Because Obama just sat back and did not want the last word? His policy on horses and bayonets will lead us into the 21st century. Great to have him as commander-in-chief.
I'm alright with Mitt cutting people off and stomping around the stage, as long as the right doesn't whine about the President being too mean.
No, because Mitt will talk over everybody until he is done. And has done so in all 3 debates. It bothers me that he would treat foreign leaders like that, such as the Japanese and Chinese who speak in subtleties.
It's too bad this was the last debate, because it looks like we've seen the last of Josh Romney animated GIFs. Meanwhile, Taggert apologizes to B. about that whole wanting to punch him thing. Also, do people not like Ann Romney?
Excuse me for the interruption ... http://www.usatoday.com/story/theov...ey-debate-interruptions-george-mason/1646127/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-obama-winner-last-week-interruption-debate/ http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-most-debate-interruptions-20121019,0,3571204.story
So, he hurdles the "presidential material" bar even though he appeared to think that Iran was land-locked? My our standards have go e down over the years. Given that 80% of the debate was spent on Iran and the Muslim world, I would have thought that this gaffe would be up there with the USSR exerting no influence over the eastern block countries. But I'm no longer surprised by our collective stupidity. "Presidential" it is. Godspeed President Romney. Better take a plane to this talks in Tehran unless you want to take a boat to Syria and then catch a cab.
It's interesting, because I thought Obama lost the first debate badly and that Romney lost this debate just as badly - and the lesson seems to be that prevent defense sucks just as much in debates as it does in soccer or football, but here is some "historian" on the Telegraph declaring Romney the winner. The "look presidential" strategy blows, in my opinion, and I guess I'm sort of interested in the way liberals think their guy lost the first and conservatives think their guy won all three? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...ial-obama-had-a-painful-case-of-bidens-smile/
Obama's argument was that he has been president for the last four years, therefore, he has experience. And what did he show in that experience last night? That we have aircraft carriers, submarines and less use of horses and bayonets. It was not a case of Obama arguing that he has done a great job as president and we should vote in him for another term. Instead, he tried to prove that Romney is a lesser qualified candidate. Not a winning argument for one who has the position.
I personally think his experience was self-evident in his grasp of the issues and ability to see the big picture and talk intelligently about the subjects, but you and I obviously have different biases. Oddly, I thought Mitt just visually didn't look great - he seemed sweaty and uncomfortable up there - like perhaps he studied too much.
My main reasoning for thinking that Romney "losing" is because it seemed like most of Romney's answers were "I'd do exactly what Obama is doing, I would have just done it sooner" and that argument doesn't hold much water with me.
not to mention that whole diplomacy thing. mitt just constantly contradicts himself. he was against all the things obama accomplished, but now he agrees with everything obama has done.
So you think that Romney had a good grasp of the issues and has a good ability to see the big picture and talk intelligently about the subjects as well?
I hate this bullshit about being "presidential", like we need to have these Apollonian emperor-type figures calmly shining forth their glory. The ships going underwater line was a well-delivered, funny dig. I much prefer a president who can pull that kind of thing out when necessary.
Or, if you have an android phone, download this widget and call it a day: https://play.google.com/store/apps/...3R0ZW5hcnRzLmVsZWN0aW9uZm9yZWNhc3R3aWRnZXQiXQ..
I bet those lines work real well when negotiating with the Iranians. Maybe the President should visit Jon Stewart more often.
I think Mitt lost badly last night...perhaps not as badly as Obama in round one though. That said, I don't think Obama did as well as he could have, but I don't think some arguments go as far with me as they do with the masses. That the party liners on the right are going through such histrionics to argue that soldiers still use bayonets reinforces both Obama's victory and the wrongheadedness of the party groupthink. I'd have rather Obama explain that he's in the process of transforming the Navy so that it responds to modern needs, but zinging him seems to be what fits. Obama had several good opportunities to explain how the same fiscal policy Romney advocates is crushing Europe, but apparently what people want is saber rattling about Muslims. The debates form a good analogy also for why I think Obama should win. He put out a bad performance initially, his supporters admitted it, and he and the party redoubled and improved. Romney put out a bad performance and his party doubled down on stupid.
Conservatives know they lost the last two but don't care. It's their continued battle against the reality based community.
Looking at the various pix posted on this thread about Romney, horses and bayonets, it seems the histrionics of that line by Obama is coming from the liberal/Democrats.