Neither candidate wanted to talk much about foreign policy, and so they spent a lot of time making their signature domestic points. Insofar as it was an economic debate, Romney won. He did play the card–often–of saying the most important foreign policy issue is strengthening our economy at home. At one point the candidates, working together, gave us the impression that the key to American global dominance is small businesses and small classes.
But they did talk some on foreign policy. And then Obama prevailed. He was fairly successful in portraying Romney as uninformed and out-of-touch, even scoring, I think, with an outrageously condescending riff on ships. Romney did not succeed in explaining how he would handle this or that situation differently and more prudently. It was hard to tell the difference between his view and the president’s on Syria, Libya, Egypt, even Iran, etc. Romney tried the “apology tour” theme, and it backfired to some extent.
But you could still say that Romney’s strategy of being all for peace (principled peace) and even attacking Obama some from the left worked. The CNN study that showed Obama winning the debate also showed Romney coming off as a good potential commander-in-chief. So maybe Romney wasn’t really hurt. He would keep us as safe as the president has. We can wish that Romney had aimed higher and gone more on the offensive. He even basically gave the president a pass on Libya.
Both candidates lacked energy, but Romney especially. They had to sweat to make the evening interesting.
So no mo’ for Mitt from this debate. But we can hope that his surge–based on the need for economic change–will continue.
UPDATE: I just saw Carl’s post below. It’s good and doesn’t really disagree with mine.
October 23rd, 2012 | 6:48 am
I vote for Romney as the winner. I love the phony word comportment. Romney had better comportment. Obama wanted Romney to appear reckless…Instead, Romney looked steady and Obama looked petty bringing out a litany of attacks. Obama looked fully vice presidential…The me line of Obama was vintage. On the personality side, Romney looked by far, for once, the more likable person, the warmer and more human guy. On the who would you rather have over for dinner test, Romney was the clear winner. And you can save on the wine, too. If you put this appearance together with the Smith dinner speech, Romney has been able to “humanize” himself enormously. So the key word is not plastics but comportment.
The truth is someone has probably already won the election. We just don’t know who…
October 23rd, 2012 | 7:26 am
[...] The So-Called Foreign Policy Debate – Peter Lawler, Postmodern Conservative Support Big Pulpit, Just Click on the Ad Below Please Can't Find What You're Looking For? [...]
October 23rd, 2012 | 8:24 am
Based on that thing last night, both candidates clearly think Mitt is winning.
The questions about Pakistan & drones were actually really good. Mitt’s answers were borderline terrible. It was odd that those questions weren’t directed towards Obama as a follow-up (did the moderator think he was way behind, or did he not want Obama to have to flounder around for an answer?), as I would have liked to hear how awful his replies would have been.
October 23rd, 2012 | 9:36 am
I agree that the impression was Romney is winning. And in general Romney now seems more “human” than the president. But he had some “borderline terrible” moments last night.
October 23rd, 2012 | 9:42 am
most interestingly- all of the major points of factual disagreement in the last 2 debates (crowley/youtube, GM bankruptcy, status of forces agreement)- Romney was clearly correct & Obama wrong/misleading. So much for Mitt is a liar meme.
October 23rd, 2012 | 9:45 am
Thanks, mm, you are right.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact