The Daily Show had a great segment about the third and final debate, when Romney did his best impression of Obama and agreed with him on almost everything. Video below the fold.
The Daily Show with Jon StewartGet More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook
I disagree with Jon Stewart’s skit here when it comes to ‘leadership’. Mr. Romney was condemning the U.S. for not overtly leading and engaging during the overthrow of Egypt and Libya. So rather than Romney merely supporting the president’s foreign policy, which he his in some cases in that brief moment of the debate, Romney’s also effectively arguing we should have duplicated the approach we took in Iraq rather than in Libya.
When you weigh the difference in blood, treasure, and violations/support of human rights between Libya and Iraq, those differences couldn’t be more stark, and Mr. Romney’s position downright idiotic compared to the president looking like a superstar* who is so good it doesn’t even look like he’s trying.
A related example of Republican lunacy is their hyperventilating over the attack on our Ambassador to Libya. Such stridency proves they care not a whit about the national interest. If they did and given the degree of harm caused by that tragedy, they’d be leading to prosecute the Bush Administration for lying us into a war in Iraq and then torturing people. That Iraq boondoggle cost us the U.S. far more in blood, treasure, and soft power than our actions in Libya. And Republicans support the troops? Please, torture was the number #1 reason al Qaeda was able to attract recruits who killed and maimed U.S. personnel in Iraq.
*I don’t think the President Obama’s a superstar foreign policy actor. I instead think the president was smart and largely fortunate when it came to Libya. But if Iraq and Libya were the only factors used to make a conclusion, the president and the Republicans offer stark differences in their foreign policy approaches.
I also feel that it is silly to quote comedians as if they are suppose to be serious about anything.
About as silly as reading a handful of posts on a blog and thinking you have both the deep understanding of the author’s philosophy and M.O., and your own personal authority, to critique it.
Re royt @ #2
Looks like Mr. Brayton has attracted another troll. Mr. royt on a subsequent thread cited Michael Savage (nee Weiner) as one of his favorite commentors. Aside from his name change, apparently to cover up his ethnic background, Mr. Weiner is a jackass of the first order. In addition to peddling his crap on his radio show, he also peddles worthless nostrums which have no medical value whatever. I bet that Mr. royt is an enthusiastic consumer of said rubbish.
Royt wrote: “I also feel that it is silly to quote comedians as if they are suppose to be serious about anything.”
You do, eh? Do you feel that way about Lenny Bruce? Mort Sahl? Dick Gregory? George Carlin?
If you do, you haven’t a clue what comedy is all about.
Don’t forget _royt_ also likes the vapid Michelle malkin.