Charles P. Pierce’s reaction to last night’s debate is about the same as mine. The best I can say for Romney is that perhaps he figured that if he could make it look like there isn’t a whiff of difference between the two parties on foreign policy, he’d win because of the economy. It’s not half bad as a theory, but he didn’t really execute. I don’t think anyone came away thinking that Romney and Obama are equals on foreign policy. Still, I think it would have served the country better if Ron Paul had been the moderator, if only because he would have questioned some of the assumptions both candidates and both parties are operating under. Bob Schieffer merely invited them to expand on those assumptions, chief among them being that America should try to control everything that is happening in the world all the time.
If you scratch the surface, you can see Obama making modifications to some of these assumptions, while Romney calls any deviation from permawar in Central Asia and the Middle East some kind of apology. But that Mitt Romney didn’t really show up last night. Or, he kinda did, and he kinda didn’t. One moment he sounded like John Lennon and the next moment he sounded like John Wayne. He criticized the president for acknowledging that America has allied itself with dictators and then denied that we ever allied ourselves with dictators and then praised the president for not sticking it out with fallen dictators. It was that sort of night. Romney was incoherent to anyone conversant with history, but I don’t think he was any clearer to dumbasses.
It seemed as if Romney wanted to avoid looking scary on foreign policy, perhaps to prevent a huge gender gap from opening up. But he looked scary for a different reason. He looked scary because he couldn’t hold his own on foreign policy. If that wasn’t clear from his answers it was at least clear from his demeanor.
I don’t know how it plays or makes a bit of difference. Also how many folks watched instead of the games? The theme that Obama focused on – trust – is exactly what needs to be pushed in the closing days. Glad to see him reinforcing in FL this morning.
he was on fire this morning in Delray.
why try to fix US foreign policy by electing someone with no experience. I’m sure the neo-cons were tearing their hair out the Romney basically endorsed Obama’s foreign policy. Romney’d line that Syria was Iran’s route to sea when they have no common border and Iran has direct access to the Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean should make any neutral pause for thought…
It’s funny because I don’t really think the sea-access thing was much of a gaffe. I mean, the point is that Iran can project its power in the Mediterranean (against Israel) because of Syria. What he said was awkward and nonsensical of taken literally, but it did not indicate that he doesn’t know basic geography.
Oh no?
No.
I don’t see any reason to give Romney the benefit of the doubt on this, but would you agree that it at least shows a complete lack of ability on his part to vocalize even mildly complex arguments or positions, which can be very dangerous in diplomacy?
Actually nevermind, I don’t think we really needed any more evidence of that. #romneyshambles
Sure. That was garbled nonsense.
What he surely meant was that Iran is able to harass Israel with rocket fire because the Syrians allow them port access, and allows their advisors to move freely in and out of Lebanon. Iran would not have been able to build up Hezbollah the way they did if not for Syrian cooperation. Hamas uses Damascus as it’s headquarters. If you pry Syria out of Iran’s hands, you get the prospect of some relief from that kind of pressure. I would think that both Lebanon and Israel would be a little less volatile without Iran’s influence in Syria. But that presumes that chaos doesn’t result in Syria that bleeds over the borders. Some of that is happening now, but it could get a lot worse if Assad falls and no one can effectively replace him.
Also, the Syrian opposition is filled with Sunni radicals who could be just as implacably opposed to the status quo in the Middle East as the Iranians.
Wait, what am I talking about? Romney didn’t mean all that. He’s just an idiot.
Someone told Mitt Romney all of that once. Maybe Dan Senor.
Iran still has to go through or over Iraq or Turkey to get to Syria, and I would imagine Iraq or Turkey would have something to say about that even if the US didn’t intervene directly. So I’m not sure this “projecting power through Syria line really holds much water (or oil).
they just sail their ships into Latakia and disgorge their weapons.
It’s a long way around, and I don’t know how sanctions effect it, but yes, in theory that’s possible.
Ok but Romney was saying that Syria was Iran’s route to the sea–which is nonsense since they do not border each other.
Yes Iran could sail ships into Latakia but they would have to go via the Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea and Suez Canal. This is also the route they would take for trade. Or they would have to go via land – across Iraq or across Turkey and Iraq and over land to a port city in Syria.
Romney could have made the argument that Iran and Syria are allies in their support of Hezbollah and Hamas but this whole route to the sea business was nonsense.
Exactly. The comment seemed to hint at a way to break sanctions, i.e., for the purpose of exporting or importing through a port not in Iran. Given the unfriendly (to Iran) Kurd areas in Iraq and Turkey (and within Iran and Syria, for that matter) that would have to be crossed, it was a totally ridiculous comment that deserves derision.
To the contrary, he may have memorized some talking points about Syria and Iran but the way he phrased it showed he has no underlying grasp of the “geopolitical” realities. If a student wrote that on a test one would say – oh, crammed for the exam but has no concept.
I mean, the point is that Iran can project its power in the Mediterranean (against Israel) because of Syria.
Romney’s screw-up makes me think he has heard this point, and was trying to repeat it, but failed.
He did not make me think he understood this point himself. He didn’t even try to say “Mediterranean Sea,” and delivered the line “to the sea” like it was what he meant to say.
I can’t get over how Mitt does no work. why didn’t he study? he’s been running for prez for a decade. he could have learned something to prepare
He has staff for the scutwork. He’s the Big Idea policy guy, the CEO who says “We will do this thing” and leaves the petty details to the people who he’ll fire if it doesn’t work.
reposting:
Overall impressions: Obama was amazingly well prepared both strategically and tactically (this really comes out in the transcript). He has memorized specific points for sure but he also comes from a comprehensive and integrated understanding of the role of America in the world. His presentation is at an incredibly professional level. He was also relentless in pointing out the evasions and distortions of Romney. He expertly developed over the course of the debate several complementary themes, on the one hand the theme of his record in global leadership, on the other the theme of Romney’s unreliable record of evasions, flip-flops, and just plain moronic statements, said live or in the past. He was totally ready for Moderate Mitt and he went after him with gusto while at the same time presenting a compelling argument for his record and his understanding of America in the world.
The competence gap was astounding. Romney babbled about routes to the sea and apology tours. Obama developed in detail how international relations actually work. Obama presented a specific and substantial perspective backed up by facts. Romney presented a series of superficial gambits and temporary calculations that benefit him personally.
Example:
(Romney then protested he had said no such thing about Iraq. Here’s a Romney quote on Iraq, speech to VMI from a couple weeks ago:) “In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried–and failed–to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.”
One of the worst days of my life was the one year anniversary of 9/11.
It was abundantly obvious that our leadership was lost and clueless to respond to the attacks in an enlightened, long-viewed and effective way. For decades, maybe a century we might be paying for that folly and I was so sad for my kids.
Stupid is dangerous.
Watching last night I was overwhelmed with the fear and realization that at least half the country still doesn’t know how stupid we were or how dangerous stupid is. Romney can flip flop, not because he changed his mind about what is best, but because he thinks that’s what people want to hear. That is horrifying.
Add to that, Romney is the first candidate in memory who DOESN’T have a foreign policy team. He says, “I got this” because he doesn’t even think it is that important. I’d bash him for having Bolton as an adviser except he doesn’t think he needs much advice.
Exactly. It’s freaking me out how close this election is, when the R candidate is clearly such a dangerous choice. What is wrong with people in this country? The stupid, it BURNS.
The scariest part of last night for me was that stupid grin Romney wore all night.
Obama was sincerely presenting policy statements.
Romney was playing snooker the rubes, and could hardly contain the mirth.
His campaign should be thrilled, he probably knocked it out of the park.
Just up:
The Third Debate: A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words
My own take on the Romney debacle.
Ain’t about logic, Booman. Not now. It’s butt kicking time, and Obama kicked Romney’s ass on a right-brain level. On Romney’s home turf.
Will it matter?
Read the post.
If it doesn’t, I am afraid that we are terminally fucked.
Like dis.
The Terminal Bar. Used to be across the street from the Port Authority Bus Terminal in old, funky Times Square.
We’ll be back in black-and-white, down-and-out America in less than a year if Romney wins.
Unbelievable.
AG
Here’s what’s missing from the national conversation:
And no it’s not about violence. It’s about shutting down the baloney quickly and completely.
Then spell it out, short and to the point. Should have been the theme all year.
“It was the horrible vision of John Bolton in four-point restraints.”
Well, not so horrible for me, I like that vision. It just occurred to me that this is possibly the greatest of all irony here; to whom is he lying? I reacted to the first debate calling Romney’s reversals on everything a sucker punch. John Kerry, Obama’s stand in for this debate practice admitted it had never occurred to them to practice for such a blatant list reversals, even this time. This leaves us with the only principle Romney will never waver on is that he will remain utterly unprincipled, as Charles Pierce puts it in the article.
I think we believed Romney was a true extremist or the first sucker punch would not have been possible. The Rush crowd certainly believed it, especially in the wake of the 47% revelations. As that crowd moved into control of governorships and state legislatures, the gloves really came off. Rush warned about backpedaling the 47% remarks because as he put it, a lot of people out there agree with that. Maybe he’s right. Maybe the white male gap is large enough to still win if only helped with bit of voter suppression and intimidation.
The first debate was different. The lies were mostly denials of the perceptions of previous policies. I’m not for a tax cut for the rich because my closing of unnamed loopholes will even it out. This time it was different. Not only was this performance a reversal of his previous policies as crafted by the Bolton crowd but now he is actually agreeing with Obama’s policies, wanting to do the same thing, only louder. I easily can see how Bolton would be in need of some four point restraints.
How do you feel in the morning when you wake up to realize you’ve been lied to, even worse, you fell for it? I get visions of the character in Sideways getting his face beat in with a motorcycle helmet when the truth about the character’s pending wedding is revealed.
This creates the situation any liar faces, was he lying then or is he lying now. Did Romney just re-confirm the reason the real conservatives never liked him in the first place? This cuts one way or the other. One way he gets a pass, the other way, wing nut enthusiasm takes a real hit.
That assumes you admit you’ve been lied to, and you fell for it. Denial can make the mark the con man’s strongest ally.
Very true. Romney says things that are completely opposite of previous statements. One is a lie and the other is the truth except if they are both lies. What do you choose to believe? That was my point about it cutting either way because this could still divide the wing nuts to at least lessen some of their enthusiasm
I’ve given up on dividing wingnuts because they can believe two entirely opposite statements, if they came from an accepted member of their tribe. But independents might be reached.
thinks that he is ahead I guess.
I don’t think he is: but that is what the Romney people are thinking.
This was always going to be close given Obama’s approval numbers, though I think Obama does have an advantage.
Same here. I wanted to hit myself with a baseball bat with the bullshit framing of Schieffer. It was worse than Martha “Everyone knows Social Security is going broke” Raddatz.
I told you, BooMan, back when everyone was speculating about who Romney would pick for VP, that having no national security credibility on the ticket was a bad idea.