Leaked Debate Agreement Shows Both Obama and Romney are Sniveling Cowards
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Leaked Debate Agreement Shows Both Obama and Romney are Sniveling Cowards



Time's Mark Halperin has made himself useful for once by obtaining, and publishing, a copy of ...

Time's Mark Halperin has made himself useful for once by obtaining, and publishing, a copy of
the 21-page memorandum of understanding that the Obama and Romney campaigns negotiated
with the Commission on Presidential Debates establishing the rules governing this month's
presidential and vice presidential face-offs. The upshot: Both campaigns are terrified at anything
even remotely spontaneous happening.



Total Views
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Leaked Debate Agreement Shows Both Obama and Romney are Sniveling Cowards Leaked Debate Agreement Shows Both Obama and Romney are Sniveling Cowards Document Transcript

    • Leaked Debate Agreement Shows BothObama and Romney are Sniveling CowardsJohn CookGawker.comOctober 16, 2012Times Mark Halperin has made himself useful for once by obtaining, and publishing, a copy ofthe 21-page memorandum of understanding that the Obama and Romney campaigns negotiatedwith the Commission on Presidential Debates establishing the rules governing this monthspresidential and vice presidential face-offs. The upshot: Both campaigns are terrified at anythingeven remotely spontaneous happening.They arent permitted to ask each other questions, propose pledges to each other, or walk outside a"predesignated area." And for the town-hall-style debate tomorrow night, the audience members posingquestions arent allowed to ask follow-ups (their mics will be cut off as soon as they get their questionsout). Nor will moderator Candy Crowley.Most bizarrely, given the way the debates have played out, the rules actually appear to forbid televisioncoverage from showing reaction shots of the candidates: "To the best of the Commissions abilities,there will be no TV cut-aways to any candidate who is not responding to a question while anothercandidate is answering a question or to a candidate who is not giving a closing statement while anothercandidate is doing so." The "best of the Commissions abilities" must be rather feeble, seeing as howalmost every moment of the two debates so far was televised in split-screen, clearly showing shots of a"candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question."Which means some of the rules below that both campaigns stipulated to in a desperate attempt to wringany serendipity out of the events may be honored in the breach: • "The candidates may not ask each other direct questions during any of the four debates." • "The candidates shall not address each other with proposed pledges." • "At no time during the October 3 First Presidential debate shall either candidate move from his designated area behing the respective podium." • For the October 16 town-hall-style debate, "the moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate...." • "The audience members shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion, and the audience members microphone shall be turned off after he or she completes asking the questions." • "[T]he Commission shall take appropriate steps to cut-off the microphone of any...audience member who attempts to pose any question or statement different than that previously posed to the moderator for review." • "No candidate may reference or cite any specific individual sitting in a debate audience (other than family members) at any time during a debate." • For the town-hall debate: "Each candidate may move about in a pre-designated area, as proposed by the Commission and approved by each campaign, and may not leave that area while the debate is underway."Heres the full document:
    • Read The Rest Here The 2012 Debates - Memorandum of Understanding Between the Obama andRomney Campaigns
    • Obama or Romney: War and EconomicCollapse Regardless Who Wins the ElectionKurt NimmoInfowars.comOctober 16, 2012CNN is making a big deal out of Romney’s“right leaning” supporters. The corporate mediabranch of the Pentagon’s psyops program thinksthere’s a good chance these “severelyconservative” voters may push Romney over thetop and get him installed in the White House aspreeminent teleprompter reader for the globalelite.In August, Peter Schiff, economic adviser to RonPaul’s 2008 presidential campaign, said he thinksthe economic implosion will occur during thenext administration. He has no faith in Obamaand little in Romney to turn things around.Despite the flaccid neo-Tea Party rhetoric of Paul Ryan, prior to the Obama administrationRepublicans out-spent Democrats threefold. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II racked up$6.4 trillion dollars in debt and thus put to rest the obscene fantasy of “fiscal conservatism.”In September, according to official figures, the national debt surpassed $16 trillion. In reality, it is muchhigher – well over $200 trillion when unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security arethrown into the mix.“Let’s get real. The U.S. is bankrupt,” writes Boston University economic professor LaurenceKotlikoff.Due to the astronomical debt and profligate spending by largely unaccountable professional politicalcareerists in Washington, “what we have to look forward to is a very bleak future,” writes MichaelSnyder. “Even if we totally scrapped our current monetary system and repudiated the debt, thetransition would be ‘rocky’ at best and we would not enjoy anything close to the standard of living thatwe are enjoying today.”As for war, a Romney win in November will ensure the re-installment of the Bush-era neocons and aspeedy timeline for war in the Middle East, particularly against Syria and sooner before later Iran.Because the election is a couple of weeks away, Romney’s saying there’s no need to attack Iran inresponse to its imaginary nuclear weapons program. His foreign policy advisers, on the other hand, areneocons who have repeatedly called for taking out Iran.More frightening, Romney is close friends with Israel’s ardent Likudnik, Benjamin Netanyahu, andMitt has stated that they “almost speak in shorthand.”Martin S. Indyk, a United States ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration, told the New YorkTimes that Romney would “subcontract Middle East policy to Israel,” i.e., the U.S. will attack Israel’senemies during the reign of Mitt.
    • In other words, if Romney wins wecan expect an attack on Iran thatwould certainly compound the abovementioned economic problems.Following Obama’s lacklusterperformance during the lastpresidential debate, his administration trotted out what can be described as “Iran Attack Light,” a planto use “surgical strikes” against the country in lieu of an all-out attack.Foreign Policy CEO and editor at large David Rothkopf, a former Clintonite, “reported that the WhiteHouse and Israeli officials ‘assert that the two sides, behind the scenes, have come closer together intheir views [regarding Iran] in recent days,’” according to the Jerusalem Post.Bizarrely, the establishment media continues to pretend there is a widening chasm of differencebetween Obama and Romney. In fact, they both present the same economic and foreign policy goals,which are, of course, not their goals but those of the global elite.The establishment media does its part by playing up minor differences in style between the two anduses a trusty false left-right paradigm to distract weary voters and excite indoctrinated loyalists.Peter Schiff On Fox Business News ~ All The Coverage RP Got Was Why He "Couldnt Win"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=izwr_thVZc8
    • Vote for Liberty by Not VotingDaniel J. Sanchezlewrockwell.comOctober 16, 2012“He may not be perfect, but atleast he is better than Obama.”Even some former Ron Paulsupporters have given this line asan excuse for supporting MittRomney for the United StatesPresidency.The line betrays a deepmisunderstanding of what libertymeans. As many libertarians havealready pointed out, Romney isnot nearly as different fromObama as is commonlysupposed. But more importantly,in some vital ways he is actuallyworse.The “better than Obama” way ofthinking implicitly throws the entire anti-war aspect of libertarianism under the bus. The thinking runsas follows: “Romney may be expected to have an even more imperialist foreign policy than Obama, buthe is better than Obama on domestic economic affairs, and that is obviously what matters most.”This is in stark contrast to Ron Paul’s own way of thinking. Ron Paul may be in the same party asRomney. But this by no means indicates that Paul himself would consider Romney an improvementover Obama. In fact, it is probably more likely that the prospect of the neocons returning to full powerin Romney’s wake is more frightening to Paul than the prospect of Obama being given a chance todouble-down on his domestic agenda.Ron Paul, unlike some of his supposed supporters, never gave foreign policy a back seat to domesticeconomic policy: far from it. In his presidential campaign, he talked even more about ending ourempire than ending the Fed. Moreover, Ron Paul wisely included foreign policy as an essential plank within his domestic economic policy, pointing out incessantly that our empire is not only responsible for destruction abroad and insecurity at home, but it is also bankrupting and impoverishing us. Foreign policy is an economic matter in another way as well. Foreign interventionists are essentially security- production socialists. For far too many conservatives, the same Federal government that is too inept andcorrupt to run a television station is somehow miraculously competent and virtuous enough to
    • make the whole world a safer place throughcentrally planned invasions, occupations,sanctions, regime changes, and CIA ops.Some may concede this point, but argue thatthe danger of an Obama “New Deal” is moreacute than that of a neocon renascence underRomney. But that is far from obvious, and is infact rather dubious. What can be more acutelydangerous than an even more belligerentforeign policy that is more likely to lead tonuclear blowback? When Murray Rothbardexplained why he had rooted for (which isfundamentally different from endorsing)Lyndon Johnson over the allegedly “pro-liberty” candidate Barry Goldwater, he pointedout that Goldwater’s advisers were crazy andwanted to “nuke Russia”. Rothbard rightly saidthat problems like price controls “fade away”in significance in the face of prospects ofnuclear conflict. There isn’t much to price in a nuclear wasteland.Rothbard, like Ron Paul, placed foreign policy center stage. Just as Ludwig von Mises was the LastKnight of Liberalism, Murray N. Rothbard was the Last Knight of the Old Right. As Mises was alaissez-faire Leonidas surrounded by socialists and money cranks, Rothbard was an anti-war Roland,fighting bravely and almost alone in the rear guard of the Old Right against the Cold Warriors of theNew.Rothbard spent much of the 50s writing an epochal economics treatise that made plain the case for thefree market. But by 1959, he was more concerned with matters of war and peace than with domesticeconomic policy. In that year, he wrote, “…I am getting more and more convinced that the war-peacequestion is the key to the whole libertarian business…” and that, in the face of an American armsbudget exceeding $40 billion, “[t]he fact that we might spend a few billion less on public housing or onfarm support no longer thrills me.” Neither should the prospect of Romney tinkering around the edges of the American welfare state (and probably actually expanding it) thrill, or even appease, libertarians in the face of American military spending which, in 2011, exceeded $700 billion. This is especially true, considering that Romney is explicitly promising to reverse Obama’s defense “cuts”. Of course this is not to say that libertarians should vote for Obama. For one thing, Obama too is a horrible foreign interventionist. And even though he is somewhat less disastrous than Romney would be in foreign policy, that is only true in the short run. Similarly, Romney, like Obama, is a horrible domestic interventionist. And even though he would be somewhat less disastrous than Obama in domestic
    • economic policy, that is only true in the short run as well.In the long run, if either is elected, the above impacts wouldlikely be reversed.Romney’s big-government economic policies would sow theseeds of further crises and depression. Yet this failure wouldbe blamed on his ostensibly “free market” orientation, therebygiving capitalism a bad rap. This has happened before. Thereputation of, and prospects for, capitalism are still reelingfrom the presidency of George W. Bush.Similarly, Obama’s continued foreign meddling would sowthe seeds of further conflict and global instability. Yet thisfailure would be blamed on his ostensibly “soft” foreignpolicy, thereby giving peace a bad name. We have alreadyseen this as well. The current wave of unrest in the Arab worldis due largely to Obama’s recent meddling in Libya, Egypt,and elsewhere. It is the U.S.-sponsored Arab Spring recoiling,as springs inevitably do. Yet, this Arab Recoil is being blamed by many on America’s failure to “lead”(i.e., meddle even more) under Obama.And so, the choice between Obama and Romney is even less clear than one might think. With Romney,the cause of domestic economic liberty and abundance is harmed a bit less in the short run, but more inthe long run. With Obama the cause of peace and security is harmed a bit less in the short run, but morein the long run.So, if one were forced to vote for one or the other, the question would not merely be which cause ismore important. The choice would also be between the short run and the long run. Are the short-rundangers so acute that they must take precedence, else there won’t even be a long run to speak of? Orwould it be foolish and myopic to grasp at a short-run palliative, thereby sealing our doom down theroad? Thankfully, you, dear reader, are not forced to vote for one or the other: at least not yet. And you should not feel obliged to, either. As many have already argued, the chances of your single vote making the difference between Obama or Romney becoming president are virtually zero. Moreover, even if you do not accept that line of reasoning, you must remember Frédéric Bastiat’s injunction to consider both the “seen” and the “unseen”. You must consider not only whatever effect you think your vote directly and narrowly has on this election, but also its indirect and broader effects. For one thing, your vote helps provide a mandate for all of the elected officer’s policies, whether you supportthose policies or not. As one author has said, voting “just encourages the bastards.”
    • Furthermore, every vote for a federaloffice is a vote for the hyper-stateknown as the U.S. federal government,and for hyper-states in general. It iseffectively an endorsement ofcentralized power and a vote of noconfidence in localism. And yes, thiswould be true of a vote for a middlinglibertarian like Gary Johnson, or evenan exceptionally heroic individual likeRon Paul. True progress toward libertycannot be achieved through the officesof a gargantuan state. But mostimportantly, the example you set foryour children and friends by voting toplace a warmonger, a redistributionist,or any other rights-violator (oranybody, really) into an inherentlydestructive office at the head of aninherently destructive hyper-state hasimpacts that will propagate throughout society and posterity like ripples in a pond, and will be far moresignificant than any direct impact you have on the election at hand. The most effective way to promoteliberty on Election Day would be to choose to abstain from voting and to tell everybody about thatchoice. If you are going to cast anything that day, cast a few dollars toward a worthy organization likethe Mises Institute. Now that would be a vote for liberty. http://www.infowars.com/