But not decisively–Romney always held his own. And I would only say Obama won on the parts of the debates focused on foreign policy. On domestic issues, Romney won.
Romney played the gentleman and the minimize-the-exposure strategy. Also a strategic vote-gaining focus on Israel. Very good answers on China and Pakistan, but never gave–nor asked to give–a foreign policy philosophy. In places repeating himself. Overall did not give me great confidence in his foreign policy wisdom.
Dem spin that Romney “hugged” Obama’s positions ridiculous.
Obama: constantly seeking to interrupt, and shamefully given the last word time after time. Kind of a jerk, but of course nowhere near a Biden-class jerk. Very strong answer on Iran and Romney wasn’t really ready for it. Obvious zinger on the number of naval vessels, and again Romney not ready. Truly ridiculous line on Romney and Al Qaida.
Romney should have had some way to attack Obama for continually campaigning against Bush, but that would have involved some risk. Bad that Romney didn’t have the confidence to attempt this at all. He avoids complexity too much, and it was the only way he could go on offense on foreign policy.
Both lied through their teeth projecting optimism on Afghanistan.
I groaned most when Romney criticized Obama for the fact that there haven’t been Israel-Palestinian talks in two years. But most other voters, including the potential Jewish ones he’s fighting for, probably liked that. But if that’s a window into Romney’s usual foreign policy instincts, oh brother.


October 23rd, 2012 | 12:18 am
How was Mr Obama’s comment on the number of naval vessels a zinger? It was condescending, perhaps, and singularly nonsensical. The size of the fleet is an issue, and I’m shocked at the reduction in strength since the time I served. Mr Obama didn’t make any point regarding the proper size of the fleet, he incorrectly referred to submarines as ships (they certainly fit the definition, but are traditionally referred to as boats in the Navy), and I suspect we have as many bayonets today as we did in 1916,if not more.
October 23rd, 2012 | 7:21 am
James, Romney should have been ready to say something along the lines of what you are saying here. Instead he made it look like all he knows about the navy is that it now has less ships than in 1917.
October 23rd, 2012 | 7:22 am
[...] GOD & CAESAR EDITION Published October 23, 2012 Anno Domini Obama, Kind of a Jerk, Won – Carl Scott, Postmodern [...]
October 23rd, 2012 | 8:13 am
That would be fewer ships, not less.
October 23rd, 2012 | 2:49 pm
yep. good catch.
October 23rd, 2012 | 5:38 pm
Carl,
Point taken,
Jim
October 23rd, 2012 | 6:17 pm
The point of Romneys navy comment was that the Navy needs more than 300 ships and Obama thinks he knows better. Simple minded commenntators focus on unpresidential smart aleck comments rather than the substance of the issues. Furthermore Obama’s comment on the defense cuts and sequestration was a flat out untruth. THAT’S A FACT. A final note, Obama loses just based on his final blame it all on Bush. It is time to put adults back in the White House.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact