2012 Presidential Debate - Third and Final Debate

[idb]

Romney obviously went into the debate with the strategy of agreeing with every foreign policy of the current administration to try to look just as knowledgeable and presidential as Obama.
Obama, picked up on that early when he said that Romney is agreeing with his policies, only that he would say them louder.
He then outflanked Romney's strategy by pointing out his flip-flopping each time Romney said "me too".
Romney was stuffed from that point.

 

[driveby]

Obama needed a slam dunk, went with his old reliable Alinsky tactics and didn't get one. Cue the left screaming racism like never before in t-minus 14 days and counting.....

 

[Cheddarmelon]

obama for assault weapons ban, should be the nail in his political coffin.
Good bye you piece of shit.

We already know you're voting on the redneck platform of "Fags bad, guns good."

Obama needed a slam dunk, went with his old reliable Alinsky tactics and didn't get one. Cue the left screaming racism like never before in t-minus 14 days and counting.....

I don't think racism has anything to to do with Gooper-douche getting his head handed to him.

 

[Liability]

FWIW: HERE is what Romney ACTUALLY said in his Op-Ed piece:

Op-Ed Contributor
Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By MITT ROMNEY
Published: November 18, 2008


IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

--
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1&

Ooops. Once again the actual record supports MITT, not the President.

Obama lied?

wow... who'd have thought?

Yeah. Who wasn't shocked? It was like that time that the Sun rose in the East....

 

[Liability]

God, the Romney Klan.

How many of those grandkids did Mitt father?

That's a very asshole thing to say. This is something bad about many leftists - they go after the personal.

What are your thoughts when people make fun of the First Lady's appearance?

Ah, don't take Hazlmutt so seriously. Nobody takes him seriously.

He's nothing more than a stupid douche nugget.

 

[Liability]

Romney showed he is weak on foreign policy. He made few valid points and for most of the night.....backed Obamas policy

There you have it. Leftwhiner says that it is WEAK ON FOREIGN POLICY to agree with Pres. Obama.

 

[Liability]

Well...here's why Romney won this debate. The reason why is because Obama needed a huge victory and at best he got a draw (a draw favors Romney), he soothed fears that he would immediately go to war, he kept bringing it back to the economy where Obama has no credibility...basically Romney let on that in regards to foreign policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two and the differences that exist are very specific in nature. On those points Romney is stronger.

As a side note I don't think the smart ass comments about what aircraft carriers and submarines do will play very well with the American people

Obama has and has had an electoral advantage. Improper foundation for a silly post.

Pres. Obama is behind and slipping fast. That's not an "advantage," except one in Mitt's favor.

 

[decker]

Well...here's why Romney won this debate. The reason why is because Obama needed a huge victory and at best he got a draw (a draw favors Romney), he soothed fears that he would immediately go to war, he kept bringing it back to the economy where Obama has no credibility...basically Romney let on that in regards to foreign policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two and the differences that exist are very specific in nature. On those points Romney is stronger.

As a side note I don't think the smart ass comments about what aircraft carriers and submarines do will play very well with the American people

Obama has and has had an electoral advantage. Improper foundation for a silly post.

Pres. Obama is behind and slipping fast. That's not an "advantage," except one in Mitt's favor.

do you think it all over for your guy. i think fight still on though romney has the edge.

 

[decker]

Obama has and has had an electoral advantage. Improper foundation for a silly post.

Pres. Obama is behind and slipping fast. That's not an "advantage," except one in Mitt's favor.

do you think it all over for your guy. i think fight still on though romney has the edge.

i mean over in terms of romney already having won the election.

 

[decker]

Obama needed a slam dunk, went with his old reliable Alinsky tactics and didn't get one. Cue the left screaming racism like never before in t-minus 14 days and counting.....

well look romney the front runner but not over till it over. fight not over till last drop.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Obama has and has had an electoral advantage. Improper foundation for a silly post.

Pres. Obama is behind and slipping fast. That's not an "advantage," except one in Mitt's favor.

do you think it all over for your guy. i think fight still on though romney has the edge.

Yeah, we have a Troll here. "concern troll is concerned."

 

[decker]

Pres. Obama is behind and slipping fast. That's not an "advantage," except one in Mitt's favor.

do you think it all over for your guy. i think fight still on though romney has the edge.

Yeah, we have a Troll here. "concern troll is concerned."

i am not a troll. please don,t folowing other and wum me here. i have never trolled and would never.

Look all i was saying is gop seem very confident and with polls as are with gallup i understand

don,t come with false lies you can,t back up

 

[Liability]

Look to the Indys. A CBS poll in California seems to suggest that it was (give or take a point or two in favor of The ONE) simply a draw with the Indys:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollPrint.aspx?g=ea27be22-fce7-48f4-be03-6587f21dffe5&d=0

So, if some dyed in the wool liberal Dim "sees" the President as the "winner," that doesn't alter the likely vote on Election Day.

And if a Republican supporter sees Mitt as the "winner," that too doesn't alter the likely vote on Election Day.

But as for things that MIGHT have an impact on Election Day, it is the independent and undecided voters that matter now. And it LOOKS like THEY (on average) saw Debate #3 as a DRAW.

I saw Mitt as performing better than the President, but I admit my conclusion is probably influenced by my views of the candidates going into the Debate. Still, it seems damn unlikely to me that the President actually won it. So, I am inclined to believe that CBS captured the essence of the reaction to that debate in that California polling.

It was a DRAW.

The President urgently needed a win. He didn't get it. And on Election Day, he will not get it either.

 

[Ravi]

Pres. Obama is behind and slipping fast. That's not an "advantage," except one in Mitt's favor.

do you think it all over for your guy. i think fight still on though romney has the edge.

Yeah, we have a Troll here. "concern troll is concerned."

You betcha!

 

[decker]

Look to the Indys. A CBS poll in California seems to suggest that it was (give or take a point or two in favor of The ONE) simply a draw with the Indys:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollPrint.aspx?g=ea27be22-fce7-48f4-be03-6587f21dffe5&d=0

So, if some dyed in the wool liberal Dim "sees" the President as the "winner," that doesn't alter the likely vote on Election Day.

And if a Republican supporter sees Mitt as the "winner," that too doesn't alter the likely vote on Election Day.

But as for things that MIGHT have an impact on Election Day, it is the independent and undecided voters that matter now. And it LOOKS like THEY (on average) saw Debate #3 as a DRAW.

I saw Mitt as performing better than the President, but I admit my conclusion is probably influenced by my views of the candidates going into the Debate. Still, it seems damn unlikely to me that the President actually won it. So, I am inclined to believe that CBS captured the essence of the reaction to that debate in that California polling.

It was a DRAW.

The President urgently needed a win. He didn't get it. And on Election Day, he will not get it either.

Your right that first debate given romney edge and still has it.

battle still on but obama knows that he must win five states in midwest to have a chance. fails to do that and mitt romney will be the 45th president of the united states of america

 

[decker]

do you think it all over for your guy. i think fight still on though romney has the edge.

Yeah, we have a Troll here. "concern troll is concerned."

You betcha!

Again total bs. Keep up with false attacks against me like and i deny it as it total lie.

Have you such inability to debate that you have to wum.

 

[Liability]

Romney obviously went into the debate with the strategy of agreeing with every foreign policy of the current administration to try to look just as knowledgeable and presidential as Obama.
Obama, picked up on that early when he said that Romney is agreeing with his policies, only that he would say them louder.
He then outflanked Romney's strategy by pointing out his flip-flopping each time Romney said "me too".
Romney was stuffed from that point.

As Mitt noted, and I suspect most Americans watching actually agree with, attacking Mitt is NOT actually debating the merits.

Mitt exposed the cheesy typical "politician" crap the President offered.

And, of course, as always, the President spent a lot of time lying. For the "benefit" of some temporary debate comfort, the President will get exposed (via post debate fact checking) time and again as a liar.

It's sad that so many Dims and libs try to paint such a pathetic showing as a win.

 

[decker]

Romney obviously went into the debate with the strategy of agreeing with every foreign policy of the current administration to try to look just as knowledgeable and presidential as Obama.
Obama, picked up on that early when he said that Romney is agreeing with his policies, only that he would say them louder.
He then outflanked Romney's strategy by pointing out his flip-flopping each time Romney said "me too".
Romney was stuffed from that point.

As Mitt noted, and I suspect most Americans watching actually agree with, attacking Mitt is NOT actually debating the merits.

Mitt exposed the cheesy typical "politician" crap the President offered.

And, of course, as always, the President spent a lot of time lying. For the "benefit" of some temporary debate comfort, the President will get exposed (via post debate fact checking) time and again as a liar.

It's sad that so many Dims and libs try to paint such a pathetic showing as a win.

well polls with cbs and cnn showed he edged it but look i agree don,t think it change much

it looking good for your guy no doubt about. better to be front runner at this stage then chasing.

first debate could have decided the election. we see if it proves true

 

[hazlnut]

God, the Romney Klan.

How many of those grandkids did Mitt father?

That's a very asshole thing to say. This is something bad about many leftists - they go after the personal.

What are your thoughts when people make fun of the First Lady's appearance?

Ah, don't take Hazlmutt so seriously. Nobody takes him seriously.

He's nothing more than a stupid douche nugget.

Awww....I didn't know you cared.

 

[Ravi]

Yeah, we have a Troll here. "concern troll is concerned."

You betcha!

Again total bs. Keep up with false attacks against me like and i deny it as it total lie.

Have you such inability to debate that you have to wum.

You betcha!