Voting for Mitt Romney

[Cerebrum123]

I will vote for whoever has the best chance at kicking out Obama. Obama is arrogant, deceitful(more so than any other politician IMO), supports abortion(the pc version of murder), narcissistic, and can't even TALK without a teleprompter. That's just a FEW of the things that bother me about Obama. Even Bill Clinton seemed like a likable guy, and I can't STAND his policies. I really don't understand the whole "Obama is so eloquent" or he's "such a good speaker". I mean COME ON, he can't give a single speech without using a teleprompter like Ron Burgundy from Anchorman.

[rogue06]

That is true. But then turn it around. You may not like Obama's liberalism, but at least he does
believe in something.

Back when Clinton was president I think it was Sean Hannity who constantly moaned that we need someone with "core values." All I could think is be careful what you wish for.

Besides, Romney has a long history of equivocating. If the President learns that a terrorist is entering American air space with a bomb on board the plane and decisive action has to be taken, do you really trust Romney to make a really tough call about what to do in that situation? I don't-- he never made a call like that before and his vacillating in the past doesn't inspire confidence. Strictly speaking, neither has Obama, but I believe that Obama would understand and have the intestinal fortitude to carry out the duties of Commander in Chief in a moment like that. He sent a clear message when he gave the order to kill the pirates to save Captain Phillips that he understands that protecting America and American citizens is a duty of the office (which is frankly one big difference between Obama and, since you brought him up, Carter.)

It took Obama something like 16 to 18 hours to make the decision to go after Osama bin Laden -- a "courageous" decision that for most Americans would have been a no-brainer -- and apparently only after they set up a scapegoat (Admiral McRaven the man in the command position in the famous photo) in case it failed. There are even reports that it was Panetta who issued the orders because Obama kept vacillating though I don't think there's any confirming evidence to support that contention.

0000ssss.jpg

[Cow Poke]

Back when Clinton was president I think it was Sean Hannity who constantly moaned that we need someone with "core values." All I could think is be careful what you wish for.


It took Obama something like 16 to 18 hours to make the decision to go after Osama bin Laden -- a "courageous" decision that for most Americans would have been a no-brainer -- and apparently only after they set up a scapegoat (Admiral McRaven the man in the command position in the famous photo) in case it failed. There are even reports that it was Panetta who issued the orders because Obama kept vacillating though I don't think there's any confirming evidence to support that contention.

0000ssss.jpg

Well, yeah, then AFTER it was successful, we hear a constant stream of "I ordered..." "I decided" "I directed" "I got Bin Laden...." I, I, I, I, I.....

Reagan says a true leader takes less credit than he deserves and more blame than he deserves.
Obama must have read that backwards.

[roadwalker]

Think about what you're saying, RW... you claim "You may not like Obama's liberalism, but at least he does believe in something" then you commend Obama for conduct that is NOT generally associated with a liberal.

How so? Obama is a liberal. He's in favor of providing social services (including health care, especially) to those who need them, and yes he's in favor of ending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to pay for it. He's in favor of gay marriage. Those are liberal positions, and there are many others.

But it is not true that defending the country is a conservative position. Was FDR a conservative when he did everything he could to draw America into WWII against a threat that he recognized but the isolationists in Congress did not-- and then made winning the war his #1 priority for the rest of his term after Pearl Harbor? Was Harry Truman a conservative when he intervened in Korea to stop communism? Same question, JFK and Vietnam, not to mention the Cuban missile crisis? Heck, it was on August 19, 1998 when GOP Sen. Coates called on Bill Clinton to resign for even launching missile attacks at Osama bin Laden (Coates claiming that it was done to distract from the Monica scandal and claiming that bin Laden was not a threat worth targetting even though we knew where he'd be that day.)

Keep in mind that I actually do not support most wars (though specific targetted military strikes with a clear objective are another matter and I do support them if the objective is clearly laid out and a threat) and I have been quite critical of Obama for not getting us out of Afghanistan, but you are confusing opposition to costly and pointless wars with the fact (that no sane American would dispute) that it is sometimes necessary to go after the bad guys in order to defend America. I didn't know that only conservatives could defend the country. We all live here and there may come a day when any of us may have to defend it.

Even in a situation like Iraq, where I never supported the war, I was in favor of winning it (though sadly the best we ever got was a Pyrrhic victory that left a pro-Iranian government in charge, not worth the price we paid.)

And one last point. Ultimately it is the call of the President, not the military. In a situation like the bin Laden raid, there were quite a few of the President's advisors (including the Vice President) who argued against going through with it, citing the risks that the intelligence was only about 70% sure it was the right target, the risks of failure and the certain impact on relations with Pakistan. There was also an option on the table to go in with a bombing raid, which would be less likely to be successful but would also avoid some of the biggest risks of failure (such as the small but definite chance that some Americans could be captured.) The President, after hearing all options, made the call, knowing both the certain cost and the potential risks. I personally doubt that Romney, who is naturally cautious to the point of being timid, would have made the same call. If all your advisors agree, then the call is easy. When they don't, it comes down to the judgement and temperment of the person who has the final say.

[rogue06]

I, I, I, I, I.....

Obama is the Frito Bandito?!?

[roadwalker]

Rogue, the Secretary of Defense (Panetta) has NO authority to order American forces into battle unless the President gives it to him.

Yes, the President had to think through the decision but there is nothing wrong with thinking things over before making a decision. The point is, a decision was then made, and followed through on. As Teddy Roosevelt once said, "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."

[OtherCheek]

That is true. But then turn it around. You may not like Obama's liberalism, but at least he does believe in something.

Besides, Romney has a long history of equivocating.

Same can be said of Obama.

If the President learns that a terrorist is entering American air space with a bomb on board the plane and decisive action has to be taken, do you really trust Romney to make a really tough call about what to do in that situation?

Yes.

I don't-- he never made a call like that before and his vacillating in the past doesn't inspire confidence.

Why does Obama keep vacillating about Guantonomo?

Strictly speaking, neither has Obama, but I believe that Obama would understand and have the intestinal fortitude to carry out the duties of Commander in Chief in a moment like that.

I believe the same about Romney. You don't become successful in business by vacillating. Instead, it is by taking quick decisive action that success happen. I think Romney is wise while Obama is foolish, and wisdom leads to better decisions than foolishness. I also think Romney will make prayer a part of his decisions. I don't think Obama does. And our country needs a little prayer brought back into the decision-making process.

He sent a clear message when he gave the order to kill the pirates to save Captain Phillips that he understands that protecting America and American citizens is a duty of the office (which is frankly one big difference between Obama and, since you brought him up, Carter.)

What has Obama done to protect Israel? That's kind of a bigger decision than killing a few over matched pirates.

[roadwalker]

a "courageous" decision that for most Americans would have been a no-brainer.

0000ssss.jpg

See my previous two comments. There were plenty of people who wanted to have more certainty (which would have required more intelligence gathering.) Roughly speaking, there was about one chance in three that the target was entirely the wrong target (and if so would have blown much of the intel apparatus we had set up.) If it was certain (or had a high certainty, say 90% plus) of being correct then it's a no-brainer. But it was not so certain, so it required the use of a brain.

[Cow Poke]

How so? Obama is a liberal. He's in favor of providing social services (including health care, especially) to those who need them

After promising to run the most transparent government in history, placing bills on the internet for all to examine before voting, etc..... he comes up with crap that Pelosi has to say "But we have pass the bill so that we can - uh - find out what is in it." I think that's just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard a politician say, and it reflects Obama's ethics.


He's a lying weasel.

[Cow Poke]

Obama is the Frito Bandito?!?

No, the Frito Bandito has more honor --- he doesn't pretend to have scruples.

[rogue06]

See my previous two comments. There were plenty of people who wanted to have more certainty (which would have required more intelligence gathering.) Roughly speaking, there was about one chance in three that the target was entirely the wrong target (and if so would have blown much of the intel apparatus we had set up.) If it was certain (or had a high certainty, say 90% plus) of being correct then it's a no-brainer. But it was not so certain, so it required the use of a brain.

I'm not sure about the "about one chance in three that the target was entirely the wrong target" considering they first discovered the residence back in August 2010. But because they had no pictures or recordings of the man who lived in the second and third floor of the main building they used what as a spokesman said was "other forms of alternative analysis to check our work." Those "other forms of alternative analysis" appear to have included DNA testing as the Shakil Afridi case indicates.

Sure you always want to have more certainty but there must have been a reason that they decided to pull the trigger when they did. I doubt they threw a dart at a calendar and on whichever date it struck was picked as the one to approach Obama for permission to attack.

And IIRC the debate wasn't so much over whether bin Laden was there but whether they should do a drone strike or send a unit of SEALs in.

[rogue06]

No, the Frito Bandito has more honor --- he doesn't pretend to have scruples.

Scruples? I ain't got no scruples. I don't need no scr...

We've recently been through this, haven't we?

[Cow Poke]

Scruples? I ain't got no scruples. I don't need no scr...

We've recently been through this, haven't we?

Either that or I'm having a deja vu all over again.

(But I set up the pitch, and you hit a home run! )

[One Bad Pig]

He's a lying weasel.

How dare you impugn weasels like that?

[Cow Poke]

How dare you impugn weasels like that?

Good point, OBP. My apologies to weasels everywhere.