2012 Presidential Debate #3 (Foreign Policy)

M

MojoMan

1,000+ Posts
The final presidential debate is tonight, and then down the stretch we come.
A month ago, the media was anticipating that this debate would be a mismatch between that foreign policy giant Barack H. Obama, who 'bestrides the world like a colossus,' and Mitt Romney, a bungling fool with no foreign policy experience, whose proverbial '15 minutes' of fame will be pretty much over with once Obama gets finished with him.

How times have changed. LOL.

Now Obama is on the ropes with regards to his mishandling of the situation in Libya which resulted in our Ambassador being killed along with three others. There was controversy after the the second debate, moderated by Candy Crowley, when she jumped in to assist the President with regards to this very question. Of course there have been protests and attacks against US embassies throughout the Middle East, and there is some confusion about whether Obama is going to announce new 'talks' with Iran in the closing days of this campaign, just before the election.

It seems unlikely that as many people will watch this debate as the previous ones, especially with a National League Championship game seven and Monday Night Football competing for viewers. And with all the controversy about the moderators in the first three debates, especially the Candy Crowley debacle, it seems likely that tonight's moderator Bob Scheiffer is likely to be quite a lot more understated in his conduct that Candy Crowley was.

I expect there will be some nice jabs and parries between the candidates, but that both of them will be striving to appear more presidential in this debate than they did in the last one. Viewership will be down, and it is unlikely that this debate will move many voters. In fact, this debate may well turn out to be regarded as a bit of a snoozer, especially compared to the other three debates.

From the Washington Post:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I thought Bob Scheiffer did a very good job. He was a lot more like Jim Lehrer than Candy Crowley, that is for sure.

Both Obama and Romney did well. Obama was more combative, but he also came across as being more on the defensive. Romney was more focused on the big picture and his vision for what America's larger role in the world should be. Romney appeared to be primarily focused on being presidential and laying out his own agenda, although he did get a few licks in along the way.

I thought Romney was more effective in accomplishing his objectives for this debate, which were to appear presidential, to lay out his ideas and to steer clear of any unnecessary conflict with the president in order to improve his aura of likeability. Obama's primary objective on the other hand was to convince voters that Romney is not an acceptable alternative as President, and that Romney is a warmonger and someone who cannot be trusted. On these points, Romney was clearly more successful.

It may be that Obama is scored by some as the winner of this debate because he was more aggressive. If that turns out to be the consensus, then it is my sense that Obama has once again won a tactical victory, much like he did in the second debate. But Romney was more effective on a strategic basis. Obama is again not likely at all to receive any appreciable bump in the election polls from his performance in this debate.

With 14 days left to go, Romney appears to be well positioned to win this election, barring some sort of major game changer, which Obama will no doubt attempt to manufacture. However, it certainly does not appear that there were any game changers tonight.
 
3rd debate in a row where Obama whined about the state of things, yet he's the POTUS. Poor guy, can't run on his record.
 
Regardless of who won on debating points, these three debates have been great for Romney. The first debate drove up Romney's positives. Final two debates drove up Obama's negatives.
 
Too bad bad Romney didn't point put to Obama "that we still have lots of bayonets and he can fact check that point with the Marines."
 
I was listening to Bill Bennett's "Morning in America" coming to work. A lot of Navy people were calling in. They were pretty incensed over Obama's comment about "horses and bayonets".

I thought Romney had the best line of the debate with; "attacking me isn't an agenda".

Obama was more aggressive. Romney was more Presidential.

I heard that no sitting President with a Gallop Poll projection of less than 50% of the vote at this point has ever won an election. Let's hope that trend holds true.
 
The fact checkers went nuts on all of Obama's lies and flubs. He outright lied on his own sequestration comment and on Romney's comment suggesting that GM file for bankruptcy, and he totally mischaracterized (and insulted at the same time) the navy and the weapons they use. Obama still insists on using the statement "the math doesn't add up", when I'm fact it DOES add up for Romney's tax plan.

It was very telling. If you didn't know anything about what was going on, you would have thought that Romney was the incumbent and Obama was the challenger. Romney acted presidential throughout, whereas Obama was somewhat nasty spirited and bitchy. Obama repeatedly fell back on the democratic talking points when it came to the economy, and Romney ended up destroying him in the last 10-15 minutes

What Romney was most successful at doing, and the immediate polls afterwards showed this, is he linked America's poor economy to our weak perception in the world. People are most worried about the economy, but they also understand that we won't be strong on national security without a strong economy, and people came out the debate still convinced that Romney is the guy to fix the economy
 
Obama won another tactical victory, like he did in the second debate. But Romney accomplished absolutely all of his objectives and presented himself well.

Obama's entire campaign strategy has been centered around trying to define Mitt Romney as an unacceptable alternative to himself by discrediting him. This debate was Obama's last chance to re-establish this narrative, which Romney annihilated during the first debate. On this point, Obama failed completely.

As a result, this election is going to be a referendum on Obama after all. That is what Mitt Romney was setting the stage for last night. The undecideds will break heavily for the challenger (Mitt Romney) at the end, just like they always do. If this election is close to tied in the polls going into election day, Mitt Romney will win by a comfortable margin.

This is why Barack Obama conducted himself like the challenger last night and Mitt Romney conducted himself like the incumbent sitting on a lead. Because they both know that is pretty much the scenario they are facing right now.
 
A word on the debate moderators and the debate formats.

The format for the first and third debates were pretty much the same. And both Jim Lehrer and Bob Schieffer both handled them in a very similar style, both doing excellent jobs. As far as I am concerned, this is a really great format for these debates. I hope the town hall format is scrapped and they just go with this format exclusively from now on. If they want to alter whether they are standing or sitting or whatever, fine.

The Vice Presidential debate conducted by Martha Raddatz was OK, but she did treat the candidates somewhat differently, interrupting Paul Ryan quite a bit more often. And she intervened in the discussion generally a bit more than was desirable. Nevertheless, she did not blatantly jump in and help one of the candidates or start listing out left wing talking points. This debate was moderated well but not excellently.

The second debate moderated by Candy Crowley was a model for how much a moderator can screw up a debate and show partisan bias. She actually intervened in the debate to help President Obama, which after the first debate he did appear to his supporters like he was in need of. And the information that she interceded with was debatable at best. Wasn't that what the candidates were supposed to be doing? Needless to say, she destroyed any lingering claim to being a non-partisan journalist that she had, and ended her presidential debate moderating career once and for all.

Grades:

Jim Lehrer - A
Martha Raddatz - B
Candy Crowley - F
Bob Scheiffer - A
 
ex2000, you bring up interesting points. However, I'm not sure why you think Obama doesn't agree with you on your 2 areas of analysis.

I recently interviewed one of the undersecretaries of the Navy and she stated that one of their biggest concerns right now is how China could acquire a weapon to sink an aircraft carrier. So is it just her that's concerned about it, or do any directives above her get ignored? Using a "bayonets and horses" quote to back up your ideas about those is just as glib as Obama was being during the debates.
 
11, my contention is the technological capability argument presented by Obama to the public dismisses the real value of simply more ships (quantity is its own quality). More ships spreads out the vulnerability of our valuable strike assets and more ships (even less expensive ships) give us much more flexibility to execute non-strike missions that are just as important for strong navies. I've had this position when Rumsfeld was SECDEF and Bush was in office, way before Obama.

God, I would hope that the Undersecretary is concerned about carrier killer weapons.
 
I didnt see the last 10-15 minutes because I was tired of what I watched before that. Both men spoke in generalities, addressed superficial issues and nit picked each other.

It was mind numbing.
 
Last I checked, the world hasnt gotten any bigger, either.

There is no reason why we need to have ships all over the world with amphibious assault teams standing at the ready in every corner of the planet.
 
You know, if US foreign policy were different and if our geopolitical goals were different, we wouldnt need what you guys are promoting.

There is no good reason for us to have ships within 24 hours of every coast on the planet. None. Unless world military domination is what you seek.

911 and Benghazi happened. But why? What compelled them? It wasnt because they hate us for our freedoms and America is under attack.

I am all for having a superior defense for this country, but that is for this country, not 150 other countries around the world.

Expanding our foreign military presence is lunacy, especially with our current economic situation.

If we were running a budget surplus and unemployment was 2%, then yes, spend more, build more ships and deploy them.

Thats not the case, however. Fear mongering can shove it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top