Post-debate quick polls show near-draw for Romney, Obama

[Geee]

Daily Caller:

Gov. Mitt Romney fought President Barack Obama to a draw in Monday night’s foreign policy debate, successfully denying the president a decisive win, according to a quick poll by CNN.

 

 

The news network’s poll of debate-watching voters split evenly on character assessments, even though 48 percent of respondents said Obama won the standoff.

 

Although only 40 percent of of viewers said Romney won the debate, 60 percent said he was ready to handle the responsibility of being the nation’s commander-in-chief.

[Geee]

'Not Obama' Wins Again

 

Who "won" the debate is a question instantly asked in the aftermath of these televised rituals, but with just two weeks left to go, the real question is, who will win the election? And after Monday night's meeting in Boca Raton, Florida, the answer to both questions appears to be the same: "Not Obama."

 

This has been Mitt Romney's challenge from the outset, to make himself acceptable to the millions of Americans who want to vote for "Not Obama," and his performance in the final debate of the 2012 campaign did nothing to disqualify him. As a result, the Republican challenger remains on a trajectory toward victory on Nov. 6.

 

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/23/not-obama-wins-again

[Geee]

Romney accuses president of 'weakness' abroad, as Obama calls rival 'all over the map'

 

President Obama came armed with an arsenal of biting one-liners at the final presidential debate Monday night, trying to paint Mitt Romney as "all over the map" on foreign affairs, but he encountered a Republican rival who returned fire in moderation, at times chiding the president for “weakness” on the world stage but also finding common ground with the man he’s been running against for nearly two years.

The debate in Boca Raton, Fla., the last before a feverish two-week blitz of campaigning, was a departure from the candidates’ previous bout. A week ago, the two paced around each other in an interruption-filled bickering match. On Monday night, the rivals were seated next to one another, making for a less confrontational setting – though the candidates’ differences were still on full display.

To hear Romney tell it, the president has presided over a steady decline in American influence that has emboldened enemies like Iran. “In nowhere in the world is America’s influence greater today than it was four years ago,” Romney said.

To hear Obama, the Republican nominee is “all over the map” on world affairs. Obama accused Romney of pushing a foreign policy that’s either flat-out “wrong” or some version of what the president himself has already done, only “louder.”

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/22/obama-romney-set-to-face-off-in-foreign-policy-debate-with-two-weeks-until/

[Geee]

Insecure Obama, Insecure World

The United States has had good presidents and bad, but it has never had a leader who came to a debate on national security with so much insecurity. It was a small petty man who sat on the other side of the screen, alternately smirking and scowling, grinding his teeth and launching attack after attack instead of finally taking the opportunity to set the record straight with the American people.

Barack Obama came to the debate with a roster of prepared speeches, few of them about foreign affairs and most of them about the economy. Even while his Secretary of Defense has given an unprecedented order to top military officials to stonewall the congressional investigation into Benghazigate, even as it has become known that his administration watched four Americans be murdered in real time and did not lift a finger to save their lives, talking points prepared by highly paid speechwriters fell out of his mouth assuring the American people that everything was going well. There was nothing wrong except for a few non-optimal bumps in the road made up of dead Americans.

 

Anyone listening to Obama would have to conclude, like Voltaire’s Pangloss, that we truly live in the best of all possible worlds. During the Bush administration, liberal pols like Obama liked to claim that they were part of the reality-based community. But as Calvin of “Calvin and Hobbes” said, “I’m not in denial. I’m just very selective about the reality I accept.” Obama would appear to have joined Calvin’s selective reality community.

 

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/insecure-obama-insecure-world/

[Geee]

WHAT DID THE CANDIDATES PROMISE? WHERE DO THEY STAND?

 

ome actual campaign pledges were tucked in the rhetoric and spin of the three presidential debates between Democratic incumbent Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

 

 

However, the candidates did not always answer the questions, and sometimes just went completely off topic.

Human Events has summarized the candidates’ stances and their pledges as well as the specific questions from which they sprang.

The final debate Monday night specifically focused on foreign affairs and was moderated by Bob Schieffer who questioned the candidates about America’s role in the world, the war in Afghanistan and the situation in Pakistan, Israel and Iran, Terrorism and the Middle East, and “the rise of China and tomorrow’s world.”

 

Question: Libya, questions remain, what caused it, was it spontaneous, was there a policy or intelligence failure, and was there attempt to mislead people about what happened?

 

 

Obama: After he received the phone call reporting the incident, said he did all he could, without specifying, to secure those still in harms way. Pledged to go after those who killed Americans. Did not answer the other questions.

 

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/23/hudson-debate-overview-what-did-the-candidates-promise-where-do-they-stand/

[Geee]

AMID BAYONETS AND BATTLESHIPS, ROMNEY STAYS CALM, COLLECTED

 

Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney emerged in the third presidential debate with a poise and gravitas that remained unshaken in the face of an opponent who appeared to be spoiling for a fight.

Though this final debate was centered on foreign policy, Romney opted to save his strongest challenges to President Barack Obama for the state of the economy at home, which continues to poll at the top of voter concerns.

To the surprise of many, Romney opted not to challenge Obama at all on the administration’s missteps and failures leading to the deaths of four Americans in a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya last month. Instead, he advanced a broader vision for the Middle East, to help combat strains of Islamist extremism, from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to al Qaeda in the Middle East and parts of Africa.

 

“We can’t kill our way out of this mess,” Romney said.

 

 

If it was an olive branch for Obama, the president spurned it, bringing up previous Romney statements about Russia as a geopolitical threat and how to pull out of Iraq and accusing Romney of having an outdated foreign policy mindset, while refusing to advance an agenda of his own.

 

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/22/hodge-amid-bayonets-and-battleships-romney-emerges-calm-collected/

[Geee]

Foreign and Domestic

 

If you knew nothing about Barack Obama and Mitt Romney except what you saw in their final debate, you would have assumed that Romney was the incumbent president, that Obama was the challenger trying to unseat him, that Romney was clearly leading in the polls going in and that he remained there going out. You wouldn’t necessarily think Romney won the debate, but you would think he was winning the race.

It was absolutely clear that both candidates understood that this debate was entirely about Mitt Romney. Romney’s only goal was to seem presidential, and Obama’s only goal was to make Romney seem not presidential. By that measure, Romney clearly achieved his aim and Obama clearly did not. Romney did this by treating this debate very differently than the other two. He didn’t really try to score points, and he wasn’t afraid to express agreement with Obama, which he did remarkably often. His goal was to answer every question with a calm, responsible attitude and convey sobriety and level-headedness. The calculation must have been pretty simple: voters are not greatly concerned with foreign policy this year, but they wouldn’t elect someone they don’t trust on foreign policy. So having clearly conveyed his differences with Obama on domestic issues and his own domestic agenda, Romney merely needed to be a plausible commander in chief—to convey deep knowledge and the right attitude, to avoid getting rattled, to deny Obama the chance to label him a war monger or an amateur, and to waive off attacks on himself by returning to his core domestic message and reminding voters that the president is running on nothing.

 

 

Obama helped Romney a little more than he had to. He reinforced his own lack of agenda by the way he described why he should remain in office. It is downright peculiar for the sitting president to say again and again that we need nation-building at home after years of neglect. It is downright peculiar for anyone running in this economy to keep coming back to the need to build roads and bridges. And his little (clearly unintentional) “The nation, me” line (which sounded better in the original French) will be a fixture of conservative Obama critiques from now on.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/

[Geee]

Who Won the Third Presidential Debate? It Depends on How You Score It.

 

Political incumbents struggling to crack 47% within a couple of weeks of the reckoning day tend to fall. Voters claiming to be undecided have often already decided, they’re just waiting to see if the challenger stumbles or the incumbent somehow pulls out a miracle. Coming into the third presidential debate, President Barack Obama struggled to crack 47% everywhere while some polls have put former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s support as high as 52% nationally. The trends nationally and in the swing states have all run in Romney’s favor since the first debate. The second debate was marred when moderator Candy Crowley doffed her referee’s jersey, strapped on a pair of shoulder pads, and tackled Romney on his way into the end zone. The president also fired off a couple of howlers, admitting that he wants to restrict the right of poorer Americans to arm themselves, and saying that the low gas prices of the pre-Obama era were due to an economy in collapse. He mostly got away with both, moderator Crowley keeping the ref’s jersey on for those portions of that debate.

 

Debate three was to be about foreign policy, with no town hall audience, and a moderator who has been part of the Beltway landscape since the Jurassic age. Would CBS’ Bob Schieffer be biased Bob, the man who only leans left, or would he appear as balance Bob, allowing the combatants to use this final debate to make their own cases for themselves? Obama came in still making up ground lost in that first debate. His campaign has flailed between Big Bird, binders and Benghazi. Romney came in needing to close the deal and present himself to the American people as the captain who can right the adrift American ship of state.

 

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/22/who-won-the-third-presidential-debate-it-depends-on-how-you-score-it/

[Geee]

Round III: Romney Passes Commander-in-Chief 'Eye Test'

 

President Obama and Governor Romney battled to a draw on foreign policy points tonight, with each candidate scoring on several lines. As expected, the discussion meandered into domestic policy for a large portion of the evening, and both men came prepared with a flurry of talking points. Romney needed to strike casual viewers are informed, poised, and plausible as president. He accomplished that task, without question. The president often seemed like the aggressor, hammering his challenger in almost every answer he gave. Romney coolly chided Obama, explaining that attacking him (especially dishonestly) doesn't advance any solutions. The candidates found themselves in general agreement on a number of fronts (Syria, Iran sanctions, etc), leading to smaller skirmishes over who would have done what sooner, or more forcefully. Romney's strongest answers came on the state of the economy and the debt -- as well as on Israel and the so-called "apology tour." He closed very well. The president told a very touching anecdote about meeting a 9/11 orphan, and repeatedly reminded Americans that he is the Commander-in-Chief, often emphasizing the word "me," or "I." On the whole, Obama turned in a strong performance, even if he failed to bait Romney into the more heated exchanges he appeared to crave. Romney executed a clear strategy: Pass the "eye test," challenge the president where necessary, and project strength without striking war-weary Americans as unduly bellicose. Success. I would not be surprised to see the snap polls tilt toward the sitting president tonight, but this was in no way a game-changing event; advantage Romney. Stay tuned for updates...

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/10/22/round_iii_romney_passes_commanderinchief_eye_test

[Geee]

Obama goes on attack, Romney plays it steady

 

President Obama aggressively questioned Mitt Romney's foreign policy credentials during the final presidential debate Monday while the Republican calmly countered that the president's failed economy had made America more vulnerable.

 

Throughout the 90-minute discussion in Boca Raton, Fla., Romney sought to dispel the notion that he was a war hawk in the mold of President George W. Bush, instead attempting to present himself as a poised potential commander in chief. In contrast, Obama looked to flex presidential muscle and minimize the types of national-security doubts that voters typically have about Democrats.

"Every time you've offered an opinion you've been wrong," Obama told Romney, accusing the Republican of being "all over the map" on issues ranging from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to how he would handle the uprisings in the Arab Spring.

To which Romney replied, "Attacking me is not an agenda."

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-goes-on-attack-romney-plays-it-steady/article/2511482#.UIZ5Ehx7Fwc

[Geee]

Thoughts on the final presidential debate - Michael Barone

 

A number of surprising things in this third and final presidential debate of the 2012 presidential election.

There was more consensus on foreign policy than many expected. Mitt Romney declined an invitation to attack Barack Obama on the statements he and administration spokesmen, like Press Secretary Jay Carney and Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice and Obama himself made for two weeks after 9/11/12, that the assault that resulted in the murder of our Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi was a spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim video. Why did Romney whiff? I’m guessing that he calculated that Obama is already hurting on this issue and that it wouldn’t help him to get into a detailed fight on this issue.

 

Instead he painted a broader picture of disarray in the Middle East and the world. Disarray doesn’t work in favor of an incumbent president. Romney returned to this theme again and again. He decried “the rising tide of tumult and confusion. And attacking me is not an agenda.”

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/thoughts-on-the-final-presidential-debate/article/2511484#.UIZ4vxx7Fwc

[Geee]

Obama, Romney tangle on al Qaeda, foreign policy in final presidential debate

BOCA RATON, Fla. — Mitt Romney accused President Obama of failing to protect the military from budget cuts and squandering U.S. leadership in the Middle East, leaving America standing by as al Qaeda has surged to become active in a dozen countries, as the two men faced off Monday night in their final debate.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, repeatedly accused the Republican nominee of being an amateur on foreign policy — the subject of the night’s debate — and touted his own credentials, including overseeing the mission that killed Osama bin Laden and committing U.S. planes to a no-fly zone that aided Libyan rebels.

 

 

“I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong,” Mr. Obama said.

 

“Attacking me is not an agenda,” Mr. Romney retorted.

 

 

The foreign policy-focused debate served to highlight just how little daylight there is between the two men on the big basic foreign policy choices, ranging from handling the civil war in Syria to unequivocally backing Israel to using drones to attack terrorist targets to trying to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/22/obama-romney-tangle-al-qaeda-final-presidential-de/

[NCTexan]

I don't think that the question this morning should be "Who won the debate?"

 

The beltway pundits and the talking class may score pure debating points as...

 

Obama 7.394 and Romney 7.172?

 

Howevert most people who can still be swayed in their vote.... or be motivated to get out and vote don't care or have a clue about the finer points of "scoring" a debate. (exception: the "undecideds" who get their 15 minutes of fame in a broadcast focus group)

 

The questions that carry with most people are....

 

1 - "Do I like that person?"

2 - "Does he look Presidential?"

3 - "Can I trust that person?"

4 - "Is he confident and believe in what he says?"

5 - "Does he understand the big picture?"

6 - "Is he defensive and petty?"

7 - "Does he know what he is talking about?"

8 - "Does he get flustered, make mistakes and say stupid things under pressure?"

9 - "Do the fact checkers support him or his opponent the next day?"

10- "Does he love and believe in me and this country?"

 

Using my election scoring method this morning... I score it Romney 10 / Obama 0.

[nickydog]

Thanks for all the posts, @Geee.

[Geee]

Your welcome @nickydog! Little tough getting up in the wee hours this morning after last night

[Geee]

Romney won the presidential debate by looking presidential. Obama had a painful case of Biden's smile

 

Romney won the third presidential debate – and how he did it was encapsulated in a single exchange. The candidates were discussing military spending and Romney had just accused Obama of making harmful cutbacks. The President wheeled out what must have seemed like a great, pre-planned zinger: “I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed.” The audience laughed, Obama laughed, I laughed. It was funny.

 

• Reaction to the US presidential debate: live

 

But here’s why it was also a vote loser. For a start, Twitter immediately lit up with examples of how the US Army does still use horses and bayonets (horses were used during the invasion of Afghanistan). More importantly, this was one example of many in which the President insulted, patronised and mocked his opponent rather than put across a constructive argument. His performance was rude and unpresidential. Obama seemed to have a touch of the Bidens, wriggling about in his chair, waving his hands dismissively and always – always – smirking in Romney’s direction. By contrast, Romney sucked up the abuse and retained a rigid poker face all night. He looked like a Commander in Chief; Obama looked like a lawyer. Who would you rather vote for?

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100186053/romney-won-the-presidential-debate-by-looking-presidential-obama-had-a-painful-case-of-bidens-smile/

[Rheo]

Romney Passed the Test

Fred Barnes

 

Mitt Romney’s aim was to present himself with the demeanor and grasp of foreign and national security issues of a president of the United States. He succeeded. President Obama sought to make Romney appear unqualified to be president and commander in chief. He failed. And that was the story of the third and final presidential debate.

 

This may or may not give the Romney campaign a boost, but it won’t hurt. Romney wasn’t stumped or forced on the defensive on any issue. He committed no gaffes. As the challenger, Romney didn’t need to “win” the debate—he only needed to hold his own against Obama’s deeper knowledge, sharp criticism, and occasional irritation. And he did.

 

Romney made a point of not bickering with Obama. He didn’t quibble about the administration’s failure to give a consistent explanation of the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September. His disagreements with Obama on Syria, Afghanistan, terrorism, Egypt, and China were either slight or non-existent.

 

Putting distance between himself and Obama on policy wasn’t his game. Nor was his approach to Monday night’s debate especially combative, though he was critical of Obama’s “leadership.” It was to put himself in the best possible light by offering plans of his own and specific details on every issue.

 

[Rheo]

Brit Hume: Romney Was Smooth, Fluid And Well Informed

 

BRIT HUME: "Mitt Romney had a job tonight and that was to come across as a plausible commander in chief. It would have been very damaging to him if there had been areas of the world and subject matters raised by the questions or raised by the president that he didn't seem to really know anything about. I didn't detect such a moment. He seemed to me smooth, and fluid and well informed about all the matters that came to hand and he had something to say about all of them. I don't think it hurt him that he and the president didn't have broad disagreements about some of these matters because I don't think these are the issues on which the election is likely to be decided. I do think that he did effectively use the economy and the weakness of the economy as a weapon in a debate about foreign policy and our position in the world."