and thus the US economy as a whole.

It'll be a close race, that's for sure.
I went to look up "electoral college" in Wikipedia. What a strange institution! It was nearly reformed, but didn't quite make it.
Let's not forget that Al Gore was elected president by a majority of Americans. What happened in Florida was worthy of a third world country... (sorry, we're meant to say "developing country" these days...).

Best regards,
Alex R.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:12 am

AlexR wrote:.....now advocates of the friggin' tea party! ......

Best regards,
Alex R.

I've met a few tea party folks myself. I usualy end up frustrated and ask,"If your ideas are so good where have you been the last 200+ years?"
Its not like all these "problems" snuck up on us.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:38 am

Tom: If you think the birthers, Tea Partiers, NRA, and racists out there (no, no, I'm not saying Republicans, tea Partiers, gun owners, etc., are racists, but there still is racism out there) think Obama is an illegitimate president now, wait til you see how they feel if he wins the presidency without a popular vote mandate!

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:52 am

Jim, point taken. Ohio seems to be still in Obama's corner - and that is key - but the margin is razor thin. Much of Romney's popular vote lead is extending the lead in electoral areas already solidified. It's getting tighter in the electoral vote, too though. This is going to be very close and I'm also concerned about the post-election mood if that happens.

Alex, even Candy Crowley walked back her defense of Obama post-debate. Consensus is that his reference to terror was a generic one in that Rose Garden speech, not a specific reference this incident. Regardless, he spent the next three weeks blaming it on the video - including a speech at the U.N. when it is now clear that it had not the first thing to do with it. This was a planned attack to revenge bin Laden and that was evidently clearly known within the first two days. They sent Rice out on all the talk shows to claim precisely the opposite, again blaming the video, when they had full knowledge it was an inaccurate depiction of the facts. Regarding security, they intentionally deviated substantially from protocol. The premise was that heavy security and arms would apear threatening and might incite violence. Personally, I understand the thought process but wouldn't have chosen that strategy. It was obviously a bad call. Trying to deny it and cover it up is never the right path.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:13 pm

I don't understand, really don't understand why the cause of the attack should implicate Obama! It seems to me that the people who don't like him are simply grasping at straws to back up their dislike.
You simply cannot blame the chief executive for security lapses at one of hundreds of American diplomatic representations.
That is absurd.
It goes without saying that there there were shortcomings, serious ones but, c'mon, how can anyone with good will expect the man in the Oval Office to be on top of things like that?
The Republicans are looking for "an issue" at any price. God help us if their man gets in. The Israelis will bomb Iran with US blessing and the shit will well and truly hit the fan.
That's the Romney foreign policy. Oh, and lambasting China too.
How to win friends and influence people

.

Best regards,
Alex R.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:41 pm

Well the Tet offensive was Johnson's undoing.
The public was told we were winning the war.
Some of the same sentiments may come into play on this.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:57 pm

Well, for goodness sakes, why in the world didn't they come into play in Afghanistan and especially Iraq?
The people who got us into those thankless, absurd, expensive and, above all, unwinnable wars, lived through the Vietnam experience.
And yet they learned nothing...
And George W. Bush was *still* re-elected. Ay caramba !

The storming of the US consulate in Benghazi, with the death of 4 Americans, is not exactly on the same scale. Obama is taking a bum rap on the right.

Alex R.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:57 pm

They are playing it up big time.
I imagine it'll come up again in the next debate.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:57 pm

You can bet the farm it wil come up in the debate and likely dominate it!

Alex, you are absolutely correct in that no one expects Obama to personally guard each embassy. What is in question here is really two things: 1) there was a policy decision - and this could only come from the top - to deviate from standard procedure (which calls for an armed Marine presence at every embassy - there are Marines at the embassy in Trinidad-Tobago) for the reasons I mentioned above, and 2) when that decision broke bad the administration (Carney, Axelrod, Rice, Biden and Obama himself) all made the considered decision, with what appears to be full knowledge to the contrary, to blame it on something else. This was not an angry civilian mob protest because of social media; this was a planned military activity. They had intelligence and video within 24 hours that showed this. Where he is in trouble, as is almost always the case, is with the cover up.

If I were advising Obama for the debate, I will tell him to look Romney square in the face and say, "Are you suggesting that I set out to have our embassy attacked and our ambassador killed? Are you implying that my goal was to see our people die? I was making the decision I thought was most likely to do exactly the opposite. To suggest otherwise, that somehow this is what I wanted to see happen, is utterly offensive and irresponsible. I take full responsibility for the tragic outcome; our attempts to avert violence failed, but your assertions are reckless, unfounded and beneath the office you are seeking." Something to that effect, any way. His problem isn't as much that his policy failed; no president gets everything right and no one expects them to. They do expect to be told the truth, though, and whatever trouble he has Monday with this is self inflicted.

And for the love of Pete he has to quit referring to it as a "bump in the road" and "less than optimal." This is a big deal and he should have acknowledged it. Stop being so effing proud and admit something bad happened. Our country will forgive almost anything except hubris and deceit.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 5:19 pm

Yeah those were kind of strange comments.

If I'm not mistaken, the ryan budget calls for large cuts in embassy security.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 5:41 pm

The Ryan budget calls for cuts in a lot of things. They don't itemize embassy security exactly, but there are budget cuts to the State Department generally, some of which would then be presumed to come from security. Their position, in light of recent developments, is that they are on record requesting additional spending for security to date and that they don't expect security to be cut under their plan but to have the cuts come in other areas.

JCNorthway · Post by **JCNorthway** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:12 pm

I recall reading that the last congress cut the State Dept budget (about 10% I think), which includes paying for security at the embassies.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:44 pm

You know, any way you cut it, Obama wins if he gets Ohio.

This scenario gets him to 271 electoral votes:

ME, MA, CT, VT, RI, NY, NJ, DE, MD, DC, PA, MI, OH, WI, MI, IL, NM, NV, WA, OR, CA, HI.

In other words, even if you don't give him Iowa, where he seems to have a strong lead, or NH, where he seems to be leading, or ANY other swing state, like CO, VA, or FL (he's one point behind in today's CNN Florida poll), he STILL wins if he gets Ohio.

It's all about Ohio, baby.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:00 pm

You're right, Jon. But the budget nearly doubled from '08 to '09 ($1.5B to $2.6B) so the '12 budget was still sharply higher than a few years ago. Also the cut to "Embassy Security Protection and Construction" was more than offset by an increase in "Worldwide Security Protection" and the use of the sum of the two is discretionary. In other words, although the allocation for that column in the budget was down slightly the increase in the Worldwide budget could be used for embassy security at State's discretion. In short, they actually had more money to work with this year than last. Beyond that, it would be hard to explain why we should have Marines at embassies throughout the Caribbean, for example, and not Libya, regardless of budget constraints. The decision to remove Marines from the embassy had nothing to do with the budget; it was a calculation that armed presence was provocative. They chose to use local people and go low profile, hoping to appear non-threatening. As I said, I don't think I'd have gone that way but I understand the logic. It was a mistake. If they had come out on day one and said exactly that they'd be in a better position today.

Also hard to explain why requests for more personnel were apparently not answered. But that's another issue....

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:03 pm

Jim, you are the electoral guru. I still adhere to the JHEPI! I think the main difference is that while Ohio was always important, now it is critical. Always seems to be somehow. Looking at your list, though, did you say earlier there is a chance Maine could be split? Is that in your scenario? Maybe Maine is the critical state?!

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:05 pm

I also still think WI is a bit of a wild card. I certainly would not have predicted some of the outcomes from the recall and state elections there recently.....

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:25 pm

Yes Maine could be split, the second congressional district, in which I reside, could go for Romney.
However, that would result in only 1 out of the 4 electoral votes going to Romney -- it would not be a 2-2 split-- which, you guessed it, brings Obama to exactly 270 votes. There are also scenarios of a 269-269 tie which of course would mean a Romney victory because it would go to the Republican controlled House.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:10 am

I could be wrong, but I predict Benghazi is going to get lost in the shuffle in these last two weeks. The American voter is pretty stupid and is pretty much capable of anything, but I just don't see this as having any traction for the GOP. was the right complaining about a lack of security before the attack? I think this next debate is gonna be a draw, and then the big issue is going to be whether Obama can sweat out Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa (and/or snags either FL, NV, CO, VA, or NH) in the last two weeks of the campaign. Someone is going to be very, very bitter after this race is over, because it is going to be so excruciatingly close. This is going to be really horrible in the next two weeks.

I just look at those electoral college odds and I'm struggling to see how Obama loses this race. Show me some serious movement for Romney in Ohio and I'll change my mind. Maybe its because I have three quarters of a bottle of Gazin in me, but I'm going to increase my Obama JHEPI to 55.... Even though he's down by 6 in the Gallup likely voters poll! It's all about the electoral college, not the national popular vote. Crazy....

As crazy as it sounds -- and I've been a skeptic -- I think that 538.com guy has it about right.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:32 am

Agree Jim. Don't know who will win the debate but I don't think it will matter. The GOP will push the Libya issue but it won't matter either. Too much else at stake. Still think O has the advantage in the electoral which is the only one that matters and still think its going to be very close. Also agree that one side is going to be bitter - potentially significantly so. I'm not as sure as you that he has Ohio. We won't really know until late that night. From a cold, objective, political point of view this is a fascinating one to watch.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:38 am

Oh I have no strong confidence whatsoever that he has Ohio, Scott. I've been amazed that he has polled well there throughout this campaign. This seems like the type of race that is tailor-made for Romney in Ohio. It almost seems, though, that there has been some sort of paradigm shift in Ohio in the past 8 years. It seems to be approaching Michigan/Pennsylania status, which makes some level of sense, I guess. But no, I have no expectations that Obama will win Ohio. To me, it is like the first Hearns-Leonard fight. That was a fight where I couldn't picture either fighter losing, and in the end it was Leonard in a 14 round TKO. What a brawl. I see the equivalent in Ohio. Whoever wins Ohio is the next president.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:48 am

The boxing equivalent of Romney-Obama in Ohio:

http://youtu.be/yGLL0itOAe8

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:57 am

Rasmussen has Obama and Romney in a dead heat, 48%-48%. Insane.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:06 am

Speaking of paradigm shifts: A great irony. Is the Latin vote going to save America? Very possible, in my humble opinion. The Republican Party is dying. It is a party of old white men. It can still do a lot of harm if Romney is elected, because of Supreme Court appointees, gerrymandering, etc. But that would just be delaying the inevitable. Within ten years, Texas will vote for the Democrat in presidential elections. The vast majority of the population under age 50 is Democrat. the Republicans have already lost states like New Mexico and Colorado and, perhaps as early as this year, they may lose Arizona. It is inevitable, just a matter of time. Sure, the Republicans will make gains in the occasional off year elections, like they did in 1994 and 2010. But it is all just a matter of time. If Obama is reelected in two weeks, it will mark the beginning of the end of a once great party that became overrun by radicals.

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:07 am

JScott,

You wrote “1) there was a policy decision - and this could only come from the top - to deviate from standard procedure (which calls for an armed Marine presence at every embassy - there are Marines at the embassy in Trinidad-Tobago) for the reasons I mentioned above'
Wait a minute, please. Behghazi is *not* the capital of Libya and there never was any embassy. There was a US *consulate* there. Hell, you could take over the US consulate here in about 5 minutes with 2 people. No marines in Bordeaux!
Do you know about the rules and regulations affecting security at US consulates (I certainly don’t, but am pretty sure it is not what you wrote about embassies)? Haven’t you confused things here?

You also wrote:
“2) when that decision broke bad the administration (Carney, Axelrod, Rice, Biden and Obama himself) all made the considered decision, with what appears to be full knowledge to the contrary, to blame it on something else.

Well, where would YOU situate the blame? Shit happens, and maybe heads should roll in the State Department, but pushing this up to the White House makes no sense at all. Just political grandstanding of a very base kind. Where I *do* agree with you is that Obama has made a couple of frivolous and unfeeling comments after the fact (“bump in the road”).
That having been said, we all know that foreign affairs take a back seat in American politics.
I was very surprised when I was in America during the Gore/Bush election. The country was at war, but you wouldn’t have known it!
It wasn't even a major election issue!

Obviously, what America wants is jobs. Obama (along with the House and Senate with Repbulican majorities, it should be noted...) hasn’t delivered on that and the President’s plans to set things to rights is pretty timid. On the other hand, Romney goes in for rhetoric without specifics. That’s very worrying…
Oh, excuse me, he *has* gone in for specifics. He wants to - surprise, surprise - lower corporate tax. He'd have us believe this would create jobs when, in fact, any gains would go towards paying dividends to shareholders and fat cat excecutives with bloated salaries. Are the American people really buying that?

By the way, I see that Obama coined a new word for Romney’s frequent changes of opinions: “romnesia”!

Best regards,
Alex R.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:38 am

I take a similar view to Alex on this. Most Americans have been pretty isolated from the war with our volunteer army - if you don't have a relative or close friend who serves it's easy for it to drop off your radar unless the media is covering it. This election is about jobs and the economy. As I said some 20 pages ago, it will come down to which side did a better job convincing the voters that we are either better or worse off than we were 4 years ago. Unless someone pulls off an Atwater/Rove-esque last minute surprise...

As to the LIbyan consulate - I don't know the inner workings of the Oval Office or the State Dept but I would be flabbergasted if the Sec of State, let alone the President, reviewed the specifics of how many guards are at each post around the world. She has staff to do that and make recommendations which she probably approves as a matter of routine. And if they mess up, well it's her responsibility for the people she hired. Just like it's the President's responsibility for the decisions taken by the Sec of State. Both of them accepted responsibility with their "buck stops here" moments, as they should. But no way that the Sec of State or President get into the details of how much security there is at a consulate unless there is a specific reason to do so (like now). It's not as if they were too distracted reading children's books (upside down!) to dig into the detailed evidence for the presence of weapons of mass destruction that they were going to use to promote a pre-emptive war against another nation. Sorry, couldn't resist dredging up (and distorting a bit) that old saw.

There were a number of incorrect or even stupid things said in the aftermath of the Benghazi event, as there are in the aftermath of any tragic event. People often have to speak before they have all the facts, while emotions are running high, and they often want to put the best spin on things based on what little they know. It's human nature. I'll hand out some demerits for that, on both sides, but that's not the central issue in this attack or even this election.

One of the more interesting talk show analyses I heard recently (can't recall the speaker's name but I think he was a Democrat) looked at the administration's foreign policy actions - China, EU, Israel/Palestine, Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan, etc - and compared to what Romney has been saying on the stump. He found very little difference between the Romney rhetoric and the Obama reality, asking what Romney would actually do differently. Other than the long advance notice for pulling troops out Afghanistan (and even here it wasn't clear that it wouldn't be obvious long before the actual withdrawal, even in the absence of an official announcement), most of the differences were just a different way of saying the same thing. But then it's always hard to pin down a challenger on foreign policy specifics, regardless of what party they are in, because all they have is rhetoric. They haven't had an opportunity to implement policy.

In any case, it's again going to be the economy. We are in a lot better shape than 4 years ago. But are we in as good shape as we would be if Romney had been at the reins for the last 4 years? Who knows? Especially since there is no way to know what Romney would actually do if he were elected. The contrasts between his record as Governor of Massachusetts vs. his rhetoric during the primaries vs. his rhetoric now are much more striking than that of any other candidate, Democrat or Republican, that I can recall. Perhaps it's just my faulty memory or my liberal leanings, but I don't recall Clinton, either Bush, Reagan, Carter or Nixon making so many complete about-faces on so many issues.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm

I think we all agree the election isn't going to turn on the Libya issue, as I said previously. From the beginning, this has been about the economy and remains so.

Regarding the Benghazi attack, no one would suggest that either Obama or Clinton were directly responsible for the day to day operations. They were, however, absolutely responsible for the policy decisions followed by the State Department with respect to staffing and security. It was a calculated shift from what had been the norm for a region like this (Alex, it matters not a whit whether it was a consulate, embassy, protectorate or lemonade stand - there are standard protocols for staffing presence. There was a U.S. Ambassador stationed there and prior to this change in directive that alone would call for a certain level of Marine presence in this part of the world. They intentionally changed that standard, unfortunately, and are responsible for whatever consequences flow from that policy decision.)

Furthermore, for more than a month prior to the attack, Stephens repeatedly requested additional security - including the day of the attack itself - all of which were denied. He was so concerned, in fact, that he was requesting not just the typical deployment but also aircraft, among other things. At the same time this was denied, State spent a couple hundred grand sending Chevy Volts to the Austrian embassy, so this had nothing to do with the lack of funds. It wasn't Obama or Clinton that denied the security, of course, but State Department staff who were following the new general directives laid out by the administration, which was low profile, outsourced security, no arms, so as not to appear threatening. Again, I'm not even criticizing the policy decision per se; there was a rationale and logic to it and frankly even if they had a "standard" deployment of armed Marines the result may have only been more dead because of the overwhelming force that was used. One can speculate on how they didn't see that coming, but, as David points out, it wouldn't be the first lapse in intelligence in recent history, and it pales in comparison to some made in the last administration. They knew on the first day that this was a coordinated attack by al Qaeda, yet they spent weeks - Obama directly involved - denying this and blaming it on a "demonstration" whipped into a frenzy by a YouTube video. The mastermind of the attack himself has been giving interviews saying this was revenge for Osama, not the video.

I've already beat this to death for an issue we all agree isn't going to turn the election, but I think it's important to be honest and accurate about facts and events. This isn't just a case of political gamesmanship over a lightening strike that happened to occur on his watch. This was a bad decision complicated by intentional obfuscation, very much like Fast and Furious before it. If you're going to slam Bush for crappy decisions and dodged accountability (all deserved), you have to admit when your guy screws up too. I'm still waiting for the perfect president.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:44 pm

Also, David, I think it is debatable whether we are in a lot better shape economically than we were four years ago. We have massively more debt and a higher unemployment rate with fewer people in the workforce and twice as many on food stamps. The number below the poverty level has risen significantly. Hard to find an economic measure that looks better than it did four years ago, in fact. One could argue that whatever disaster we thought might be coming at us back then has been diverted, I suppose, but there is no quantifiable measure for a nightmare not coming true. These are hardly salad days and that's the reason this is a horserace.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:42 pm

My biggest bitch about Obama was the stimulus programs. I've never bought the argument that racking up huge additional amounts of government debt creates any sort of long term resolutions.

My biggest praise for Obama is that he has a global view, he is sober-minded, he is more sensitive to women's issues and the needs of the poor than the right, and I think he has made an honest effort to address health care. He hasn't been a great president but the radical right has taken over the Republican Party and I fear the alternative.

JScott · Post by **JScott** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:24 pm

Jim, mostly agreed. Honestly, I have concerns regardless of who wins. My concern about Obama next term are more fiscal than social. Whether they like it or not, something will have to be done about Social Security and Medicare and it can't be solved with taxes alone or not even mostly. It will require some huge cuts or changes in eligibility. And it absolutely has to be done next term or it's ballgame over.

I suspect Romney is going to end up being much more moderate than he appears at the moment but I could be wrong. If that were the case and he were to win, 2016 could be even more interesting. The hard right will not re-elect him and we may see another strong third party run, splitting the vote on the right and setting up the Democrat nominee for a landslide. Gee..... I wonder who that would be?

AlexR · Post by **AlexR** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 5:45 pm

JScott,

A number of things in your last post bothered me because they were presented as facts, whereas I have some serious doubts as to whether this is actually the case. Can you please tell me on what grounds you say that the president expressly reduced security at US diplomatic representations? On the face of it, this seems absolutely preposterous and worthy of Fox News. But then again, I may be wrong. Presumably, you are able to quote a trustworthy source, and your political orientation has not colored your perception of the facts.
If, as you say, Stephens requested additional security (please back up), and these were denied (this is much more important to back up because your accusation is serious), who is responsible? I’d be really interested to know.
In any event, I must refute the notion that any person of good will could possibly trace it back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Please be specific about the “new general directives laid out by the administration” and – this is really important because it’s the part of your post that was the most damning and really deserves more than hearsay to back it up – who was responsible for them.

Thanks in advance,
Alex R.