gotta stop pakistans path to the sea

feel like foreign policy is right in the incumbents wheelhouse. especially when the president has done such a good job with it

My biggest take away from all this is that if you keep repeating a talking point ("apology tour," "five trillion dollar tax cut"), and then come into a debate and repeat it again, you are setting yourself up to lose. The other side has too much time to set up snappy responses. And if you come in and DON'T do your talking points - like Romney in the first debate - you throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing, and confound your opponent, who has lots of snappy answers prepare for all of your talking points.

Romney did a great job of not lazily repeating talking points in the first debate, confounding Obama.

Tonight: not so much.

Still don't think it matters a lick (because I still think the first debate is the most important, and the one on foreign policy is pretty much always the least important), but there it is.

Mitt would send the horses and bayonets to Pakistan.

i still fail to see why we cant leave by the end of THIS year instead of 2 years from now.

obamas bin laden

Schieffer doesn't like Pakistan.

pres has been great tonight

jamiethekiller wrote:obamas bin laden

waiting for obama to finally call himself osama. he's the only one left in the US to not make this mistake.

so both these guys are pro-drone warfare but won't discuss it in a foreign policy debate

also, Obama bin Laden. Yikes.

mozartpc27 wrote:Fewer horses, bayonnets got a real LOL from me. Good line. Also, the whole answer ("Battleship") seemed to be truly off the cuff, making it more effective. Even though I'm sure it was scripted.

That and "The eighties called, they want their foreign policy back" made me laugh. He's killing it (even if he was wrong on the geopolitical point wrt Russia). It's a good thing the foreign policy wasnt the first debate.

smitty wrote:Schieffer doesn't like Pakistan.

their curry is sub-par

technically an ally.

just piss all over a country with nuclear weapons

pacino wrote:i still fail to see why we cant leave by the end of THIS year instead of 2 years from now.

Have to get past this election and the 2014 mid-terms. That's the answer.

Youseff wrote:so both these guys are pro-drone warfare but won't discuss it in a foreign policy debate

also, Obama bin Laden. Yikes.

yeah, they both agree on the shittiest parts of our foreign policy. TWO PARTIES.

mozartpc27 wrote:My biggest take away from all this is that if you keep repeating a talking point ("apology tour," "five trillion dollar tax cut"), and then come into a debate and repeat it again, you are setting yourself up to lose. The other side has too much time to set up snappy responses. And if you come in and DON'T do your talking points - like Romney in the first debate - you throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing, and confound your opponent, who has lots of snappy answers prepare for all of your talking points.

Romney did a great job of not lazily repeating talking points in the first debate, confounding Obama.

Tonight: not so much.

Still don't think it matters a lick (because I still think the first debate is the most important, and the one on foreign policy is pretty much always the least important), but there it is.

So make up new ideas for each debate. Got it.

smitty wrote:Schieffer doesn't like Pakistan.

they did try to assassinate sri lanka's cricket team

Still wish Obama would point out that Romney's positions du jour--basically all agreeing with his--are seriously at odds with the set of Dubya flunkies he has working for him. Neocons don't generally turn into realists.

NOW Mitt feels going in to get bin Laden was the right thing to do

that'll bite him

Youseff wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:My biggest take away from all this is that if you keep repeating a talking point ("apology tour," "five trillion dollar tax cut"), and then come into a debate and repeat it again, you are setting yourself up to lose. The other side has too much time to set up snappy responses. And if you come in and DON'T do your talking points - like Romney in the first debate - you throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing, and confound your opponent, who has lots of snappy answers prepare for all of your talking points.

Romney did a great job of not lazily repeating talking points in the first debate, confounding Obama.

Tonight: not so much.

Still don't think it matters a lick (because I still think the first debate is the most important, and the one on foreign policy is pretty much always the least important), but there it is.

So make up new ideas for each debate. Got it.

so that's why romney's such a good debater