Skip to content

Presidential Debate III: Prelude To A Hiss-y Fit?

22 October 2012 @ 14:33

Tonight is the occasion of the third and final Presidential Debate and it is supposed to be devoted to foreign policy.

-It’s interesting that Obama chose to let the last debate be exclusively about foreign affairs [you know the Leftist court eunuchs who devised the schedule went along with Axelrod and company's wishes on the main subject matter of the three]. One has to wonder: if they were deciding the order of subject matter today, they would still pick the same subject for Debate III. Methinks no. The royal court thought they would be able to have their monarch show up for this last one and keep repeating ‘Bin Laden is dead; Al Qaeda is effectively destroyed’ and walk out with a victory. They forgot that God has a wicked sense of humor [or, of you prefer, Karma's a bitch].

-Stacy McCain has his latest column up at The American Spectator and it concerns itself with the ‘Preference Cascade’. A highlight:

We cannot predict what will happen in tonight’s third and final presidential debate (9 p.m. ET at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida), but it is a fairly safe guess it won’t have the game-changing impact of the first debate on Oct. 3, one of two apparent pivot points that triggered Obama’s downward slide. While the impact of Romney’s one-sided victory over a listless Obama in Denver has been universally acknowledged, it would be wrong to overlook the political effect of the other pivot point, the Sept. 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.

True. But let us not forget that nothing is beyond these thugs. Watch for Obama’s lines of attack to be incredibly deceitful and Janus-faced.

Also: do check out Stacy’s post here, which provides some further analysis.

Quin Hillyer is picking up the peaces [ouch][emphasis mine]:

Advice for Romney for tonight’s debate: Work the word "peace" into your conversation, very naturally, about 15 or 20 times. Undecided women voters want peace. They want peace. They want peace. And there also is a strain of libertarian-leaning, "pox on both houses" voter that hates Obama’s domestic policies but also hates what said strain of voters falsely calls "neocon" foreign policy and is just so damned disgusted enough to stay home rather than vote at all. Any vote would be for Romney, but they just might go hunting instead. They, too, want peace.

Look, I am a huge booster of stronger, bigger defense forces. I lean interventionist abroad. But the Weinberger/Powell Doctrine is still a good one: Only commit troops for dire reasons, for clear objectives, and with overwhelming force. One can be for, yes, peace through strength. One can advocate more military spending than Obama while still emphasizing that you don’t want to be a foreign adventurer. In fact, Romney will come across as more "hawkish" and more pro-defense than Obama no matter what he says — so he may as well play for the indy women’s vote by emphasizing, again and again, how his policies will help ensure the peace, the peace, the peace.

That just might work.

-Unlike Quin, who is very clear about his feelings, Smitty seems Hun up on something [sorry — couldn't resist].

-Like Herr Smitty, Michelle Malkin is speculating on how the moderator will conduct himself:

[Bob] Schieffer has steadfastly refused to acknowledge his biases over the years. But his words below speak for themselves [Bob: Mrs. Malkin has gathered some damning quotes in her post]. Can he contain himself tonight? Like Crowley, he’s signaled to the media that he will “interject” himself to stop candidate “filibuster[ing]” when necessary. He has already taken the liberty of redefining what the foreign policy debate is about for voters, arguing to the left-wing Daily Beast: “While the third encounter is devoted to foreign policy, ‘what these debates are about are really about character.’” And liberal L.A. Times columnist James Rainey happily predicted that Schieffer will “throw some curves” tonight. Which way will he lean? You be the judge.

Dan Collins touches on an issue Willard should bring up and offers some style advice to the candidate:

I don’t often make common purpose with toe suckers, but Dick Morris is absolutely right when he states that inviting the UN to monitor the US election is outrageous. The UN is not anything close to a disinterested referee in this case. It is being utilized as a means to undermine US sovereignty by implication to serve the cause of one-world hegemony. There are a handful of states whose constitutions permit UN election observers. It would be interesting to find out who pushed those initiatives in their respective legislatures and what their political connections are. As for others that might be considering letting them in, I can only observe that doing so would be selling out state sovereignty—an important part of the Obama agenda—which in turn will make it easier to sell out US sovereignty generally.

State sovereignty is not the President’s to take. Nor is national sovereignty his to give away. But when one sees leftists lauding ersatz Indonesian Prince Obama’s "naturally regal" bearing, with all the echoes of noble blood, it shouldn’t surprise that they’re on board with the project.

Tonight’s debate is on foreign policy. Obama’s has been catastrophic. Bob Schieffer, who had something to do with the reporting of the election results in 2000, will be ‘moderating’ . . . in Boca Raton. I hope Mitt comes out swinging, because Obama, as he asked Medvedev to transmit to Putin, would have more flexibility in a second term.

Obama’s been so flexible with the laws and The Constitution since 20 January 2009, I fear in a second term he would be positively contortionistic — his head would spin just like Regan’s in The Exorcist [and we'd all be covered in pea soup vomit].

-Jeff Goldstein has some great advice for Willard:

If Romney is receiving good advice — or if he simply has the right instincts and ignores bad advice — during Monday’s foreign policy debate he should corner Obama on both Fast and Furious and Libya (and hit him on Iran, and the hot mic conversation the President had in which he wanted to pass a message on to Putin), and be prepared to answer the lies that will flow so easily from the Marxists’s mouth: Bush started fast and furious (false); Iran has no means to deliver a nuclear weapon (bullshit); I called the Libya attacks and act of terror (sorry, Candy Crowley’s not here to lie for you, and this time I brought the transcripts; besides, if that’s the case, had you changed your mind by the time you did Letterman or were speaking before the UN and were blaming a YouTube video?); Israel remains a close friend and ally (yeah? Well, I’d hate to see how you’d treat them if they were an enemy, then. Maybe like the Koch brothers?); and so on. I’d also beat him over the head with the “not optimal” line — including the response of the mother of one diplomat — and if and when Obama chafes, ask him why in the world he’s doing John Stewart in the first place, particularly when bombings of US interests are happening all over the middle east and Africa as a result of his foreign policy, which seems to be encouraging the projection US weakness, which in turn is emboldening our enemies (who incidentally are Islamic terrorists, not “criminals”). He and Biden seem to find humor where one wouldn’t ordinarily find it.

The President claimed he’d run the most transparent administration ever. Instead, his tenure has been marred with evasiveness, stonewalling, and cover-ups; and often times, his official version of events, when pressured, have to be “modified” or even rewritten entirely when additional information comes to public light. So tell the voters, Mr President: are you hiding something, or are you really just that incompetent?

…But make sure you smile when you say that stuff, Mitt. For the independents and moderates. And deadrody, of course.

Mustn’t forget the dingbats — they’re people too.

-Further comments and analysis and predictions can be found at the following joints: The Lonely Conservative, Donald Douglas [love the picture], Doug Ross, and Peter Parisi.

-Mr. Romney: Just don’t let the bastard get away with his lies and stomp on Schieffer if you have to.

4 Comments
  1. 22 October 2012 @ 16:40 16:40

    Personally, I think Newt Gingrich needs to open a GOP debate school where they can receive tips on the best way to make a liberal moderator look stupid.

    • Rosalie permalink
      22 October 2012 @ 18:59 18:59

      I don’t drink the hard stuff, but I had a couple of Bud Light Platiums. i hope that suffices. I just hope I can stay up for the debates now.

  2. Adobe_Walls permalink
    22 October 2012 @ 20:35 20:35

    Hopefully the UN observers in our country will come up. It is an outrage and I’ll wager most Americans won’t read about or see it on TV. Even those voting in precincts where they are present probably won’t be aware of it as they’re job is to observe and report not intervene. Later if the election is close they will report on minority voter suppression and those reports will be used as pretexts to attempt to over turn the results in court.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: