So I’ve gotten several enthusiastic emails from otherwise smart and sensible people about Romney being up seven in the new Gallup poll. I have to say I’m going to contain my personal enthusiasm until I see that surge confirmed by another poll. It’s not yet.
But there is new reason for hope: RCP now has Romney ahead in the electoral vote–206 to 201, with the other states too close to call. That’s mainly because Michigan and Pennsylvania have been moved into the toss-up category.
October 18th, 2012 | 3:45 pm
Lawler, the poll skeptic, is suddenly gripped with a kind of enthusiasm or optimism? He’s acting out of character…
On the foreign policy debate, the answer is simple, though the execution will take some skill. Romney should not bother to criticize Obama but say what he would have done or what he would do. He is not going to win this election by scoring points against Obama on foreign affairs, and he can only lose it by launching criticisms that Obama will be prepared to answer. Romney has either won or lost this race on domestic affairs, there is no way that he can win it by scoring points on foreign affairs…and he sure does not want to have points scored on him….why give Obama the opportunity? So e.g. on Iran, I would not have placed any confidence in negotiating with the leaders (not, it was a big mistake for you to do so); i think i would have imposed stronger sanctions earlier to see if they worked (not you failed to do such and such)… the whole debate strategy should follow that line. Romney acting like a president, not a prosecutor, giving the outlines of his foreign policy. It’s as simple as that. Oh yes, and Romney should admit to an error of judgment on some minor thing too. Like a confident statesman, no longer having to score points against the president. Let people see a figure now who is more than a debater, who demonstrates by his behavior that he is above point scoring. We want to see a President!
Let the president explain his foreign policy; it’s not that impressive. He will look good only when he answers needless and difficult criticisms, like you were weak, etc. So i would not say I would not apologize, I would just say I would have handled it this way…
October 18th, 2012 | 4:08 pm
so that really is exactly the right tone for Romney, if he can achieve it. He has to show that being presidential isn’t above his pay grade.
October 18th, 2012 | 4:58 pm
I too am enjoying Peter’s transformation before our eyes.
However, for those of us who can’t help but shake the feeling that this seems too good to be true, it’s worth noting that while election 2012 will (let us hope) end on November 7th, the election for president in 2016 will begin November 8th, for better or worse.
I was always optimistic about Romney’s chances this election, however, the odds of him successfully governing over the unruly herd of cats over in DC for the next four years?
Lets just say I hope the man has a war room in place on day one and reads up on his Clauswitz, because its going to be politics by other means.
October 18th, 2012 | 5:11 pm
Let me repeat that I’m still following the containment strategy when it comes to my enthusiasm.
October 18th, 2012 | 5:30 pm
Very prudent.
Meanwhile, I’ll be measuring the curtains.
October 18th, 2012 | 7:11 pm
[...] Tyler Cowen Will Wilkinson Wunderkammer Amazon.com Widgets « Previous |Home| Quick Hits Thursday, [...]
October 18th, 2012 | 11:23 pm
Or, Romney could come down with some delibilitating 24 hour bug on Monday morning and not openly not talk about foreign policy.
Brian can tell me whether I correctly spelled debilitating and whether using a double negative was grammatically correct, or even stylishly rude.
October 18th, 2012 | 11:37 pm
GREAT comment, Jim.
This whole “the world’s going to hell in a hand-basket because of Obama’s failed foreign policy” rant is not one Romney should make. The “world leaders are increasingly uncertain given the appearance of our withdrawal/vasilation” is a valid argument, and should be made, but it’s not the same thing.
Consider–
1) Egypt: there was no right answer–unless you could have foreseen and prevented the revolt prior to Mubarak’s losing legitimacy. There was no way to keep backing him once he lost it–which was very early on. And that meant that you would have to deal with the very popular Brotherhood, and for a time at least talk as if you thought those Egypt experts who think there’s a strong moderated branch of it are right.
2) Iran: I’ve been for bombing their nuke facilities since 2007, but I stress that I don’t see the intelligence Bush did and Obama does. As for the protests back in 2009, well, Obama should have supported them more, but there was a real danger that a U.S. President might have said “we are with you” in a way that would have implied a promise of financial or military aid.
3) Syria: no right answer.
4) The Libya war: a strong case could and can be made for it, and boo-hoo, Ghaddafi is gone. The necessary criticism here concerns Obama’s gross hypocrisy on the war powers act.
5) Russia: Obama was simply wrong with the “reset” fantasy(also w/ Iran). So were a lot of our foreign policy establishment Russia hands. But it would be a mistake to cast Putin as obviously a tyrant, as an anti-democratic force that any real American leader would have recognized as such. He is an anti-democratic force, but in a way much subtler than what certain conservatives suggest when they act as if he’s some kind of tin-pot Stalin or Brezhnev. And distasteful as he is, we may yet need to cut deals with him.
6) China being a bully to neighbors: if real action occurs, it will be mostly determined by internal dynamics. So all we can do meantime is re-affirm our alliances, and I see no evidence that the Obama administration hasn’t.
7) Afghanistan: Obama either should have said “all in” or “all out.” Instead, he said, “we’re in, but we’re out by summer of 2013.” And so now we have a big mess. (read the latest Bing West story) Of course, even if Obama had said what I wanted–”I’m committed to fight this war so long as I remain president”–we might today have mess almost as big. We’ll never know now. Romney’s instinct to punt on this issue, to suggest he’ll do a big “strategy review” once elected, is probably the right one. But since that is his instinct, there’s no way to hammer Obama on the issue.
9) Israel: the (ultimately true) case that Obama is unfriendly to Israel is not one I think Romney should harp on–doing so sounds shrill, blank-check, and very 2003–leave that to others, reaffirm our basic commitments, and reaffirm and hold Obama to our commitment to keep Iran from getting the bomb.
10) Eurozone economic slo-mo collapse or re-organization: we just don’t have much say here, nor properly seek to have.
Things are always falling apart world-wide, and fewer of them did so during Obama’s four years then we might have expected. And you know what? A President Romney could be stellar in foreign policy, and the world could still go to pot.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact