Post Debate Analysis

Stick a bayonet in it, it's done!

Virginia is almost a certain lock for Romney and has been at least since the first debate ended.

By playing small ball Barry and his team have narrowed the electoral college path of re-election to a goat trail...

imbecile.

We'll see I understand his strategy and as Kraut says Romney has won elections.

I'm not convinced though. if the meme was more Romney crushed Obama I think it might have sealed the fate of Obama in the eyes of the independents that this guy has been a big letdown.

At the same time it's hard to see how anyone could decisively win in this area.

As Commander in Chief, Obama is a joke. I can see why our enemies are hoping he will be re-elected. I truly doubt the military is behind him or that he is behind the military.

In my opinion the big unanswered question on Benghazi is "Were the 4 Americans killed with some of the thousands of US weapons stolen by the Islamic terrorists, and it is probably on the drone video's." Otherwise Charles is bang on....

Don't count Obama out until all the dead voters and the ballot box stuffers are finished. And don't forget the hanging chads and the voting machines that can be set to yield a "favourable" count.

The Dems are not finished yet.

the ballot box stuffers.
Posted by: Skweeker

Estimated 3,000,000 absentee voters vote in 2 different states.

Think Florida and New York.

Krauthammer's critique is to the point. Barry looked rattled, and -shakey-. Obviously defensive, obviously angry. As if the very idea he might have to come and explain himself was an outrage.

I think this debate revealed another thing that ET has been banging on about for four years, Barry really does think that once he's made a speech about something, its complete. Done. Nothing more needs doing.

That bit about him going to Israel as a candidate, he thinks that's a defense! He really seemed to think Israel was 100% handled because he'd been there and said some stuff that one time.

As somebody on the other thread noted, its hard to "pivot to Asia" when you don't have a frickin' navy. But Barry thinks that because his stated policy is "pivot to Asia" that said pivot has already been accomplished, complete and whole in all details, because he has said it.

Go Tea Party.

UNINSTALLING OBAMA…..……………. █████████████▒ 96% complete.

UNINSTALLING OBAMA…..……………. █████████████▒ 96% complete.

UNINSTALLING OBAMA…..……………. █████████████▒ 98% complete.

Sorry about the multiple posts, it's a long torturous process but you will feel sooo much better when it is complete ...

In an interview on I think Fri or Sat Krauthammer sent a message that if heeded by the people it was quietly aimed at will come down as one of the most important points of this election campaign. Charles is an extremely intelligent man, and in the interview about the Bengazi murders he told the interviewer amongst a lot of points, that the people that have the tapes and sounds of that attack, if thrown under the proverbial bus by this and the wicked witch of Arkansas should leak the tapes to the media, if they picked up on that point it will be the end of the Marxist in chief for sure.

Barry knows little to nothing about the military, anyone who does sees the ignorance in that statement last night, which is why the MSM is giddy about it....

When Obama was talking about his strategic meetings with Naval officers Romney should have cut in and exposed "But Mr. President, records show YOU don't attend those meetings." Lost opportunity.

There were lots of opportunities for Romney to flush Obama's toilet last night, Romney knew it, but he deliberately let them go.

A Presidential debate is not a talk show, and Romney purposefully gave Obama enough rope to hang himself, culminating with one word: "ME !"

I agree with Krauthammer on everything he said, but the trouble is... we get it. I'm not convinced that Romney did enough to convince swing voters, at least through this debate. If the talking heads are correct - that all Romney needed to do is not come off as a warmonger - then Romney will have won the overall debates, but he clearly sat back during this one when he could have opened up Obama and left him bloody and unconscious. I'm not sure that's the best strategy.

But hey... that's why I'm posting on SDA and not running for office. No offense, Kate. :)

Mark;
I agree with you. To me you always put an extra nail in the coffin and Romney did not. The Demos will slice and dice that debate for their push in the next 2 weeks. Obama was able to put lots of spin on his responses which I felt had to be challenged.

I am afraid the GOP has convinced themselves the campaign is won. I am not that confident. Foreign policy will not be the deciding factor in this campaign. It is all about the economy. By letting Obama off the hook last night he gained some credibility that might leak back on his domestic policies.

How does the advent of aircraft carriers make the Navy less rather than more significant?

Who said it did? It's just one straw man argument after another with this guy.

I'll sum it up: Romney got schooled.

My take away from the debate last night was that Obama targeted his base, rather than the independent voter, that's why he was so snarky. Turn out with black voters we be down greatly(gay issue & job/economic) and he needs to ralley young snarky liberals, feminazis and union workers. If his base isn't revved up, Obama will have a hard time to get them to vote once, little lone twice or more!
Although last night Romney didn't b*tch slap Obama around on the issues like many of us wanted him to, he wasn't campaigning to us or his base, Romney was campaigning to independents and soccer moms, and I think his strategy will pay off huge. His base is locked up already, enthused(crowds still growing), and can't wait till Nov. 6th.
The sign that Obama was done three weeks ago, was when the Washington Post and NY Times began increasing the Dem sample from +5 to +8, to +10, even +13, just to keep Obama in the game up to the first debate. After that there was nothing they(MSM) could do but let Romney rise in the polls.

This is the takeaway line from that article;

"Long ago, the Obama campaign decided that in order for the president to win re-election in a bad economy when people weren’t happy with his performance he would have to do all he could to make this election about whether Romney was electable and presidential, and to pound a negative answer into people’s heads. This is the ground they chose to fight on, and the three presidential debates have therefore added up to a disaster for them."

Obama's entire campaign strategy is in ruins. They know it and are scrambling to find anything that gains them traction and as a result look weak. Looking weak has never been a good campaign strategy.

Yeah as a commander in chief his ignorance of the forces was astonishing. I loved the part where he had no idea what they called “those ships that sail underwater”

I hate to get involved in Obamas small mind/world, of using/reducing our Navy-

Remember it was Navy Seals that killed Bin Laden.
Navy that transports our supplies,
Navy that saved many lives, Mine included.

But the clown should also know that when we ran out of ammunition it was a comfort to know that we had a 4 foot spear with a razor sharp bayonet at the end of it.

Bastard!

I just heard on Dennis Miller that U.N. monitors are coming in to help monitor the U.S. elections. So in Miller's words, some monitors from "Ratholeistan" are going to be arbiter for the election of the leader of the most powerful democracy in the world.

WOW. Talk about circling the drain.

Speaking of 'sail(ing) underwater' ,I wasn't aware that there was wind under the ocean.

Wasn't obama the first president who on inauguration day 2009 put tradition aside and skipped fulfilling his role/duty as CINC by not attending the military's ball in honour of their new chief?

Not sure if this is accurate so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Obama was actually making the valid point that to some extent precision and speed of deployment has replaced the need for mass in modern conflict. It is a reasonable point that is being spun inaccurately and inappropriately as a slight against the US Navy.

Where Obama has failed has been in using the assets at his disposal (political, diplomatic, economic, and military) to maintain the influence of the US on the world stage. That is unforgivable.

How exactly does a “pivot to Asia” work without those old fashioned ships?

Hopefully, it doesn't.

" How does a global superpower project force abroad with fewer ships than it had when it wasn’t a global superpower? "

Ummm...because each of those ships today has vastly greater capabilities than during World War One? Obama wasn't comparing the navy to bayonets and horses, obviously. He was pointing out that we don't bemoan the demise of the cavalry because it's been replaced with more effective forces. The Royal Navy today is far smaller than in 1763, in terms of ships. Is it less capable? I like Levin, but he was consciously distorting Obama's point. The US Navy is second-to-none, and by a long, long, long shot. Comparing numbers to 1917 is apples and oranges.

We had submarines in 1917, Obama, just saying.

The goal of the debate from Romney's perspective as Krauthammer alluded, was to make soccer moms in Ohio and other swing states be emotionally comfortable with him. The average SDA commenter wouldn't be satisfied with Romney unless he did everything shy of bayoneting Obama up his keaster but then we aren't swing voters!

Romney has good self control. I couldn't be condescendingly lectured to by an ignorant asshole like Obama.

nninnio, sorry but that's not correct, realistically when you fight a war, the object is to defeat the enemy, by taking away its war making ability. Other than that, the fights could be likened to raids, which are always inconclusive. The US, nor the west has engaged in a true 'war' since 1945, all the tiffs since then are punishment raiding. Another fallacy is that somehow technology will render war making safer, using the wonders of the above named technology. The truth is, all the modern technology has accomplished is to level the playing field, so the simple ground pounder infantryman can now go head to head with the mega expensive wonders of technology, such as planes, armor, etc. Wars are fought by individual soldiers, carrying a rifle, taking and holding the ground.. all else is equivalent to shooting arrows over a city wall, then running and hiding.

Graham said: "Ummm...because each of those ships today has vastly greater capabilities than during World War One?"

Yes its true that -is- what Obama was saying... and its utterly stupid. Because:

A) many potential enemies have those ships too, and
B) even the most capable ship can't be in more than one place at a time.
C) ships have a service life, the ones from the Cold War are past theirs.

Phantom, Romney is making his point based on the Quadrennial Defense Review analysis. It is worth reading. Romney lost some marks in my mind for not making Obama look stupid and silly with his "submarines" remark by not going to the QDR and speaking about some specifics. It would have made him look more intelligent and Presidential. I thought Romney was a bit off his game, even though I understand his strategy.

Personally I think it is a waste of money and time to try and control the third world especially when they don't deserve it, but protecting our shipping through international waters is important.

In any event, the US Navy is absurdly huge. They have been doing a very expensive Cold War victory lap for about 20 years. No other country even comes close to coming close.

That was a very poor comparison.
The USN in 1916 was not a major sea power. Prior to WWI the Royal Navy quite literally ruled the waves and imposed pax brittanica. Now the USN is the world's supreme sea power and it has more ports away from home than at home thanks to the lend-lease deal of WWII. The USN is stretched thin and upcoming retirements will be replaced at a less than 1:1 ratio further reducing the fleet size. Unless the USA has no plans to honour its defense treaties with Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and NATO it needs a bigger navy.

The Iranians have attack submarines and will soon have nuclear weapons that could conceivably be launched via cruise missile or even torpedo (the US test fired an A bomb artillery shell from a 15inch gun in the 50s, torpedoes are larger in diameter), the chinese are building a deep sea navy with an aircraft carrier, ballastic missile subs and lots of landing craft. The world is getting more dangerous each day.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Quantity has a quality all of its own. As stated earlier...one ship no matter how capable cannot be in two places at the same time.

I believe the precise quote is:

"Quantity has a quality all it's own."
Marshall Georgy Zhukov

However the USSR did develope, for the time, the best and heaviest tanks....

From my recollections from War College...

You do not/cannot hold nor occupy ground with an airplane, a helicopter, a gun nor a tank. This only accomplished by "boots on the ground" with bayonets.

Well, apparently and sadly, there is a need to get into the weeds of the debate last night to try to get at who is the best man for the job.

What I don't know about naval strategy would fill this website, but I do know that Mitt essentially channeled Churchill when he so much as said that the required size and flexibility of the US armed forces needs to be such as to meet "the unmeasured dangers of the future" (Churchill's words).

Now, that sounds like a real chief executive to me: on the best possible advice of "our professional advisors" (also Churchill's words), we have decided that our force posture should be x, y and z.

I also know that the two most important naval battles of the modern (read English-speaking) world were Trafalgar and Midway -- in both cases, the navies of the English-speaking peoples were outnumbered, but by audacity and conservation of force until the very last possible moment, they won -- overcoming the long-standing neglect from everyone but their force commanders.

What I heard from Obama last night was, by metaphor, "Mitt, don't you know that cars have steering wheels these days, and don't you know that most of them don't burn leaded fuels, and maybe, just maybe, some of them have automatic transmission. Oh, and here's a clue, we don't have as many horse drawn carriages as we used to have."

As Mitt definitely said, "attacking me is not an agenda".

Is the US navy absurdly large? Not for me to say. Does it need to be large enough and flexible enough to meet the "unmeasured dangers of the future"? I think I can answer that question, which is what Mitt asked Americans to do. Which is why he won the debate and is going to win the presidency...

And don't forget Churchill's quatrain for the ages:

In war, resolution.
In defeat, defiance.
In victory, magnanimity.
In peace, goodwill.

I actually thought that Mitt lost the first debate over the question of the cost of health care -- which Obama didn't seem to be able to get across to the American people.

I feel that Mitt's only gotten better, to the point last night, where he was masterful (he's obviously at the magnanimity or goodwill stage).

Obama the ignoramus, the jackass.

It has never been possible to replace men on the ground to win
wars, to control territory, and to keep the peace. Air power,
including drones (the latest small-scale incarnation), however
useful, has never been so effective that it could replace armies
and navies completely.

Once there are men on the ground, with the intent of killing
their opponents and destroying property, then artillery is
important, guns are essential, but sooner or later it will come
down to edged weapons - knives and bayonets.

As for the US Navy being unnecessary - this is far worse than
bowing and scraping to foreign leaders. The US Navy keeps
hostiles away from the shores of North America. Now that Iran
has declared its intent to move naval assets into the Atlantic at some point,
it becomes all the more important. And, of course, the US Navy is
a key element in US power projection.

Toronto Star headline: U.S. election: Mitt Romney struggles against cool, calm Barack Obama in foreign policy debate

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/uselection/article/1275679--u-s-election-mitt-romney-outplayed-by-barack-obama-in-foreign-policy-debate

What debate were they watching? Obama was anything but cool, calm, and collected.

Mitt Romney was playing the long game here and, IMO, he did it brilliantly. Sure, I was disappointed at the time that he didn't smash Obama with the facts of his failures for the last four years and, in particular, his colossal Benghazigate failures and coverups -- but what would that have proven? That Romeny's right and Obama's wrong? Where would that have got him, seeing as Obama's a lying snake?

Obama's die-hard supporters wouldn't have been swayed by Romney's hammering away at Obama's failures. Romney's die-hard supporters would probably have liked him to have hit back harder at the lying jackass across the debate table from him but they're not going to be swayed to vote for anyone but Romney by his laid-back performance last night.

But, what about the undecided voters? I suspect when Romney didn't launch a nasty, negative attack-laden diatribe against Obama (unlike Obama) -- which, with justification, he could have -- and came across as measured, knowledgeable of a great many details about the Middle East and America's foreign policy, and delivered his message in a presidential way, there would have been more than a few viewers who would have asked: Who would I rather be in charge in a crisis?

Obama punched well except that much of what he said was pure lies and drivel and he did nothing to defend his indefensible record over the past four years -- and his attacks on Mitt Romney were puerile and lacking in substance. Obama was playing a short game, looking for a dramatic punchout which, by the way, he never delivered. He seemed desperate, as opposed to Romney who was calm, cool, collected, polite, generous -- he often said he agreed with certain of Obama's policies -- and measured.

As David Southam puts it, Mitt Romney's performance was masterful. Slow and steady wins the race. He's the tortoise to Obama's hare.

In my opinion most Americans are not ready for the truth . Just as pre-invasion British where before Czechoslovakia was invaded. Churchill was basically under house arrest by the "appeasers".
It would just remind them of the nightmare of what Obama's love of Sharia law has brought on them. Most will deny it to pretend they still have a choice from war. Don't forget American did nothing, except individuals till they where attacked. Even the murdered ambassador was not enough to wake a major portion of the US to the Islamic threat.
Mitt did the right thing .

Phantom said: "Yes its true that -is- what Obama was saying... and its utterly stupid. Because:

A) many potential enemies have those ships too, and
B) even the most capable ship can't be in more than one place at a time.
C) ships have a service life, the ones from the Cold War are past theirs."

The potential enemies to which you refer have vastly inferior navies to the US navy today. Nobody even comes close. China has ONE carrier, bought from Russia, which is smaller than its US counterparts and which flies inferior aircraft. It's probably the case that never in history has a great power's navy been in such an advantageous position relative to its potential enemies than the US Navy is today. And why? It's very simple. Adjusted for inflation, US defense spending is about the same as what it was at the peak of the Reagan era, and about four or five times greater than China's, even when purchasing-power-parity comparisons are made.

LAS -

The US Ñavy is designed for power projection. Is there any evidence that the threats to America have disappeared? If they haven't, then the US still needs its navy.

Graham, did you know you can sink an aircraft carrier with one (1) missile? You can! Or a mine. Or a cheap, crappy diesel submarine like those ones the Liberals stuck the Canadian Navy with. Or a speedboat with a torpedo lashed on.

Do you know how many ships it takes to keep that from happening? Seven. Plus a couple of nuclear submarines lurking about, usually.

The USA has eleven carrier battle groups, that's roughly ninety ships right there. But they can't actually land troops in large numbers. Or tanks etc. All they can do is paratroops, air support and cruise missiles. Because its a carrier battle group, not an assault group.

So you add some Marine helicopter/hovercraft assault ships, some tankers, some transport ships and colliers, you get up to three hundred ships very fast. Regan wanted a six hundred ship navy, considered that the minimum needed to beat the Soviets.

You can't conduct two wars on two fronts with less than what they have. Barry is talking about reducing US capacity to -one- war on -one- front. Probably to make the USA less "threatening" or "provocative" or something equally liberal. Meaning while he's pivoting to Asia or whatever, the Middle East can start in nuking each other.

Now, I'm the last one to say that the US military couldn't do with a haircut. Ditch some expensive vanity projects, reduce the middle management headcount by 10%, cut all manner of waste and stupidity from the budget. Cut out all the candy@ss liberal "hearts and minds" BS to concentrate on killing people and breaking things? No problem.

But reduce war fighting capability while still IN a war? A war that hasn't been won? While looking at a nuclear armed Iran and a surging China? That's a problem.

China, too, has a very large navy and let's not forget the humanitarian disasters that will require the American armed forces to lend a hand.

Is there any evidence that the threats to America have disappeared?

The USSR is gone, so yes.

You can't conduct two wars on two fronts with less than what they have.

THEN DON'T. Stay out of East-Asian affairs. Mothball at least a quarter of the Navy. It's either that or bankruptcy.