Final debate: Challenging each other face to face

President Barack Obama sharply challenged Mitt Romney on foreign policy in their final campaign debate Monday night, saying, "Every time you've offered an opinion you've been wrong." The Republican coolly responded, "Attacking me is not an agenda" for dealing with a dangerous world.
AP Wire
Oct 26, 2012


Romney took the offensive, too. When Obama said the U.S. and its allies have imposed crippling sanctions on Iran to halt nuclear weapons development, the Republican challenger responded that the U.S. should have done more. He declared repeatedly, "We're four years closer to a nuclear Iran."

Despite the debate's stated focus on foreign affairs, time after time the rivals turned the discussion back to the slowly recovering U.S. economy, which polls show is the No. 1 issue for most voters.

They found little agreement on that, but the president and his rival found accord on at least one international topic with domestic political overtones — Israel's security — as they sat at close quarters 15 days before the end of an impossibly close election campaign. Each stressed unequivocal support for Israel when asked how he would respond if the Jewish state were attacked by Iran.

"If Israel is attacked, we have their back," said Romney — moments after Obama vowed, "I will stand with Israel if Israel is attacked."

Both also said they oppose direct U.S. military involvement in the efforts to topple Syrian President Bashir Assad.

The debate produced none of the finger-pointing and little of the interrupting that marked the presidential rivals' debate last week, when Obama needed a comeback after a listless performance in their first meeting on Oct. 3.

But there was no mistaking the urgency. The two men frequently sniped at one another even on issues where they agree, and reprised their campaign-long disagreements over the economy, energy, education and other domestic issues despite ground rules that stipulated the debate cover international affairs.

Obama and Romney are locked in a close race in national opinion polls. The final debate behind them, both men intend to embark on a final two-week whirlwind of campaigning. The president is slated to speak in six states during a two-day trip that begins Wednesday and includes a night aboard Air force One as it flies from Las Vegas to Tampa. Romney intends to visit two or three states a day.

Already four million ballots have been cast in early voting in more than two dozen states.

On the Middle East, Romney said that despite early hopes, the ouster of despotic regimes in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere over the past year has resulted in a "rising tide of chaos." He said the president has failed to come up with a coherent policy to grapple with change sweeping the Middle East, and he added ominously that an al-Qaida-like group has taken over northern Mali.

Anticipating one of Obama's most frequent campaign assertions, Romney said of the man seated nearby, "I congratulate him on taking out Osama bin Laden and taking on the leadership of al-Qaida. But we can't kill our way out of this. ... We must have a comprehensive strategy."

More than a half hour later, Obama returned to the subject, saying that Romney had once said it wasn't worth moving heaven and earth to catch one man, a reference to the mastermind behind the 9/11 terror attacks.

He said he had decided it was "worth heaven and earth."

Obama said he had ended the war in Iraq, was on a path to end the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan and has vowed to bring justice to the attackers of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi last month — an assault that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.

He also jabbed at Romney's having said during the campaign that Russia is the United States' No. 1 geopolitical foe.

"Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy you seem to want the policies of the 1980s, just like you want to import the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies in the 1920s," Obama said.

Obama was snippy after Romney, criticizing the administration's Pentagon budget, said disapprovingly the U.S. Navy has fewer ships than at any time since the end of World War I.

"I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the Navy, for example, 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 has changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them."

Romney offered unusual praise for Obama's war efforts in Afghanistan, declaring the 2010 surge of 33,000 U.S. troops a success and asserting that efforts to train Afghan security forces are on track to enable the U.S. and its allies to put the Afghans fully in charge of security by the end of 2014. He said that U.S. forces should complete their withdrawal on that schedule; previously he has criticized the setting of a specific withdrawal date.

The two men are locked in a close race in national opinion polls. The final debate behind them, they intend to embark on a final two-week whirlwind of campaigning. The president is slated to speak in six states during a two-day trip that begins Wednesday and includes a night aboard Air force One as it flies from Las Vegas to Tampa. Romney intends to visit two or three states a day.

Already four million ballots have been cast in early voting in more than two dozen states.

Barring a last-minute change in strategy by one campaign or the other, Obama appears on course to win states and the District of Columbia that account for 237 of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory. The same is true for Romney in states with 191 electoral votes.

The battlegrounds account for the remaining 110 electoral votes: Florida (29), North Carolina (15), Virginia (13), New Hampshire (4), Iowa (6), Colorado (9), Nevada (6), Ohio (18) and Wisconsin (10).

The televised debate brought no cessation to other campaigning.

Obama's campaign launched a television ad in Florida that said the president ended the war in Iraq and has a plan to do the same in Afghanistan, accusing Romney of opposing him on both. It was not clear how often the ad would air, given the fall's overall focus on the economy.

Vice President Joe Biden, campaigning in Canton, Ohio, emphasized differences between the two candidates on the war in Afghanistan.

"We will leave Afghanistan in 2014, period. They say it depends," he said. "Ladies and gentlemen, like everything with them, it depends. It depends on what day you find these guys."

Romney's running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, was in Colorado. "We are in the midst of deciding the kind of country we're going to be, the kind of people we're going to be, for a generation," he said.

Whatever the outcome of the final face-to-face confrontation, the debates have left an imprint on the race. Romney was widely judged the winner of the first debate over a listless president on Oct. 3, and he has risen in polls in the days since. Obama was much more energetic in the second.

Monday night marked the third time in less than a week that the president and his challenger shared a stage, following the feisty 90-minute town-hall-style meeting last Tuesday on Long Island and a white-tie charity dinner two night later where gracious compliments flowed and barbs dipped in humor flew.

At the Al Smith charity dinner, Obama previewed his all-purpose fallback to criticism on international affairs.

"Spoiler alert: We got bin Laden," he said, a reminder of the signature foreign policy triumph of his term, the death at the hand of U.S. special operations forces of the mastermind behind the terror attacks on the United States more than a decade ago.

The president and his challenger agreed long ago to devote one of their three debates to foreign policy, even though opinion polls show voters care most about economic concerns.

Growth has been slow and unemployment high across Obama's tenure in the White House. Romney, a wealthy former businessman, cites his experience as evidence he will put in place policies that can revive the economy.

In recent weeks, the former Massachusetts governor has stepped up his criticism of the president's handling of international matters, although his campaign hasn't spent any of its television advertising budget on commercials on the subject.

In a speech earlier this month, Romney accused the president of an absence of strong leadership in the Middle East, where popular revolutions have swept away autocratic regimes in Egypt and elsewhere in the past two years. He has also accused Obama of failing to support Israel strongly enough, of failing to make it clear that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and of backing cuts in the defense budget that would harm military readiness.

Yet Romney has stumbled several times in attempting to establish his own credentials.

He offended the British when he traveled to England this summer and made comments viewed as critical of their preparation for the Olympic Games.

Democrats pounced when he failed to mention the U.S. troops in Afghanistan or Iraq during his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in late August, and officials in both parties were critical of his comments about the attack in Benghazi while the facts were unknown.



Tri-cities realist

And Obama has become a tax cutting, fiscally responsible, war hawk (remember HE was responsible for killing bin Laden) during the debates. I guess it's just politics as usual, but fun to watch the left squirm. And Romney has 10 times more foreign policy credibility than candidate Obama had in 2008 (remember that foreign policy experience didn't matter back then?). As for Obama's "finesse", he looked like a junk yard dog to me, trying to bite at anything that got close to him. Rather it is Romney who showed finesse, he didn't even seem to notice the angry glares on Obama's face, which you could tell roiled Obama, who could only resort to a pleading stare at the moderator. It seemed that Obama was prepped for a high school debate, while Romney showed he is prepared to become the next POTUS. We'll wait and see.

Tri-cities realist

And know we know that people at the white house knew within 2 hours that it was a planned terrorist attack, according to MSN and Reuters, those bastions of right wing journalists. It's obvious now that Mitt knew he didn't have to go after Obama on Benghazi, the media couldn't ignore the smoking gun. And I'm wondering if he is desperate enough to now go after the terrorists who killed our ambassador. What has taken so long? As for whoppers during the debate, does sequestration ring a bell? How is Obama going to stop legislation HE signed into law? Another executive order? This charade can't end quickly enough. Fact checkers welcome.

Captain Obvious

So the President got 3 or 4 emails about the attack on Benghazi. You really expect him to go to the American people and say immediately, "I know what happened" That is really BS! Obama would have been a fool to do that until he had extensive information and confirmation. And why should he call out the bad guys in public? Duh, warn them we know who they are? That would be real bright. Just like President Bush clomping all over Afghanistan with an Army. Special Forces man, in and out quietly with no talk. None of that "Mission Accomplished" BS. A couple of emails are just the starting point. Do you realize the volume of information he was probably getting from many sources. Ever heard of the "Fog of War". There are probably Special Forces in Libya right now, but this President is not the type to blab about it.

Tri-cities realist

Well I hope you are right for Obama's sake. Why has he still not called it a terrorist attack? One more question, why would the ambassador's plea for additional security in LIBYA around the anniversary of 9/11 be ignored? The buck stops How manly of him to throw her under the bus. I genuinely feel sorry for her, having to put up with Bill's antics, and now Obama. But she made her bed....


TCR - you're better than this. Please explain the difference between "terrorist attack" and "act of terror". If the Repubs are now so concerned about security, why did they vote to cut security spending just a few months ago? Obama - during the second debate - publicly praised Hillary but said he takes all responsibility. Perhaps this is why Romney never once mentioned Benghazi - it's a non-issue and you need to move on.


Obama failed to react to live info coming in regarding this attack. He choose to play politics and people died for crying out loud. Trying to throw the Republicans under the bus 2 months after the cut is intellectually dishonest. This was Obama's 3am call and he failed. Then he allows the diversions to continue for weeks. If you were the mother of one of these dead, you would feel much different about his shenanigans. Take your blinders off an think! Msnbc has you blinded.


Well you're right about one thing - the families of some of the victims spoke out about Romney's quick jump into the tragedy, turning their loss into a political football for political gain. They asked it to stop - but no dice. After the outrage when it came out that Bush totally ignored repeated high-level briefings and reports that Muslim extremists were planning an attack on the US for months prior to 911, you spinmasters are having a field day capitalizing on comparing apples with oranges.


The world changed after the first 9/11. More the reason Obama should have taken action immediately when he learned our ambassador called for more security and when our embassy was under seige. Bush at least attend security briefings, that cannot be said for Obama. Face it our foreign policy under this president is not...ah...optimal!


Actually, Wing - you've brought up a very salient point - the world HAS changed and is changing....but you and other like you haven't and are fighting it. Obama has steered this country the last 4 years with a steady hand, resolute, and smart. Our standing within the global community has gone up - people around the world admire and respect Obama. He's managed to get rid of Mubarak, and Ghadafi without going into costly and unnecessary wars. And Syria is increasingly feeling the pinch...Assad will be next. Why would we destroy this with bully, boss-man, war hawk Mitt who looks like an idiot every time he goes to a foreign country? This country is moving forward - and you are moving back. Bon voyage!


I liked her better when she was speechless.


She definitely made more sense then!


Sorry - it didn't last very long did it? (speechlessness - I was truly laughing so hard at your insistence that Sarah Palin would tear Obama to shreds in a debate - oh, man, here I go laughing again). Hmmmm.... "her"..."she" wouldn't want to sound misogynistic would you? Of course, Vlad is probably running out of defamatory name-calling - scamp, slanderous, a fool, etc. I got it!! You boys are still in High School! That explains everything.....


Move along Sheeples, nothing to see here. I think the real issue is that if Obama stated it was a terrorist attack one day after, why did Art Carney, Susan Rice, and Obama himself regularly, over 7 days later, blame it on the video? Why did CBS withhold the tape they had of Obama calling it a terrorist attack one day later until today? On the allegation that republicans cut security funding, that is in reality a reference to the fact that the final fiscal year 2012 omnibus appropriations package that included $2.075 billion for the programs – $567.5 million less than the Obama administration’s request. That's absolutely true. What Lanny obviously overlooked is that more House Democrats – 149 of them — voted for the cuts than did House Republicans, of which 147 voted for them. Look it up! Back to the drawing board for you, Lanny.


Isn't it interesting to read in the latest The Nation magazine that Ann and Mitt earned an income of anywhere from $15 million to $115 million (a range the Romney campaign does not dispute) of taxpayer money on the purchase of Delphi? Check online for all the juicy details. NOW the dots are connecting! This coup of a deal took place in 2009 = Romney and partners bought Delphi pennies on the dollar by buying up $1 Billion of old Delphi bonds =the new owners could then void the US plan of saving 15 of 29 Delphi US factories= closed 25 plants in US, turned over all union jobs over to GM = stuck the US taxpayers with the bill for the Delphi workers pensions= shipped everything over to China=received a 3,000% return on investment, all on the taxpayers dime=Romney will never, ever reveal his 2009 tax returns!!! There - puzzle solved.


The whiff of desperation now becomes an overpowering stench. Even the rag that you quote "The Nation" admits that the firm that profited from Delphi is Elliott Management, run by Paul Singer, a Republican donor, and that Ann Romney personally has a blind trust that invested in Elliott Management before the fund began buying Delphi. What part of "blind trust" don't you understand? What part of "invested before Elliott began buying Delphi" don't you understand? Your knowledge of this makes the rest of your suppositions slanderous at best. (Hint: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday he was not aware he had invested in two companies backed by some of his top donors and said he had done nothing to aid their business with the government. ) But thanks for bringing up Delphi, where the sham, politicized Obama GM bankruptcy gave away the store to the UAW while screwing 20,000 white-collar workers at Delphi, who lost 65% of their pensions. Recent sworn testimony shows that the Obama administration conspired with GM: Paul Dobosz of the Delphi Salaried Retiree Association, which represents the pensioners and is suing the feds, recounts how they got screwed: The Auto Task Force hatched a plan to dump their pensions on the federally run Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which slashed their benefits. At the same time, the White House and Treasury officials devised “a clever way to make the UAW pensions whole using GM and TARP money to accomplish it. The scheme was documented in sworn depositions (that) revealed … that some groups of workers were more ‘politically sensitive’ and would be afforded special treatment (i.e. subsidy using TARP money) while others less politically worthy would be left out.” The PBGC, which had the fiduciary duty to represent the best interests of all the Delphi workers, helped sacrifice the non-union employees at the UAW altar.

Keep up with the fabrications, friend Lanivan "If you got the money, honey, I got the time!" (Before being even more offended - that's a1950 song by Lefty Frizzell, who co-wrote the song with Jim Beck, made popular more recently by Willie Nelson


So let me get this straight, Vlad - Because you claim the Nation magazine is a "rag" and can't be trusted (even though it's the oldest continuously running weekly magazine in the US, started in 1865), I'm to understand that: Ann and Mitt never knew their partner and friend, Paul Singer, had bought Delphi in 2009 during the auto bankruptcy negotiations. That Paul Singer, their partner and friend, then closed 25 plants, fired a bunch of workers, sent the union workers over to GM, stuck the taxpayers with the Government Pension Guarantee by turning over pension payment to the government, and moved the whole kit and kaboodle over to China to set up shop, and the Romney's had no knowledge of this. And that the whole deal made billions for Paul Singer & Co, and millions for the Romneys - anywhere from $15 million to $115 million (undisputed by the R campaign) making a return on investment in the area of 3,000% in 2009 is bogus, and that Ann and Mitt would have no knowledge of this coup of cashing in on the backs of taxpayers when he was beginning his presidential campaign. And that this has no bearing whatsoever on why Romney refused to release his 2009 tax returns, or any before 2010, as far as that goes. I just want to clarify.


Glad to clarify. Also glad you don't dispute that Obama and his Treasury Department screwed 20,000 non-union Delphi employees and dumped their pensions on the taxpayer. Your stated ". NOW the dots are connecting! This coup of a deal took place in 2009 = Romney and partners bought Delphi pennies on the dollar by buying up $1 Billion of old Delphi bonds =the new owners could then void the US plan of saving 15 of 29 Delphi US factories= closed 25 plants in US, turned over all union jobs over to GM = stuck the US taxpayers with the bill for the Delphi workers pensions= shipped everything over to China=received a 3,000% return on investment, all on the taxpayers dime" inferring that Mitt Romney acted with his "partners" to bring about this result. I pointed out that Mitt Romney was not a partner in that enterprise, and that his wife, Ann, had bought stock in the investment firm long before the firm bought Delphi, as part of a blind trust. Whether they knew what happened after the fact is irrelevant - given the magnitude of the profit they allegedly made, I'd be surprised if they didn't. Obama has a blind trust, which is invested in firms that made money from government contracts and bailouts after he was President. If I were dishonest, like some folks I know, I would craft a tale about Obama investing in these firms and sharing a profit because he steered money to his partners after he controlled executive branch agencies that doled out the money. I don't do that because I understand the concept of blind trust for politicians, and the fact that Obama might have known of the profits he earned from these companies has nothing to do with cause and effect. Even more remote if it was Michelle who invested while she was a private citizen. As I said earlier, I expect more of you than this conspiracy trash.


What's trash to you is treasure to someone else. You don't really know s....from shinola about what Romney did or did not know in 2009 because he refuses to release his 2009 tax returns - or any other before 2010, for that matter. Obama, on the other hand, released years worth. Obama was vetted from here to kingdom come before and after his election, and, frankly, I haven't been aware of anything Obama has done on a par with Romney's cashing in on the backs of the taxpayers. You can split hairs and participles all you want, the basic premise can not be altered with words - and that is that Romney is a man with no core principles, no decent sense of honesty, and because of that, this report (its' all verifiable from sworn deposition and public records) shows Romney as he really is. His entire adult life has been making money off money. I doubt he had any qulams about this getting out during a presidential campaign because he figured he's just lie and buy his way out of the uproar. Vlad - it's quite a shame that with your command of the English language, verbiage, and clearly an expert in nearly everything, you simply can neither endorse or recognize simple facts or concepts. You so enjoy weaving a thick and sticky word web that obscures the facts......why?


Lanny, you should be ashamed using the term "s....from shinola" which is commonly known as a racist term,” was a popular saying during WWII. Shinola was the “make-up” of choice for racist minstrel show performers. Let's keep the conversation out of the gutter. If anyone is still reading this ancient discussion, they will know who is telling the truth when they hit your gut buster " Obama was vetted from here to kingdom come before and after his election" When the media finally get around to finding his college and law school applications and transcripts, how he got into and paid for prestigious schools given his own confession that he smoked mary jane and blew cocaine in high school and college, how his trip around the world when he was in college was funded, his school friends and girlfriends (the media unearthed Mitt's prep school friends and enemies) he will have been vetted. This quote of yours confuses me "this report (its' all verifiable from sworn deposition and public records) shows Romney as he really is." To which report are you referring? What sworn deposition and public records?


Remember the Republican "vapors" over Obama saying government and private industry together build this country? Well, Romney apparently agreed back in whatever costume he was in back in 2002 when speaking about the Utah Olympics, he gave the credit for the turnaround to the US gov't for it's "enormous spending and services of the federal government". Romney's great "success" turning around a deteriorating Olympic committee was greatly aided by the influx of $342 million in direct federal funding and an additional $1.1 Billion in indirect federal financing. Now THAT'S what I call "building together". Oh wait, "BogeyMan" Obama words then can't be intentionally misconstrued, so let's see, I guess we'll just have to double down with the lie and hope it sticks. It usually does, you know. It's not lying - it's "dishonesty as art form".


Did Obama say that before or after he famously determined "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." And you equate the Olympics to a private business? Nice Try.


No - why do you ask?


No what? No, he stated what I quoted after what you said he stated? No that you do not equate the Olympics to a private company? If the latter, since the Olympics only occur every two years, I don't think it is a persuasive example for the statement made regarding government and business working together. I think it speaks volumes that Obama won't credit individual success and believes that it would not happen without government. That statement caused a great deal of push back nationwide, and left a mark.


Most sensible people who heard Obama's comment took it in the context in which it was meant. I personally do not see anything wrong with it - I'll go a step further and say I understand and agree with what he said. This is just another example of you far right folks making a rhubarb over (what I do agree with) was an "inelegant" choice of words. Not nearly so bad as conservative contender Mourdock saying yesterday that a pregnancy created from a rape is part of God's plan. And frankly, Vlad, if I chose to make a stink about everything you wrote that was offensive, I guess I'd end up permanently offended. Now back to "no" - the fact that the Olympics is not a private business is not a concern to me. These fact do: 1) Romney/Ryan have told us they don't want big government and plan to cut out most everything to everyone except defense and tax cuts. 2) In 2012, Romney touts his qualifications being predicated in part by his zooming into Salt Lake City and turning the deteriorating committee around and, as a private individual, doing it by the sheer force of his boss-man persona and business acumen, when in fact, he was helped dramatically with an influx of over $1.5 billion of taxpayer money. And he went on record at a Senate hearing graciously thanking the federal government for it's generosity and support. What a difference a couple of years can make....


(1) If you've got a business—you didn't build that. ".I personally do not see anything wrong with it - I'll go a step further and say I understand and agree with what he said." --- Color me not surprised. (2) "Romney/Ryan have told us they don't want big government and plan to cut out most everything to everyone except defense and tax cuts. " --- Citation to the latter part of your statement, please. (3) " And he went on record at a Senate hearing graciously thanking the federal government for it's generosity and support. What a difference a couple of years can make" ---- The point I was making is that Romney was successful as a businessman, as a man who turned around the fortunes of the Olympics, as a person, and in almost every endeavor he has undertaken, although I admit he never attempted Community Organizing.


Let's clarify for the record, Vlad: Romney was a successful hedge fund operator who made money from money, not creation. He turned around the fortunes of the Olympics thanks to federal government money to the tune of about $1.5 Billion. He has been certainly generous to the Mormon church, but I'm unclear as to how much he has given to non-Mormon charitable institutions. And he owes much, if not all, of his success through a family fortune which afforded him the access to the very best education and opportunities. How do you know he never attempted Community Organizing? He's morphed, flip=flopped, back-tracked, and lied about so much for so long, just wait - next he'll insist he was a community organizer while in France doing Mormon missionary work instead of serving in the Vietnam War. And that brings up another point - why does he want to increase the defense budget by $2 Billion and turn all War Hawk on Iran, Syria, and Russia, when no one in the Romney family going back through the decades ever served their country in the military?


Some comments are so deranged and unhinged that they are simply stupid and don't deserve a reply. The foregoing comment is two steps beyond stupid. Apparently it has escaped your sharp eye that Obama has never created anything - never had a real job except for a year or so with a law firm; that somehow, affirmative action, unknown donors, whatever, both Obamas were " afforded access to the very best education and opportunities"; why does Obama want to personally decide what souls to kill by drone when the closest any of his family came to military service was a paternal grandfather in World War II? Oops, my bad, Obama's paternal grandfather was somehow involved in the Mau Mau Rebellion, so maybe that counts as well. Desperation is a sad thing, Lannie.


To clarify: Obama went to Columbia U and Harvard on student loans and academic scholarships. He did not have great family wealth or connections. While I wish our country didn't have to, drone attacks are at least smarter and more effective than moving heaven and earth to ship our troops halfway around the world, invade a country, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens, not to mention our own troops. Obama's maternal grandparents both served in WWII representing their home state of Kansas - which of course you know very well, but still are inclined to bring up, of all things, the Mau Mau Rebellion. One would think you are hung up on Obama's Kenyan father - are you? It's the height of hypocrisy to bring up race-related topics, when you cry "slander" when I mentioned I found it interesting that Mormonism has been on the Billy Graham website list of cults for years, but was deleted just a week ago after a visit from Romney.


So much to talk about and so little time! Why did the Billy Graham website remove Mormonism off the list of cults last week after a visit from Romney? Hard to understand - Mormonism had been on the list for years, right next to Jehovah's Witness and Scientology. Now - POOF! - Mormonism's been deleted, but the others remain. Are we to believe Billy Graham's list or not? And why is it that Romney somehow manages to get the math to add up when he's making his complex hedge fund deals so he and his wealthy global investors make billions, but not a single independent economist or budget office can get his budget proposals or tax plan to add up. Not even close. One could easily make the case that Romney's bogus tax cut economics are a way of manipulating with a callous disregard for reality. But surely not! Lately, Romney's been looking so presidential and moderate (even though he was sweating profusely during the last debate). Let's all give Mitt a thumb's up for his great presidential appearance and bland, carefully non-committal agreement with Obama on every issue!


Hisssssss! Its tough when your side is losing ground isn't it!



Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on Create a new account today to get started.