with the last debate, I'd wisely taken a pass at the one that took
place in Boca Raton last night. I've made up my mind who I'm voting for
two weeks from today and Obama's not getting my vote again if he
ejaculates cancer-curing rainbows from his dick. His so-called foreign
policy is, for me, the biggest deal-breaker out of many (the 2nd round
of bailouts, kowtowing to Wall Street and the GOP, ObamaCare, the
undermining of unions, figuratively spitting at liberal critics, his
longstanding support of DADT and DOMA until election year drew near,
cutting the Social Security tax, escalating Afghanistan, keeping us in
Iraq for three more years to no effect and whining about not getting
credit for dreaming up the insane idea that cutting the social safety
net would somehow magically balance the budget being among the endless
list of other deal-breakers).
And, as reluctant as I am
to write about something I refused to witness, I have to say one
needn't be a witness to a historical event to critique a book written
about it and, journalism being history's first draft, it's not going to
hurt to comment on last night's debate after having read a few
reality-based analyses on it.
And, without having to
suffer through one second of the foreign policy debate, it was obvious
that, as always, we're left with two choices: Voting for a man that we
ought to hate for what he's done or a man whom we ought to hate for
things that he will do. Peter Baker and Helene Cooper had concluded in
the NY Times
For all its fireworks, the debate broke little new
ground and underscored that the differences between the two men on
foreign policy rest more on tone, style and their sense of leadership
than on particular policies. Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney seemed to align on
matters like withdrawal from Afghanistan, the perils of intervening in
Syria and the use of drones to battle terrorists.
there you have it, although that's but one, maybe two opinions on how
disturbingly similar these guys are regarding foreign policy. They
argued with each other over tremendous trifles while agreeing with one
another whether or not they'd admitted as much, on a number of issues.
while Karl Rove was at home sitting in his boxer shorts and waving a
giant foam middle finger at his TV and tweeting about how Romney was
winning the debate, it was completely lost on him and other wingnuts
that Romney, as Esquire
's Charles Pierce tells us
sold him, his buddies in the military/industrial complex, the GOP and
its enduring but dying blood-stippled neocon agenda up the river.
the only Mitt Romney character that Mitt Romney would ever think to
reprise is the Moderate Mitt we saw at the second debate. And Moderate
Mitt has a lot in common with Obama, such as agreeing to the 2014
timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan, that Iran is a threat that
must be dealt with and agreeing over economic sanctions that are, as
usual, guaranteed to hurt just the poor and middle class of Iran and not
the ruling class. They both vied for the cock of Bibi the Yahoo and
argued over who could make him cum in their mouths the fastest.
the real Mitt, the one that's dying to scratch out of those beady
little glass eyes that flare up the minute someone tells him he may be
ever so slightly disingenuous, was showing through like the steel belts
on an all-weather radial about to blow. Despite stealing the line that
"we can't kill our way out of this mess", it's abundantly clear that
Romney would be an even bigger foreign policy disaster than Obama and
perhaps even Bush.
And it seems that Romney lost the debate, and perhaps his latest (and
hopefully last) failed bid for public office, the second Obama had to
talk down to him like the foreign policy antiwonk that he is and explain
to him about the smaller Navy and things like aircraft carriers. For
the first time in American history, neither major candidate has any
military experience whatsoever and Romney had to be schooled about a
basic fact like the Navy and got properly zinged by Obama's now famous,
"horses and bayonets" comeback.
And it seems thinking
liberals who still haven't discovered that there are other parties with
other candidates running for the presidency will wind up voting for
Obama simply because he's got four years as POTUS under his belt. Romney
showed how stupendously unqualified he is and how astoundingly inept
his foreign policy advisers are (Romney and Ryan have actually been getting intelligence briefings
since last month. Make of that what you will, you hilarious internet
wags, but one senses that the Obama administration is giving the
president the real stuff while playing a prank on Camp Romney and giving
them stuff written by the staff of the Onion
what other conclusion can one come to when Romney stated that we've
never created or propped up dictators? Really? Such as Saddam, the Shah,
Pinochet, Noriega and the creation of al Qaeda? One is kept awake at
night by the haunting fear that if Romney had appeared on a foreign
policy-themed edition of Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?
, he'd go home humiliated and empty-handed while Josh Romney glared at the kids.
Romney is so stupendously unqualified to be anything or anyone more
responsible than dog catcher that it no longer makes sense at how he'd
managed to beat off the other Republican lunatics to get the nomination.
The only thing Mitt Romney has ever been good at is making piles of
money he never earned, dodging wars and taxes and firing people. And, as
horrible as Obama has been and will continue to be both domestically
and abroad, America will absolutely not be able to survive four years of