Presidential debate: Romney endorses Obama

  • Article by: Editorial , Los Angeles Times
  • Updated: October 23, 2012 - 7:01 PM

He offered a forceful defense of Obama's policies.

  • 23
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
ShannaraRoseOct. 23, 1212:31 PM

In answer to the final question ... because the rest of the country doesn't want to follow California over the cliff of bankruptcy.

pistols12Oct. 23, 1212:53 PM

Pres. Obama did go on an "apology tour". A tour apologizing to the world how the horrible, idiot USA inflicted the horrible, idiot George W. Bush on the world. "I apologize to the whole world for the idiot Bush, and all the rotten things he did. But now that the great ME is president, everything will be better." That is an exact quote from Pres. Obama during the apology tour that Mitt Romney so officiously reminded us about in last night's debate. Thank you Mitt Romney, for that. So now that I have settled that, the only conclusion that one can make from is editorial is to vote for Mitt Romney. He will continue the parts of Pres. Obama's foreign policies that have worked, improve on the parts that have not worked, and support Israel, a state that Pres. Obama would not spit on if its hair was on fire, (so to speak). And Pres. Romney, (get used to those words, people), will not go any apology tours. Hooray!

mgtwinsfan1987Oct. 23, 12 1:59 PM

President Romney might happen, pistols. But if he does, I guarantee you he will take the same line Mr. Obama has on foreign affairs. Policy is developed by making choices from options provided in concert by Dept. of State and Dept. of Defense leaders. The goal is always to keep Americans alive and safe, and the options usually push first for watchful waiting before you actually take a position and do something that involves fighting. That's why Mr. Romney finally is starting to sound like Mr. Obama--if he doesn't, and if he continues to talk as he has about being a tough guy and refusing to point out how tough and where he will be tough, the American people will be afraid to vote for him because he is out of touch with how government works. Pretty basic stuff.

twspt7Oct. 23, 12 2:12 PM

Just several more flip-flips by the "ever shifting" Romney. Anyone who has followed his candidacy closely, rather than just cheering for "your team," will note that Mitt has reversed himself on practically every issue in this campaign at least once, in some cases several times. A vote for Romney is a vote for the republican brand, nothing more, because it is now virtually impossible to say with any certainty WHAT he stands for - other than wanting to be President.

mn2niceOct. 23, 12 2:29 PM

twspt7, that is exactly what Romney is for, and nothing more. As others have said, he wants to be Preident so bad he can tast it, and will do anything, including echoing the President on every issue, just so he can get elected. That's pretty scary, and would make him totally untrustworthy in my book.

davidahenOct. 23, 12 2:45 PM

The fact that both candidates have seemingly non-partisan visions for foreign policy is perhaps a good thing but not a good reason for keeping President Obama in office because the most important issue is economic. Our country has to have a strong economy with full employment and a balanced budget to have any hope of gaining the respect and trust from others countries in maintaining a leadership role in defense of freedom, democracy and equal rights for men and women, and in negotiating peaceful trade agreements throughout the planet. The record for the past four years is totally opposite to that vision so a change in leadership is now more obviously needed than ever before.

endothermOct. 23, 12 2:45 PM

Whenever Romney talks about foreign policy, he sounds like somebody who has been coached by advisers and has just spent the day memorizing maps and reading Wikipedia. In other words, he sounds like somebody who is desperately trying to sound smart even though it is pretty clear that he doesn't have clue. The fact that Romney seems to think that Iran is a landlocked country (even though it has an extensive coastline) is particularly embarrassing. We need someone better than Romney. He is just not up to the job.

elmore1Oct. 23, 12 2:59 PM

No question that Barry appears weak on foreign and domestic policy. Mitt will work in a bipartisan fashion to actually get things done. The days of Obama playing his cards close and not working with both sides will soon be over.

twspt7Oct. 23, 12 3:12 PM

@davidahen " the most important issue is economic" You do realize that, since WWII, republicans have grown the size of government and governmental spending at a greater rate than democrats? That the largest unfunded expansion of entitlements in the past 50 years is Medicare Part D, passed by a GOP House and GOP Senate and signed by a GOP President in '03? That even the much heralded 47% who pay no FIT are the product of GOP tax initiatives? No? Have you been paying attention or just cheering for "your team" the past 10 or 20 or 30 years?

drichmnOct. 23, 12 3:24 PM

"The fact that both candidates have seemingly non-partisan visions for foreign policy is perhaps a good thing " .... the problem is that Romney has been criticizing President Obama's foreign policy as "weak" and "leading from behind" and yet during the debate he's adopting it? Just another shameless attempt to appear moderate because the positions he has been taking would turn voters away. Romney is not trustworthy.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters