Poll: Obama Leading Romney 49% To 46% Ahead Of Second Debate

[chuckd]

I expect the Romney administration will have several foreign policy experts they can call on to help reorganize State.

Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell come to mind as possibles.

Exactly. I am really curious if he can lure Rice back for another tour of duty...

Hopefully.

[nurofiend]

I expect the Romney administration will have several foreign policy experts they can call on to help reorganize State.

Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell come to mind as possibles.

Exactly. I am really curious if he can lure Rice back for another tour of duty...

Hopefully.

wasn't she pretty unpopular not only with the american people but within the republican party itself (towards the end)?

[keemapoot]

IMO, the problem Rice faced was she was on a short leash, with Bush Jr. and Cheney ramrodding an aggressive agenda. As such, she has a forgettable legacy, and I suspect, this alone might cause her to serve again, just to finally put her stamp on foreign policy. Colin Powell faced similar problems as I recall. Why hire subject matter experts and then sideline them? I don't see Romney at all similar to Bush, even in spite of all his fake bluster about containing Russia and China. He's more intelligent than Bush Jr.,..by a lot.

Edited October 21, 2012 by keemapoot

[keemapoot]

I do think Romney needs to seriously reconsider and change his Bush Jr. outdated cowboy-rhetoric on foreign policy before the debate on Monday. Pounding the table and saying you're going to get tough on everybody in the world who doesn't agree with you is so Bush Jr.

Belligerence is not a strategy for the Middle East

In his recent speech at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), the governor used antagonistic language that left many wondering if the Republican nominee for president wants to take us right back to the neocon policies of the last administration that caused our country to invade Iraq and take our eye off al-Qaeda and Afghanistan.

Harsh rhetoric was leveled at Iran, but from a policy perspective the governor gave no specifics other than saying he would do the same things President Obama is already doing.

Aggressive language was aimed at Iraq, but the only idea offered by Governor Romney was a vague suggestion that he would further extend our presence there by putting troops back on the ground.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/262849-belligerence-is-not-a-strategy-for-the-middle-east

[chuckd]

I expect the Romney administration will have several foreign policy experts they can call on to help reorganize State.

Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell come to mind as possibles.

Exactly. I am really curious if he can lure Rice back for another tour of duty...

Hopefully.

wasn't she pretty unpopular not only with the american people but within the republican party itself (towards the end)?

Not that I recall. I'm sure the Democrats didn't like her but they don't like any Republican

Most Republicans have fond memories of how she handled herself on the international stage.

[Chicog]

It is VERY hard to overturn Roe v. Wade in practice, even with the most severe right winger in office.

Correct and most people know it. Trying to turn it into an issue to retain power is sinking pretty low.

Trying to turn it into an issue to regain power is sinking pretty low.

[Chicog]

What is the man going to accomplish that differs from the last four years?

Where's his plan???

Are you talking about Romney or Obama?

Edited October 21, 2012 by Chicog

[maidu]

It may not be so difficult to overturn Roe v Wade. The Supremes could choose to take a case which abolished it. If a majority votes to support banning abortions, then that will do it. It will be wildly controversal, but the relatively simple mechanism to do it exists.

[Jingthing]

It may not be so difficult to overturn Roe v Wade. The Supremes could choose to take a case which abolished it. If a majority votes to support banning abortions, then that will do it. It will be wildly controversal, but the relatively simple mechanism to do it exists.

Yes. Absolutely. And electing Romney means he has an excellent chance of getting one or two supreme court picks of justices almost guaranteed to be open to a Roe v Wade overturn case. Edited October 21, 2012 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

Going back to an earlier post I made regarding the two major news backers, I absolutely had to laugh at the absurdity of some of Fox's criticisms of Biden after the VP debate, which can be found at Jon Stewart's segment here

I'm dying to here what SNL did to Fox & Friends but none of the videos I can find will play outside the US or via my proxy, so if anyone has a direct link that works, please let me know.

[chuckd]

As you know, a president can have considerable influence over social issues. #1 is, appointment of justices. The reason Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. weren't able to overthrow Roe vs Wade is not for lack of wanting to. It's that 'the groundswell of support for womens' right to choose what to do with their bodies and their private decisions' has remained strong in the US, for decades. If US demographics were like Wyoming or Utah, the laws of the land would be different. Unfortunately for them, there are loads of more liberal thinkers in CA and NY and other populous states which form the overall consensus. R and R will try to tip the balance toward arch conservative values. They don't say that now, but they will if/when they get elected.

Hmm, I wonder if it is coincedental that there are more top ranked universities and university educated people in CA and NY than WY and UT?

It could be simply a coincidence, and then again it might be the population of the four states you cite.

California - 37,253,956

New York - 19,378,102

Wyoming - 2,763,885

Utah - 563,626

http://exploredia.com/population-of-us-states-2011/

Edited October 21, 2012 by chuckd

[keemapoot]

It may not be so difficult to overturn Roe v Wade. The Supremes could choose to take a case which abolished it. If a majority votes to support banning abortions, then that will do it. It will be wildly controversal, but the relatively simple mechanism to do it exists.

Yes. Absolutely. And electing Romney means he has an excellent chance of getting one or two supreme court picks of justices almost guaranteed to be open to a Roe v Wade overturn case.

I can understand the dangers of a Republican Presidency on this issue, and of course, one of the most valued of all political prizes with real power for any party is indeed to get to pick tenure for life Supreme Court Justices (though getting extreme left or right leaning Justices confirmed is a big barrier), for obvious reasons. The stakes on this issue are indeed high, and I expect women to wrestle with their pick of Romney because of this.

Regarding other liberal Democrat issues of importance, I have a tendency to think that, apart from the Obamacare issue, many voters of both parties will be voting for economic recovery first, and global leadership second.

[Chicog]

I'd also like to go back to the Photo ID discussion we had earlier that was supposed to eliminate "Voter Fraud".

Does this count as "Voter Fraud"?

A third instance of fraudulent voter registration has been uncovered in the important swing state of Virginia, where a Republican consultant has been arrested and thousands of discarded voter registration forms were recovered from a dumpster earlier this week. According to the Not Larry Sabato blog, a law student at James Madison University registered to vote on campus, but found when she tried to verify the change online, found that her form had never been submitted.

On Thursday, Raw Story reported that 31-year-old Colin Small, a Republican operative employed by Pinpoint, a firm contracted by Republican Party of Virginia, was arrested and charged with “four counts of destruction of voter registration applications, eight counts of disclosure of voter registration application, and one count of obstruction of justice” for throwing active voter registration forms into a dumpster.

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1qvXQ)

Edited October 21, 2012 by Chicog

[maidu]

Miss Rice was ok at her job, but not exceptional. She toed the line for Cheney and Bush. That was her job description. Powell, on the other hand, was the fall guy which the Republican cabal put in front of the spotlights to justify the invasion of Iraq. It's hard to tell whether Powell knew the data he was given was bullshit. It looked as though he really believed it. When I watched his expert presentation, I believed it also, so I too was in favor of the invasion. Cheney, Bush Jr. (whoes father used to be top banana at the CIA) and Rice hoodwinked millions of people with that presentation at the UN. It wasn't until months later that the data was proved to be bogus.

Either Cheney and Bush knew it was bogus, or they had horrible intelligence. Either way, it destroyed any hope Powell might have had for running for prez. He would have made a much better canditate than McCain. Instead, he became a sacrificial lamb for the Republican war machine.

[keemapoot]

Going back to an earlier post I made regarding the two major news backers, I absolutely had to laugh at the absurdity of some of Fox's criticisms of Biden after the VP debate, which can be found at Jon Stewart's segment here

I'm dying to here what SNL did to Fox & Friends but none of the videos I can find will play outside the US or via my proxy, so if anyone has a direct link that works, please let me know.

I continue to be astonished by both the absurdity of Fox News and the "ditto-head" (to borrow a term from another looney) mentality of those who continue to cite it ad naseum, as the last vestiges of a global media gone liberal. Of course, I also have similar criticisms for MSNBC and other far left proponents. But I don't for one minute buy this argument that there is a global media conspiracy against conservative America.

I really long for the days of someone like William F. Buckley, who was a true conservative, intellectual and gentleman.

[chuckd]

I'd also like to go back to the Photo ID discussion we had earlier that was supposed to eliminate "Voter Fraud".

Does this count as "Voter Fraud"?

A third instance of fraudulent voter registration has been uncovered in the important swing state of Virginia, where a Republican consultant has been arrested and thousands of discarded voter registration forms were recovered from a dumpster earlier this week. According to the Not Larry Sabato blog, a law student at James Madison University registered to vote on campus, but found when she tried to verify the change online, found that her form had never been submitted.

On Thursday, Raw Story reported that 31-year-old Colin Small, a Republican operative employed by Pinpoint, a firm contracted by Republican Party of Virginia, was arrested and charged with “four counts of destruction of voter registration applications, eight counts of disclosure of voter registration application, and one count of obstruction of justice” for throwing active voter registration forms into a dumpster.

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1qvXQ)

No.

From your own link...

"Smith has been charged with four counts of destruction of voter registration applications, eight counts of disclosure of voter registration application, and one count of obstruction of justice."

[Ulysses G.]

I'm dying to here what SNL did to Fox & Friends but none of the videos I can find will play outside the US or via my proxy, so if anyone has a direct link that works, please let me know.

I continue to be astonished by both the absurdity of Fox News and the "ditto-head" (to borrow a term from another looney) mentality of those who continue to cite it ad naseum, as the last vestiges of a global media gone liberal.

I don't get the people who act like everyone on Fox News is the same. Yes, Sean Hannity is totally partisan, but he is just one commentator.

There are 8 hours of hard news a day on Fox News that is pretty much like any other news station. It is not much of a secret that Sheppard Smith is gay and a liberal although he mostly keeps politics out of his hard news reporting.

The O' Reilly Factor is highly rated and although O'Reilly is conservative, he is pretty "fair and balanced" and attacks both republicans and democrats and has plenty of both on the show defending their points of view.

Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace is another highly respected show that exposes both sides of the story and has a fair panel of both liberals and conservatives.

The Journal Editorial Report and Special Report are other great "fair and balanced" political shows and there are other commentators like Greta and Geraldo that are not conservative (although Geraldo claims to be a registered republican).

The truth is that Fox News has moved to the center and does some great reporting. They do believe that most of the mainstream media is biased to the left and they have a point. Recently some high profile liberal reporters like Mark Helprin have come out and admitted it.

It is just too easy to demonize Fox News as a bunch of right wing nuts so that they can be ignored when they push important stories like Fast and Furious and the travesty of what really happened to the consulate in Benghazi. Both of these important stories were exposed by Fox News when the mainstream media tried to ignore them.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chantsurfer]

Polling is all about the pollster

[Ulysses G.]

Romney is following Reagan's example by pledging no tax increases, yet he too, if elected, will invariably have to raise taxes

You may be right, but Obama will have to raise taxes on the middle class as just raising them on rich people will accomplish little. He is not being honest either.

[keemapoot]

Here's a clever political move by the Obama campaign to juxtapose its position of diplomacy first in foreign affairs as opposed to as of now, Romney's Bush Jr.-like shoot first, talk later approach. It takes the upper hand in the looming debate on Monday. I expect Romney to refine his position before Monday's debate however, meaning, er, he will change his position. Maybe not?

White House prepared to meet one-on-one with Iran

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-prepared-meet-one-one-iran-234043257.html

[Chicog]

I'm dying to here what SNL did to Fox & Friends but none of the videos I can find will play outside the US or via my proxy, so if anyone has a direct link that works, please let me know.

I continue to be astonished by both the absurdity of Fox News and the "ditto-head" (to borrow a term from another looney) mentality of those who continue to cite it ad naseum, as the last vestiges of a global media gone liberal.

I don't get the people who act like everyone on Fox News is the same. Yes, Sean Hannity is totally partisan, but he is just one commentator.

There are 8 hours of hard news a day on Fox News that is pretty much like any other news station. It is not much of a secret that Sheppard Smith is gay and a liberal although he mostly keeps politics out of his hard news reporting.

The O' Reilly Factor is highly rated and although O'Reilly is conservative, he is pretty "fair and balanced" and attacks both republicans and democrats and has plenty of both on the show defending their points of view.

Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace is another highly respected show that exposes both sides of the story and has a fair panel of both liberals and conservatives.

The Journal Editorial Report and Special Report are other great "fair and balanced" political shows and there are other commentators like Greta and Geraldo that are not conservative (although Geraldo claims to be a registered republican).

The truth is that Fox News has moved to the center and does some great reporting. They do believe that most of the mainstream media is biased to the left and they have a point. Recently some high profile liberal reporters like Mark Helprin have come out and admitted it.

It is just too easy to demonize Fox News as a bunch of right wing nuts so that they can be ignored when they push important stories like Fast and Furious and the travesty of what really happened to the consulate in Benghazi. Both of these important stories were exposed by Fox News when the mainstream media tried to ignore them.

Can you tell me when I can expect to see Fox "News", as I'm Thailand - 4 hours. I have yet to see anything but hysterical election baiting. And as for O'Reilly, might be highly rated by Republicans, but I can't imagine he's highly rated by Democrats. He seems to me to be a slightly watered down TV version of Limbaugh. A constant interrupter of people who disagree with him, and quite full of himself for his sales of his books and tours.

Nah, he certainly isn't "News".

Mind you, I still have yet to find a "News" show on MSNBC. Perhaps it's just election fever?

[Chicog]

Here's a clever political move by the Obama campaign to juxtapose its position of diplomacy first in foreign affairs as opposed to as of now, Romney's Bush Jr.-like shoot first, talk later approach. It takes the upper hand in the looming debate on Monday. I expect Romney to refine his position before Monday's debate however, meaning, er, he will change his position. Maybe not?

White House prepared to meet one-on-one with Iran

http://news.yahoo.co...-234043257.html

I don't see how there is any change of position there. The NYT reported that talks had been arranged, the White House has denied it and re-iterated the position it's had all along:

They are open to talks without precondition; and they will take whatever action is necessary to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

If this is in the news, it's because the New York Times came out with a "scoop".

Pointless anyway, nothing is going to happen until after the election. I don't really think this will have much of an impact unless someone brings it up in the FP debate, in which case it will use up valuable minutes (what's Romney going to do? Threaten to invade Iran?).

[Ulysses G.]

. And as for O'Reilly, might be highly rated by Republicans, but I can't imagine he's highly rated by Democrats.

This is what politifact.com had to say about O'Reilly viewers:

Viewers of at least one show on Fox scored quite well -- The O’Reilly Factor, of whom 51 percent made it into the high knowledge group. That made it equal to National Public Radio -- a longtime target of conservative complaints about liberal media bias -- and only three percentage points behind Stewart’s own show, at 54 percent.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[maidu]

It's good OB Laden was killed months ago, because if he was killed just prior to the election, all Republicans would be shouting about how it was a political ploy. Speaking of political ploys, just minutes after Reagan was sworn in to office, Iranians released the Americans they were keeping hostage. Iranians kept the hostages in order to make their enemy, Prez Carter look bad (anyone as US prez would have been their enemy at that time). It paid dividends for both Reagan Republicans and for the Iranians. Later, Iranians clandestinely cooperated with undercover US officials to funnel arms to the Contras in Nicaragua. US congress had specifically denied funding the Contras, so using the Iranians provided a way for the Republicans to circumvent the law - at least until Hasenfus (CIA pilot) got shot down, and then Olie North testified, and all hell was let loose, despite the Republicans best attempts to put the genie back in the bottle.

Is that the type of foreign policy mentality we want to reinstate in the White House? Is Romney another Reagan? We will only know if he's elected and allowed to run wild with foreign policy.

[Ulysses G.]

Is Romney another Reagan?

Let's hope so. Someone needs to improve the economy and the present occupant of the White House isn't doing it.

[Chicog]

. And as for O'Reilly, might be highly rated by Republicans, but I can't imagine he's highly rated by Democrats.

This is what politifact.com had to say about O'Reilly viewers:

Viewers of at least one show on Fox scored quite well -- The O’Reilly Factor, of whom 51 percent made it into the high knowledge group. That made it equal to National Public Radio -- a longtime target of conservative complaints about liberal media bias -- and only three percentage points behind Stewart’s own show, at 54 percent.

Nice bit of editing! I think you missed this bit:

We asked Michael Dimock, Pew’s associate director for research, what he thought Pew’s data meant for Stewart’s claim. He said it’s crucial to understand that different news sources appeal to different types of people -- and that highly political programming of any type attracts regular readers and viewers "who are, most likely, already highly knowledgeable prior to their exposure to those particular sources. Separating what knowledge they bring with them from what they learn while reading or watching is virtually impossible."

By contrast, Dimock said, for media outlets with a much broader reach -- including Fox -- "the average regular consumer of these sources is less informed than the more niche audiences, because these sources, by design, reach and appeal to a broader cross-section of the public. In most of our studies, the regular readers and viewers of these broad-based news sources are not significantly more or less informed than the average American, and there is no systematic pattern showing one broad-based source has a more knowledgeable audience than any other."

Like me, you probably use more than just Fox or MSNBC for your news, don't you? If you relied solely on one or the other, I think you'd belong in the "ovine" group.

[Chicog]

It's good OB Laden was killed months ago, because if he was killed just prior to the election, all Republicans would be shouting about how it was a political ploy. Speaking of political ploys, just minutes after Reagan was sworn in to office, Iranians released the Americans they were keeping hostage. Iranians kept the hostages in order to make their enemy, Prez Carter look bad (anyone as US prez would have been their enemy at that time). It paid dividends for both Reagan Republicans and for the Iranians. Later, Iranians clandestinely cooperated with undercover US officials to funnel arms to the Contras in Nicaragua. US congress had specifically denied funding the Contras, so using the Iranians provided a way for the Republicans to circumvent the law - at least until Hasenfus (CIA pilot) got shot down, and then Olie North testified, and all hell was let loose, despite the Republicans best attempts to put the genie back in the bottle.

Is that the type of foreign policy mentality we want to reinstate in the White House? Is Romney another Reagan? We will only know if he's elected and allowed to run wild with foreign policy.

Ironic that. I think it was fairly evident that if Carter succeeded in getting the hostages released, he would have won the election. Similarly, it's not a stretch to suggest that Ollie North (who had more than one meeting with Iran) might have asked them to hold off until after the election - with the promise of a few favours afterwards (who hasn't heard of Iran-Contra, apart from perhaps the late Ronald Reagan, I think he forgot).

"Oh what a tangled web we weave......."

[maidu]

Is Romney another Reagan?

Let's hope so. Someone needs to improve the economy and the present occupant of the White House isn't doing it.

Maybe Reagan did some things right. Yet, he was riding on a wave of prosperity, much of it fostered by Silicon Valley (those dam_n liberals ). Similar to Thaksin, who also came to power (in Thailand) on an upswing in economic prosperity - much of which was on the coattails of his predecessors. In contrast, Obama was voted in one month after the Wall Street meltdown - which was largely due to 'hands off' approach of Bush Jr's 8 years at the helm.

[chuckd]

I'm dying to here what SNL did to Fox & Friends but none of the videos I can find will play outside the US or via my proxy, so if anyone has a direct link that works, please let me know.

I continue to be astonished by both the absurdity of Fox News and the "ditto-head" (to borrow a term from another looney) mentality of those who continue to cite it ad naseum, as the last vestiges of a global media gone liberal.

I don't get the people who act like everyone on Fox News is the same. Yes, Sean Hannity is totally partisan, but he is just one commentator.

There are 8 hours of hard news a day on Fox News that is pretty much like any other news station. It is not much of a secret that Sheppard Smith is gay and a liberal although he mostly keeps politics out of his hard news reporting.

The O' Reilly Factor is highly rated and although O'Reilly is conservative, he is pretty "fair and balanced" and attacks both republicans and democrats and has plenty of both on the show defending their points of view.

Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace is another highly respected show that exposes both sides of the story and has a fair panel of both liberals and conservatives.

The Journal Editorial Report and Special Report are other great "fair and balanced" political shows and there are other commentators like Greta and Geraldo that are not conservative (although Geraldo claims to be a registered republican).

The truth is that Fox News has moved to the center and does some great reporting. They do believe that most of the mainstream media is biased to the left and they have a point. Recently some high profile liberal reporters like Mark Helprin have come out and admitted it.

It is just too easy to demonize Fox News as a bunch of right wing nuts so that they can be ignored when they push important stories like Fast and Furious and the travesty of what really happened to the consulate in Benghazi. Both of these important stories were exposed by Fox News when the mainstream media tried to ignore them.

Can you tell me when I can expect to see Fox "News", as I'm Thailand - 4 hours. I have yet to see anything but hysterical election baiting. And as for O'Reilly, might be highly rated by Republicans, but I can't imagine he's highly rated by Democrats. He seems to me to be a slightly watered down TV version of Limbaugh. A constant interrupter of people who disagree with him, and quite full of himself for his sales of his books and tours.

Nah, he certainly isn't "News".

Mind you, I still have yet to find a "News" show on MSNBC. Perhaps it's just election fever?

The Fox News shows begin at 1700 EDT in the US. There are no hard news shows on MSNBC.

The O'Reilly show is the highest rated show on cable news.

Here is a link that will show you the viewership on the cable news networks. Fox kills all cable networks every day.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/18/cable-news-ratings-for-wednesday-october-17-2012/153611/

Remember, Google is your friend.

[Chicog]

The Fox News shows begin at 1700 EDT in the US. There are no hard news shows on MSNBC.

The O'Reilly show is the highest rated show on cable news.

Here is a link that will show you the viewership on the cable news networks. Fox kills all cable networks every day.

http://tvbythenumber...17-2012/153611/

Remember, Google is your friend.

Yes, and The Sun Newspaper has the highest readership in Britain (that's also a Murdoch vehicle). Trust me, you really do not want to popularity as any kind of plus point!

1700EDT is New York time? If so I can set my DVR for stupid o'clock here if that is the case and I'll let you know what I think.