TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross
debate3x2.jpg
After the third debate, Dave Ross says the reason the race is so close is that for all the efforts to paint this as a stark choice, if you accept Mitt Romney's most recent positions, America is not going to be that different either way. (AP image)

What they didn't debate

BY Dave Ross  on October 23, 2012 @ 8:31 am (Updated: 8:43 am - 10/23/12 )

How about that. The attack on the Benghazi embassy - the issue that's captured so many pixels lately - hardly a factor in last night's debate.

And the other big foreign policy coup - killing Osama bin Laden - it was Mr. Romney who brought it up.

"I congratulate him on taking out Osama Bin Laden and going after the leadership in al-Qaeda. But we can't kill our way out of this mess," Romney said.

We can't kill our way out of this mess. Except later he accuses the President of having gone on an "apology tour", and Obama's thinking "wait a minute - I apologize too much, but yet - I kill bad guys too much?"

"Nothing Governor Romney just said is true," said President Obama.

But here's the challenge Romney faced: he's in a debate; he's got to accuse the other guy of something, but they're just not that different on foreign policy.

Both want to stop Iran from getting the bomb, they both back Israel, they both would make sure we're the biggest cop on the beat - even if it did mean going back to horses and bayonets.

And I found all this reassuring because the poll numbers are again pointing to that uniquely American type of election where the winner loses.

And once again the electoral college will protect us from choosing the president most people actually want, thereby guaranteeing that half of us will spend four years tweeting how ticked off we are.

But that would be too bad because the reason the race is so close is that for all the efforts to paint this as a stark choice - government versus private industry, Obamacare versus Romneycare, apologies versus no apologies - if you accept Mitt Romney's most recent positions, America is not going to be that different either way.

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host
Dave Ross is co-host of The Ross & Burbank Show on KIRO Radio (weekdays 9-Noon) and never too far from the spotlight.
More Dave Ross

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (25)


  • Add A Comment

  • ron prevost wrote...
    .
    October 23, 2012 8:04 am
    .
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    What they didn't debate (at least not much) was FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
    October 23, 2012 8:18 am
    You know - that thingy that was supposed to be the topic? ......... I suspect both would have been much happier talking about taxes and jobs again.

    As it was, Romney did what he wanted to do. Look half way knowledgeable, look sane and make no gaffs. ... And Obama pressed his successes - and evaded his failures - over seas. And avoided major gaffs.

    I guess, both have left Benghazi to the Joe/Paul shows. And if and reporter in this country still have that old investigative thing in their souls. ..........Too bad. But NO, repeat NO, gaffs allowed last night.

    That IS the main thing they agreed on. along with most everything else.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    Wrong Dave Ross. Romney dumping Obamacare, keystone pipeline, more drilling on federal lands and adjusting Dodd-Frank to be better will be a big boost to the economy.
    October 23, 2012 8:33 am
    You have a job, millions do not. Economic strength is not the hip thing to liberals (gay marriage is) but means everything to families, military strength, charitable giving and the future. There is a big difference is what we would see with Romney vs 4 more from Obama in terms a GDP growth. Plus we need money to pay for CHRIS MATHEWS mental care if his love Obama loses.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    What's with the period posts, Ron?
    October 23, 2012 10:14 am
    You post a period, and nothing more, after a lot of Dave's commentaries- and then 15 or 20 minutes later you submit an actual comment. Didn't you just rag on some liberal the other day, on this forum, "If you have something to say, say it!"?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Might be just my screen, but if you post is original (not a reply),
    October 23, 2012 10:28 am
    it's too far to the left of the scree. Reply after dots, and it just centers things a little.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • anotherfencewalker wrote...
    I know somthing you dont know..
    October 23, 2012 8:31 am
    Romney was more or less " along for the ride". He wasnt in a position to have full, at hand knowledge of foreign policy and security. He's not the president. Most of Romneys dialog during the debate was along the lines of "Yes Mr President but I would take it a step further". He was smart. Some of the analysis done post-debate said that Mitt was pulling back and tempering his responses. He was doing that because it would have been very easy to blurt out somthing completly without fact or foundation. That's why he often pulled away and diverted from the debate topic at hand and reached back to other matters like the economy etc.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    VERY GOOD POINT, fence............
    October 23, 2012 8:57 am
    In the 1960 debate, Kennedy was badgering Nixon about foreign policy - Quemoy and Matsu and ESPECIALLY Cuba. Nixon was forced to hold his tongue as the Bay of Pigs plan was already in place, as he well knew. For security purposes. ... But Kennedy knew nothing about it and therefore could attack Nixon at will for being soft.

    Now days, Romney will have had a moderately complete security briefing on current foreign policy.

    Just what COULDN'T these guys talk about ?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    Just the facts please
    October 23, 2012 8:42 am

    Obama is the best thing since sliced bread around the world.

    "Europeans have had a four-year love affair with Barack Obama: 87 percent of Germans, 86 percent of French and 80 percent of the British have confidence in Obama, according to a 2012 poll by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes project. In each case this is higher than public confidence in their own national leader. And 92 percent of the French, 89 percent of the Germans and 73 percent of the British want Obama reelected.

    In the long run, if Romney wins, none of this may matter, as Europeans get to know him. But, in the short run, it could matter. A 2005 Pew Research Center survey found that in Britain, France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands, strong majorities said the 2004 re-election of George W. Bush led them to have a less favorable opinion of the United States. A newly-elected Romney administration may have to contend with a similar European reaction if the popular Obama is defeated in what will come to a surprise to many of them.

    But an Obama defeat may not play as poorly in the Middle East – in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Tunisia – where a median of only 29 percent approve of Obama and a median of just 25 percent want him reelected.

    Elsewhere, foreign reaction to an Obama defeat could be mixed. In Asia, 74 percent of Japanese have a favorable view of the current U.S. president and 66 percent want him reelected. But Obama’s popularity is only 38 percent in China and only 31 percent there want him to get another term.

    Similarly, in Latin America, while 68 percent of Brazilians like Obama and 72 percent want him reelected, only 42 percent of Mexicans are well disposed toward the current U.S. president and just 35 percent hope he has a second term."

    Fact's talk and BullSh!!t walks, in a global economy, the president's ability to work with the world is as important as what is done right here and Obama has done a world of good to make the opinion of the world toward America change and actually want to work with America, the Chinese want Romney because he is invested in China and while there are many RWNJ's who think that Obama is trying to bring Sharia Law to America, they sure have a problem with them.

    Quit watching fox news and become more informed.

    Romney basically wants to "put in a faux governement" in the middle east and armed them so they can keep the people in check and Obama wants them to come to capitalism as a country democratically on there own, hence the 1980 foreign policy snipe at Mittens.

    Way to put a foot in his a55 Mr. President.

    If you didn't know, you had better ask somebody, the President ain't no joke,lol.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    @sportsguru...
    October 23, 2012 11:00 am
    You forgot a few sporty...

    How about Bahrain where we continue to fund a dictator that is violently putting down peaceful protests for democracy?

    How about Libya where we funded Al Qaeda terrorists to cause insurrection and overthrow their government?

    How about Syria, where we are doing the same thing?

    How about picking and choosing which drug cartel has power in Mexico and running guns to them?

    Looked at AfriCom lately? How about Obama's new wars in the Sudan and Somalia? You don't hear a lot in the media about those do you. shhh-secret And like Libya, I must have missed the congressional declaration for those.

    Obama is different from Bush how exactly? I'm still waiting for one liberal to answer that.

    Incidentally... I couldn't care less who some other country thinks should be our president. But if you think Obama is any different than the rest of the puppets before him, you're kidding yourself.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    Sports-why does it matter what Europe thinks of our pres? What do u think of Europes leaders? and what difference does it make.
    October 23, 2012 2:25 pm
    Ive worked for eU companies for 25 years and been to Europe way too many times to count. They are simply fickle and mis informed about much of the US politics.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    logical open mind
    October 23, 2012 6:21 pm

    Of course I follow Euro Leaders because there economy directly affects our economy, only the uninformed would dismiss the EURO nation, we are not living in the cold war anymore were each country is for themselves. You obviously have not been paying attention to what has been happening in the world. Too bad, too sad.

    It's has absolutely nothing to do with who YOU work for. Like you JACK BOOTED REPUBLICANS like to say. IT'S THE ECONOMY and how it is now designed to work,LOL.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    sports you simply aren't smart enough to get that Europe never likes the US political decisions or their leaders.
    October 23, 2012 6:59 pm
    Dont' be fooled, EU doesn't like Obama they just hate him less than Bush.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    roomtemp
    October 23, 2012 6:17 pm

    " I couldn't care less who some other country thinks should be our president."

    Unfortunately Roomy, we are now in a global economy and europe's and various other country's economy directly affect our economy, there was a reason that Europe changed the currency of several nations to the "EURO" dollar and these country's didn't keep there own dollar, so why you don't care, the economy that you live in DOES.

    I know you once said that you was moving to another country if Barack was reelected to President, once you do that, you will see learn that in your NEW COUNTRY.

    As far as the dictator's that you indicate that Obama has personally funded, if you have links to these dictator's being funded, I would be happy to look at them and I am MAN enough to say that I am wrong.

    I look forward to reviewing this information that you indicate that Obama is placing dictator's in power, funding them and giving them weapons to slaughter the people to gain control of there country and make them capitalist country.

    Thanks,

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    @sportsguru...
    October 25, 2012 12:54 pm
    "we are now in a global economy and europe's and various other country's economy directly affect our economy."

    That's not exactly news to me. As bad as our economy is, Europe's is much worse. It's no accident that the bankers choose to do most of their trading in London where there are no limits on rehypothecation of assets. Europe's economy will bring us down, not the other way around. Milking the U.S. taxpayers is the only thing that has kept a 700 trillion dollar money creation bubble from popping. (Tarp, etc.) That shoe is about to drop. History's largest margin call is about to occur. There isn't enough wealth on the entire planet to cover the debts and fake money they've created.

    "moving to another country if Barack was reelected"

    No, I never said "if Obama was reelected" that was your add. My reasoning was bigger than just one man. I said that I would just as soon be somewhere in the third world when the global economy collapses. It is my opinion that it will be less of a system shock than that day here will be when 40 million welfare checks suddenly won't cash. I'm still looking at moving, but I have some family here that depend on me for help and their lives are more important to me than my own. So I'm stuck here for the present.

    For the record, I don't agree with Obama's policies (which are the same as those before him) but I don't hate the man or bear him any malice whatsoever. It might sound racist to some (though not intended that way), but I'll even admit to being a little stoked about seeing a black guy win. Sort of represents a seed change. If he was a Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell type of guy I would have ran, not walked, to vote for him myself.

    "in your NEW COUNTRY"

    At this point I feel like I have no country and no rights. The constitution that mine was founded on is all but dead now. Watching our government lately is an exercise in seeing them scratch off the bill of rights, one by one. Patriot act, NDAA, etc, etc, etc. Land is just land, it's the rules that made us special.

    "dictator's that you indicate that Obama has personally funded"

    Not personally funded so much as continued to fund. We've been doing it for years. My point was that there is no difference with Obama. Congress is of complicit too of course. Any talk of 'change' is just a sick joke on the uninformed. Democrats and Republicans are two heads of the same hydra.

    I don't think you need me to google 'us funding al qaeda' (you can add libya or syria if you want) or 'protests in bahrain' (our 5th fleet is there, that's why we keep the dictator in charge). I know you're intelligent enough to find it on your own if you know what you're looking for. I'd rather you discover the truth that way.

    I'll leave you with an obscure short video clip though. Because you probably wouldn't find it otherwise.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8FhZnFZ6TY

    Was Wesley Clark a prophet or is Obama following the same exact script that was handed to Bush? Listen to the list of countries, look at where our military is being positioned, and decide for yourself...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Dave concludes, "America is not going to be that different either way", and he's right because...
    October 23, 2012 10:29 am
    we no longer have any options on the federal level.

    Wealth creates choices. As long as you have some assets and some income, you can choose between various possibilities. The more broke you get to be, the fewer choices you have. You *must* do whatever it takes to survive, and hope it works.

    We (as a nation) decided years ago to go on a non-stop spending spree and put everything on a credit card. We decided that even people who had never saved a dime in all of their working lives should be guaranteed free old age medical care and a pension. We decided that whatever the military wanted, at whatever price, it would get- even $500 hammers and $800 toilet seats. We quickly got to the point where we thought borrowing to pay the bills was a normal financial strategy. Heck, we even had a Republican VP who snarled, "Deficits don't matter!"

    Noting will change. If re-elected, Obama can't expand social programs...there is no money. If elected, Romney can't ramp up military spending...there is no money.

    We're like the family that has spent its last dime and tapped out every credit card. We are going to be working full time to avoid bankruptcy, there is no money for anything else.

    The wolf may not be at the national front door, but he's been seen circling the block. Whichever of these guys cons his way into, or back into the White House in a couple of weeks he will need to put all the "want to dos" on the shelf. There are enough "have to dos" to keep the next president busy for a full term, and well beyond.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Dave wrote: "The electoral college will protect us from getting the president most people actually want"....
    October 23, 2012 11:03 am
    Not so. According to the Constitution, there is not now and never has been a national election for POTUS. The President is actually chosen by the members of congress. The number of senators and representatives for each state equals the number of electoral votes.

    To be elected POTUS, Obama or Romney will need to win enough of the 50 simultaneous *state* elections being held November 6 to garner a majority of the electoral college votes.

    It would be possible to lose the popular vote by a wide margin, yet still be elected POTUS.

    There was a time when Senators were not chosen by popular vote, either. If I remember correctly, they were appointed by the governors of each state (but that may not be right). One of the several amendments to the Constitution finally provided for the popular election of Senators at the state level, but never for the election of the President at the national level.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    "There was a time when Senators were not chosen by popular vote, either. If I remember correctly, they were appointed by the governors of each state"
    October 23, 2012 11:12 am
    You are absolutely correct Chuck, an amendment changed that....the constitution didn't like population deciding elections. As for Dave's comment, "And once again the electoral college will protect us from choosing the president most people actually want", he needs to get over the fact that as many as might agree with him, there are just as many that disagree with this remark.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    The Senators were appointed by their State Legislatures.
    October 23, 2012 12:36 pm
    And back then few served 'for life' as many Senators do now. More of an honorarium.

    But its also possible to win both the popular vote for President AND an apparent majority in the electoral college and STILL be elected President. ... Used to be, and I think still is in most states, that binding of Elector voting is only after the fact. As in - you might go to jail - but your elector vote still counted. ... I think an Arkansas elector voted for Robert Byrd in 1960, rather than JFK. And I knew an elector from Spokane who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1976.

    IF the apparent electoral count ends up within a couple votes either way, we COULD see a lot of pressure for a couple of Electors between the election and - what is it this year? Dec. 12? to switch votes.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Original constitutional recipe
    October 23, 2012 12:12 pm
    Senators were appointed to represent the interests of each state government. Representatives were elected to represent the interests of the people. The VP was the presiding officer of the Senate, and the President was the presiding/executive officer of the combined congress.

    Our founders intended for congress to be far more powerful than the president. Makes sense, really. We should consider a fresh emphasis on that concept.

    Back when Senators were appointed, it worked more like the traditional British parliament. The senators were sort of like the House of Lords, while the representatives were more like the House of Commons. The Electoral college is remotely similar to the system in which Parliament selects a Prime Minister.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    Chuck, I agree whole heartedly
    October 23, 2012 12:34 pm
    Somehow this has all been lost in what we consider progress. In my humble opinion it is when we started thinking ourselves as a democracy versus a republic.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    roomtemp
    October 23, 2012 6:00 pm
    Obama is different than Bush because Obama goes after terrorists where ever they might be whereas Bush created al Qaeda in Iraq so he wouldn't have to go find the real terrorists who were in places that were not called Iraq.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    @SeattleD...
    October 25, 2012 1:25 pm
    "goes after terrorists where ever they might be"

    So what you're saying is that Obama is different from Bush because he's following the Bush doctrine? Care to play again?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    Question and answer session with Dumney
    October 23, 2012 6:18 pm
    Me: So Governor Dumney, explain what steps you'll take to fight terrorism.

    Dumney: We can't kill our way out of this mess. We're going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the world of Islam and other parts of the world to reject this radical violent extremism.

    Me: Did you have a comprehensive and robust strategy in mind.

    Dumney: Yes, the key that we're going to have to pursue as a pathway is to get the Muslim world to be able reject extremism on its own.

    Me: That sounds great. How do you suppose you're going to do that?

    Dumney: With a comprehensive and robust plan. Haven't you been listening?

    Me: And that comprehensive and robust plan is what?

    Romney: We're going to pursue as a pathway an effort to get the Muslim world to reject extremism on its own. I feel like I'm repeating myself here.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    Did I write Romney?
    October 23, 2012 6:18 pm
    I meant Dumney.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Why, "D" ?
    October 24, 2012 6:07 am
    Apparently you were sobering up ... and loosing your leftist high.

    Just go watch an old Obama video (I'm sure you have some) and you can have full faith in the Wizard of Oz again.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }