Both parties agreed upon the terms and rules for the presidential debates. But right now, the Obama campaign has to be kicking itself for going along with a schedule that devoted the last of the three encounters between President Obama and Mitt Romney to foreign policy. The Democrats have acted as if security and defense issues were a strength for them throughout the year, but it’s doubtful that the president thinks a foreign policy pitch is his best closing argument for the American people with only a couple of weeks left before the election.
That’s not just because the Benghazi terror attack has compromised the president’s stance as the man with an impeccable security record, but also because a debate that doesn’t allow him to deploy his class warfare and “war on women” themes is one that isn’t likely to help him pick up the votes he needs to secure re-election. Even worse, it gives Romney an opportunity to recoup his losses from the last debate in which he flubbed a question on Libya that he should have been able to use to hammer the president. While Democrats may hope the president repeats his aggressive performance from the second debate rather than his lackluster first debate, Monday night’s topic is a handicap that comes at just the moment when he needs a game changing victory to reverse Romney’s momentum.
The Obama camp is acting as if the president’s bout of righteous indignation during the Hofstra University debate at the notion that he and his foreign policy team would “play politics or mislead” the public about Libya closed the topic for future discussion. It was a powerful rhetorical moment, but it won’t shut off discussion about the fact that that is exactly what he and his associates did. Having the third debate devoted to foreign policy helps Romney re-open the issue. It will allow him to argue that the weeks the administration devoted to claiming the murder of the ambassador was merely film criticism run amuck were closely linked to the president’s campaign theme in which Osama bin Laden’s death has been represented as a conclusive victory over al-Qaeda. Even if, due to Romney’s inept grasp of the narrative and moderator Candy Crowley’s intervention, Obama won the point on Tuesday night, he’s not likely to be able to squirm off the hook next week. The Libya incident’s political importance is that it dishes the president’s main foreign policy theme because it shows that the war on terror (a Bush-era phrase banned from use by the White House) is not over.
The foreign policy debate works for the president in one respect in that it will allow the president to continue running against his predecessor. Obama has spent most of this year running as much against George W. Bush as he has against Romney, and his pose as the man who ended the war in Iraq and will do the same in Afghanistan is a potential strength. This will force Romney to walk the same fine line on Afghanistan that Paul Ryan had some trouble with in the vice presidential debate. The GOP is right to argue that the pullout deadline set by Obama will hand Afghanistan over to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. But Romney can’t speak as if he wants U.S. troops to remain there indefinitely since few Americans are happy about that prospect.
However, the next debate will also expose Obama to more criticism of his record on the Iranian nuclear threat. Romney should be ready to pounce if the president repeats anything resembling Vice President Biden’s wildly inaccurate claim that the Iranians are not enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon. This will also help Romney differentiate his position on the alliance with Israel, which the president has sought to downgrade by putting more daylight between the two countries’ positions on the peace process than on the Iran threat.
Yet while both sides will have opportunities to score points on Monday night, the topic will still deprive the president of issues on which he has a clear advantage over Romney. Without the ability to raise social issues or to take cheap shots at Romney’s wealth, Obama will find himself on equal ground with his challenger. Given the way the race has shift toward Romney in the last weeks and with no other major opportunity to alter the course of events before Election Day, that is very bad luck indeed for the Democrats.
Will a debate theme really prevent the President from bringing up unrelated topics during the debate?
I think he can still weave women's issues into the foreign policy debate. n nHe can say he will continue to fight terrorism in the mid east until the issue of underrepresentaton of women in terrorist leadership roles is reversed, until women stop being viewed primarily as expendable suicide bombers against Israel, and until it is guaranteed that women will also have access to 70 virginal persons of whatever sex they prefer (may as well pander to the LGBT community as well) in the Muslim heaven.
Women are scandalously under-represented at Gitmo too.
Bring on the debate! Let's hear the president defend his foreign policy when Libyans have now waged war on America by storming our embassy, murdering our ambassador, and murdering three other Americans. n nLet's talk about Egypt as she is run by the Muslim Brotherhood, and prepared to discard (or, to be gentle, just modify) the Camp David Peace Accords to militarize the Sinai. Let's talk about Israel as that friend and ally of the U.S. has to deal with Hamas sending missiles to kill innocent civilians, Hezbollah is re-arming in Lebanon, and Iran is declaring the Jewish state a parasite. No need to mention Iranian nukes, I mean, Mr. Biden is not worried, so why should anyone else? n nBut let's not stop there. Let's go to Europe. Europe is imploding because of their dismal fiscal policy and soon enough, if not already, NATO will come to depend ever more on America with little help from the EU itself. We've been defending Europe for decades, but no more. Mr. Obama is prepared to cut our overall defense and thereby cut defense to Europe. n nMoving east, China is rising and threatening her neighbors as she grows her military and naval capabilities. Let's leave out China's nuclear arsenal of which we hear little but glimmerings of its growth and of our under counting her nuclear warhead numbers. Taiwan is constantly fearful of China yet we do little to reassure that ally. And how's it going with Japan, I'm sure they feel safe as China grows. n nSomali piracy is no longer news but somehow I suspect it has not stopped. Our navy is smaller than its been in, what?, 50-years yet she's called on to be in more places, for more threats, than ever before. n nOh yes, Afghanistan and Iraq. We waged two wars there but have not seen victory. Mr. Obama wants to pulls us out so he can end the war, but not win it. And if you want to talk about women's issues, why not discuss Muslim women. We leave these women to clitorectomies, substandard (if any, really) education, and continued oppression, rape, and a justice system that hangs women for suspected adultery. Adultery, we should remember, can be defined as being in the company of man other than her husband. Husband who cheat, well, that's fine. n nLet's turn southward and look to Mr. Obama's friend in Venezuela. How is that relationship with the U.S. panning out? To ask that question is to answer it. n nAnd we should remember our friends, say, Britain. Mr. Obama returned their gift, a bust of Winston Churchill, and has betrayed their claim to the Falkland Islands. Who knew that our British friends were so unimportant? n nOthers might want to comment on Russia, Saudia Arabia, and just how well we're doing with Poland. n nSo, sure Jonathan, let's talk foreign policy with Mr. Obama.
'He returned the bust of Churchill and bent his knee to the King of Saudi Arabia.' n nEnough said, if you think about it. n nPerhaps that phrase can be worked into the debate?
You need not go as far as far as Venezuela to see foreign failures in the south, just step over the boarder of Mexico and say hello to the weapons that the US Gov let the drug lords have.
Thanks for the smile. Of course, compared to how well the nation has reacted to ObamaCare, and how silent are the cheers of democrats for it as a domestic policy, by that measure, Mr. Obama's foreign policy is a towering accomplishment. Of course, needless to say, that standard of measure is miniscule.
Romney didn't "flub the question." or at least, he flubbed it for a very good reason: he had just heard Obama tell a bald-faced lie. and Candy Crowley (D-CNN) made sure he didn't get a chance for a decent rebuttal. (and how DID Obama know she had that transcript if he didn't even know what the questions would be?) n nI agree it was bad theater for Romney, but the way it's playing out it is not helping Obama. someone in the administration has been lying. possibly everyone in the administration has been lying. let's hope there's enough real newsman left in Bob Schieffer to get some answers. n
— " Given the way the race has shift toward Romney in the last weeks and with no other major opportunity to alter the course of events before Election Day, that is very bad luck ."– n nkinda fun to read this hackery and all the funny little ankle-biting comments