Romney Rising?

At the debate in Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., moderator Bob Schiffer asked Barack Obama and Mitt Romney how they each view the role of the United States on the international stage.

This post originally appeared on Slate.

Mitt Romney brought a knife to a gunfight. A butter knife. In the third and final presidential debate, focused on national security and foreign policy, the Republican challenger seemed to be living by the Hippocratic oath: Do no harm. In this case that meant a mostly passive, heavy-on-agreement discussion with his opponent the commander in chief. President Obama, by contrast, was on the attack, repeatedly calling Romney reckless and looking every bit like the politician who thinks he's behind in the race.

President Obama won the third debate, articulating his policies more forcefully, offering more detail and a coherent foreign policy rationale. Romney generally presented bromides and talking points in a style that was at times tentative. When he talked about foreign policy, Romney occasionally sounded like a student trying to prove that he'd crammed for the test, rattling off the names of countries and bullet points he'd recently committed to memory. In the end though, the political question is not who won the policy debate on foreign policy, but whether Romney cleared the bar as a plausible commander in chief. Voters are going to hire him based on his ability to handle the economy, which means he does not need to be as competent on a secondary issue like foreign policy. He just has to be acceptable.

What does acceptable mean? For Romney, it probably meant no mistakes (and there were no obvious gaffes). The country will now return to talking about the economy, the issue he wants to talk about.

The immediate exit polls were mixed. CBS polled undecided voters and they gave the night to Obama, 53 percent to 23 percent. CNN's poll of registered voters gave the narrow edge to Obama, 48 percent to 40 percent. While Obama called Romney reckless several times, there was nothing the former Massachusetts governor did or said that seemed reckless. After the first debate, Romney campaign strategists said that voters might not have followed the specifics of Romney's plans but liked that he had them. In the third debate, Romney was hoping that his vague but confident pronouncements would do nothing to frighten undecided voters, even if it did cost him the Council on Foreign Relations crowd. And he took no risks by mounting a serious and sustained challenge of the president. In the CBS poll, 49 percent said Romney could be trusted in an international crisis. That was only a few points above what people thought going in to the debate. If he's clearing the acceptability bar, that number suggests it's not by much.

When Romney talked about non-foreign-policy issues during one of the debate's many cul-de-sacs into domestic policy, it was like a switch had been thrown. He once again sounded more confident. Romney so thoroughly abandoned the aggressive, fact-checking style that got him into trouble with the president over Libya in their second meeting, it was hard to imagine they were the same candidate. Moderator Bob Schieffer raised tougher questions in his introduction of the topic than Romney ever did.

Obama was able to even use Libya as an example of his foreign policy approach, which he argued showed what you could accomplish if you tend to your allies. "I and Americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to, without putting troops on the ground at the cost of less than what we spent in two weeks in Iraq, liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years."

Like a boxer hugging his opponent to kill time, Romney signaled agreement with Obama on Syria, Iranian sanctions, defending Israel, Afghanistan, and the ouster of Hosni Mubarak. When he fought back against Obama's attacks, his stock phrase was generic and with an eye toward swing voters: "Attacking me is not talking about an agenda." (The Romney domestic policy critique is that Obama has no second-term domestic agenda, either.)

Romney wasn't going to do anything to make suburban women, that key voting bloc, think that he was going to get into any wars. "We can't kill our way out of this mess," said Romney about the Middle East. He talked about alliances, promoting foreign aid, and working to promote democracy. When he discussed domestic policy--on the pretext that America can only be strong abroad if the economy is strong at home--Romney stressed his desire to work with both parties and referred to his record of cooperating with Democrats in Massachusetts. Several times he made this point, which is aimed directly at swing-state women who approve of Romney's desire to work in a bipartisan way. "Republicans and Democrats came together on a bipartisan basis to put in place education principles that focused on having great teachers in the classroom," said Romney. Bipartisanship and education: the double woman-voter pitch. Both candidates mentioned greater freedom for women in the Middle East several times.

Just because there were no obvious Romney gaffes doesn't mean that Obama didn't get the better of him at times. The president treated Romney like a pretender with derisive asides. "The 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back," Obama said, making fun of Romney's anti-Russia stance. When Romney talked about building more ships, the president took his pants down. "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines." It was a regular theme; the message was that Romney was a novice and a dummy. "I know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy--but every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong."

Domestic politics also came in to play in a debate over the auto bailout. There were several times when Romney decided not to answer Obama's claims. He simply let arguments pass by. After Obama launched into one long answer, Romney did try to pipe up. When Scheiffer said he'd had his say, Romney, who had moved past other moderators, said "Well, that's probably true." But when it came to the auto bailout, Romney defended himself vigorously against the charge that he wanted to let the auto industry go bankrupt.

Partisans love this stuff, but do undecided voters? Do the voters who were with Obama in 2008, but think he's tarnished his brand? The "bayonets" line is actually tied to a policy idea--that a mindless defense buildup is sloppy, inefficient, and out of sync with the threats America faces. But voters might have been lost in the snark. Voters in Virginia, especially southeastern Virginia where they like Romney's plans for a bigger Navy, probably weren't laughing so much.

Obama's best moment of the night was when he defended his foreign travel and told the story of visiting with Israeli families as a candidate. It was a strong moment because Obama combined force, a little umbrage taking, and a specific story that punctuated his claim that he was a strong ally of Israel.

Another moment that may have connected with voters was when the president told the story about a young girl who last spoke to her father moments before the World Trade Tower collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001. "For the next decade, she was haunted by that conversation," said the president. "And she said to me, "You know, by finally getting Bin Laden, that brought some closure to me." A president who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing very little in office spent much of the debate highlighting his military accomplishments.

After the second debate, Romney's oldest son Tagg said he wanted to slug the president for the mean things he said about his father. After Monday night's debate, the president spoke to Tagg on stage, the two laughed, and at one point the young Romney's hand was on the president's back. It wasn't a gesture of menace, but collegiality. In a debate about war and diplomacy, in the end, diplomacy won out.

More from Slate:

Tracing the Detour that Took Us From Foreign Policy to "I Think We All Love Teachers"
How Romney Avoided a Real Foreign Policy Debate
All Hail the Nanny State

[Shallow_Repubs_r_Cretins]

A COMPARISON... BETWEEN...

...The Last Republi-'con' we had in the White House
(Mitt Rob-me is just another G.W. Bush; he'll bring us right back to the same old, failed Republi-'con policies that put the nation in this mess).

VS.

President Obama... leading the country forward, from the mess that was handed to him.

=======================================
HOUSING MARKET AND HOME VALUES
(Last Republi-'con' in the White House vs. Obama):
=======================================
... Under the last Republi-'con' we had in the White House, home values "collapsed" and millions of Americans were underwater with their mortgages (i.e., their homes were worth less than what they owed).

... Since President Obama took office, the drop in home prices has stopped, and home values are back on the rise again...

Check out the CASE-SHILLER HOME PRICE INDEX, where it was at when Obama took office and where it's at now...

SOURCE:
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-case-shiller-house-prices-go-positive-2012-8

[Shallow_Repubs_r_Cretins]

A COMPARISON... BETWEEN...

...The Last Republi-'con' we had in the White House
(Mitt Rob-me is just another G.W. Bush; he'll bring us right back to the same old, failed Republi-'con policies that put the nation in this mess).

VS.

President Obama... leading the country forward, from the mess that was handed to him.

=======================================
The STOCK MARKET
(Last Republi-'con' in the White House vs. Obama):
=======================================
... Under the last Republi-'con' we had in the White House, the stock market "crashed" (putting the nation in a "Great Recession").
---> The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) Index had dropped down to "8,000" (Jan 2009) from the "13,000" it was at just 9 months earlier.

... Under President Obama, today, the DJIA Index is at "13,127"...right where it was at before the crash.

SOURCE:
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI+Interactive#symbol=^DJI;range=5y

[Shallow_Repubs_r_Cretins]

A COMPARISON... BETWEEN...

...The Last Republi-'con' we had in the White House
(Mitt Rob-me is just another G.W. Bush; he'll bring us right back to the same old, failed Republi-'con policies that put the nation in this mess).

VS.

President Obama... leading the country forward, from the mess that was handed to him.

=======================================
U.S. MANUFACTURING JOBS
(Last Republi-'con' in the White House vs. Obama):
=======================================
"MADE IN AMERICA" U.S. manufacturing jobs (exports).

...last Republi-'con' President we had in the White House, had net losses of "MADE IN AMERICA" U.S. manufacturing jobs EVERY SINGLE YEAR, totaling to 4.6 million U.S. manufacturing jobs going overseas in 8 years.

...Under President Obama, for the first time since Bill Clinton was President, the U.S.A. has had annual NET GROWTH of U.S. manufacturing jobs equal to the following:
2010 = +109,000
2011 = +233,000
2012 (Jan-to-Sep) = +134,000 (so far in 2012)

SOURCE: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001?data_tool=XGtable

[Shallow_Repubs_r_Cretins]

A COMPARISON... BETWEEN...

...The Last Republi-'con' we had in the White House
(Mitt Rob-me is just another G.W. Bush; he'll bring us right back to the same old, failed Republi-'con policies that put the nation in this mess).

VS.

President Obama... leading the country forward, from the mess that was handed to him.

=======================================
UNEMPLOYMENT
(Last Republi-'con' in the White House vs. Obama):
=======================================
...last 12 months of the last Republi-'con' President in the White House:

Feb '08 = -240,000 jobs lost
Mar '08 = -49,000 jobs lost
Apr '08 = +22,000 jobs gained
May '08 = -201,000 jobs lost
Jun '08 = -191,000 jobs lost
Jul '08 = -208,000 jobs lost
Aug '08 = -334,000 jobs lost
Sep '08 = -137,000 jobs lost
Oct '08 = -267,000 jobs lost
Nov '08 = -714,000 jobs lost
Dec '08 = -750,000 jobs lost
Jan '09 = -1,141,000 jobs lost

TOTAL = 4,210,000 jobs lost ... "4.2 MILLION" jobs lost in a 1 year time frame.

Obama's Turnaround after spending his first year fixing the mess that G.W. Bush left him:
2010 = + 1,252,000 jobs GAINED
2011 = + 1,570,000 jobs GAINED
2012 (just for the months of January to September) = + 2,184,000 jobs GAINED

TOTAL JOB GAINS SINCE OBAMA TURNED AROUND BUSH'S MESS
= + 5,006,000

[mikesfilms]

Foreign policy:
"In politics, stupidity is not a handicap," Romney stumbled into Napoleon Bonaparte's quote somewhere and decided to take a foreign trip. And each time he opened his trap, he tripped. Savages China while he outsources companies and thousand of jobs to China. Good reason to hide tax reports and offshore accounts. Dangerous flip-flopper in foreign policy.
Obama: talk softly and carry a big stick(T. Roosevelt).
Don't pre-announce wars at Romney's request.
Sent SEALS to rescue US captain from Somali pirates.
Near stopped piracy with Navy patrols off Somali coast.
Smashed al Qaeda getting bin Laden and dozens other capos.
Exited Iraq saving $1/2 trillion.
Exiting Afghanistan saving $1/2 trillion.
Treaties with S Korea, Panama and Colombia creating 1000s of US jobs.

[Fact_Over_Fiction]

Romney was more "Presidential"....

Translation: Romney was weak, impotent, devoid of any real conviciton, flip-flopped yet again, ran from his own words, and showed little knowledge of the subject matter. But he's a white guy with a Barbie wife. So he wins.

Got it!

[Shallow_Repubs_r_Cretins]

THIS ARTICLE:

"Like a boxer hugging his opponent to kill time, Romney signaled agreement with Obama on Syria, Iranian sanctions, defending Israel, Afghanistan, and the ouster of Hosni Mubarak."

=========================================

LMAO!.......... Mitt Rob-me showed up at last night's debate, just to say "I agree with you on 95% of what you've done" to President Obama.

...and the remaining "5%" was the part where he was too stupid to even realize that Syria and Iran are NOT bordering countries:

MITT ROB-ME: "Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea."

[formerleft]

Through the years, defense spending has generated more economic benefits than not. Defense spending is why we have space programs that have resulted in satellite technology, weather satellites, advancements in metals/durability, advancements in telecommunications, the internet was a result of defense spending, microwaves the result of defense spending, medicines are being developed and tested in zero gravity environments (space) leading to a better understanding of how viruses act. Defense spending helped with tsunami relief. Defense spending helped with Haiti earthquake relief. Defense spending employs many of our Nations' brightest engineers and scientists; talk about inspiring kids towards math and science! Defense spending results in hundreds of thousands of jobs in the aerospace industry, both public and private sector. Defense spending is leading to new and more efficient propulsion systems. Defense spending makes America great. Europe, because of entitlement programs run amok, has a very limited defense budget and relies on the USA to be there the world needs the West to help bring peace through force. Defense spending liberates the oppressed and punishes evil. Defense spending ended WW2. Perhaps Europe could remember that we were there when they needed us, and we should be there for those who need us today. President Bush seemed to understand that. President Obama couldn't even end gang violence in Chicago. This woman is voting for Romney.

[Shallow_Repubs_r_Cretins]

LMAO!.... "Defense Spending" is nice, when it's PAID FOR.... not by the Republi-'con' method of "BORROW and SPEND", which brought us this....

Our nation's national debt mess STARTED with the Republi-'con' hero, 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.

[Shallow_Repubs_r_Cretins]

========================================
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.)

[Shallow_Repubs_r_Cretins]

When Republi-'cons' controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, they had NO PROBLEM allocating U.S. taxpayer dollars to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, or even fund Iraq's military and police forces, totaling to $51.4 billion in the following appropriations:

Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF) ............................ = $20.9 billion
Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF) .............................................. = $20.5 billion
Iraq Economic Support Fund (ESF) .......................................... = $ 4.8 billion
Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP) ............. = $ 4.0 billion
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) = $ 1.2 billion

...................................................................................... TOTAL = $51.4 billion

(SOURCE: http://www.sigir.mil/files/audits/12-017.pdf)

But when it comes to rebuilding America's infrastructure, or taking care of American problems back here in the USA, the Republi-'cons' balk!

This is the kind of government that Mitt Rob-me wants to bring us back to.