The snap polls may show a tie or a small victory for President Obama, but Mitt Romney emerged the real winner from last night’s debate. He struck the exact tone he needed to: measured, competent, presidential.
The result was that Romney often looked like the incumbent on stage, and Obama often like the challenger. While Obama tried to draw blood with small jabs (the bayonets line, the nit-picking about Romney’s investments), these made the president seem petty and contemptuous. Romney stayed above the fray.
The Obama campaign has alternated between claiming Romney has the same ideas as Obama on foreign policy, and accusing him of being a warmonger. Last night, the president played into the former. It’s not true, but it’s the best counter-argument Romney could have hoped for in a debate when he’s reaching out to moderate and undecided voters. While Romney stayed away from silly zingers, he managed to get in a few stinging critiques: “Attacking me is not a foreign policy”; “America has not dictated to other nations. America has freed other nations”; and “We’re four years closer to a nuclear Iran. We should not have wasted those four years.”
Romney already trumps Obama on economic issues. Few people are voting based on foreign policy; the vast majority of voters just needed to know that Romney was competent and trustworthy on the issue. He easily met that threshold last night, which made him the clear winner.
I agree that Romney looked like the incumbent, Obama the third-rate challenger. Let the Left celebrate a victory for a couple of days before reality sets in once more at the loony bin. It is, after all, kind of cute watching them get tingly again. nI'm curious about something – even as Romney stretches his lead in Rasmussen, his approval rating keeps rising (though not the Presidential Approval Index). Any thoughts out there about why?
I disagree with Alana. Romney wasted many opportunities to differentiate himself from Obama. For example, Romney: n (i) failed to contrast U.S. and NATO policy of military intervention in Libya upon the threat of civilian casualties in Benghazi with the absence of any such policy in Syria, despite thousands of civilian casualties, n (ii) failed to note that Obama set a redline earlier this year that Iran's threatened closure of the Persian Gulf would lead to U.S. military intervention, but Iran's continued development of a nuclear bomb, and Iran's repeated intent to murder millions of Israelis, elicited no such redline declaration from the white house, n (iii) failed to explain to the American public the essence, and necessity, of a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, and that both he and Obama wished to leave troops in Iraq, but they only differed on the amount of such troops, n (iv) failed to emphasize Obama's deception, and betrayal, of our military, and intelligence, stance regarding Russia, in his private comment to Medvedev that he, i.e., Obama, would have more flexibility after the election – such disclosure is critical because the president enjoys near exclusive independence in the determination of our nation's foreign policy and the comment reflects Obama's secret intent to conspire with Russia without scrutiny from our own government, n (v) failed to explain that such comment to Medvedev is a harbinger of what we could expect from a man engaged in one on one talks with Iran, i.e., Obama would probably show "flexibility" and allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb while simultaneously preventing Israel from acting in its best interests, n (vi) failed to explain that Obama fought against Iran sanctions imposed by U.S. congress and, once the sanctions passed, Obama granted waivers to each of Iran's twenty largest trading partners, n (vii) failed to note that Obama pushed Mubarek out of office, in contrast to Obama's inactivity regarding Syria's Assad, n (viii) completely dropped the ball on the Benghazi terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate, the coverup by the Obama administration, and Obama's attempt to infringe upon our freedom of speech in order to appease muslims, who cannot tolerate one word of legitimate criticism about their behavior, n (ix) failed to distinguish himself from Obama; rather, Romney appeared meek, docile, passive, and his stuttering seemed to be an indication of his uncertainty regarding his words and his positions, n (x) and on and on and on ………… n nAlana, I am very disappointed in Romney – I think that his campaign, save for the first presidential debate, is lackluster – you do not beat an incumbent president by choosing a safe, complacent manner – you need to deliver knockout blows. Romney had opportunities in the second and third debates; yet, he failed to take advantage of them. In this way, he was not presidential.
Great list, and, as you imply with point (x), we could add to it. But… nHow does Romney do all that in the time allotted? Sure, he could have spent the whole night reading our lengthy list, but would the voters he was trying to appeal to have listened or understood? Might they not have become perturbed with his constant "lecturing"? Remember, about these topics most Americans are unbelievably ignorant, and nobody wants to have their ignorance shoved repeatedly in their face. nThere are other ways to point out these failures. I'm not sure the debate format was the proper one. Now, if this had been a Lincoln-Douglas format, sure, but 2 minute speaking blocks doesn't allow for the reeducation of the public.
I understand your valid points. I do believe, though, that Romney could have put forth a theme that Obama is not trustworthy, capable, or competent based on brief glimpses of his record. Romney would not have needed to expound at length on the issues identified in the above list, but he should have been able to distill key elements of the list into succinct, effective comments. n nThe fact that he did not do this, or would not do this, indicates to me that Romney is indecisive and, perhaps, not completely honest with us, just like Obama. I also believe that the American people can distinguish between honesty and deception, truth and misrepresentation, if given the opportunity to process a few straightforward facts. n nRomney did not need to lecture; rather, he needed to be clear, concise, and direct. He was not, unfortunately, and, as a result, he may lose this election. I will vote for him because I believe that, with respect to my concerns, he will be a better president than Obama. I do not think, however, that Romney has made a good case for his election with those voters who are, as you say, relatively uninformed about many of the subjects addressed in Commentary articles, and in comments thereto.
I'll admit to being frustrated last night at certain points. For example, when discussing Syria after one of Schieffer's questions along the lines of what would you do now, I was hoping Romney would say, "I wish you had asked me that a year ago before President Obama's failure to act put us in a no-win situation." nLet me reiterate how impressive your list is. Be nice to see it turn up in Ohio stump speeches.
Last night's debate was more about leadership than foreign policy. Romney avoided displaying he had inferior foreign policy acumen simply because as Governor he lacked the inside knowledge that Obama had obtained during the last four years. Even Obama lacked foreign policy inside information when running the first time. Obama tried to bait Romney into a full-on foreign policy exchange hoping to catch Romney into a gaff, but that didn't happened. Romney stayed within his political comfort zone. Obama was rude and obnoxious as Romney was answering the moderator's question on Romney's clock time. He tried to interrupt the answer before Romney could fully explain his position. This annoyed me. Romney didn't reciprocate and minded his manners. This was a plus for Romney. Romney tried to redirect the theme of leadership as the most important part of foreign policy, not where Obama traveled or who told what and when during a crises. Obama's argumentative stature diminished his leadership values. Romney won the leadership points, and Obama won being president already with inside policy points. The viewers saw who these candidates really are, one more structured and respectful the other more obnoxious and a bully. The news people as a whole went for the latter, and the voters went more for the former, displaying his leadership points.
Ms. Goodman is right — the BiPolar Boy President vacillates between claiming to support Romney's policies more than Romney and then that Romney's policies are the ultimate incarnation of evil. n nI was about ready for Obama to start singing the israeli National Anthem last night (I presume there is one) — he was going on about how Israel has never had a better friend than he and I was waiting for Romney to swing at that sweet pitch that was right over the plate — particularly when Obama claimed that the only reason why Romney went to Israel was to raise money while he, B Hussain, is a student of the Holocaust. n nAs to the Navy, we had 580 ships when Reagan left office – post-cold-war need estimates required a 400 ship Navy, and we are looking at being only half of that – Obama (who knows probably less about national defense than he does about keeping Ambassadors alive) fell into the Mighty Aircraft Carrier myth and Romney should have picked him apart for that. n nFirst, it is an Aircraft Battle Group — and there are upwards of 50 other ships that are needed to support an Aircraft Carrier. These things are incredibly vulnerable and there are destroyers and submarines and the rest to protect them, resupply them and the rest. Even if the ship itself is nucular powered and hence its fuel not a problem (and all but the JFK are), all those aircraft taking off are burning an awful lot of jet fuel. And the guys in them tend to want to eat on occasion. Etc. Etc. Etc. n nSecond, if we ever get into a shooting war with either the ChiComs or anyone whom they are supporting, we can presume that about 2/3 of our aircraft carriers will be on the bottom in the first 48 hours. The Chinese have been working on missiles to sink our aircraft carriers for the past 30 years or so, and have gotten some pretty good ones at this point. n nSo, Mr. President, our Aircraft Carriers are now 50 fathoms below the surface and then what do we do??? Why didn't Romney ask that????
I remember reading some scholarly article (in the 70's) about the Kennedy-Nixon debate. What the gist of the author's reason for writing the article is that his teenage daughter came into the room and watched with him for about one minute, he said, and then said, "Kennedy won, right?" What he expressed from talking with her about her reasons is that she, unlike himself who was obviously older than his daughter, grew up in front of TV and that from her generation on, people (and voters) could assimilate information and rely on their impressions much faster than ever before … and from now on. I thought of this reading about who-won opinions and do believe it doesn't come down to debate points but really does come down to the near instant impressions of what was going on. And what I believe anyone (who wasn't looking for something to prove to themselves what they thought going in) is that Obama and Biden came off as untrustworthy, rigid ideologues who despised their opponent to the point that they would and were lying with every word they said.
To evaluate the debate is to understand context. Context operates on any number of levels. One has the momentum with Romney. Another has Romney continually defying expectations. Another has Obama flailing to avoid the leaves falling on him, hurled askew by the wind at Romney’s back. Another was Romney wanting to seem competent on foreign policy, a credible commander in cheif, seem presidential. Another was tying performance to the relevant phrase of the campaign, it’s closing, by being calm, large and confident. A lot of this was Bill Kristol’s excellent pre debate advice for Romney to stay above the fray, project confidence, sound overarching themes, don’t get into the the devil’s details, be reassuring, mount a critique in the same overarching terms. To that Romney added the natural move of, whenever he could, reverting to the economy and linking internal economic strength to external national strength. All of this, I’d say, Romney did well. Which is not to say Obama didn’t debate well. He did. But in context, the fragrance of failure and desperation seemed to surround his good debating points, the glowering, the cheap shots, the pettiness of needing to work in small zinger like talking points. In a nutshell, Romney went big, Obama went small, in spite of himself. For the confident sense of victory enlarges; the prospect of defeat diminishes.
I really would like to see Romney simply ask "What $2B in military spending that the military doesn't want? What on earth are you talking about?" n nWhere does Obama get this number from? Does anyone even ask?
Oh, Alana — the $2B might be worth pursuing at least as far as a phone call to Team NoBama. n nDo they, like, have any itemization of this? Two BILLION Dollars is a lot of money, even by DOD standards, and where is this number coming from?