Should be interesting. Not sure how Obama's policy is viewed favorably when he bows and bends before everyone and delivers dangerously naive and provocative speeches that unravel the Mid East such as Cairo 2003. With the Muslim Bros installed in Egypt, remind me what part of "Mubarak must step down" was a good idea. The entire ME burning, Islamic militancy on the rise, deadly massacres in Syria, the blind sheiks picture on giant billboards throughout Egypt, Israel completely abandoned and ignored, Libya a complete debacle ending in the deaths of 4 Americans who were abandoned at their posts, and it just goes on and on, especially in Afghanistan with the damning report by Lara Logan on how the Taliban is on the rise. Another thing is a former Obama adviser who openly calls Obamas policy "a mess". Lets see how it goes. I would expect Obama to act like Biden in this one attempting to silence Romney as much as possible so that people who weren't paying attention don't learn the realities.

Of the three debates, last night was the least informative.

A foreign policy debate that didn't discuss the details of the Libya attack.  How is that a debate?  Really?

Romney's camp broadcasted before the debate that he was going to play it cool and presidential.  While he was getting his butt kicked at the beginning of the debate, I thought it wasn't working for him.  But toward the middle, when BO's one-liners started getting tired, my opinion changed.

BO was like a kid determined to pick a fight with someone who just wasn't going to play the game.  The attacks seemed desperate to me at the beginning, annoyingly trite by the middle, and down-right yawn inducing by the end.

I kept seeing BO practicing those one-liners in the mirror..heh.

When talking about Iran, Romney attacked Iran.  When talking about Iran, Obama attacked Romney.  lol

So I guess cool and presidential worked for Romney.  Though I wouldn't say he won the debate.  I wouldn't say BO won either.

As for BOs snarkiness.  I don't mind it.  It is so very telling.  In all 3 debates Romney never stooped to snarky condescension.  While it appealed to Obama-bots I think it gave us a glimpse of how BO really feels about people who don't agree with him. 

The election can't come soon enough. 

Ugh.

I dunno.  A lot of the Demmies liked his attitude.  At least the ones I know.

They've also nicknamed Romney Mittens...which I find strangely appealing....the word conjures images of warm, protective, good in a snow ball fight, type images.

I followed a couple of live blogs again and was a little disappointed that Mitt declined to at least swing at several hanging curve balls he could easily have launched out of the park, but then I'm not running for President.  I believe this was a conscious decision on his part to avoid humiliating our sitting President, perhaps because he could be relied upon to humiliate himself with his own behavior, which turned out to be the case from what I've read.  There was also the inherent disadvantage of not being privy to classified material - Obama could come back with anything, true or not, and there would be no way to reliably rebut him.  So, in that sense, it was probably the smart play, particularly in light of the way the press played the Crowley debacle.

I felt beforehand that the FP debate would have no impact on Mitt's momentum as long has he made no significant stumbles.  Despite the temptation and despite what we already know, there wasn't a good risk/reward ratio in throwing the easy punches, on Benghazi in particular, this close to the election, without sufficient time to turn around any negative impacts.  Had BO made any new justifying claims, you know the lamestreams would have accepted them uncritically and continued to cover for him to the end.  And had Mitt stumbled, which he clearly did not, they would have been on it like flies on dogshit.

That all they can muster post-debate are 'racism' and ad hominems tells you who really won.

For my money, Romney won the election with his Al Smith dinner speech.  It was lethally funny.

Or hilariously lethal, however you want to view it.

Yeah, I actually think the dinner helped them know each other a little better....BO seemed a little warmer toward Romney before the 3rd debate...but maybe I just saw what I wanted to see.

Remember how I predicted riots and accusations of a "stolen" election if BO loses?  Well, the ground work has begun.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-supporters-continue-threats-to-riot-assassinate-romney/

~sigh~  I can't wait for this to be over.  I would really like our country to get over BO and move on with getting a handle on this debt.

I'd say he became electable with the first debate, and won the election with the Smith dinner speech.  But, we're splittin' hairs & I mostly agree.

As for the weeds of the Libya debacle, I agree, and I think the Crowley kerfuffle actually inured to Romney's benefit.  He was smart to just let it marinate in the background.

So I'm a member of another board, health related.

It is all women, or 99.9%. 

Inadvertently I mentioned Obamacare.  Inadvertently because as I read one of the actual drafts to the law, it used a panel of bureaucrats (2009) to say women between 40-50 don't need Mammos, and women over 74 don't either.  And at that time Obamacare wasn't going to cover it.

I mentioned my concern about this...(and what it might mean to women 40-50) that these exclusions were in the original language of the law, and later amended back to NCI (Nat. Cancer. Instit.) guidelines.  But of course I didn't find the amendment until after commenting on the panel...lol. 

Being it's Pinktober, breast cancer awareness month, it seemed appropriate to talk about how to pay for Mammos, and the current guidelines for getting them.

Um, can you say "can of worms?"

One woman is very factual, informed, and precise.  I appreciated her information, though I don't agree with her politically.

Another woman was offended I called it Obamacare, and then made comments about my military health care and how nice it must be to not worry about getting coverage.

So I apologized to the women on the thread for taking it off topic, then I confronted the personal attack in PM from the second woman.  

I told her if she wanted my healthcare, to sign up and serve!  And if she's too old, too bad!  Those were HER choices....

I tried to tell her for example how my health care is "rationed" when treated in a military hospital.  What that means is...I have been denied certain scans/procedures, (scans women get in the private sector as "standard" care), because "policy" says I don't need them.  Not because my DOCTOR says I don't need them, but because policy says...and because doc doesn't want to rock the boat, he falls in line with it.  She won't even read that part I'm sure.

I don't mind political disagreement, enjoy it even.  But she had to attack me personally?  Really?  On a forum for women with cancer?  Over Obamacare?!?

Come on! 

I'm sick of it...can't wait for this election to be gone so we can all start being Americans again.

:/

Thanks Jyth!

It might amuse you to know, she just PMed and basically called me a Republican talking point, under "Corporate control."  (And they say right wingers have conspiracy theories!)

Which is kind of funny since I was using the law, as passed, to make my oberservations.

Oh well.

Neither have I.  Phew.

Just in case you thought that was an excuse or something.

Buwhahaha.... nope. 

I hope you never, EVER, have any kind of catastrophic health issue. 

They're tedious.

Way to get away with calling her 'Mistress'.