Analysis: Foreign policy debate unlikely to change many minds

President Barack Obama speaks during the third presidential debate with Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney at Lynn University, Monday, Oct. 22, 2012, in Boca Raton, Fla. / AP Photo/Eric Gay

If you look at it in a vacuum, it's hard not to conclude that President Obama won Monday's foreign policy-focused presidential debate: The president projected a firm grasp on his administration's positions, spoke forcefully, and landed a number of broadsides against his rival. A CBS News focus group of uncommitted voters taken immediately after the debate found that 53 percent believed Mr. Obama was the stronger debater, compared to just 23 percent for Mitt Romney.

But this was almost certainly the least important of the three debates, and it's hard to imagine that the candidates' performance will have much of an impact on who wins the White House. Let's start with the topic: Polls overwhelmingly show that the economy, not foreign policy, is voters' top concern, which is why you saw the candidates repeatedly try to shift the conversation back to their argument on that front. Both campaigns are well aware that the candidates' positions on sanctions in Iran or arming Syrian rebels simply are not going to have a significant impact.

Then there's the timing. The first debate allowed Romney to elevate himself to the president's level, prompting a surge in the polls. The second debate gave Mr. Obama the chance to reassure demoralized liberals that he was still engaged and willing to take it to his rival. This debate came at a time when the parameters for the home stretch had been set, and it would have taken a much starker difference between the candidates than we saw Monday night to significantly shake things up. Four years ago, John McCain came out firing in the final presidential debate (which, like this one, was moderated by CBS News' Bob Schieffer), and it had little impact on the race: McCain was trailing by eight percentage points when he stepped onto the debate stage, and went on to lose the race by seven points less than three weeks later.

Romney was cautious on Monday night: He passed on an opportunity to strongly attack the president on a number of issues, including his administration's handling of the Sept. 11 attack in Libya. He also declined to draw strong distinctions between his positions and Obama administration policy. That's partially because, when all is said and done, there is little difference between the two men on foreign policy. But it was also, Romney aides said following the debate, a strategic decision. The calculation was that Romney did not need to be particularly aggressive: He could look presidential by declining to go on the attack and letting the incumbent assume the attack-dog mode that is traditionally associated with the challenger.

Play Video

Obama: Military has fewer horses and bayonets

It was a smart strategy: Romney, who lacks foreign policy experience, is clearly more comfortable discussing the economy, and Mr. Obama has a relatively strong record on foreign policy that left his rival with few openings. But it also meant that the president got to land the majority of the blows. There was, of course, the most memorable line of the night: When Romney pointed out that the Navy was smaller than it used to be and called for more ships to be built, the president responded that "we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed." The line caught fire on the internet, though it's worth noting that, as Romney's surrogates pointed out, it also likely fired up some Navy veterans to back the GOP candidate.

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[patty2345-2009]

Why is CBS' 60 Minutes and Scott Pelley appearing in an anti Romney ad? Where is the integrity of 60 Minutes and Scott Pelley for allowing that? It shows that 60 Minutes is biased in their reporting and perhaps the question that Scott Pelley was asking Romney (that is now in the anti Romney ad) was a set up. Either way, I have lost respect for Scott Pelley and 60 Minutes and now feel they are biased in their reporting.

[Shallow_Repubs_r_Cretins]

All we saw from Mitt "FLIP-FLOP" Rob-me is more of the same Etch-A-Sketch position changing, to win votes. Not surprised though, since this has been his campain's strategy since the first debate.

=============================================
The new and improved ROMNEY CAMPAIGN SLOGAN,
introduced across the campaign on October 3rd, 2012:
=============================================

* * * * * * Vote for "Mr. Etch-A-Sketch" * * * * * * * * *

"He'll Say Whatever You Want Him to Say. . .
. . . Just for the Chance to Live in That White House!"

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Here's the video for this new slogan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2GQMiOEng8&feature=youtu.be

(I'm Mitt Rob-me, and I approve this, my latest, "flip-flop" message.)

[myth1958]

Montopoli is safe in his assessment of the two contenders at the debate Monday night. Counting the New York fundraiser, this is the fourth time they've been on stage together in a matter of weeks. And they both came away smiling - not too damaged by the exchanges, and able to even show some class (and humor) at the Catholic fundraiser. We have gotten a longer peek at both men than usual, comparing the two side-by-side in ways no campaign commercial can reveal. I still think Obama came off the winner, but begrudgingly allow Romney some points for hanging tough.

[wfw3536]

Romney looked presidential and will pick up the women's vote based on his approach last night compare to Obama who looked mad most of the time and made personal attacks.

[Shallow_Repubs_r_Cretins]

LMAO!..."Presidential?" ...... after all of this stuttering? (Yep, to a Republi-minion, he probably looked "Presidential".)

=======================================================
QUTES OF MITT "ROB-ME", TRYING TO EXPRESS HIS POSITIONS
DURING THE FIRST 20 MINUTES OF THE DEBATE
(Direct from the Debate Transcripts)
=======================================================

"This is obviously an area of great concern to the entire world and to America in particular, which is to see a — a complete change in the — the — the structure and the — the environment in the Middle East."

"We see in — in — in Libya an attack apparently by — well, I think..."

"We have in — in Egypt a Muslim Brotherhood president."

"And so what we're seeing is a — a — a pretty dramatic reversal in the kind of hopes we had for that region."

" And — and we're going to have to recognize that..."

"I congratulate him on — on taking out Osama bin Laden..."

"But my strategy is broader than — than that. That's — that's important, of course, but the key that we're going to have to pursue is a — is a pathway to — to get the Muslim world to be able to reject extremism on its own."

SOURCE:
http://www.npr.org/2012/10/22/163436694/transcript-3rd-obama-romney-presidential-debate

[Shallow_Repubs_r_Cretins]

"This is obviously an area of great concern to the entire world and to America in particular, which is to see a -- a complete change in the -- the -- the structure and the -- the environment in the Middle East."

"We see in -- in -- in Libya an attack apparently by -- well, I think..."

"We have in -- in Egypt a Muslim Brotherhood president."

"And so what we're seeing is a -- a -- a pretty dramatic reversal in the kind of hopes we had for that region."

" And -- and we're going to have to recognize that..."

"I congratulate him on -- on taking out Osama bin Laden..."

"But my strategy is broader than -- than that. That's -- that's important, of course, but the key that we're going to have to pursue is a -- is a pathway to -- to get the Muslim world to be able to..."

[CarmenKnows]

I got the impression from Obama that his agenda, if elected president, would be to clean up the mess of the last four years. You know, cut the deficit, tackle unemployment, repair foreign relations, establish a coherent foreign policy, apply free market principles to our economy, reach energy independence. He apparently has been an outside observer until now.

[Shallow_Repubs_r_Cretins]

LMAO! What an ignorant Republi-minion.... as if electing a Republi-'con' with yet "another" Tax Cut idea is going to somehow cut the deficit?

Sorry, but we've tried that Republi-'con' bullogni before and this is what we ended up with...

Our nation's national debt mess STARTED with the Republi-'con', Ronald Reagan's "BORROW and SPEND" fiscal policy... and then quadrupled under G.W. Bush's "BORROW and SPEND" policies. And we're still living under those "Bush Tax Cuts", which the Republi-'con' house is standing there ground on for the top 1%.

-->Democrat, Jimmy Carter's, National Debt Increase = $280 billion.

-->Republi-con, Ronald Reagan, National Debt Increase = $1.8 TRILLION ("1,800 billions").
...Reagan's increase over Carter's = 643% more than Carter's.
...and Reagan had a Republi-"con" Senate for 6 of his 8 years.
...Reagan became the first president in history to have an increase in the national debt in the "multi-trillions". LMAO! He got the ball rolling on these "multi-trillion-dollar-debt-increases-per-president". Every president before him had debt increases in the "hundreds-of-billions"; Reagan's was in the "thousands-of-billions".
... A direct result of the "Reagan Tax Cuts" combined with ZERO effort from Reagan to cut spending (Reagan actually increased spending while cutting taxes, and then borrowing to pay for it all.)

-->Democrat, Bill Clinton, National Debt Increase = $1.6 trillion

-->Republi-con, George W. Bush's National Debt Increase = $4.9 trillion.
.....that's "4,900 billions"
.....Bush's increase over Clinton's increase = 306% more than Clinton's
.....and Bush # 2 had a Republi-"con" Senate and a Republi-"con" House for 6 of his 8 years.
.....A direct result of the "Bush Tax Cuts" with ZERO effort from Bush to cut spending. Bush actually increased the need for more long-term spending by creating 3 long term programs that cost "lots" of money: The two wars, the Department of Homeland Security, and MEDICARE Part D.

[WhatWouldJesusDo]

Romney's "math" just doesn't add up, which spells economic disaster for America! Instead of FIXING the economy, Romney is destined to ruin it! He's another George Bush, but nowhere as sincere as Mr. Bush. I disagreed with George Bush's economy policies but never EVER doubted Mr. Bush's sincerity! Some folks unfairly made fun of Bush for "looking confused" when America was under attack (9/11). But WHO wouldn't look confused?

I could SEE with my eyes that George Bush loved (and still does love) America and everybody with a neutral mind could SEE this!

Romney loves $$$. Romney worships $$$, rather than God! Not everybody can SEE this...because too many Americans (like the Germans of Adolf's day) have been fooled by Romney's smooth-talking salesmanship!

The problem with being a smooth-talking flip-flopper is that Jesus said: "Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." Matthew 5:37. Romney has aligned himself with "the evil one." Romney would bring down America just like Adolf brought down Germany. It took a lifetime to "resurrect" Germany.

[fairba]

Using scripture to relate to politics can be a dangerous thing as attempted, but here are two scriptures to consider. First, one of the ten commandments, "thou shalt not bear false witness," and second, "by their fruits ye shall know them."

Ok, so who is Mitt Romney?
-A son of a successful businessman and head of a car company, Romney gave his ENTIRE INHERITANCE to charity.
-He volunteered for his dad's gubernatorial campaign for one year.
-Unpaid intern in the Governor's office, 8 years
-Mormon missionary in Paris, 2 years
-Unpaid Ecclesiastical leader/Pastor, 10 years
-Took no pay as president of the Salt Lake Olympics, 3 years
-Took no salary as Mass. Governor, 4 years

--That is a total of 28 years of unpaid service to his country, his community, and his church

Now, look at those opposing him on the other side of the political isle and ask yourself, can the same be said?

How many years of unpaid service has Obama or Biden given to their country, community, church. How about George Soros, Bill Maher, George Clooney, David Letterman, and a host of other liberal leaning rich people? In 2011, tax returns show Mitt Romney and his wife gave 29.4% of their income to charity. Can the same be said of Obama or Biden and those opposing him across the political isle?

No, rather, they paint a picture of him as uncaring, greedy, and someone who worships $$$ more than God. They even paint him as a murderer and spread that rumor on campaign advertizements when there was not a grain of truth to the story. They demean Romney's position on social issues when they are in accordance to Christ's teachings and the Bible, and ultimately are teaching "good for evil" and "evil for good."

This election is important. The choices our country makes today will determine our future. We need to elect a President who is full of integrity, one who has a bright vision of the future, and who will lead this country on the right path.

[Shallow_Repubs_r_Cretins]

LOL!... Hey FAIRBA... similar to the old "LIFE cereal" commercials:

"Tell it to a Republi-minion...they'll believe it, the believe everything."

[Econ_Guy]

Obama looked small and petty. His snarky comment regarding aircraft carriers was condescending and petty. Not military, but have two nephews who are Navy boys. Both tweeted Obama insulted them. The debate changed nothing including the momentum Mitt has going. Not only will Ohio fall, so will PA. Obama is a goner. Romney Ryan 2012!!!!!

[captainspires]

CBS seems to be trying desperately to salvage the poor performance of Romney in the debate. Last night on the evening news Dick Gregory of Meet the Press fame said that in order to have a strong defense you needed a strong economy thus mimicing almost word for word Mitt Romney arguments about the "failed" economy. Note that he did not credit this to Romney but expressed it as his own opinion. Then after the debate he twittered "The President is determined to pick a fight tonight; Romney determined to avoid it. What does that say about where each camp sees the race?" Why did he not say this about Obama after the first debate? What is it with these CBS guys? Are they on loan from FOX news???

[staten10310]

I noticed that the article refers to the President as Mr. Obama, but does not give the same respect to Mitt Romney. The article never uses the term Mr. it just calls him Romney. Why is that?

[pepsopine]

Obama has a "relatively strong record" of foreign policy? Talk about arguing from a false premise! It's a disaster out there.

Obama did well in debating attack mode, but failed to look presidential. Comments this morning are generally that -- had you never seen the candidates -- you would have concluded that Romney was the incumbent. And in each flash poll and focus group the result was the same: undecideds are still going for Romney, primarily for economic reasons, which Romney used this debate to underscore.

Romney came out of the debate with more 'undecided' votes. Other than that? "Win" is irrelevant: this wasn't a game show, it's an election.