Foreign policy the focus for final debate

The third and final presidential debate of the 2012 presidential campaign, which begins at 9 p.m. ET Monday night, will focus on foreign policy. For Mitt Romney, it's an opportunity to portray President Obama as a weak leader on the world stage whose administration botched the response to the Libya terror attack. For Mr. Obama, it's a chance to portray his rival as a naive foreign policy neophyte willing to put politics ahead of national security.

The debate comes amid signs that Romney has somewhat narrowed the president's foreign policy advantage. A Pew poll released last week found that Mr. Obama leads Romney 47 percent to 43 percent when it comes to who can make wiser decisions on foreign policy. That's down from a 15 point advantage for the president on the issue in the same poll in September.

The 90-minute debate, which will be moderated by CBS News' Bob Schieffer and take place at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., will be divided into six 15-minute segments. The planned topics: "America's role in the world," Afghanistan and Pakistan, "The Rise of China and Tomorrow's World," Israel and Iran, and "The changing Middle East and the new face of terrorism," which has been allotted two segments.

Foreign policy has been something of an afterthought during a campaign when the candidates have largely focused on the economy, which voters say is their top concern. Michael O'Hanlon, director of research for the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution, said he is surprised that Romney has not more aggressively sought to link foreign policy to economic issues at home.

"I thought he could have made a contrast with Obama by going to Germany himself, talking to business and economic leaders," he said. "That would have been a way to project this image of focus and reinforce the overall notion that the campaign was all about the economy."

Romney didn't do so. Instead, his rhetoric about the president on foreign policy has repeatedly stressed presidential weakness: According to the GOP presidential nominee, the president "pursue[s] a strategy of leading from behind," has been engaged in an "apology tour" in office, has been "passive" in the Middle East and has been unwilling to "stand up to China." Romney botched his attack on the administration's seemingly-confused response to the Libya attack during the second presidential debate - giving Mr. Obama arguably his strongest moment in that debate last week - but you can expect him to be well prepared to try to land blows on the president over the issue Monday. (The circumstances of that attack are even now not yet entirely clear, though documents released over the weekend back up the administration's initial response.) In addition to the administration's response to the attack, Romney may follow the lead of House Republicans and raise questions over whether the White House turned down diplomatic requests for increased security as part of an effort to normalize relations with Libya. 

But Romney has vulnerabilities. For one, the president can respond to his Libya criticism by playing the commander-in-chief card, as he did in the second debate: The notion that the Obama administration played politics or purposely misled the public over the attack, the stone-faced president said, is "offensive." That argument underlines the president's core foreign policy argument against his rival, which boils down to this: I'm out here making the hard choices - including ordering the mission that took out Osama bin Laden - while you take potshots from the sidelines.

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[dreamspan]

According to WSJ the national race is tied at 47%. Going into the final debate with this number in particular is a bad omen for Romney. That 47% is a sign confirming that Romney's fate is doomed in this debate and thereby the 2012 election.

[KarenHudes]

I am a Yale Law School-educated attorney and whistleblower who reported international corruption to the US Congress. Robert Zoellick, former President of the World Bank, fired me after 20 years in the World Bank's legal department in retaliation and covered up the corruption. I testified to the UK Parliament and EU Parliaments. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmintdev/writev/402/contents.htm
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201105/20110518ATT19540/20110518ATT19540EN.pdf
This cover-up of corruption is now about to cause a currency war and downgrade in the US credit rating. Mitt Romney hired Robert Zoellick as his national security transition planning chief.

Congress is refusing to disburse the World Bank's capital increase because of this cover-up of corruption. http://www.whistleblower.org/storage/documents/whistleblowerlanguageinHR2055.pdf

With corruption at the World Bank, the United States lost the 66 year old Gentlemen's Agreement for the US to appoint the president of the World Bank http://www.imf.org/external/np/cm/2010/042510.htm What to watch for in tonight's debate is whether the cover-up of corruption will continue, or whether the candidates will have to respond to a question about what they intend to do to fight this corruption.

[TimeToEvolve]

Robbed Me like the other Republicons keep it simple

Domestic policy: tax cuts for the rich

Foreign policy: bomb, bomb, bomb

[DrAlanPhillips]

WATCH OUT FOR OCTOBER SURPRISES

Halloween brings scary and funny costumes to the attention of the children as they arrive on our porches to trick or treat. We stock up on candy and treats so tricks will be taken elsewhere in the neighborhood. Halloween brings surprises to us all and breaks the mundane routine of our daily jobs.

In the midst of political campaigns we are often surprised during this fall month of color and splendor, October. Whether a slow release of American Diplomats from Iran confinement in a prior election, a desire today for continued nuclear talks with the U.S., or the sudden decrease in gasoline prices in America, all just miraculously occurring before the next decision on electing a president, I love October and the many surprises it entails.

Yet personally I study carefully the October revelations in terms of their value at the voting booths across this land. Obviously, I want to know the benefit of the surprise to an individual candidate for in reality political campaigns are seeking to have their clients elected. I tend to discount the veracity of most surprises in October that awkwardly propose off the wall suggestions. Is that October revelation, that shocking headline merely a vote getter?

As an example, the Iranians leadership today wants to eliminate the State of Israel from the face of the earth according to words of many of their officials. They also seem to be masters if not experts of delay when negotiating. Why would I trust their intentions for a moment? I would be greatly disappointed if any leader did.

Enjoy October but please study with great care all political surprises- chances are they are just phony.

Alan G Phillips, Sr

[SteveB49]

I'd like Bob Scheifer (sp?) or someone to have the guts to ask, and the candidates to have the guts to answer, the questions as to when are we finally going to normalize relations with or neighbor to the south, Cuba? After some 50 years, it's about time!

[Eco99]

That has always confused me. We deal with some of the most despotic governments but never really understood what the deal still is with Cuba. Great question.

[SteveB49]

Of course we know it really has to do with politics, getting or retaining the vote of Cuban exhiles from the 50's and 60's. But you'd think that that aging population might have mellowed or at least have little enough clout to not influence a more sensible policy.

[fiddlestickawshucks]

Obama's attitude toward Israel (could this possibly be because he is a Muslim?). his mis-handling of the situation in Benghazi; claiming he still doesn't have proof that this was a terrorist attack; because he doesn't want to admit he failed to provide additional security in spite of 13 reports of threats against the Embassy, because he doesn't want another blot on his record before the election.

His open mic statement to the Russians that he "will be able to be a little more flexible after I'M re-elected".....

Apologizing to heads of foreign governments for the United States beginning almost the day he was sworn into Office....

Forbidding members of the military from speaking at any religion-sponsored charity, declaring Navy Chaplains can no longer use the word "GOD" during religious services and attempting to stifle any Christian expression everywhere in the US...

His failure to take any action against Syria; while al-Aquaeda is spreading further and further into Middle Eastern countries; because he needs the Muslim votes.

What more proof do Americans need to see what Obama's foreign policy really is.??!!

If Obama is re-elected, we can only "move forward" to his further attempts to take away more of our freedoms, his attempts to re-write the Constitution in an attempt to create the new name of the United Socialist States of America According to Obama, further abuse of Executive Privilege (309 so far) enabling him to take full control over literally every aspect of American life and all of it's businesses and industries (large and small), quadrupling the national debt and to continue to lie to the American people (he has been doing this since the first day of his campaign for the Presidency in 2008) making promises he never intended to keep etc.

In his Inaugural Address; he said "The United States is the greatest country in the World - Now; help me change it".

We were the Greatest Country in the World, but not anymore.

Can anybody out there guess the reason for this.??!!!

[bgdavis47]

Pinhead - get your head out of the sand!

[Mr_Senator]

If anyone is interested in a different take on debate coverage, you might want to think about tuning in to the special Democracy Now! debate show tonight. They're going to allow third party presidential candidates respond to the same questions in real time. It's available on livestream or at democracynow.org.

[Eco99]

Very interesting ... thank you for the link!

[Eco99]

I find it disheartening that this debate may center around the Benghazi attacks. Yes it was a sad moment but the GOP has a pattern of using scare tactics in campaigns (WMDs, terror attacks, mushroom clouds ... remember those from the last 2 elections). You would think the fervor around Libya would have been 10 or 100 fold around the lies that sent us into a war that has destabilized the Middle East, gave extremists a training ground and a recruiting poster for US nation building policies.
Obama has repaired much of the ill will from around the world brought by the last administration and Romney not only seems willing to go back to the old policies of the Bush administration he has alluded to another war (paid for with tax cuts - sound familiar) dimsissed Palestinians, even insulted our closest ally England. Whatever failings one might see in Obama, a Romney Presidency would not only be a disaster economically for this country (save the 1%) but a disaster for this country internationally. At least Palin could see Russia, Mitt has little if no experience or worldly knowledge to even approach a foreign policy agenda as demonstrated by his visits this past summer. His only experience is of course off shore bank accounts it seems to me.
But I fear the debate will focus on Libya, people will be swayed by the politicising a tragic event in a country still recovering from a civil uprising and the gullible will fall for short sighted attacks rather than looking at the whole of what has been accomplished compared to where we were 4 years ago when W had pretty much alienated most of the world.

[sjc_1]

President Obama improved relations that Bush had destroyed. He won the Nobel Peace Prize because he was willing to reach out. He dealt with the middle east during the Arab Spring.

President Obama has shown himself to be an aware leader on the world stage. All Mutt did was go to the U.K.,
pretend to be Mr. Olympics then insult everyone in a short period of time.

[Moatfrog]

The reality equation suggests that who ever wins this debate is immaterial. For the lizard brains who can't think beyond poll and debate importance, Obama wins the debate. More about destiny than debates and polls, Obama stays. This debate, although it pertains to the complexities of the global teeter-totter that America sits on, is far more complex than what most civilians are capable of understanding. Indeed, the general populace, not to mention Obama's opponent, is not in a position to question Obama's foreign policy strategies. Common sense, something so lacking in the mass media and the general public, dictates that top secret information and inside knowledge regarding future foreign policy initiatives is beyond comprehension by outsiders. This is as it should be. Whether you like him or not, you will soon be getting four more years of Obama. This will mean a more combative president playing his cards against a continuing inactive Congress. In the end, this will have been small potatoes on a global stage that is a boiling cauldron about to boil over. Witness the current step-up in Middle East terrorist bombings and suicide attacks. Now go place your bets on the stock market table.