THE President Actually! Preisdent Obama or President Romney? (882)

Bret Humes just explained the how the 2008 voting model has played into the polling this year for the 2012.

In 2008, DEMs had a 7% greater turn out than the previous years. That is part of why McCain got waxed. But now for the 2012 polling, guess what most of the polls did?

Weighed 7% more DEM voters into the polling in.

No one is saying that the DEM turned out this years will reflect a 7% increase. Not with Obama approvals in the 40s.

So when you see a poll that says Obama and Romney are even. Subtract 7% from the Obama figure. See what you get then......

Just don't do a Crowley with the debate tape. Very bad form there.....
If you get tempted to answer for Obama.....don't shout the answer out.
Make him figure it out himself......

See how the liberal media is now using the bin Laden raid to build up Obama?



If the story is accurate that Obama did not order the bin Laden raid....then historians, DEM political pundits, and everyone that ever supported the President's foreign policy in Afghanistan will have egg on their face.

If this is a cover up, it goes right to Oval office. At the DNC both Obama and Biden took full responsibility for the bin Laden raid.

Careful with those Bush jokes, Conrad. You know Obama, Palin, Limbaugh, Coulter and Bush are all related.

The world’s largest online family history resource reveals that President Barack Obama is related to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Obama and Palin are 10th cousins through common ancestor John Smith. The website also found that Obama is related to one of his most vociferous critics, conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. Perhaps Rush will ease up on the President when he learns they are actually 10th cousins once removed via common ancestor Richmond Terrell.

Ancestry.com researchers also discovered that Palin, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and conservative author Ann Coulter are also cousins through Englishman John Lathrop, who was exiled to the United States for becoming a minister of an illegal independent church.

But the connections don’t end there. Obama, Palin and former President George W. Bush are also related. Obama and Bush, who both reached the highest office in the land, are 11th cousins through common ancestor Samuel Hinckley. Palin and Bush, who are also 11th cousins, are also related through Hinckley. Apparently leadership runs in the family, since Hinckley’s son, Thomas, went on to become governor of Plymouth Colony.

I'm pretty sure he's in the short bus following the caravan.

Sorry Dude.

The new position by the liberal media and Obama surrogates on Libya.....is ....is not a big deal. Former NATO commander Wesley Clark on OReilly tonight basically blamed REP for making a it a political issue.

There was no cover up. The Administration was perfectly clear and in control in the days following the events. Barack Obama did everything that could have been expected of a President in the light of the circustances.

So No Big Deal ..........bad things happen.

55% of 150,000 Yahoo voters say it is a big deal. That it will effect their vote.

But could the President do everything that he could have?
Clark lays out 5 points.

1) he increase security at the embassies
-but not Sudan. but not Yemen but not Pakistan and Egyptian Marine Guard did not even load weapons
2) he called foreign leaders saying it was their responsibility to protect our embassies
-the embassy are US soveriegn soil. If he cannot protect them. Then it is time to get a new President that can
3) he called it a act of terrorism
-once in the Rose Garden was the term used. 7 time in the UN address he mentioned the movie trailer
4)he requested a investigation on the Libyan events
-if it like other investigations of this administration, we will never see it.
5)he is hunting down the Libyan Jhadist that did it.
-one is sitting in a cafe sipping a frappe and joking of how he helped to kill the ambassador. he can start there.

Whesley is angry at Mitt Romney for not coming into the fold and being supportive of the President in a bad time. DEM after 911 set aside politics to join America together.

We had just had election the year before. This is different. 14 days till this election. It is our political season. Romney and REP have every right....and the American people have every right to know the details of the Libyan events. Before the election.

Barack Obama has not done a face the nation for 1 and 1/2 months.

Look at the figures Dude. It is chump change. Most in the military give direct donations that are untractable....just like civilians.

For a incumbant President can only get DoD to donate....$536K when there are 450,000 DoD employees....means that the average DoD donation is $1.19....

How critical is tonight debate?

As OReilly has just said....if Mitt Romney is preceived to win this debate....he is the next President of the United States.

Take some good notes Dude......

One little point.....the supporters of the President felt he got in a zinger tonight when he said the US military doesnot still use "horses and bayonets" we now have Air Craft Carriers and ships that go under the under water...submarines"

Well a good fact check will show us that that the first CIA teams in Afghanistan in the great bin Laden hunt....rode horses. And basic training for both the Marine Corp and SArmy still today includes bayonet training.

Tuck that thumb in the salute Mr. President, your lack of military knowledge is showing......

When you are in the military.....you use all the assets that you can acquire....rule number 1.

Overall FOX is giving Romney the win. So is the vote at yahoo.....
with 65,000 votes....Romney has 51% and Obama 49%. So it is no runaway.And many are likely voting for the man that they have already chosen.

The first segment concerns Libya--just as in the Vice Presidential debate. This is a question both Obama and Romney have expected, and each is invited to give his thoughts on what happened in Benghazi.
Romney's response is very cautious, sketching a broad overview of the Arab Spring and the many threats that we and our allies face. He does not attack Obama on Libya, but focuses on the fact that the changes in the region have taken a turn for the worse, especially with Iran moving closer to a nuclear weapon. He speaks specifically about the role of women in the region and gives the President credit for the Osama bin Laden mission but states that "we cannot kill out way out of" the problems facing us in the region.
Obama touts his record, including his record against Al Qaeda and against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. He sounds strong, confident, and calm. Then he turns to Romney and attacks his policies directly, suggesting that they would make Americans less safe, and hinting Romney has held more radical past views.
Romney, sounding more strident, recounts the numerous setbacks that have been suffered in the region. Obama attacks again--the left has to be loving this--by saying that while he's glad Romney says Al Qaeda is a threat, he recently said Russia was the number one threat. He continues, offering rehearsed lines, attacking Romney directly: "Every time you've had an opinion, you've been wrong." This is a carefully rehearsed attack, accusing Romney of inexperience and of embracing outdated policies. Obama contrasts his "strong, steady leadership" with "wrong, reckless leadership" from Romney.
Romney counters more strongly, correcting Obama on his Russia policy, and attacking Obama's infamous statement to Russia's leaders that he would have more flexibility after the election. "After the election, we'll have more backbone," Romney says. He also takes Obama on over Obama's claim that Romney would have wanted more troops in Iraq, pointing out that Obama had the same position until failing to secure a Status of Forces agreement. Obama counters with talk about equitable development across the region.
The second question is about Syria. Obama claims that his policy is succeeding at encouraging the forces of moderation inside the country, and says that Romney's approach of arming opponents of the regime (wasn't that something Vice President Joe Biden said the administration was doing?) was dangerous. Romney counters by painting a broader strategic picture, pointing out that Syria is one of Iran's most important allies and that his policy is to identify genuine allies among the opposition to receive support.
Obama respondes by referring to Libya, defending his intervention and again attacking Romney's policy, in which Romney suggested that going after Gaddafi was "mission creep." (Romney is not given a chance to respond to Obama's attack. At all. The pattern continues.) Schieffer instead asks whether Romney would put a no-fly zone over Syria. Romney explains that he would not involve the U.S. military in Syria, particularly because the U.S. has partners in the region with enough resources to do what is necessary. Obama answers that Romney does not have different ideas because "we're doing what we should be doing."

The third question is about Obama's response to Egypt, and whether he was right to back the ouster of Hosni Mubarak. Obama launches into a long monologue about how his administration is trying to help foster greater openness and enlightenment in the region, and then turns his answer towards discussing how he wants to focus more on nation-building at home. When it's Romney's turn, he explains why he, too, supported Mubarak's ouster. He then takes a step back to describe America's mission in the Middle East, noting that we have no choice but to be involved in the region, and so we need to be strong. That means a strong economy, a lower debt, and a prepared military, as well as strong allies in the region.
Romney answers bigger, sweeping in scope, fluent, and much more Presidential!
The fourth question is about America's role in the role, and how each candidate would define it. Romney answers well, placing an emphasis on values of freedom and human rights. He takes his first jab at Obama--indirectly--by pointing out that the U.S. failed to stand with the Iranian people when they rose up against their leaders. Obama's vision is of an "indispensable" America, and he claims that America is stronger now than it was four years ago. He adds that the U.S. needs to develop more at home, citing "clean energy" technologies and blasting Romney's budget plan, which is awkward put in this context.
Obama's attack on Romney's domestic policy gives Romney an opportunity to drive home his policies, including his five-point economic plan, which he does with fluency and conviction. He does seem somewhat more comfortable with domestic policies, and it was likely a mistake for Obama to leave him this opening. Obama does not counter by stating what his own economic plan would be, but simply by attacking Romney's policies. Obama then pivots to education policy, repeating lines from the first debate about how he would hire more teachers--and then attacking Romney for allegedly opposing more teacher hires. Romney counters by defending his education record in Massachusetts. Obama interrupts--not for the first time--and says, "That happened before you came into office!" Twice. Romney grants him the first, but not the second.

Schieffer starts to direct questions at Romney that are specific to Romney--and here, in the fifth question, he asks Romney how he would pay for increased defense spending. Romney defends his budget--but Schieffer interrupts several times. This question is a setup for Obama to attack Romney and is typical of the behavior from Candy Crowley but Schieffers more subtle.
Romney counters Obama by talking about his experience balancing budgets in business and in government. He turns the discussion back to military budgets--and Schieffer seems to want to stop him from doing so, despite complaining earlier that the debate had wandered off foreign policy. Romney unloads a well-rehearsed argument about the dangers of pending cuts to the armed forces. Obama tries to evade responsibility for the sequester, saying that "it's something Congress has proposed"--but, of course, he signed it. Obama says that Romney hasn't studied the military, and offers condescending (but in his mind, no doubt, effective) put-downs about how this isn't a game of Battleship and we don't have bayonets anymore, either.
The sixth question is on Israel, Iran, and red lines. Obama talks about the importance of the alliance with Israel, and claims he united the world against Iran. He adds an attack on Romney's policy, a straw-man version, suggesting Romney would embark on "premature" military action. Romney's response is comprehensive, calling not only for economic sanctions but for indicting the Iranian regime for genocide. He adds military response "is the last resort."
The seventh question, follows-up the sixth, is about what a "deal" with Iran would look like. Obama starts off by denying reports of a deal for talks with Iran in the New York Times, then states that a deal would involve Iran giving up its nuclear program (this is not, in fact, Obama's actual position). Obama again attacks Romney: "You'd do the same things we did, but say them louder." Romneys not taking the bait, and looking back on the first half of the debate, its clear that he has made a strategic choice to play it safe and solid.

Romney's response criticizes "O administration" for "weakness, where they expected to find American strength." Romney brings up O's record of weakness, going back to O's commitment in 2008 to meet enemy leaders without preconditions, tracing O's policies to the present, including the O administration's attempt to create (but not acknowledge) "daylight" between the U.S. and Israel. Romney calls for a policy of greater pressure.
O says "nothing" Romney says is true, and tries to defend against the "preconditions" claim by citing fact-checkers. (However, its true.) He goes after Romney for allegedly investing in a Chinese state oil company with dealings with Iran. And he says that he was "very clear" about Iran's "murderous" actions. (Which, of course, was not.) O closes by saying he will not allow Iran to achieve a nuclear weapon.
Romney responds by saying that the administration has given Iran four more years to move closer to a nuclear weapon--and adds that O's "apology" tour visited everyone except Israel, and that our enemies noticed. O's irritated talking about his visit to Israel as a candidate, including Yad Vashem (which he makes a show of explaining to Romney is the Holocaust museum). O ends by posing the question as which candidate is going to be be more credible as a leader, and who will "stand on the right side of history."
O gets 3 chances to speak; Romney only two, but Romneys more forceful and eloquent.
The eighth question is about a hypothetical situation involving bombers in the air. Romney rejects the hypothetical and talks about how the U.S. is now weaker throughout the world. Obama responds by accusing Romney of having inconsistent positions, and suggesting that he would not have gone after Osama bin Laden. Romney asks for a chance to respond, and Schieffer rejects it. Again, again, again with lib bias at play.
The ninth question is about Afghanistan, and Romney answers first, talking about how he wants to bring American troops home but wants to ensure that Pakistan does not become a failed state. (Again--for the fourth time this evening, I believe--Romney stresses areas of agreement with Obama.) Obama talks about his record, and paints a broad picture about why he sent additional troops to Afghanistan in the first place. This is a wise move, because it takes the focus off a troubled withdrawal that Obama calls "pulling out responsibly." Obama, once again, turns the conversation towards "nation-building" at home, focusing on veterans coming back from war and looking for work, and mentioning the First Lady. An excellent answer.

Tenth question, whether we should "divorce" Pakistan. Romney is called to answer first, yet again. The fourth question in a row where O gets the last word, another moderating failure. Romney says we should not and cannot divorce Pakistan.
Schieffer does'nt ask O to answer the tenth question, but moves on to an eleventh, asking Romney whether he approves the use of drones. Romney gives a straightforward answer, he approves of the use of drones but we need to look at the bigger picture, whether the U.S. is achieving its broader goals in countering Iran, pushing Al Qaeda "on its heels," and encouraging peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. O's answer is America should be proud of having stood up for democracy. But he adds an awkward declaration: "This nation--me--I stood up,". It looked and sounded odd, not Presidential.
Romneys much more successful describing a foreign policy in need of change.
Both candidates are asked what the greatest threat to America is. O says China, and talks about how he has fought for American industry, adding the by-now-customary attack on Romney's position, saying that Romney's budget and policies are weak. Romney, addressing O directly, says that the real threat is a nuclear Iran--and then returns to the issue of China. He argues that China sees the U.S. growing weaker because of the administration's policies, citing Secretary of Defense Panetta describing the upcoming defense cuts as "devastating." Romney pledges to label China a currency manipulator on "day one," and to act against Chinese intellectual property theft, enforcing a free trade that requires playing by the rules.
Schieffer follows up with Romney by saying that "some people" would say his policies would ignite a trade war. Romney answers really well, saying a) China doesn't want a trade war, and b) it is already winning a silent trade war, using the trade balance between our two countries. O counters poorly attacking Romney, for investing in "companies that ship jobs overseas." He brings up the auto bailout, again, saying that if Romney had his way we'd be buying cars from China instead of selling them to China (a failed distortion IMO).
Romney counters on the auto industry, talking about his roots in Detroit, explaining his opposition to the bailout. Which, he points out, was a Bush policy. O interrupts over and over again( look smug and glowering on the split screen) "I'm still speaking," Romney says, at least twice, and O sees he has overstepped a boundary. Romney turns directly to O and talks about how his policies of intervention are failing. O accuses Romney of distorting his past position and Romney, now, interrupts for the first time this evening: "You're wrong." He says it with conviction, and O looks less certain. O's attempt to channel Crazy Joe seems to have strengthened Romney.
Romney answers--Schieffer has, finally, let him answer last--countering O's statement that "we don't want to go back to the past" by agreeing, saying that "the past" are the four years of Obama's term. Romney talks about the hardships of the last four years--and O looks directly at him, alternately glowering and smirking. (O thinks he's winning, he doesn't knows how strange it looks on television.)
This was Romney's best round! O damaged himself by interrupting again and again and being so rude.
Closing statements, O has the first opportunity. He points at the camera, warns about going back to the policies of the past, and talks again about "nation-building at home." It sounds planned and boilerplate, plus too stern. Romney begins: "I'm optimistic about our future." Unlike O, he touches on foreign policy, smiling at the camera. He ends on a note of bipartisanship. "We're going to need a president who can work across the aisle"--and cites his record in Massachusetts. He ends by describing the task ahead as one of completing the work of prior generations. A more optimistic more Presidential closing statement by far.