.

Final Debate Offers Last Licks for Romney, Obama

In the last debate before the Nov. 6 election, candidates Romney and Obama argued the 900-pound gorilla of the election, foreign policy. Will the winner carry his momentum to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

They both know what they are talking about, don't they?     

President Obama killed it when speaking about Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. Governor Romney mastered China and the economy. Astonishingly, very little was said about the recent Libyan disaster and the sad, dangerous situation in Syria. Yet perhaps even more astonishingly, there were several times when Romney and Obama appeared to —gasp! — agree.

Nevertheless, there were two sharp areas of contrast. The first? The economy, which both candidates continued to debate vigorously even though the evening's topic was officially foreign policy. 

The second? The appearance of presidentiality. 

As an observer, I found it very curious that Romney did not hammer home the popular conservative talking points of the Libyan and Syrian disasters, both huge weaknesses for the current administration. Instead, in a thought-provoking twist, Romney chose to agree with Obama's strategies, again and again.

Even more interesting was the Romney strategy of not just embracing, but actively promoting, world peace. In this way, Romney effectively defused Obama's central effort to paint Romney as a reckless and dangerous warmongering flip-flopper who is unfit to lead the nation.

Like the last debate, Obama was well spoken and argued his points effectively. But instead of defining a clear plan for the future of the nation, he instead chose to go on the attack, defaulting to petty, condescending remarks ("We have these things called aircraft carriers!") and, as in the first debate, appeared nearly angry.

And, by the way, the military does still use bayonets. Sorry, Mr. President.

Clearly, President Obama was well prepared to answer each of moderator's Bob Schieffer's questions; he was smooth and knowledgeable. But as I watched Governor Romney take the broad view, I observed President Obama delving deeply into little-known details, apparently to demonstrate his foreign policy prowess.

But the result was that Obama appeared more like a mid-level policy wonk than a top level world leader. Obama's decision to use his time to attack Romney's positions instead of define his own policy for the next four years will hurt him; how many times do we need to hear Obama accuse Romney of wanting to cut taxes for wealthy "folks", even though Romney has denied it, convincingly, countless times?

Obama spoke and acted more like a desperate challenger —I attempted to measure the number of interruptions, but lost count after the first segment— rather than the man who has led the greatest nation in the world for the past nearly-four years. So while he may have earned audience giggles for some well-timed comments, in the end, I don't believe he added anything new to the national conversation.

For a victory, all Romney had to do was demonstrate knowledge of the most salient foreign policy topics of the day and appear presidential. He didn't have to trounce Obama like he did in the first debate; he only had to perform well enough to assure the American people that he is qualified to be the nation's top diplomat.

In this respect, Romney is the clear winner. He was by far more presidential. He clearly demonstrated his preference for staying above the muck of nasty allegations, as all presidents should. That's because he is a big picture thinker, as all leaders are. Best of all, he rejected the stereotypical warmonger's posture by promoting peace and prosperity for all, and with it the halfhearted attempt by Obama to paint him as George W. Bush redux.

But my favorite part was the final statement, when Romney stated his ability to reach across the aisle to work with "good Democrats and good Republicans" to craft policy initiatives that will move 100 percent of the world toward peace and prosperity.

And that's the kind of hope and change this voter believes in.

ed Hurston October 23, 2012 at 03:02 PM
He chose to agree with Obama because Obama’s doing a good job handling foreign affairs. Mitt’s only other choice would be to declare war and send our young troops into another ugly war. He may think that but he won’t say that. The problem with Mitt is he keeps changing his views based on what he think people want to hear. As for the President he has to make unpopular decisions no matter people may think, that comes with the job. As for foreign affairs, abortion, health care, immigration, gay rights it’s unbelievable to see Mitt keep changing where in stands on these issues. I’m sorry but you can’t truthfully say he does not keep flip flopping on these issues. With that said you might say Mitt won that debate but you are in the sad minority. I haven’t really seen any poll that think Mitt won that debate. Oh and let’s not forget Mitt’s approval rating when he left as governor was at 34% Here’s the real score on the debates. Obama 2 Mitt 1 just keeping it real
Fed-up October 23, 2012 at 04:27 PM
Good job - hmmm 23 million umder or unemployed, 45 million on food stamps, poverty rate highest since the 60', household income down $4300, 16T national debt ($57,000 lien on every person in this country), middle east on fire, obamaphones and illegals running rampant, circumventing our constitution, yea I guess your right - good job BUT for who??? Radicals entertained in the White house, but world leader of our ally snubbed? ok thats enough more makes me sick

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »