Who Won The Foreign Policy Debate, 22 Oct 2012?

melons said:

Agreeing was the point. Obama doesn't lack in foreign affairs like his does his Domestic affairs. If he loses, it will not be on his foreign policy. Americans have shown to be most concerned with the economy. He will lose on his domestic policy. I think that is pretty clear.

Click to expand...

Republicans blocking every attempt to improve the economy is what will turn the Congress back to the democrats. Even reupblican women know their party is against equal pay for equal work. And stopping Pell Grants and privatizing Social Security and Medicare lets the elderly know the repblicans will keep taking from the middle class and working/non-working poor to make the rich richer.

THAT is why Obama will win. People are aware of the failed policies of the republican party to keep the rich, like Romney and Ryan, richer.

IMO, the President won the debate. Moreover, this was probably his clearest victory in the debates. If there is any consolation for Governor Romney, it is that in a recent opinion poll, only 2% of Americans defined foreign policy as their most important issue.

I believe the Governor made a mistake in trying to go toe-to-toe with the President on foreign policy specifics. The President, who is privy to briefings and has gained tangible experience in foreign policy making, has a decided advantage in such encounters. The outcome was not a surprise.

What I think would have allowed the Governor to make a difference was:

1. Articulate a clear purpose for U.S. foreign policy and sketch the goals and strategic approach involved.

2. Rather than stating that a strong economy makes a strong foreign policy possible, invert the argument pointing out that an effective foreign policy can faciltate economic growth/job creation (the leading issue of the campaign) by explaining the macroeconomic implications of energy resources being concentrated in geopolitically unstable areas, the role stability can play in encouraging nations to pursue economic development/trade, the role of global financial and information flows, the reality that the world's pool of savings lies in developing countries and U.S. fiscal reform will be required to assure that the U.S. remains a sound investment, and how each of those factors can support economic growth/job creation.

Also, I believe he would have been far better served had he relied more on Brent Scowcroft and Henry Kissinger than those who advised him on foreign policy. His message came across as reactive and sometimes incoherent.

Overall, his performance was a far cry from that of his first debate. Trying to go into foreign policy specifics when he's at a decided disadvantage due to a lack of such experience left him outside of his comfort zone. He also missed some obvious opportunities. For example, the President spoke about gains in education since he took office. The recent data that offered a contradictory picture was the just released SAT scores that showed new lows in reading and writing scores and no change in math scores, which remained near their lows.

Finally, I will note that Governor Romney was, in fact, accurate in his characterization of his op-ed on Detroit, but by then the debate was closing and it was too late to recover. The operative language in that piece was:

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

Muddy Creek said:

Republicans blocking every attempt to improve the economy is what will turn the Congress back to the democrats. Even reupblican women know their party is against equal pay for equal work. And stopping Pell Grants and privatizing Social Security and Medicare lets the elderly know the repblicans will keep taking from the middle class and working/non-working poor to make the rich richer.

THAT is why Obama will win. People are aware of the failed policies of the republican party to keep the rich, like Romney and Ryan, richer.

Click to expand...

I guess we will find out on Nov 6th what the middle class, working poor and elderly really think....

donsutherland1;10610553602. said:

Finally, I will note that Governor Romney was, in fact, accurate in his characterization of his op-ed on Detroit, but by then the debate was closing and it was too late to recover. The operative language in that piece was:

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

Click to expand...

While I understand the media not doing so, I do not understand why Romney does not point out the simple fact that GM DID go into bankruptcy. And Obama took GM into bankruptcy. The constant attack against Romney claiming he would have is absurd, since the President did take GM into bankruptcy.

Muddy Creek said:

Romney looked incompetent, addled and unprepared.

Click to expand...

If fairness to Governor Romney, that's only because he was.

This morning's headline in America's daily news: "Romney flip flops - endorses Obama"

OpportunityCost said:

Sold out the missile defense shield, "Ill have more flexibility"

Click to expand...

How weak is that? That's like saying we should not allow anyone in Congress anymore to utter the phrase Lame Duck Session. It is absurd that this would even be considered a real issue, but not absurd at all that Mitt Romney, would turn it into an issue for campaign purposes, just like he's taken he word "terrorist" and turned Benghazi, where people actually died, into a semantic battle of when the word terrorist gets used - forget about the fact that Romney, came out prematurely and made a total fool of himself on the exact same issue.

So, you would vote for a man who claimed last night that Syria, provides a land route for Iran, to the sea - showing not even a modicum of understanding about the regions geography, yet you will cling to the President's realistic statement about what's really possible on missile defense?

Maybe you missed that Treaty called START. How flexible was that?

OpportunityCost said:

No efforts to curb their money manipulation and theft of copyrights and trade infringment. Its costing us billions.

Click to expand...

Curb China? Can you explain to me how the Chinese Yuan has risen in value over the past four (4) years and why - from 0.13~ to 0.16~? When did China, start stealing from us and how does launching a trade war with China, by labeling them a Currency Manipulator solve anything? All you get from doing that, is an official opening for the Treasury Department to start talks with China. How likely do you think that will be - that China, simply says, Ok, we'll stop?

Are you willing to risk a trade war with China, at a time when our economy needs to fully recover? Are you serious? A Trade War? Right, now? Come on!

OpportunityCost said:

Damaged rapport with Israel, undermined the right of Israel to defend itself by refusing to support the ways in which they do so.

Click to expand...

What kind of pablum are you selling? We damaged our rapport with Israel, because you hallucinate that all the F-15 Tactical Fighters and Munitions that we've sold to Israel, including all the training, expertise and weapon systems technical support that we've poured into their military, is not sufficient for them to be able to defend themselves?

You can't be serious! Do you realize what you just implied? You just said that all the billions we have soaked into Israel, over the years - was all for not, because they don't know how to defend themselves unless we call the shot for them. That's just flat out insane! Israel, is MORE than capable of dealing with Iran - any time and any day of the week - whenever they get ready. Israel, can launch a tactical air strike and take-out any facility within Iran's boarders whenever it gets good and ready and it does not need the United States to hold its hand while doing it.

Either you don't understand Israel's military capability, or you think I don't. Either way, you are sadly mistaken. This is a bogus argument.

OpportunityCost said:

Delegitimized their use of military action by being so critical of it, when they exist in an on again/off again war state.

Click to expand...

Stop making stuff up from whole cloth. You just plucked that statement right out of thin air, did you not? Can you post a SINGLE iota from this Administration, or ANY U.S. Administration for that matter, where the United States at any time whatsoever, implied or told the Israelis, that the use of military action to defend itself, was improper and/or somehow the wrong thing to do?

You can't find a singular word from anyone in any Administration, let alone the current Administration, where somebody is telling and/or hinting to Israel, that it should NOT defend itself. That's pure hallucinogenic nonsense. If you can post that evidence, I will eat my hat right here on this forum.

I dare you to post such proof. It never happened. Stop making stuff up that ain't true, merely because you hate this President.

OpportunityCost said:

He aided in creating a power vaccuum without considering what would replace Mubarak. He failed to support more moderate elements in Egypt.

Click to expand...

A power vacuum? So, you are telling me that President Obama, should have not worked with the United Nations, not worked with NATO and not done anything to respond to the People of Egypt, where were crying out for help as they were attempting to liberate themselves from that dictator?

Who do you suggest the United States prop-up like some puppet in Egypt, before Mubarak, was forced out? Do you have any names of people who might have fit the bill for the next President of Egypt, or the next Prime Minister of Egypt, before Hosni, got removed? These people wanted freedom and they got it - that's exactly what they cried out for. These people are going to have to work out what Democracy looks like for them, not us and not to suit our fancy, and or our biases.

Have you forgotten our own little Civil War? How many people died in that little spat? What is the COST of true freedom and who has to pay that cost? They are going to have to learn how to work together, and in the mean time, the United States can play whatever role helps to facilitate the process, but we are NOT Puppet Masters. Let these people for their own government. We can provide them with guidance on what a Democracy COULD look like in the new Egypt, but we are not supposed to be creating entire Governments for the People of the world.

WHEN are we going to learn that lesson! What does it take for you to learn that simple lesson!

OpportunityCost said:

He utterly failed the Iranians that were as close to the tipping point as Egypt. In Syria he made the same mistake as in Eqypt--radical Islamicists are the primary rebels. Who do you think is going to fill the vaccuum there?

Click to expand...

Utterly failed my left toe! Go to this thread and READ about the real record of President Obama, because you have clearly been watching too much Fake Newz on the subject: *

Nobody can educate you, but you. If you decide that you want to continue running around proclaiming a lie about a failed Presidency, despite the facts that are clearly written on the very first page of the thread I just linked you to, then that's your decision. I don't see a failed Presidency. I see a President, who came into office on the heels of eight (8) years of total domestic neglect by the previous President, and two (2) wars that needed to be dealt with and brought to a close. I see a country that was brought back from the brink of depression.

All this unreal hyper-rhetoric about a "failed presidency" is some of the most ridiculous gibberish that I've ever seen, given what this President found when he got to office, and the holistic mess that he was tasked with cleaning-up. It is one thing to start a fire and then run away. It is a completely different thing to start a fores fire, then call the fire department, then complain when the fire department does not put the fire out fast enough or the way you would want it to, and then blame the resultant blaze on the fire fighters themselves.

If that is not the height of hypocrisy then I don't know what qualifies.

I'm done for today and for the rest of this election cycle. I'll return on November 6th, where President Obama, will be getting a call from Candidate Romney, congratulating him on his second term in office.

joko104 said:

While I understand the media not doing so, I do not understand why Romney does not point out the simple fact that GM DID go into bankruptcy. And Obama took GM into bankruptcy. The constant attack against Romney claiming he would have is absurd, since the President did take GM into bankruptcy.

Click to expand...

He did that last debate.

donsutherland1 said:

Finally, I will note that Governor Romney was, in fact, accurate in his characterization of his op-ed on Detroit, but by then the debate was closing and it was too late to recover. The operative language in that piece was:

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

Click to expand...

Maggie has a separate thread on this, but I'll point out again that Obama's main point is valid. There would have been no "post-bankruptcy" GM and Chrysler if the government had not taken them through the structured bankruptcy. Romney said that there should be a structured bankruptcy but he never said that the government should finance it. There was no way it could have been financed privately at the time. The credit markets were frozen.

AdamT said:

Maggie has a separate thread on this, but I'll point out again that Obama's main point is valid. There would have been no "post-bankruptcy" GM and Chrysler if the government had not taken them through the structured bankruptcy. Romney said that there should be a structured bankruptcy but he never said that the government should finance it. There was no way it could have been financed privately at the time. The credit markets were frozen.

Click to expand...

I believe the President was clearer on this issue when he raised the op-ed in an earlier debate. The credit markets were frozen, as you pointed out. Indeed, even blue-chip corporations such as GE needed to turn to the Fed's corporate paper facility as they were unable to raise funds on their own. But last night, the President didn't raise the point you made (and he made previously). Instead, the two candidates quibbled over government guarantees.

In the end, Governor Romney wanted Detroit to survive and had the structured bankruptcy component right. His assumption that post-bankruptcy financing guarantees would have been sufficient to generate private funding was almost certainly overly optimistic given the state of the credit markets at the time.

PW4000 said:

How weak is that? That's like saying we should not allow anyone in Congress anymore to utter the phrase Lame Duck Session. It is absurd that this would even be considered a real issue, but not absurd at all that Mitt Romney, would turn it into an issue for campaign purposes, just like he's taken he word "terrorist" and turned Benghazi, where people actually died, into a semantic battle of when the word terrorist gets used - forget about the fact that Romney, came out prematurely and made a total fool of himself on the exact same issue.

So, you would vote for a man who claimed last night that Syria, provides a land route for Iran, to the sea - showing not even a modicum of understanding about the regions geography, yet you will cling to the President's realistic statement about what's really possible on missile defense?

Maybe you missed that Treaty called START. How flexible was that?

Click to expand...

:lol: now this is hilarious. Here we have someone who apparently knows little of which he speaks, nonetheless castigating others for their supposed misunderstanding.

Curb China? Can you explain to me how the Chinese Yuan has risen in value over the past four (4) years and why - from 0.13~ to 0.16~? When did China, start stealing from us and how does launching a trade war with China, by labeling them a Currency Manipulator solve anything? All you get from doing that, is an official opening for the Treasury Department to start talks with China. How likely do you think that will be - that China, simply says, Ok, we'll stop?

Click to expand...

China will stop when you make it worth their while to do so, and not a moment before. That's where credible threat rather than "give me some time so I can be more flexible in throwing the American national interest to the wind" comes in.

Are you willing to risk a trade war with China, at a time when our economy needs to fully recover? Are you serious? A Trade War? Right, now? Come on!

Click to expand...

:doh: we are in a trade war. The question is, do we intend to win it by stopping it.

What kind of pablum are you selling? We damaged our rapport with Israel, because you hallucinate that all the F-15 Tactical Fighters and Munitions that we've sold to Israel, including all the training, expertise and weapon systems technical support that we've poured into their military, is not sufficient for them to be able to defend themselves?

Click to expand...

Israel has the ability to defend themselves. For example, they probably have nuclear weapons, and could simply pre-emptively turn Iran into a self-lighting parking lot. That would certainly protect them against any Iranian nuclear program.

However, Israel is surrounded and heavily outnumbered by populaces and nations obsessed with her annihilation. She is also (like the US) an object of international assault, and increasingly she lacks credible allies. Bereft of explicit US backing, she has no option but to turn to a stronger offense in order to maintain a defense, which the "international community" will make increasingly difficult to do. And the IC's response to a nuclear strike on Iran would probably be apoplectic.

The question is not "can Israel defend itself", it is "can we help Israel defend itself so that it doesn't have to defend itself in a manner that involves committing genocide on a foreign populace before they have genocide committed on themselves"? A strike against Iran would require regional cooperation among a couple of actors - the US most definitely.

You can't be serious! Do you realize what you just implied? You just said that all the billions we have soaked into Israel, over the years - was all for not, because they don't know how to defend themselves unless we call the shot for them. That's just flat out insane!

Click to expand...

no, you are attempting here to build policy by making it's opposite a strawman, and in a critical and unstable region of the world that is insane.

Israel, is MORE than capable of dealing with Iran - any time and any day of the week - whenever they get ready. Israel, can launch a tactical air strike and take-out any facility within Iran's boarders whenever it gets good and ready and it does not need the United States to hold its hand while doing it.

Click to expand...

this is, for a variety of reasons, not accurate.

Either you don't understand Israel's military capability, or you think I don't.

Click to expand...

I have a rough approximation - and I have a pretty good approximation of Iran's abilities, and I have a fair familiarity with the airspace they would have to travel through, and the IADS coverage of it. Your notion that Israel can simply send over a flight of F-15's to handle Natanz et. al. is not compatible with reality 'on the ground' (so to speak).

A power vacuum? So, you are telling me that President Obama, should have not worked with the United Nations, not worked with NATO and not done anything to respond to the People of Egypt, where were crying out for help as they were attempting to liberate themselves from that dictator?

Who do you suggest the United States prop-up like some puppet in Egypt, before Mubarak, was forced out? Do you have any names of people who might have fit the bill for the next President of Egypt, or the next Prime Minister of Egypt, before Hosni, got removed? These people wanted freedom and they got it - that's exactly what they cried out for. These people are going to have to work out what Democracy looks like for them, not us and not to suit our fancy, and or our biases.

Click to expand...

Sort of. First off, I applaud George W Obama's adoption of the Freedom Agenda where he has done so. It's nice to see a moderate neoconservative consensus forming on Foreign Policy.

However, we shouldn't fool ourselves that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is a "largely secular" movement of happy moderates, eager to balance the rich cultural tapestry of Islam with equal pay for women in the workforce and tolerance for freedom of speech. The Egyptian people have chosen (thus far) Islamists to rule them, and that means that that nation is no longer our ally, but will increasingly be our foe.

When the Obama administration, therefore, decided to interfere in the internal power struggle going on in Egypt to defang the SCAF and enable Morsi, they were choosing to interfere in a situation best left to find it's own parity. If the Brotherhood had instead made an alliance through opposition of the (maybe 20-25% or so) actual non-Islamist portion of that populace and the SCAF, then a nice balancing act would have likely emerged, placing the interests of the MB and the interests of the Salafists at odds. Instead, now Egypt's policies will be determined by debate between those who merely loathe us and our allies, and those who rabidly wish to murder us and our allies.

Utterly failed my left toe!

Click to expand...

:shrug: then your left toe. As they were being dragged into black vans by the Basij, Green Movement Protestors chanted out "Obama you are with us or you are with them". The administration released a memo urging them to calm down. There was a real chance to remove a major strategic threat, and we didn't take it because the President believed that the sonorous sound of his voice and kowtowing to the Russians would get the mullah's to give up on their nuclear ambitions.

Romney looked presidential. He looked like the incumbent.

Obama was small and petty with his pre-written zingers ("the 80s called and want their foreign policy back", really Mr. President? What are you, 15?).

Though folks like me would have enjoyed watching Romney drill Obama on his repeated failures, he chose to pass. People already know anyway, and this is going to be decided on three economy anyway.

Women and independents were likely reassured with his calmness since he's going to be the new guy next to the button.

Last night changed nothing, which suited Romney just fine.

Romney sewed it up last night as long as he doesn't go on a bender in the next two weeks.

Amigo said:

I know, he is so like, the messiah!

Click to expand...

No, just better than what republicans have put forward. :coffeepap

One thing people should understand, is that Romney had Obama dead to rights on so many issues last night, but he CHOSE not to attack Obama. Romney's failure to go after Obama wasn't a "gaffe", it was intentional. He CHOSE not to go after Obama again on Libya, which he could have buried Obama on.

Obama's story in the last debate is that he claimed the day after 9/11, that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. We know he wasn't specificly referring to LIbya, because the ensuing 13 days, the UN Ambassador, the Secretary of State, and the President himself, made the circuits blaming the video, and calling the attacks the result of a demonstration that got out of hand. They lied about it, period. Why classify the attack as a "terrorist attack", and then spend the next 13 days telling the American people it was about a response to an anti-Muhammed video, and telling the press that you weren't going to rush to judgement until you had all the facts?

The Libya story will haunt Obama for a while. It's not a dead issue. Obama also claimed that immediately after the attack, he ordered the State Dept to "secure the location". Is that right Mr. President? If that's true, and you ordered the State Dept to "secure the location", how on Earth was CNN able to waltz into the compound and obtain the Ambassadors diary???? Why did the firefight last for 7 more hours?

All questions Romney could have countered with, but CHOSE not to.

Now the election is in the hands of God. The debates are over. The polls are shifting. The momentum is in Romney's favor, which is another reason I think he wasn't aggressive last night. Throughout this campaign, we've gotten to see the lengths Obama will go to win. He hasn't defended his economic record one time. He's lied about Libya. He's demeaned the office of the Presidency by accusing his opponent of being a liar, a tax cheat, an outsourcer, and a war monger.

The American people are poised to vote, and I pray they see Obama for who he is......

PW4000 said:

How on earth does any Mitt Romney, spin this performance? The man was an absolute Moderate, which is a total surprise to me, because of his Ultra Hawkish views on just about everything related for Foreign Policy. All of a sudden, he comes-off tonight as he was bathed in Moderate Oil just before the debate.

I am baffled.

Click to expand...

__________

PW4000 said:

With George W. Bush, out of the White House? After hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in Iraq, and more than 6,000 U.S. troops getting killed for oil and PSA contracts? After having our economy torn to shreds with no domestic agenda coming from the White House in EIGHT (8) long years?

Sure, I think we are just a bit more safe and just a bit more sane, to tell you the truth.

Click to expand...

2/3 of our soldiers killed in Afghanistan were killed under Obama. That is a fact! And of course you had to come up with the stupid left wing joke about oil. :roll:

PW4000 said:

That's what anti-Obama detractors call him out of total ignorance.

However, on a very real note, at least the President himself does not believe that he is god: Does Romney actually believe that he is or could be a god some day.

If Romney, does not believe this, then did he tell you the truth about his religious beliefs during the RNC? Either way you cut this, I find it amazingly ridiculous for anti-Obama haters to label him a messiah, when they themselves don't even realize that they are supporting a probably "god."

Some of you folks are amazingly lacking of an education about what's going on around you - right under your nose.

Click to expand...

:lamo You are, and all your libby buddies have always acted as if Obama's the messiah. Not our idea, it's from the left.

PW4000 said:

However, a man does control where HE goes in his own life. And, in the case of Romney, he skipped out to Paris, France, when other men were choosing to serve their country in a place called Vietnam. Years later, Romney, becomes a Hawk on all things Foreign Policy and seems to get off on the idea of potentially going to war with Iran. Years later, Romney, has the audacity to conclude that invading Iraq, was the right thing to do - yet tonight in the debate, he ran away from his own multi-year record by telling you to your face, that:

"I don't want another Iraq, in Iran."​

Hello? He just backed away from MANY years of campaigning on the notion that invading Iraq, was the right thing to do. He's been playing this now-you-see-my-policy-now-you-don't ever since he's been a Politician and most certainly, ever since he's been running for President.

When will this man ever develop some backbone and stick with a single statement that he actually believes?

Click to expand...

He has never supported military presence in Iran.

Amigo said:

2/3 of our soldiers killed in Afghanistan were killed under Obama.

Click to expand...

That's not surprising, considering that under George W. Bush most of the war was in Iraq and very little of it was in Afghanistan. Under Obama, a great deal of the war switched over to Afghanistan.

I honestly was disappointed with Romney not doing enough, but he won, because Obama acted like he was a monkey.

I watched Obama clench his jaw and then get angry when Romney was criticizing his "apology tour". I watched Obama get snarky and condescening talking about the military. Romney is clearly the bigger man.

Amigo said:

:lamo You are, and all your libby buddies have always acted as if Obama's the messiah. Not our idea, it's from the left.

Click to expand...

I doubt if anybody thinks he's THE Messiah.

I only consider him A Messiah. THere are certainly others.

zstep18 said:

That's not surprising, considering that under George W. Bush most of the war was in Iraq and very little of it was in Afghanistan. Under Obama, a great deal of the war switched over to Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

Bush was 8 years, Obama 4. You can never justify 2/3 of troops killed under Obama in 4 years, as opposed to 8 years.

Gardener said:

I doubt if anybody thinks he's THE Messiah.

I only consider him A Messiah. THere are certainly others.

Click to expand...

Right, Clinton was a messiah too.

Amigo said:

Right, Clinton was a messiah too.

Click to expand...

Just be glad that we all have freedom to worship as we choose.