• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. 2012 Election

On Nov 6 Who Will Win President Obama or Mitt Romney ?

  • President Obama

    Votes: 39 61.9%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 24 38.1%

  • Total voters
    63
  • Poll closed .
DNC gaffe......

:rofl:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/09/navy-russian-warships-displayed-dnc-veterans-tribute-091112/

Russian ships displayed at DNC tribute to vets

On the last night of the Democratic National Convention, a retired Navy four-star took the stage to pay tribute to veterans. Behind him, on a giant screen, the image of four hulking warships reinforced his patriotic message.

But there was a big mistake in the stirring backdrop: those are Russian warships.

While retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored vets as America’s best, the ships from the Russian Federation Navy were arrayed like sentinels on the big screen above.

These were the very Soviet-era combatants that Nathman and Cold Warriors like him had once squared off against.

“The ships are definitely Russian,” said noted naval author Norman Polmar after reviewing hi-resolution photos from the event. “There’s no question of that in my mind.”

Naval experts concluded the background was a photo composite of Russian ships that were overflown by what appear to be U.S. trainer jets. It remains unclear how or why the Democratic Party used what’s believed to be images of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at their convention.

A spokesman for the Democratic National Convention Committee was not able to immediately comment Tuesday, saying he had to track down personnel to find out what had happened.

The veteran who spotted the error and notified Navy Times said he was immediately taken aback.

“I was kind of in shock,” said Rob Barker, 38, a former electronics warfare technician who left the Navy in 2006. Having learned to visually identify foreign ships by their radars, Barker recognized the closest ship as the Kara-class cruiser Kerch.

“An immediate apology [from the committee] would be very nice,” Barker said. “Maybe acknowledge the fact that yes, they screwed up.”

The background — featured in the carefully choreographed hour leading up to the president’s Sept. 6 speech accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination — showed four ships with radar designs not used in the U.S. fleet.

For example, the ship in the foreground, on the far right, has a square radar antenna at the top of its masthead. That is the MR-700 Podberezovik 3-D early warning radar, commonly identified as “Flat Screen” for its appearance, a three-dimensional early warning radar mounted on the Kerch, said Eric Wertheim, editor of “Combat Fleets of the World.”

Similarly, the third ship has a MR-310 “Head Net” air search radar, shaped like two off-set bananas, at its masthead and is mostly likely the guided missile destroyer Smetlivyy. The first two ships seem to be Krivak-class frigates, but it’s hard to discern from the silhouette, experts said.

But the fact they are Russian ships is not in doubt. In addition to the ship’s radar arrays and hulls, which are dissimilar from U.S. warships, the photo features one more give-away: a large white flag with a blue ‘X’ at the ships’ sterns.

Polmar, who authored “The Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy,” recognized the blue ‘X’-mark: “The X is the Cross of St. Andrew’s, which is a Russian Navy symbol,” Polmar said. (An anchored U.S. warship, by contrast, flies the American flag on its stern.)

Based on this specific group of these ship types, one naval expert concluded that this was most likely a photo of the Black Sea Fleet.

“Ships are all Black Sea Fleet,” A. D. Baker III, a retired Office of Naval Intelligence analyst, told Navy Times after looking at the image. “These four ships, at the time the photo was taken, constituted the entire major surface combatant component of the Black Sea Fleet,” Baker said, noting the photo was likely to be six years old or older. (The Kerch is now on the list to be scrapped, Baker said.)

Barker, the former sailor who first spotted the errors, believes the seven aircraft streaking by are F-5 jets, a trainer used by the U.S. Navy. Asked to explain how he reached that conclusion, the former airplane spotter ticked off a list: “Twin engine, single rudder, with hard points on the wingtips, with that silhouette is going to make them F-5s.”
 
One perspective of what happened yesterday  . . .

"Yesterday was a key day — perhaps the day — in the campaign. Convention bounce and the Chicago teachers strike were instantly overshadowed. There was an opportunity to go for the win, and Romney took it. The media noticed, of course, and sprang into such intense, concerted action that it was obvious that they knew it was a day to be won and if the other side was going to go for the win, they had to act quickly and ensure that their guy won the day. Shock and awe, baby. Awesomely awful, indeed."

http://althouse.blogspot.ca/2012/09/romney-offends-pundits-doesnt-he-know.html

And it looks like the polls have returned to pre conventions levels . . .  Dead cat bounce.
 
Perhaps the  most fascinating  player in the US election has to Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton.  He is a remarkable politician who many, many Americans trust.  He has done is penance and has been forgiven.

His background has been largely forgotten except for his oft reminded Budget Surplesses. But he played a major role in policies and rules that drove events that crashed iand burned in 2008.

Thomas Sowell  explains. . . .

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/09/13/the_brass_standard

Interesting trip down memory lane.
 
recceguy said:
God. November and the inevitable chest poking aftermath can't come soon enough. ::)

:ditto:


Because:

245px-Lord_Harold_Wilson_Allan_Warren.jpg
   
3832676.jpeg

A week is a long time in politics            &  Events, dear boy, events
 
E.R. Campbell said:
:ditto:


Because:

245px-Lord_Harold_Wilson_Allan_Warren.jpg
   
3832676.jpeg

A week is a long time in politics            &  Events, dear boy, events

How I miss them.  And men of their ilk.... with all their faults.

There is something steadying about a pipe.
 
Fighting back against Sequestration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dulqc38770s

In related news, Romney has revealed he will re-open the F-22 production line if elected in November
 
Haletown said:
Fighting back against Sequestration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dulqc38770s

In related news, Romney has revealed he will re-open the F-22 production line if elected in November


I am pretty much convinced that sequestration will happen ... because 90% of the elected people in Washington, Democrats and Republics alike and in equal numbers, are hidebound fools and partisan charlatans. There is, in terms of responsibility, not a shred of difference between Harry Reid and Paul Ryan - each is willing to sell out his country for a slight partisan political advantage which means each is despicable.

Until Americans, hundreds of millions of Americans, grow up and toss these moral midgets out of office they will get what they deserve: mindless, across the board cuts.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
But, given the intellectual quality of the Congress and the White House maybe "mindless" is an improvement ...
 
I contemplated posting this in the Dumbest Thing I Read Today, but I wasn't sure if anyone would get the joke. ;D

Romney team sharpens attack on Obama’s foreign policy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/romney-team-sharpens-attack-on-obamas-foreign-policy/2012/09/13/9b3f2744-fdd3-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html?hpid=z1

Advisers to Mitt Romney on Thursday defended his sharp criticism of President Obama and said that the deadly protests sweeping the Middle East would not have happened if the Republican nominee were president.

“There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation,” Richard Williamson, a top Romney foreign policy adviser, said in an interview.
“For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we’ve had an American ambassador assassinated.”

Williamson added, “In Egypt and Libya and Yemen, again demonstrations — the respect for America has gone down, there’s not a sense of American resolve and we can’t even protect sovereign American property.”

The aggressive approach by Romney’s campaign thrust the issue of foreign policy to the forefront of the presidential campaign a day after the Republican candidate was widely criticized for blasting Obama while U.S. embassies in Egypt and Libya were under attack.

Criticism from Republicans over their nominee’s handling of the situation overseas quieted Thursday, with influential voices in the party’s foreign policy establishment rallying to Romney’s defense. And it was Obama who faced criticism for saying that he did not consider Egypt an ally — a comment that his administration struggled to explain.

“The president can’t even keep track of who’s our ally or not. This is amateur hour — it’s amateur hour,” said Williamson, a former assistant secretary of state and ambassador. He was among those who counseled Romney to respond aggressively on Tuesday night and was offered by the campaign to speak about the candidate’s foreign policy.

Williamson was referring to Obama’s interview Wednesday night with Telemundo in which the president said that the U.S. relationship with Egypt was a “work in progress.”

“I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy,” Obama told Telemundo. “They’re a new government that is trying to find its way.”

Administration officials tried throughout the day to parse Obama’s statement on Egypt without appearing to contradict him.

Obama was right in “diplomatic and legal terms,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said, because “ ‘ally’ is a legal term of art” that refers to countries with which the United States has a mutual defense treaty such as the NATO alliance.

But the United States tried to work around just that problem in 1989, creating the designation of “major non-NATO ally” for countries on which it wanted to bestow approval, weapons sales and defense cooperation prohibited to non-treaty nations. Egypt — along with Israel, Australia, Japan and South Korea — was among the first countries to be so designated that year.

Pressed to explain why a “major non-NATO ally” is not an ally, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland repeated the treaty argument, then referred reporters to the White House. Later asked whether the United States still considers Egypt a “major non-NATO ally,” Nuland said “Yes.”

At campaign stops in Nevada and Colorado, Obama avoided any mention of Romney as he paid tribute to those who lost their lives in Libya and again promised to track down their killers.

But his campaign responded by noting that the protests this week were triggered by the video, not by U.S. policy, and that the video likely would still have been produced if Romney had been president. And they noted that there have been attacks on Americans under every president in recent history, including Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

“It is astonishing that the Romney campaign continues to shamelessly politicize a sensitive international situation,” Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said. “The fact is that any president of either party is going to be confronted by crises while in office, and Governor Romney continues to demonstrate that he is not at all prepared to manage them.”

Romney himself struck a more measured tone and tried to refocus on his core economic argument on the campaign trail Thursday in Northern Virginia. He did not mention Obama by name, but suggested that the president was a weak commander in chief and unreliable guardian of American strength abroad.

“As we watch the world today, sometimes it seems that we’re at the mercy of events instead of shaping events, and a strong America is essential to shape events,” Romney said at a rally in Fairfax County.

The approach on foreign policy by the Romney campaign is a signal that it feels it can gain some advantage in an area that has so far it has found problematic.

In addition to the criticism Romney received on Wednesday, he came under fire two weeks ago for failing to mention the war in Afghanistan or acknowledge U.S. troops serving abroad in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. In July, his tour through Europe and the Middle East was marred by missteps. And he has been ridiculed for his assertion that Russia is, “without question, our No. 1 geopolitical foe.”

“We were ready for a major debate on this,” Eliot A. Cohen, a former State Department official and foreign policy adviser to Romney, said in an interview. “It just happened to blow up now. It’s there, and it’s in some ways a clarifying moment.”

In debating foreign policy with Obama, Romney is perceived to be at a disadvantage. The president consistently has outpolled Romney on the issue, and he earned high marks for the killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Stuart Stevens, Romney’s chief political strategist, rejected the suggestion that voters may question Romney’s temperament and commander-in-chief credentials because of his early and aggressive response to the attacks in Egypt and Libya.

“It’s not an issue,” Stevens said in an interview. “It was an issue with Barack Obama four years ago, given the fact that he was younger and had little experience, and given his answers in the debates. He had stumble after stumble with foreign policy. Mitt Romney hasn’t. He’s run for president twice now and it’s not been his problem.”

Romney’s policy advisers laid out steps that a President Romney would have taken in the Middle East that they said Obama has not done.

“What would the governor do differently? It really starts with having a vision for the future of the Middle East, supporting those that have been shortchanged by the administration,” Mitchell Reiss, a top Romney policy adviser, said in an interview. “There are things that we can do in terms of what we say, the constancy of what our vision is — pluralism, respect for law, human dignity — these are things that you don’t hear from the administration, and the people in the region want to hear that.”

Romney’s campaign hopes to force a broader debate about America’s role in the world and to argue that while Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism, his foreign policies have resulted in waning U.S. influence abroad.

“We’ve got Barack Obama with a risk-adverse, lead-from-behind approach, and how’s that worked?” Williamson said. “We not only have the events in Egypt and Libya and now in Yemen, but we have in Syria 20,000-plus people killed, many by means of various atrocities by a regime, and the Obama administration is missing in action.”
 
."Oopsie!  The Obama regime's economic plans score an own goal.

"Ratings firm Egan-Jones cut its credit rating on the U.S. government to "AA-" from "AA," citing its opinion that quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve would hurt the U.S. economy and the country's credit quality.


In its downgrade, the firm said that issuing more currency and depressing interest rates through purchasing mortgage-backed securities does little to raise the U.S.'s real gross domestic product, but reduces the value of the dollar





 
Anyone thinking the movie was the "cause" of the attacks is probably partaking of the pipe shown upthread. The coordinated nature, the timing and the widespread followups across the region are the result of planning and coordination, and the start date of 9/11 is no coincidence.

WRT which policy "caused" these attacks, the "Arab spring" and resulting empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood" would be number one in my book, YMMV.
 
What did people think would happen when the Muslim Brotherhood took over in north africa ? People tend to forget that the MB was the parent of AQ,Hamas and Hizbollah. When Assad's father had to put down a Muslim Brotherhood revolt he killed as many of them as he could find. You would think the MB would be grateful for President Obama's support.
 
Thucydides said:
Anyone thinking the movie was the "cause" of the attacks is probably partaking of the pipe shown upthread. The coordinated nature, the timing and the widespread followups across the region are the result of planning and coordination, and the start date of 9/11 is no coincidence.

WRT which policy "caused" these attacks, the "Arab spring" and resulting empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood" would be number one in my book, YMMV.

Move on past ALL the rhetoric.

There is no policy. There is no rhyme or reason.

There is no movie, song, cartoon, statement, editorial or perceived notion required to set these people off.

Radical Muslims don't need ANY reason, except that we don't fervently adhere to the same belief and code of conduct that they do.

The world gets to go on living simply because there is not enough of these crackpots around to ensure the total demise of those that have a different belief.

There is no redemption for them. There is no reasoning or bargaining. Negotiation, tolerance and peace do not exist in their vocabulary.

There is but one solution to ensure that these terrorists leave the world to remain tolerant and reasonably peaceful.


We have to hunt down each and every one of them and kill them.
 
Although we are about seven "long times"* away from the US elections I wonder, a wee bit, why, given the state of the US economy, Mitt Romney is not ahead in the polls. Historian Niall Ferguson offers some answers in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Newsweek:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/09/niall-ferguson-why-is-obama-winning.html
Niall Ferguson: Why Obama Is Winning
The economy's in the tank, yet Romney can't seem to gain an edge. One thing's for sure: this election is about personal likability. It's not the economy, stupid.

Sep 10, 2012

It’s a paradox. The economy is in the doldrums. Yet the incumbent is ahead in the polls. According to a huge body of research by political scientists, this is not supposed to happen. On the other side of the Atlantic, it hardly ever does. But in America today, the law of political gravity has been suspended.

First, the economy. It’s growing at a lousy 2 percent. Unemployment is stuck above 8 percent. Manufacturing just contracted for the third straight month. Consumer confidence is sliding. Nearly 47 million Americans are on food stamps. And we’re heading for a fiscal cliff.

Now, the polls. According to The New York Times, President Obama is set to win 51 percent of the popular vote and 311 electoral college votes, including those of key swing states like Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. He has a 3 in 4 chance of being reelected.

If Mitt Romney were the kind of guy people felt sorry for, you’d feel sorry for him.

So what’s the explanation? I can think of four possibilities.

Explanation one: I am lying to you. The economy is doing great. No doubt the self-appointed “fact checkers” of the blogosphere are armed and ready to tell you this. (Did I forget to mention that the fiscal cliff is made of green cheese?)

Explanation two: People aren’t telling the truth to the pollsters. The deciding factor in this election will be whether or not a relatively small slice of the electorate—suburban, middle-class voters in a handful of states—deserts the president. Four years ago, as Michael Barone has pointed out, many such people voted for him. Now they are suffering from buyer’s remorse. But there is a certain stigma attached to voting against the man who came to personify not just political change but the end of centuries of racial prejudice. So when asked by pollsters, the swing voters simply don’t fess up.

A variant of this argument is that people currently telling pollsters they’d vote for the president tomorrow won’t actually turn out on Election Day. This seems to me a more likely scenario. Young people and African-Americans turned out in unusually high numbers four years ago. Precisely these groups have fared the worst in the sluggish economy of the past four years. Sure, they’ll never vote for Mitt Romney. But these disillusioned folks may just stay home “staring up at fading Obama posters,” in Paul Ryan’s memorable phrase.

Explanation three: People vote more prospectively than retrospectively. “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” was the question Ronald Reagan asked voters back in 1980. It’s the question Republicans started asking again last month, and for a moment the Democratic spin-doctors didn’t have a good answer. It took Roger Altman (one of the president’s dwindling band of supporters on Wall Street) to come up with one. Sure, things have been bad—but they are about to get better as housing bounces back and the United States fracks its way to energy independence. So the real question voters should ask themselves is: “Will I be better off in four years’ time than I am right now?”

Explanation four: The economy isn’t the No. 1 issue, despite what people say. The more I watch of this election, the more I incline toward this last explanation.

True, when asked to rank issues, voters mostly put the economy at the top of the list. And yet when asked to make a choice between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, their choices don’t seem to be economically based.

Many people subscribe to the view that Romney just isn’t likable. They can more readily imagine having a beer or shooting hoops with Obama. Then there is the religious subtext: Mitt Romney’s Mormonism is just a bit weird, whereas Obama’s Evangelicalism Lite offends hardly anyone.

And let’s not forget abortion. For many women, the suspicion that banning abortion, if not contraception too, would be item No. 1 on the Romney-Ryan to-do list trumps all other considerations. The Obama campaign played this card with great success over the summer, with more than a little help from Rep. Todd Akin.

Or maybe, just maybe, this election is boiling down to a contest between white non-Hispanic men and everyone else. After all the high hopes of 2008, it will be depressing if that is the outcome of the Obama presidency: an electorate split along the dividing lines of race and sex.

One thing’s for sure. Though Bill Clinton waxed lyrical last week about his party’s job-creation record, this time it really isn’t the economy, stupid.


Ferguson makes as much sense as anyone else: If the economy is issue 1 then Romney ought to be way ahead in almost all the polls; Romney is behind in almost all the polls, so the economy is  not the driver.


__________
*
245px-Lord_Harold_Wilson_Allan_Warren.jpg

  A week is a long time in politics
  Harold Wilson
 
Here are some reasons why not to believe in the polls.

1.Media is in the tank for Obama
2.Media doesnt cover the economy in the nightly news
3.The media doesnt cover the war or anything that might embarass Obama
4.The media was instrumental in gettin O elected in the first place

All this will begin to shift more toward fair and balanced polling in October,because despite the bias the pollers have reputations. No one wants to be on the record indicating an Obama landslide when it may be just the opposite.
 
Maybe.  but likability seems to be the main factor.  Because.

1.  Maybe.  Some definitly are, like MSNBC.  But Fox News certainly isn't.  But the republicans certainly have been giving the media plenty of ammo this year with awful sound bites and medis eff-ups.

2.  Because people know the economy is in the hole.  Just like most of the world. People would rather be distracted.

3.  Again, the war is old news

4.  True.  and the media have decided that Americans should like him again.

The republicans had a very self destructive race.  It was quite the gong show.  All Obama had to do is sit back, watch and take notes.  Romney himself was essentially the best of the worst and conservatives in the US aren't thrilled he's their man.  His latest attempt to use the events in the middle east to score points saw his own supporters distance themselves.  Every time Trump asks for birth certificates or some republican tries to define rape and abortion in crazy ways it does the whole GOP some damage even though it might not be the party stance, those things support the fearmongering.

I think that article hit the nail on the head.  Likeability is trumping the economy.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Here are some reasons why not to believe in the polls.

1.Media is in the tank for Obama
2.Media doesnt cover the economy in the nightly news
3.The media doesnt cover the war or anything that might embarass Obama
4.The media was instrumental in gettin O elected in the first place

All this will begin to shift more toward fair and balanced polling in October,because despite the bias the pollers have reputations. No one wants to be on the record indicating an Obama landslide when it may be just the opposite.

Hey, look at that ... My Alcoa stock just went up! ;D
 
You may not have noticed but an incumbent President that isnt touting his economic success has a problem. What success does he have to run on ? An energy policy that has seen prices spike higher and higher. More people on food stamps than ever before. More people on Social Security disability than ever before. Continued high unemployment. College graduates with student loan debt and no jobs. Minority youth cant find work either. No one watches MSNBC but maybe some Canadians. >:D
 
tomahawk6 said:
You may not have noticed but an incumbent President that isnt touting his economic success has a problem. What success does he have to run on ? An energy policy that has seen prices spike higher and higher. More people on food stamps than ever before. More people on Social Security disability than ever before. Continued high employment. College graduates with student loan debt and no jobs. Minority youth cant find work either. No one watches MSNBC but maybe some Canadians. >:D

Yes. Agreed. And a challenger that can't make any headway despite all of that has an even bigger one.
 
Back
Top