3rd Presidential Debate (Please see MOD COMMENT post #175)

Black Swan

The 3rd Presidential Debate between President Obama and former Governor Romney will be the last in this series before the general election.

• Date: 22 October 2012 (in United States)
• Time: 9:00 PM EST
• Location: Lynn University, Boca Raton, Florida
• Topic: Foreign Policy
• Format: Same as 1st debate
• Mod: Bob Schieffer, Host of Face the Nation, CBS

Voting for the 6 November 2012 general election has been ongoing during past days through the use of mail/absentee ballots (an increasingly popular method in the States), so the consequences of this 3rd debate are unknown.

Suryavarman

Can this really be called a debate? Surely two people with the exact same views on a subject can't have a debate on that subject, can they?

Amerika

Maybe they'll give Romney an extra 9 minutes in the last debate to make up for the extra time allowed to the Democrat candidates in all of the first three debates.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Maybe they'll give Romney an extra 9 minutes in the last debate to make up for the extra time allowed to the Democrat candidates in all of the first three debates.

LOL.

A total of 9 minutes.

Romney has been running for 4 years. There were FIVE televised GOP primary debates.

But I would whine about those 9 minutes.

Suryavarman

Mjollnir wrote: »

LOL.

A total of 9 minutes.

Romney has been running for 4 years. There were FIVE televised GOP primary debates.

But I would whine about those 9 minutes.

Twenty actually

Amerika

The topics for the debate have been announced:

• America’s role in the world
• Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan
• Red Lines – Israel and Iran
• The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I
• The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II
• The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/foreign-policy-debate-topics-138341.html

Fr Tod Umptious

Romney by a touchdown

Benny_Cake

Suryavarman wrote: »

Can this really be called a debate? Surely two people with the exact same views on a subject can't have a debate on that subject, can they?

For the "Red Lines – Israel and Iran" part they could probably just clear out and invite Bibi Netanyahu to debate himself.

Mr.Micro

Benny_Cake wrote: »

For the "Red Lines – Israel and Iran" part they could probably just clear out and invite Bibi Netanyahu to debate himself.

Only he would not want any debate, as he has already decided what he wants. Romney's answer will be attack attack to all the strands in the third debate, music to Republican ears.

Duck Soup

Foreign policy for American politicians is like eating spinach. It's something none of them likes, but any with Presidential pretensions has to do. As such, Obama has a natural advantage. He's been force-fed a daily diet of briefings on global enemies, allies and problems. With the possible sole exception of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, he's familiar with places most US politicians barely know better, in the deathless wording of Herman Cain, than Uzbekibekistanistan.

So Romney's first challenge is not to sound like a rube. He can get round that, as 99.999% of the viewers won't be any more familiar with the ins and outs of these places than he is. Talk in broad brushstrokes, sound authoratative without ever being precise.

The other challenge is probably more significant. Romney's shown that with the floor to himself - effectively what happened in the first debate - he will act like a supremely confident CEO making a compelling presentation. He's also shown that when he's challenged, he's not used to it, as happened in the second debate. If Obama gets in his face and starts to dictate the terms and flow, Romney can get snippy and start to get aggressive and ad lib. That never ends well. Remember how the low-watt bulb Rick Perry rattled him?

Mjollnir

Duck Soup wrote: »

Foreign policy for American politicians is like eating spinach. It's something none of them likes, but any with Presidential pretensions has to do. As such, Obama has a natural advantage. He's been force-fed a daily diet of briefings on global enemies, allies and problems. With the possible sole exception of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, he's familiar with places most US politicians barely know better, in the deathless wording of Herman Cain, than Uzbekibekistanistan.

So Romney's first challenge is not to sound like a rube. He can get round that, as 99.999% of the viewers won't be any more familiar with the ins and outs of these places than he is. Talk in broad brushstrokes, sound authoratative without ever being precise.

The other challenge is probably more significant. Romney's shown that with the floor to himself - effectively what happened in the first debate - he will act like a supremely confident CEO making a compelling presentation. He's also shown that when he's challenged, he's not used to it, as happened in the second debate. If Obama gets in his face and starts to dictate the terms and flow, Romney can get snippy and start to get aggressive and ad lib. That never ends well. Remember how the low-watt bulb Rick Perry rattled him?

Yep.

Remember, the lord of the manor got quite visibly and condescendingly testy when question at the last debate:

"Well, of course they add up. I was — I was someone who ran businesses for 25 years and balanced the budget. I ran the Olympics and balanced the budget. I ran the — the state of Massachusetts as a governor, to the extent any governor does, and balanced the budget all four years.

Duck Soup

A few of the commentators I've been reading have been suggesting that this debate will probably not move the voting dial at all. I know what they mean. It would be very easy for the conversation to get lost in the long grass of foreign policy detail (not riveting talk for viewers) and even on Libya for it to descend into who said what and when. Romney might even be loath to go there too aggressively, having flubbed his previous attempt so badly.

Personally, I disagree. I think that, in a closely fought election, this represents the last and best prime time opportunity to get that one major push for all-important momentum. I expect it to be - as far as discussing foreign policy can be - a lively affair. If Romney can, finally, nail Obama on any of the points around the attack on Benghazi, then he'll probably steal the headlines for the week. If he can also flip every other question round as an economic issue - China for example - then he can have a very good debate.

For Obama's part, he has two strengths to play. First is that his command of detail is going to be much greater than any challenger's. If Romney makes a foreign policy rookie mistake on a point of fact, it reminds everyone that Obama is someone who knows his foreign policy stuff and Romney just plays one on TV.

The other thing he may try (judiciously and at moments when Obama thinks an opening is created) is allowing Romney, as he did in the previous debate, to let his testosterone get the better of him. Proceed, Governor. When Romney is needled and off-script, he tends to drop clangers.

I'm hoping for what diplomats call 'a frank exchange of views'.

[-0-]

I can't see Barry O winning the 'popular vote' here. I can see him winning the debate proper, however.

Lantus

What kind of so called democracy does this country have when selection of its leaders is reduced to a showbiz style casual conversation on tv between TWO people only.

How much democractic is a two party state than a one party state? slightly???

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

The topics for the debate have been announced:

• Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/foreign-policy-debate-topics-138341.html

3rd presidential debate moderator Bob Schieffer was incorrect in labeling "Afghanistan" America's "longest war." The Korean War started 25 June 1950. An armistice had been signed, but no peace treaty, so technically speaking, the United States is still at war with North Korea for the past 62 years.

Overheal

Constitutionally, we haven't been in a war since WWII. Fortunately, Germany and Japan surrendered.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

3rd presidential debate moderator Bob Schieffer was incorrect in labeling "Afghanistan" America's "longest war." The Korean War started 25 June 1950. An armistice had been signed, but no peace treaty, so technically speaking, the United States is still at war with North Korea for the past 62 years.

If I'm not wrong... technically the United States isn't at war with anyone, and there hasn’t been a declaration of war against any nation since the WWII. All the subsequent others (that we often refer to as "wars")… Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan were all considered "conflicts."

Mr.Micro

Amerika wrote: »

If I'm not wrong... technically the United States isn't at war with anyone, and there hasn’t been a declaration of war against any nation since the WWII. All the subsequent others (that we often refer to as "wars")… Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan were all considered "conflicts."

Semantics.... lol. Re label but still the same.

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

Constitutionally, we haven't been in a war since WWII. Fortunately, Germany and Japan surrendered.

Amerika wrote: »

If I'm not wrong... technically the United States isn't at war with anyone, and there hasn’t been a declaration of war against any nation since the WWII. All the subsequent others (that we often refer to as "wars")… Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan were all considered "conflicts."

I stand corrected, as should the 3rd presidential debate moderator. Afghanistan was not a "war," rather a "conflict" where thousands died, as was the Korean "Conflict." Given that there was no treaty signed between North Korea and the United States, only an armistice, the Korean War Conflict is the longest in US history, not the Afghanistan War Conflict.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Semantics.... lol. Re label but still the same.

Glad you saw the craic. Wars and "conflicts" are a reflection on the sad state of human affairs, and how past, and the current superpower labels a thorny rose by another name. Similar relabeling examples include the depersonalized "collateral damage," and the oxymoron "friendly fire."

Amerika

I'm curious how Romney and Obama will handle the Benghazi attack in the debate tonight, and the administration’s subsequent handling of it. This time around, I don’t think Romney will get into the semantics of the supposed Obama "terror" claim, and the ridiculous aftermath with the video debacle from the Obama administration. This time Romney might just hit home with the theme that Obama is a weak leader which diminishes US power abroad... with devistating consequences as evidence. I think Romney will make the case that a poor economy weakens both our image and influence in international affairs. And he could hit a home run with Americans if he sticks with the theme that America is only as strong internationally as we are domestically, and a strong economy gives us more power to project greater international influence.

Mr.Micro

Amerika wrote: »

I'm curious how Romney and Obama will handle the Benghazi attack in the debate tonight, and the administration’s subsequent handling of it. This time around, I don’t think Romney will get into the semantics of the supposed Obama "terror" claim, and the ridiculous aftermath with the video debacle from the Obama administration. This time Romney might just hit home with the theme that Obama is a weak leader which diminishes US power abroad... with devistating consequences as evidence.

I will be very interested to see what evidence Romney will point to. Obama got Bin laden, more than Bush was able to do. He took the US out of Iraq and soon Afghanistan, that's good in most people's view, I would say. The only sticking point is the Iran vs Israel thing, but that has a way to go with sanctions. Romney will be all for more aggressive actions I presume?

event

lads, this is on at 2AM Irish time.
Im wondering, will anywhere be showing this online at around 4:30AM Irish time?
Strange request, but I will be watching the NFL ( ) and this will be over around 4:30, id then like to watch the debate. not just clips, but the whole thing.

Anyone any ideas?

Amerika

I’m hearing there might be a deal with Iran in the works. October surprise? A trade for allowing nuclear inspectors in exchange for lifting of sanctions. Would be nice, but who in their right mind would trust the mullahs to keep their side of any deal.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I’m hearing there might be a deal with Iran in the works. October surprise? A trade for allowing nuclear inspectors in exchange for lifting of sanctions. Would be nice, but who in their right mind would trust the mullahs to keep their side of any deal.

What's your plan? Or more to the point, what would Mitt Romney do differently?

Duck Soup

event wrote: »

lads, this is on at 2AM Irish time.
Im wondering, will anywhere be showing this online at around 4:30AM Irish time?
Strange request, but I will be watching the NFL ( ) and this will be over around 4:30, id then like to watch the debate. not just clips, but the whole thing.

Anyone any ideas?

The last two debates have been available, in full, a few hours after the event on the New York Times YouTube channel - I remember linking to the last debate the morning after the last one.

If you can't catch the 3rd debate live, I'll try to get the NYT link onto this thread for some time tomorrow morning.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

What's your plan? Or more to the point, what would Mitt Romney do differently?

Don’t know for sure. Perhaps tonight might shine more light on it. Given Iran’s history of using diplomacy as a ruse to buy more time, I doubt he would engage in one-on-one talks. I think any negotiations would need to be done in conjunction with the UN, or with some of our closest allies at a minimum. I do know he stated he would be "ready to engage in diplomacy" but also "just as ready to engage our military might." I take that as more of a Piece through Strength attitude.

Mr.Micro

Amerika wrote: »

I’m hearing there might be a deal with Iran in the works. October surprise? A trade for allowing nuclear inspectors in exchange for lifting of sanctions. Would be nice, but who in their right mind would trust the mullahs to keep their side of any deal.

Is there a hint of disappointment from the Romney camp if Obama announced that as fact? Diplomacy and sanctions over war..... not Romney or Republican talk.

Amerika

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Is there a hint of disappointment from the Romney camp if Obama announced that as fact? Diplomacy and sanctions over war..... not Romney or Republican talk.

No disappointment if a legitimate deal could be struck so Iran doesn’t product nuclear bombs. But nobody here really believes any agreement made by Iran will be abided by them after they get what they want. Iran has a history of trying to influence US elections. And I think if there were a deal in the works, Obama would be better served to wait until after the debate to announce it. It would only smell of desperation and a political stunt on his part if announced during the debate.

Mr.Micro

Amerika wrote: »

No disappointment if a legitimate deal could be struck so Iran doesn’t product nuclear bombs. But nobody here really believes any agreement made by Iran will be abided by them after they get what they want. Iran has a history of trying to influence US elections. And I think if there were a deal in the works, Obama would be better served to wait until after the debate to announce it. It would only smell of desperation and a political stunt on his part if announced during the debate.

If it were true, it would be foolish not to use it in the debate. It would be a major advancement and vindication of his policy, regardless of any deceit from Iran. Where can Iran go anyway.... it needs to be realistic at the end of the day no matter how much double rhetoric it spews.

nagirrac

Obama should win this debate handily if he keeps his cool (which he will) and let Romney rant for a while and then nail him with the facts over and over. Nobody wants to go back to the lies of the neo-cons who sent thousands of Americans to their deaths and tens of thousands to be maimed in Iraq. Americans have learned a lot since 9/11, mainly that the answer to radical extremist terrorists is not invading countries that may be connected to terror. The outcome of the Iraq war has been very detrimental for Middle East stability in that it removed the regime that more than any other was maintaining a balance of power in the region and keeping Iran in check. Obama's administration has shown that surgical strikes and a balanced approach in the region is more fruitful.

Duck Soup

For all Romney's rhetoric on foreign policy about America appearing weak and Obama leading from behind, there are precious few differences between himself and the President. When pushed, he and his surrogates acknowledge that they would pursue exactly the same process in relation to Iran - continued strict sanctions, with military intervention (or possibly tacit support for an Israeli strike) as a last possible option.

As far as the story about supposed negotiations with Iran, both the Iranian government and the Obama administration have denied the story, so it would be difficult for Obama to raise it without contradicting his own officials, so that much is unlikely. The Romney campaign in turn has accepted these version of events - Romney as a presidential candidate will now be receiving regular security briefings, so it's possible he knows enough to leave the issue alone.

I expect Romney to take one more swipe at Libya, although he's been de-fanged by the Wall Street Journal of all papers, with this Monday morning's story about US intelligence - two weeks after the event - still not discounting a mob outside the consulate, fired up by the YouTube video, as the initial genesis of the disturbance. It's a bit difficult to go claiming that Ambassador Rice was lying to the American public when a very right-leaning newspaper backs up the administration's account of them relaying exactly what they were told by intelligence sources.

On China, Obama might find opportunity to pivot to discussing Bain's outsourcing to China and Sensata in particular.

jimmyjon

There has been some amount of nonsense spoken by the right on foreign policy. Bill O'Reilly - "If ya show strength abroad, no one's gonna mess with ya". Odd that Al Qaeda never called off their jihad during all those years of Bush "showing strength". Also McCain earlier on Fox still looking every bit the bitter old man, calls Vladimir Putin "ridiculous", then in his next answer criticises Obama for not improving relations with Russia. Foreign policy really shows up the GOP as being a cynical mob totally devoid of their own ideas but ready to attack Obama for just about anything that happens.

DrumSteve

Expecting Romney to get schooled later but hopefully he puts up a fight to keep things interesting.

Where is it on?

DrumSteve

you got CBS?

IvySlayer

Deleted User wrote: »

Where is it on?

Sky News, TV3.

Black Swan

The 3rd Presidential Debate begins in Florida in moments. A seated format.

DrumSteve

Hopefully neither of them will try bully the mod this time

IvySlayer

Did Romney really say Russia were Americas biggest threat?

DrumSteve

oh point 1 to obama there with that russia remark.

Side Show Bob

Romney, we can't kill our way out of this

Romney, we gotta kill them

DrumSteve

Side Show Bob wrote: »

Romney, we can't kill our way out of this

Romney, we gotta kill them

yeah, that was funny.

flipping and flopping everywhere...

IvySlayer

Romneys proposals will fail, Saudi Arabia prime example.

ProudDUB

Oh dear Mitt....oh dear oh dear oh dear.....

Side Show Bob

Obama is on top of his game tonight, much more impressive than last time

They both appear to be obeying the clock too

Side Show Bob

Was he (Romney)not making weapon components in Asia for them?

DrumSteve

id love to hear from mitt how he would stop the weapons getting into the wrong hands...

MadsL

Dig up Mitt!

Side Show Bob

Romney you will have to speak to win this!

MadsL

what was the sneer from Romney about there?

DrumSteve

Romney looks clueless here.