Perplexing Debate

Romney apparently didn't read my recent blog on Obama's foreign policy failures.  If he did, he didn't use it.  In fact, he seemed to cede foreign policy to Obama.  He let the Benghazi question slide and did some cheerleading for a few of Obama's positions.  Romney seemed to be shooting for a tie.  He was like a football team that plays a prevent defense in the last few minutes of a close game.  Clearly, he came in with the impression he has a lead and didn't want to change the momentum.

Obama was very aggressive, perhaps a bit too much so.  His worst line - which probably was viewed as his best line by partisans - was when he disparaged Romney regarding the navy, saying that we now have things called aircraft carriers where planes can land and ships that go under water.  That's a great put down on Real Time with Bill Maher but beneath the dignity of a President.  When he didn't sink into attacks on Romney, the President presented his case quite well.  Many times, I thought Obama was mopping the floor with the oddly passive Romney.  However, I was also bothered by how Obama painted a picture of foreign policy that could be refuted and Romney declined to do so.  Obama declared terrorism to be the greatest threat to the US.

Romney painted the big picture for American foreign policy, some of which I approve and some that I don't.  He doesn't want to nation build but he wants to get these Middle Eastern countries to have peaceful, growing economies.  Wow, if only someone had thought of that before.  How long has the Israel-Palestinian peace process been going?  It is unlikely the Middle East will change its ways short of being forced to change.  Force means violence and violence tends to mean war and Romney's rhetoric kept war at a safe distance.  He was all for the sanctions regime against Iran but wanted more.  The economy did come up several times as an issue for foreign policy.  An indebted nation inevitably is forced to withdraw from the world stage and Romney made that point.  Romney identified a nuclear Iran as the greatest threat to the US.

 

Romney did have the 'vision thing' while Obama offered no Obama Doctrine.   Interestingly, I think both men touched on the greatest threat to the US in their answers.  A nuclear Iran would likely provide terrorists with a nuclear device.  I'd probably lean toward an Obama win, mostly because Romney didn't engage him.  However, some have said that Romney was trying to avoid being portrayed as a warmonger, which he did quite well.  Considering that as a strategy, perhaps it could be called a tie.  By essentially promising to mostly maintain Obama foreign policy, Romney pushes the electorate to decide based on domestic issues, returning us to the first debate where he had a decisive win.  Yes, I'd tend to agree that this debate didn't paint a stark contrast and thus is unlikely to change minds one way or the other.  Even so, I still say Obama won.