Andrew Sullivan doesn't like Obama anymore

By Frank Moraes

You may remember Andrew Sullivan. He is a conservative Obama supporter. And after the first presidential debate, Sullivan had a very public freak out. That was understandable, a lot of liberals were similarly concerned, although he was much more ridiculous than most.

Now that Sullivan has got the president he wanted, Sullivan apparently thinks that Obama shouldn't do anything as rash as govern on his campaign promises. In a blog post yesterday, he writes, "Meeting In The Middle." In it, he quotes Ezra Klein and Michael Tomasky, basically saying the same thing: it is good to see that Obama has learned how to negotiate. Tomasky writes, "If the White House had instead yesterday offered a modest set of specific entitlement cuts and domestic spending cuts, that would have started the negotiations on GOP turf, since those are the two things the GOP wants."

Exactly!

But Sullivan thinks this is all wrong:

But he just got re-elected. It's a classic time for magnanimity -- and yet he began the critical negotiations by poking the defeated GOP in the eye. This is not the new politics. It's the old partisanship. I hope it works. I fear it won't.

Read more »

The failure of Mitt Romney

By Michael J.W. Stickings

At The New York Review of Books, Garry Wills makes the case that Mitt Romney didn't just lose an election, he lost his very honor in the process-- and that unlike most previous presidential election losers he doesn't really have anything to give back, so dramatically did he sell his soul to try to win:

What public service do we expect from Mitt Romney? He will no doubt return to augmenting his vast and hidden wealth, with no more pesky questions about where around the world it is stashed, or what taxes (if any) he paid, carefully sheltered from the rules his fellow citizens follow.

*****

What vestige of a backbone is Romney left with? Things he was once proud of -- health-care guarantees, opposition to noxious emissions, support of gay rights and women's rights, he had the shamelessness to treat as matters of shame all through his years-long crawl to the Republican nomination.

Other defeated candidates compiled stellar records after they lost. Two of them later won the Nobel Prize -- Jimmy Carter for international diplomacy, Al Gore for his environmental advocacy. John Kerry is still an important voice for the principles he has always believed in as a Democrat. Michael Dukakis carries on as the college professor he always was, with no need to reject or rediscover any of the policies he championed. Robert Dole joined with McGovern in international nutritional projects.

None of these men engineered a wholesale repudiation of their former principles. Romney, on the contrary, did not let earlier positions grow -- enriching, say, his experience of health care legislation to give his approach greater refinement or focus. He just tried to erase the whole matter from his record.

*****

Many losing candidates became elder statesmen of their parties. What lessons will Romney have to teach his party? The art of crawling uselessly? How to contemn 47 percent of Americans less privileged and beautiful than his family? How to repudiate the past while damaging the future? It is said that he will write a book. Really? Does he want to relive a five-year-long experience of degradation? What can be worse than to sell your soul and find it not valuable enough to get anything for it? His friends can only hope he is too morally obtuse to realize that crushing truth. Losing elections is one thing. But the greater loss, the real loss, is the loss of honor. 

This is pretty harsh analysis, but it's hard to find fault with it. Romney is essentially a plutocrat (or a wannabe plutocrat), a successful vulture capitalist who build on the wealth his father made and then decided he wanted to be in politics. It made sense, initially, for him to be a moderate Republican in a liberal state like Massachusetts, and really he was just a throwback to business-oriented moderates of the past, business-oriented pragmatism having a long history in the Republican Party. And, further, it was perhaps admirable of him to turn to public service, not just in Massachusetts but before that for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. Sure, public service meant advancing his pro-business outlook, building up his political arsenal, and continuing to profit from his former business associations (Bain, etc.), but at least there was consistency there.

But the Republican Party was changing, and the Republican he needed to be both in 2008 and even more so in 2012 was vastly different than the one he needed to be in Massachusetts in 2002, or that other pro-business types had had to be previously. That's when Romney changed, when he decided that winning meant selling out. Sure, the pro-business orientation remained, but everything else went crazy -- as Wills writes, it was "a five-year long experience of degradation."

I'm really not sure what will become of Romney now. Maybe Wills is right and he'll just go back to "augmenting his vast and hidden wealth." He may maintain a small profile in Republican circules, but it's not like Republicans like him all that much. Furthermore, it's not like he has much actual political experience to draw on, and it's not like he really seems to believe in anything other than his business interests.

Balloon Juice's mistermix wonders about Romney's legacy, finding Thomas Dewey, who lost in both 1944 and 1948, to be the best parallel: "Dewey pretty much stayed on the sidelines, turning down a nomination from LBJ for the Supreme Court, and concentrating on making money as a corporate lawyer. I imagine Mitt will follow a similar path."

Yes, perhaps so. Back in October 2011, Mustang Bobby wrote a post in which he called Romney "the perfect GOP establishment candidate; he's the 21st century Thomas E. Dewey, but without his charm or conviction." 

Which reminds me of a question I raised back in September:

Romney is the worst major-party presidential candidate since _______ ?

Forget Dukakis, Mondale, or McGovern. I went all the way back to the '30s:

So how far back do we have to go?

After all, the only thing keeping this race even somewhat close is the struggling economy, and that has nothing to do with Romney. Imagine how far ahead Obama would be if the economy were even just a tiny bit stronger at the moment.

So maybe Willkie in 1940, a business-oriented moderate who had to secure the support of right-wing isolationists in the GOP (yup, sounds a bit like Romney). But no. He, at least, was respectable out on the campaign trail, even if he stood little chance against FDR.

I'll go with Landon in 1936, another business-oriented type and by all accounts a terrible campaigner and generally inept politician. But even then, he didn't constantly embarrass himself, unlike Romney. He just didn't campaign for long stretches at a time, including for two months after he won the Republican nomination, and FDR crushed him in the election. He won only Maine and Vermont, losing the Electoral College vote 523 to 8.

Perhaps he was worse than Romney. Perhaps. 

It's easy to forget this now, but Romney really was a terrible candidate. Other than his performance in the first debate, where his shameless "Etch-A-Sketch" lying combined with Obama's disengagement to make it seem as if he was a credible candidate, what else was there?

Yes, this could mean that a stronger candidate would have won, but who was that candidate? Because one can make the case that Romney was really the only viable Republican choice in 2012, the only one who could pull the party together by saying whatever each of its constituent parts wanted to hear, and who would be prepared to sell that good 'ol Republican snake oil with a smile on his face. And yet with a still-struggling (if improving) economy he still lost badly.

Regardless, Romney's weakness as a candidate, and as a political actor generally, likely means that his post-election political career, such as he has one, will be pathetic and self-serving.

And as for any legacy, well, consider that a failure as well. 

New poll: Romney hits 50%, but who has the momentum and what does it all mean?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

ABC News:

Mitt Romney has seized further advantage on economic issues at the core of the 2012 campaign, taking him to 50 percent support among likely voters vs. 47 percent for Barack Obama – Romney's highest vote-preference result of the contest to date.

The difference between the two candidates is within the margin of sampling error in the latest ABC News/Washington Post daily tracking poll, and their individual support levels have not significantly changed. But the momentum on underlying issues and attributes is Romney's.

This has been, recently, the dominant media narrative, one they are reluctant to let go of: Romney is on the rise, and there's no stopping him, as if he can just keep going up and up. This has been the story ever since the first debate, Romney's one solid outing in the entire campaign, even though Obama won the next two debates, Biden beat Ryan in theirs, and Romney has continue to spew his dishonesty and nonsense out on the campaign trail, very much the candidate he always has been though now with a phony "Moderate Mitt" twist.

(For more on this media-driven development, now fueled by the Romney campaign's inevitability spin, see Alec MacGillis's critique of the "liberal" media's "trajectory" narrative. It very much mirrors my own view of things following the first debate, when I said that the media wanted Romney to win -- not so much because they agree with his politics but because they wanted a new story, and some drama -- and so aggressively gave the debate to Romney on style and hammered the "Romney crushed Obama" meme, willfully ignoring Romney's deluge of dishonesty.)

Now, obviously, there's something to it. Romney has in fact risen in the polls, even if the debate was only part of it (basically, the race was bound to tighten), and at least this one poll now has him up to 50%.

But a poll, a single poll, is just that: a single snapshot of a complex and narrowly volatile situation. The question isn't whether a single poll is an accurate measure of where the electorate stands but how the race is going generally, and the way to do that, as scientifically as possible, is to aggregate polls while accounting for individual polls' biases. The result is still a snapshot, of course, but one that tells a more comprehensive story.

And as Nate Silver writes -- and he knows a thing or two about such things -- Romney's "momentum" appears to have stalled, if not stopped:

Mr. Romney clearly gained ground in the polls in the week or two after the Denver debate, putting himself in a much stronger overall position in the race. However, it seems that he is no longer doing so.

Take Wednesday's national tracking polls, for instance. (There are now eight of them published each day.) Mr. Romney gained ground in just one of the polls, an online poll conducted for Reuters by the polling organization Ipsos. He lost ground in five others, with President Obama improving his standing instead in those surveys. On average, Mr. Obama gained about one point between the eight polls. 

And, indeed, if there is any momentum, it may now be going Obama's way:

The FiveThirtyEight model looks at a broader array of polls — including state polls — in order to gauge the overall trend in the race.

Our "now-cast" also finds a slightly favorable trend for Mr. Obama over the course of the past 10 days or so. Mr. Romney's position peaked in the "now-cast" on Friday, Oct. 12, at which point it estimated a virtual tie in the popular vote (Mr. Obama was the projected "winner" by 0.3 percentage points). As of Wednesday, however, Mr. Obama was 1.4 percentage points ahead in the "now-cast," meaning that he may have regained about 1 percentage point of the 4 points or so that he lost after Denver. Mr. Obama's chances of winning the Electoral College were up in the FiveThirtyEight forecast to 71 percent on Wednesday from 68.1 percent on Tuesday.

I don't pretend to be a polling expert, but I know enough to know that you have to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and that's something many in the media are simply incapable or unwilling to do, preferring to latch on to out-dated narratives (or, rather, to become enamored of their own narratives, as if they've discovered the meaning of the cosmos) and participate in the echo chamber that develops whenever a new narrative takes hold (think of a petulant child, facing a plate of broccoli, sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling in response to his parents telling him to eat up, it's good for you, which of course it is, he just doesn't know it yet, and perhaps never will).

Look, we're still talking about an awfully tight race that could go either way. And of course it's a race for Electoral College votes, not the total national vote, so what we really need to look at, as Silver does, is the state-by-state picture, particularly the key swing states like Ohio.

And there, President Obama has maintained a fairly consistent lead, even if it's down from the pre-first debate highs, with the race certainly not close enough for comfort -- and with anything possible heading into the final ten days.

Romney will take us to war

By tmcbpatriot

Terrorism

Mitt Romney, October 22, 2012 (Debate #3): "In the 2000 debates there was no mention of terrorism, for instance. And a year later, 9/11 happened. So we have to make decisions based upon uncertainty. And that means a strong military. I will not cut our military budget."

Al Gore, October 17, 2000 (Debate #3): "I served on the House Intelligence Committee and I worked hard to learn the subject of nuclear arms control and how we can diffuse these tensions and deal with non-proliferation and deal with the problems of terrorism and these new weapons of mass destruction. Look, we're gonna face some serious new challenges in the next four years."

George W. Bush, October 17, 2000 (Debate #3): "Saddam Hussein still is a threat in the Middle East. Our coalition against Saddam is unraveling. Sanctions are loosened. The man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction."

George W. Bush, October 11, 2000 (Debate #2): "We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president."

——

Keepin' the Peace. (Heh. Heh. Heh.)

Mitt Romney, October 22, 2012 (Debate #3): Let me -- let me step back and talk about what I think our mission has to be in the Middle East, and even more broadly, because our purpose is to make sure the world is more -- is peaceful. We want a peaceful planet."

George W. Bush, October 17, 2000 (Debate #3): "You're going to live in a peaceful world. It will be a world of peace because we're going to have a clear sight of foreign policy based upon a strong military and a mission that stands by our friends... I want to have the military keeping the peace... This is a peaceful nation, and I intend to keep the peace."

——

Strengthening Our Military

Mitt Romney, October 22, 2012 (Debate #3): "We don't want to get drawn into a military conflict... I do not want to see a military involvement on the part of -- of our -- of our troops. We need to have as well a strong military. Our military is second to none in the world."

"We're blessed with terrific soldiers and extraordinary technology and intelligence. But the idea of a trillion dollars in cuts through sequestration and budget cuts to the military would change that."

"And our military -- we've got to strengthen our military long-term."

"Look, this, in my view, is the highest responsibility of the president of the United States, which is to maintain the safety of the American people. And I will not cut our military budget by a trillion dollars, which is the combination of the budget cuts that the president has as well as the sequestration cuts. That, in my view, is -- is -- is making our future less certain and less secure. I won't do it. And of course, a military action is the last resort. It is something one would only, only consider if all of the other avenues had been -- had been tried to their full extent."

George W. Bush, October 17, 2000 (Debate #3): "Should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war. And therefore prevent war from happening in the first place."

"I want to make sure the equipment for our military is the best it can possibly be, of course. But we have an opportunity -- we have an opportunity to use our research and development capacities, the great technology of the United States, to make our military lighter, harder to find, more lethal. We have an opportunity, really, if you think about it, if we're smart and have got a strategic vision and a leader who understands strategic planning, to make sure that we change the terms of the battlefield of the future so we can keep the peace."

——

Don't vote for this guy, America. You've been warned. Don't be stupid. Okay?

(Cross-posted at Take My Country Back.)

Laugh about it, shout about it -- final 2012 edition

By Mustang Bobby

This will be remembered as the Horses and Bayonets debate, joining Big Bird and binders full of women in the hallowed hall of debate memes. Oh, and teachers. I love teachers!

As I said in my post before the debate, President Obama had an automatic advantage going into this debate simply because he's the president and foreign policy is something he has to deal with every day. He doesn't get to change his views based on which base he's trying to appeal to for re-election; he has to deal with the realities as they come in. On just about every topic, he had the upper hand, from Libya to the economic impact of our dealings with China, and he clearly knew exactly what he was talking about.

Mitt Romney could have blown this debate clear out of the water, and it was surely to his credit that he didn't, but he got awfully close on a couple of occasions, and it was obvious, thanks to the split screen and the bright lights, that he was uncomfortable, even anxious for the ordeal to be over. Maybe that's why he ended up agreeing with Mr. Obama on so many points where he used to — as recently as this weekend — vehemently disagree with him. Maybe he thought that if he just said "Hey, I'm with you" on Syria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, it would all be over sooner and he could go root for the Cardinals to beat the Giants. (Oops.)

If Mr. Romney were a man of principle, he would have been able to come up with a convincing counter-argument for every one of Mr. Obama's foreign policies, including drone attacks and our relationship with Israel. I am sure there are plenty of neocon and Bushite talking points that he could have used. But either he couldn't remember them or he doesn't really believe them, because he seemed to throw in the towel and revert to his stump-speech sound bites, including a clumsy turn to domestic policy points that he fumbled in the last debate. His strategy seemed to be that if he got stuck, return home to your stock answers and try for a mulligan on where he felt safe: the debate points in Denver.

But Mr. Obama was ready for him, wasn't about to let him retreat or repeat, and let Mr. Romney show that he's neither got the foreign policy background or the principles to win the arguments. "Hamana hamana" is not an effective foreign policy, although I think his closing argument tribute to the late George McGovern — "I am a man of peace" — was a nice touch. (That damp thud you heard was John Bolton's head exploding.)

This was a clear win for Barack Obama, even if it wasn't a complete shutout; I'll give Mitt Romney a run for not dripping sweat all over moderator Bob Schieffer. But there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the president knew his stuff. The only consistency in Mr. Romney's record is that he was constantly changing his point of view. But I am glad to know that he loves teachers. Or at least he did last night.

I don’t know if we'll see a massive shift in the polls for Mr. Obama, but I do think that this will solidify his narrow lead, and I hope it is enough to keep him there. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

The big gaffe: Mitt Romney doesn't know geography

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This wasn't widely discussed last night, but it was a major gaffe, and it's one Romney keeps making:

During the debate [last night], Mitt Romney mentioned that Syria is important because it's Iran's "route to the sea." The thing is, Iran doesn't even border Syria, as you can see our childishly-annotated map above. And Iran already has access to the sea on its southern border.

As confusing as the remark was, though, the Washington Post notes that tonight was hardly the first time Romney has made it, and the Romney campaign explains, "It's generally recognized that Syria offers Iran strategic basing/staging access to the Mediterranean as well as to terrorist proxies in the Levant. This is a large reason why Iran invests so much in Syria." This doesn't change the fact, however, that Iran has a "route to the sea" regardless of Syria. Americans are bad enough at geography already; they don't need a presidential candidate confusing them even more. 

It's actually worse than that. Iran has extensive coastline in the south. What's more, if it wanted to go through Syria, there are a couple of countries in between that don't much care for Iran: Iraq and Turkey.

I'm not saying this was any sort of decisive gaffe, but it reinforced the (truth-based) narrative of Romney as a foreign policy lightweight who's unprepared, unqualified, and unfit for the presidency.

Yes, you should expect better of a presidential candidate, but I'm really not sure you should expect anything else from such an ignorant fool.

Debate-a-pa-loser

By Carl 

If Mitt Romney believed he could credibly pull off being both a statesman and a Teatard, well, I've got some used horses to sell the Army:

Republican Mitt Romney entered Monday night's debate on foreign policy with the goal of presenting himself as a competent, plausible alternative to President Obama as commander in chief.

But Romney appeared to cede many positions to Obama, moving closer to the president on a range of issues and presenting them in a softer way...

"I'm glad that Governor Romney agrees with the steps that we're taking," Obama said at one point. "There have been times, Governor, frankly, during the course of this campaign, where it sounded like you thought that you'd do the same things we did, but you'd say them louder and somehow that would make a difference." 

One of any number of zingers that President Obama got off during the night and this time, he inflicted wounds on his opponent, rather than stand back and let Mitt swallow his own foot.

The foreign policy debates are the most difficult for both the candidates and the audiences.

Yes. Audiences. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Foreign policy requires a deep understanding of issues that concern other nations as well as the interdependent interplay between nations that most of us don't even pay attention to.

Which is why Romney's comments on Iran are deeply troubling:

Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. 

The Strait of Hormuz might have a word with the governor. It's not even like you have to go that far back to know that Iran has a navy, if you just paid a little more attention to the world and a little less attention to outsourcing jobs, Governor. 

Like I said, you the audience might have missed it, but for a presidential candidate to fumble this ball speaks volumes about their competency. And therein lies the nub of Romney's failure to look presidential. 

Now, if someone could botch an easily Googled fact -- and since you know Iran is going to come up, you might want to do that ahead of time -- then how likely is it their "deep intelligence" is accurate?

10,000 centrifuges? Really? And while even 2,000 is perhaps too many, it speaks even more about your paranoia and determination to take this nation to a war footing again.

I understand there's an economic benefit to war: it's saved us in the past from disastrous economic times and while it did nothing during the Bush administration (despite fighting two wars), war has always been coupled with sacrfice at home, particularly on the part of those who have.

For my part, I'd rather skip the war bit and head straight to the sacrifice.

Most people remember the "horses and bayonets" line, which was a classic. To me, what was more important was the way Obama schooled, slapped and then spanked Romney like the petulant unruly student he is.

By the way, the butthurt on the right will point out that the Marines still use bayonets. The army still has horses too, but what Obama said was they have fewer of them because they need fewer of them. Chuck Todd is particularly egregious in pointing this out, but it speaks to the idiocy of having someone stay up past his bedtime.

This was the key exchange in the entire debate. I'm not an expert debater. I've never mass debated. But there are people who have, and there's a school of thought that says Romney might have lost any chance to win the debate and by extension the election in this exchange:

The question was posed to Romney on how he would pay for his proposed $2 trillion increase in military spending, and he flat out didn't answer it. He was busy finishing his previous answer. So by the time it was the president's turn, Obama actually said, "You should have answered the question."

Obama then asserted that the United States spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. That's a great attention grabber. By the time Romney finally answered, he simply said we needed a stronger military, and the Navy needs more ships because it has fewer ships than it did in 1916. 

But Obama countered with the most memorable line of the night. "We also have fewer horses and bayonets." Obama's debating point was that the nature of our military has changed. He continued by saying that the U.S. has things like submarines and aircraft carriers that should suffice, and reminded viewers that the nation needed to study what its threats are and put money into things like cybersecurity and space. Obama said that the military neither wants nor has asked for this extra $2 trillion.

This was terrible for Romney for three reasons. First, it was the original area of real disagreement, and Romney couldn't afford to be bested. Second, no matter what he may actually know, Romney looked like a neophyte when it comes to military spending, as though he were repeating old Republican talking points. Viewers could be left unsure whether he knew what century this is.

And finally, it's two freaking trillion dollars! They both talked about the budget deficit and the need to balance the budget, and over three debates, this -- $2 trillion on military spending -- was the biggest difference on offer. Axing Big Bird would net a President Romney next to nothing in savings, but adding $2 trillion to defense sounded excessive, especially if it's true that the U.S. already spends more than the next 10 countries combined. Point Obama.

Sorry for the extended quote, but Graham's point was excellent, which brings me to the nub of this post.

Foreign policy debates always speak to two audiences: the voters and the world. Most nations can safely ignore the town hall and economic debates (China and our trading partners have some vested interest, but...)

Foreign policy lays out a candidate's vision of the world, and its future. If a challenger can be seen as a credible president, it will help nations like China and Russia -- and Iran -- figure out how best to deal with him or her.

You have to speak both diplomacy outwardly but inwardly speak to the American people about strength and security. Obama has an huge advantage. He's a known quantity on the world stage. He can speak more to the American people if he so chooses, knowing that his actions already speak for him. He can even bully Iran a little, given that he's lined up Russia and China, both reluctantly, behind him. 

Romney's strategy for presenting himself to the world was pretty clear: agree with the president where he could. After all, Obama has been a success on the foreign policy front, and to disagree with him is to raise the spectre of a return to the cowboy diplomacy under the Bush administration.

Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine he'd toady up to Obama, which is what I think triggered Obama's snark and condescension. Kudos, Mr. President. You did a nice job as a professor, even using the student's own arguments back against him when he agreed with you.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Reaction to last night's debate

By Michael J.W. Stickings
 

(NYT)

We'll have a lot more reaction to last night's second presidential debate today and in the days to come, but if you missed them make sure to check out our two posts from last night:

-- pre-debate; and
-- post-debate.

Richard and I, along with Mustang Bobby, tmcbpatriot, and Frank Moraes, provided extensive commentary and analysis.

Quick consensus take: Obama was firm and decisive, Romney was uncomforable and unsteady. And, yes, Obama clearly won.

My quick personal take (from my much longer comments last night):

If you're counting at home, it's now 2-1 for Obama.

Clearly, Romney didn't want to be there. His discomfort was palpable, except when he was talking about the economy and regurgitating his usual talking points. And his strategy was obvious, given the president's overwhelming advantage on foreign policy (on MSNBC, John Kerry said this is the most inexperienced presidential ticket (Romney-Ryan) in history in terms of foreign policy): Agree with the president on pretty much everything, throw out a few of the usual lines (like the lie about Obama's "apology tour" and the accusation that Obama is weakening the military), and pivot wherever possible to the economy.

But Romney seemed not just uncomfortable but unsteady throughout, and his agreement with Obama on pretty much everything just seemed lame. No, he didn't embarrass himself, but he exposed himself as a charlatan, as remarkably inconsistent ("internal contradictions," as Rachael Maddow put it, being sort of against the Arab Spring but then supporting democracy in Egypt, for example), as unprepared, unqualified, and unfit for the presidency.

In stark contrast, President Obama was decisive, firm, and, yes, presidential to a degree even beyond what we usually see from him. This was the steady leader at the helm of American foreign policy, the commander-in-chief who understands the world and knows what he's doing on a wide range of policy areas and challenges facing the U.S. both at home and abroad. He was effective in touting his record, from rescuing the auto industry (which Romney opposed but now says he didn't) to killing Osama bin Laden (which Romney opposed but now says was great), from ending the Iraq War to working with Israel, and he called Romney out for being wrong, reckless, and inconsistent (not just on foreign policy but on the auto bailout and tax policy) , for being "all over the map," for projecting weakness in foreign policy statements that suggest profound ignorance.

Post-blogging: Thoughts after the third 2012 presidential debate

By Michael J.W. Stickings and Mustang Bobby, with Frank Moraes and tmcbpatriot 

You can look back at our pre-debate predictions/comments here.

(NYT)

MJWS:

I suppose this could down in history as the "horses and bayonet" debate of 2012 -- a great line by the president in response to Romney's stupid assertion that the military is somehow weaker than it was a hundred years ago. It was one of three major "zingers" from Obama -- and all worked really well. The others (and I paraphrase):

-- You haven't had a chance to execute foreign policy; and

-- We've been to the website. The numbers still don't add up.

Oh, and also:

-- Whenever you've expressed an opinion, you've been wrong.

And this great one:

-- You have the foreign policies of the 1980s, the social policies of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s.

Right on point.   

Anyway...

Look, I tend to be a pessimist. And you can read this debate as a "win" for Romney insofar as he didn't do anything to embarrass himself, unlike last time, and so to arrest his recent surge in the polls, which now essentially show a tie not just nationally but in some key swing states. Just by being up there and talking foreing policy, regardless of what he said, is a sort of triumph for him. And if the main story coming out of tonight is that Romney held his own, that could be interpreted by low-information voters as proof that he's just as presidential as the president and so worthy of their vote. In other words, his performance might just have secured his position not just as a viable challenger but as a suitable alternative to Obama at a time when, with the economy still struggling, people are open to alternatives.

But, really, he didn't win. Not even close. Not if you judge the debate by something other than what I discussed in the previous paragraph. And so, if you're counting at home, it's now 2-1 for Obama.

Clearly, Romney didn't want to be there. His discomfort was palpable, except when he was talking about the economy and regurgitating his usual talking points. And his strategy was obvious, given the president's overwhelming advantage on foreign policy (on MSNBC, John Kerry just said this is the most inexperienced presidential ticket (Romney-Ryan) in history in terms of foreign policy, and of course he's right): Agree with the president on pretty much everything, throw out a few of the usual lines (like the lie about Obama's "apology tour" and the accusation that Obama is weakening the military), and pivot wherever possible to the economy.

But Romney seemed not just uncomfortable but unsteady throughout, and his agreement with Obama on pretty much everything just seemed lame. No, he didn't embarrass himself, but he exposed himself as a charlatan, as remarkably inconsistent ("internal contradictions," as Rachael Maddow put it, being sort of against the Arab Spring but then supporting democracy in Egypt, for example), as unprepared, unqualified, and unfit for the presidency.

In stark contrast, President Obama was decisive, firm, and, yes, presidential to a degree even beyond what we usually see from him. This was the steady leader at the helm of American foreign policy, the commander-in-chief who understands the world and knows what he's doing on a wide range of policy areas and challenges facing the U.S. both at home and abroad. He was effective in touting his record, from rescuing the auto industry (which Romney opposed but now says he didn't) to killing Osama bin Laden (which Romney opposed but now says was great), from ending the Iraq War to working with Israel, and he called Romney out for being wrong, reckless, and inconsistent (not just on foreign policy but on the auto bailout and tax policy), for being "all over the map," for projecting weakness in foreign policy statements that suggest profound ignorance.

And in siding with the president and refusing to engage on issue after issue, Romney once again exposed himself as someone who will say and do anything for votes, as a shameless panderer whose entire election strategy is to lie to the American people and hope they don't take notice of your bullshit. It was another "relentless deluge of dishonesty," as I've called it, most notably when he agreed with pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by 2014 -- throughout the campaign, up until tonight, he has opposed setting a date for withdrawal. It was, in other words, a relentlessly cynical performance -- and, as usual, you could see it in shifty eyes.

And so far, the polls are backing this up, showing a clear and decisive win for the president. (Even CNN, which has leaned Romney-Ryan in its post-debate coverage all along, is saying Obama won: "Forceful Obama bests defensive Romney in foreign policy debate.")

But will it matter? Maybe not. I'm not sure if any of this will move the needle. But let's face it, a loss by the president would have been devastating. Instead, he came out with one of the strongest debate performances I've ever seen from him, simply overwhelming Romney throughout most of the debate and showing why he fully deserves a second term.

MB:

It started slowly... to the point that I spent the first fifteen minutes cleaning off my desk and balancing my checkbook. But it built up, and President Obama took charge, turning Mitt Romney's words on him and basically getting him to agree with him on Syria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to the point that he basically Etch-A-Sketched his way out of the neocon tent.

In the end, you could almost smell the sweat coming off Mr. Romney; has anyone schvitzed that much in a presidential debate since Richard Nixon in 1960? And time and time again, Mr. Obama came back again and again, never letting up, and never letting Mr. Romney forget that he was way out of his depth in a lot of topics once he got past the ten-word answers.

Frank Moraes: 

There was one thing I forgot to mention in the pre-debate: that they would try to talk about domestic issues instead. This is because most people really don't care about foreign policy. But I do. And the debate went as I expected: they talked about bullshit and mostly Romney said, "I agree!" In fact, that seems to be what everyone is focusing on. It will certainly be the way that SNL handles it: "I agree with the president!"

It was interesting that Romney gave up on the Benghazi attack. I think his strategy was to show that he was informed on these issues. He didn't mean to win, just to hold his own in the debate. Obama's strategy was to paint Romney as a flip-flopper. I think they both succeeded. However, I can see how Romney's "big hug" (as Joe Trippi called it, but it probably isn't original to him) may play badly in the coming days. His constant agreement with the president may seem weak.

What I noticed throughout the debate was that Romney seemed nervous. He did get better about halfway through but then ended weakly. Obama was just the opposite: strong at first, weak in the middle (he seemed to lose his concentration a few times), and strong at the end.

I have lots of notes from the debate, but it doesn't much matter. It is the same old stuff, mostly lies and distortions by Romney -- although there were a couple of things Obama said that I took issue with. What is striking about the debates is the reaction. Perhaps in the future I should just watch them. MSNBC seems to think that Obama won but doesn't want to come out and say it. Fox News seems to think that Romney lost but of course won't come out and say it.

I will leave you with this: Steve Hayes (of The Weekly Standard) on Fox News said (in slightly different words), "Obama was an angry black man!"

In other words, Obama TKO. 

tmcbpatriot:

So much to unpack. Where to start? Well, Romney was sweating and really thirsty. Neither would go for the water and nobody budged. Obama managed to look cooler and more calm and not thirsty. Romney was shaken at times and sweating like a pig by the end.

As for Libya, Obama handled it well. They are saying on TV that Romney's plan was to diffuse Libya to look more presidential. Actually, it made it look like he was wrong on Libya and decided to avoid it. The spin will be that it was on purpose. Don't you believe it.

Overall, Obama played it correctly. He played offense and got in a few great lines to boot. He really went after Romney and was forceful. He also had Romney basically agreeing with him quite a bit. There were many times when Romney was basically saying, "Look, you can vote for Obama or vote for me, but I like what Obama has done."

Romney, on the other hand, looked like he was losing steam towards the end. He then came back strong when they got to China, as this is a subject he knows very well. I am sure he has had a lot of experience in China and working with the Chinese to help set up companies and making deals for offshoring.

Hilarious, though, that the sh*thead pundits are wondering if Romney passed the "Commander-in-Chief" test. They are all saying this one doesn't really count, even though Obama won it. How do these pundits do this with a straight face? How can they narrate all of this by sticking with the "It's the economy, stupid" meme? Do they really not think it is important to be well-rounded? Not on the channel I am watching they don't.

Overall, a very good show. We did not learn anything new and I am sure Romney will be sufficiently nailed for his many lies. The takeaways?  

Obama: You mention the Navy, and how we have fewer ships than 1916. We also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military has changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them... it's not a game of Battleship.

Romney: I love teachers!

That about sums it up for me. Pundits are basically saying that Romney can just get away with being weak, so long as he looks presidential. They are essentially saying he can win on the economy alone. The pundits are just going with that. It is so irresponsible. No matter what the right says, we did not vote for Obama on one single issue. Is America dumb enough to do that with Romney, even after still not giving any specifics about his economic policy?

Will it matter? Will the auto bailout be Obama's golden moment and Romney's Achilles' heel? Will Romney's not passing out from thirst give him an edge? Is the bar set so low for Republicans that foreign policy does not matter?

I guess we'll see in less than two weeks.

Pre-blogging: Thoughts before the third 2012 presidential debate

By Michael J.W. Stickings, Richard K. Barry, and Mustang Bobby, with tmcbpatriot and Frank Moraes

Stay tuned for our post-debate post, coming up later!

MJWS:
 
So. It's 1-1 and tonight's the rubber match, right? The all-important tiebreaker.

That's the way the media will treat it, and perhaps even a few of those all-important "undecideds" as well, and while it's easy to make fun of a political process treated like a sporting event, that's just the reality we live in. Sad as that is.

Generally, this should be solid terrain for President Obama. He has been strong on national security and foreign policy during his first term -- among other things, rebuilding America's key alliances, taking out Osama bin Laden, ending the Iraq War, supporting the overthrow of Gaddafi, carefully managing the American response to the Arab Spring, imposing tough sanctions on Iran (forcing the Iranians to the negotiating table), addressing the dangers of nuclear arsenals left over from the Cold War, and planning the end of the Afghan War while providing focus and purpose there that was previously lacking.

Meanwhile, Romney has been a simple-minded jingoist (like saber-rattling about Iran, implying that he'd start another war), politicizing crises and tragedies (like the Benghazi attack), showing a complete lack of understanding of diplomacy and international relations (like calling Russia America's #1 enemy and talking with bullying bluster about China, even though he has profited hugely from his various business connections there) and generally being an embarrassment on the national stage (like on his summer trip to England, Poland, and Israel, when he managed even to alientate the British with his stupid comments about the London Olympics). And let us not forget that he said the U.S. shouldn't go after bin Laden and continues to assert that the U.S. should still be in Iraq and that the Afghan War should continue indefinitely.

And it should all be fairly predictable. Romney signalled where he's coming from, and pretty much the entirely of his (lack of) understanding of foreign policy with his widely-panned speech at VMI a couple of weeks ago. Ryan did the same last month. Here's the playbook:

We've lost four of our diplomats. And what is the signal that our government is sending the rest of the world? We're being equivocal on our values, we're being slow to speak up for individual rights, for human rights, for democracy. We're seeing countries stifle freedom in Iran, in Russia, and all these other areas. And we're saying we're going to gut our military -- that projects weakness.

Obama should be able to respond to all this, and much more, with effective answers that project his knowledge and leadership.

But, of course, these things aren't really about substance, as we all know by now, even if, as in the last debate, substance can break through (like when Romney was exposed as an offensive ignoramus on Libya). The media, as usual, will focus on style, and it's hard to know how the debate will play out on those terms. Yes, the president should be able to look and sound like a leader with a solid record and a firm grasp of complex issues, but in foreign policy jingoistic bluster often (usually) trumps knowledge and leadership, and so there's an opening for Romney to keep hammering home his talking points (lies) about Obama apologizing for America, allowing Iran's nuclear program to proceed, alienating Israel, and generally being weak.

That's all the opposite of the truth, of course, but the risk is that he gets away with it, particularly with a format (like the first, not the second) and a moderator (Bob Schieffer, who will play it safe, meaning his style will benefit Romney) that will not just restrict interaction between the two candidates but prevent the truth from emerging from the fray. Like last week, the president needs to call him on his lies and distortions without being overly aggressive (he can't do what Biden did), while making sure he speaks with confidence and determination about his strong record.

Perhaps tonight's debate won't move the needle much at all. It's easy to see this as a draw and the race remaining insanely close. But it's also easy to see this being the deciding factor. If Obama comes out like he did in the first debate, the race may well be over. But if he comes out strong, and it plays out like the second debate, he may just get the boost he needs to bring it home over the final two weeks.

Needless to say, I'm nervous, anxious, worried, terrified. So much can go wrong. But Obama does have what it takes, both in terms of what he has done and who he is, to "win" this thing tonight and thereby to remind voters that the choice between the two candidates is stark: leadership and wisdom and a strong America prepared for the challenges of the 21st century on his side, inexperience and recklessness and warmongering on the other. This is what he needs to project tonight, both in style and substance.

RKB: 

We should run a lottery on how long it will take Romney to say Obama has been going around apologizing for America. I'll go with 15 minutes in. Other guesses? Whatever Romney says to make his point, it will be all about trying to suggest Obama has been week and that America needs to project strength around the world to achieve its foreign policy goals. It's the Clint Eastwood / Chuck Norris / John Wayne school of international relations. It's typically American. It makes no sense at all, but a certain percentage of the electorate, those who live in some movie fantasyland, will eat it up.

Given that there is very little difference between the foreign policy positions of the two candidates, Obama's goal will be to make Romney appear reckless by his silly saber-rattling. America is tired of war and the trap Obama needs to set for Romney is to get him so het up with his own bullshit that he tries to imply he would put boots on the ground in some future bloodbath. Women with sons who might be put in harm's way would, I'm guessing, be particularly unimpressed with that argument.

Whatever one thinks of Obama's drone strategy or military surges or whatever, it's going to be hard to paint him as a sissy liberal. I do believe I heard somewhere that he killed Osama bin Laden. Maybe that will come up too during the debate.

I've said before that Joe Biden did a good job of explaining how complex foreign relations really are, how much work goes into building alliances and how key they are. Paul Ryan proved that he could read a briefing book but not that he really understood what he was saying. Obama will have to do the same thing as Biden did to Ryan. He will have to present himself as what he legitimately is, a guy not only in the room when the decisions were made but the guy making the decisions.

As a series of soundbites, it may be possible to sell American jingoism. Over the course of a 90-minute debate, I'm hoping Obama's understanding and presentation of the real world of international politics will make Romney look like the ass he is.

One other thing is that Obama will have to stand up like he did last week and call Mitt a lying bastard when he needs to. But given how much is riding on this debate, I also hope Obama's natural calm will serve him well, while Romney's tendency to get testy when the pressure is on will trip him up.

The winner will be the one who looks like a leader on the world stage. Simple enough. 

MB:

I don't think this meeting will draw as much attention as the last one. Mr. Obama's performance in Kentucky answered the question as to whether he had the stage presence to respond to Mitt Romney, and for a lot of the electorate, foreign policy is not that big a deal for them. Given a geography quiz, it's problematic that many voters couldn't find Libya or Syria or even China on a map, and to them it's not as important as the economy. To the right-wingers, who cares what a bunch of other-colored pagans and heathens do, anyway? We're Americans; we should be ruling them.

But this could be the debate that really shows us more of who Mitt Romney is, and if Mr. Obama plays his cards right, he could really score some points, even among the know-nothing crowd.

A sitting president always has an advantage in a foreign policy debate. For one thing, he's briefed every day on what's going on around the world, and he's getting that from people who are actually involved with what's going on, as opposed to Fox News or John Bolton, who seems to spend a lot of time with his home version of Armageddon. And this might be the one debate where Mr. Obama's tendency to speak in paragraphs might actually help him. Explaining the details of sanctions against Iran might go over a little better than "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." Serving as a Mormon missionary in France in the 1960s is not the same as actually working in the State Department, no matter what Newt Gingrich might think. That's like saying spending the summer as a camp counselor makes one qualified to be a superintendent of public schools.

If Mr. Romney's first foray into international relations is any guide, the rest of the world has reason to be nervous about a Romney administration, and not a lot of foreign leaders are even ready for such a possibility. Since many of Mr. Romney's advisers are neocons or veterans of the George W. Bush administration, their fears are not unfounded. President Obama has built a good rapport with many leaders abroad — and without apologizing — and restored the trust that is needed to conduct both business and keep an eye on warmongers and terrorists. Given who Mr. Romney has been consulting, that good will could be trashed overnight.

So while tonight's debate may not be the attention-grabber of the last two, it could be the most important one for voters who have concerns about our future relationship with the rest of the world. And if the past is prologue, that is no small thing.

tmcbpatriot:

The final debate! Boy, am I glad. So, what can we expect? Well, if I were advising the 'resident, here is what I would tell him:

Mr. President, tonight is an important one, as were the first two. No sure what happened in debate one, but that's water under the bridge. You "won" the last debate by basically doing what we all expected you to do the first time around. In other words, you're now essentially even. Tonight is really your one and only chance to actually win. Therefore, Mr. President, tonight you must trounce Mitt Romney. Do that and you will get a bump in the polls, keep Ohio in your corner, and maybe even sway a few old people in Florida. Just stay consistent, Mr. President, and you win. Falter, and it's over.

How to do this? Just make Romney look inexperienced and inept. Not that hard to do, right? But here is what you need to remember: We all know that Osama and Gaddafi are dead and we are stoked about it. Remind us about that accomplishment, but then move on. It's old news and Fox News has done a great job making you look like you are gloating. Remember that a lot of people watching tonight actually watch Fox. Also, remember that we are all on board, Dems and Reps, with your getting Osama. It reminds us too that the last guy could not get it done. Just say that and move on. There are far more important things to discuss.

For example, you need to talk about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and how it has not weakened our military as Republicans said it would. They were wrong. Romney said he would not go into Syria to get Osama. He was wrong. Romney thinks Russia is enemy number one and he is wrong. Talk about how, in reality, Iran is enemy number one precisely because of the Republican Party's foreign policy. Talk also about how you have kept us safe nationally. Talk about how our military is strong and how Republicans are trying to scare people into thinking we have a single Naval ship and one propeller plane. It is an old tactic, but one that worked all too well in 2000 for the other side.

Remind voters too how Romney offended our greatest ally with his Olympic gaffe. Also, be sure to mention that he also agrees with you on many issues. For example, unless Romney plans to go to war with Iran, your plan is the correct one. Keep needling him on this. Voters are tired of war and anything but 100% agreement with you means war. Also remind voters that Romney agrees with you on Afghanistan and setting a timeline for getting out. If not, that must mean he wants to stay there indefinitely. Remember, whether your polices are right or wrong is not the issue. It only matter that he agrees with your positions.

Lastly, Romney is going to bring up Libya right from the starting bell. Republicans have primed the pump for this all week. When he picks through your timeline of events, remind him that he went on TV moments after this event unfolded and turned it into a political spectacle before any facts were known. That was irresponsible and he must answer for that.

Be sure to ask Mitt about China next. Ask him how is it that he talks tough even though he helped China create jobs through outsourcing at Bain. Sure, you may have investments in Chinese companies, but Romney helped those companies open their doors to investment while closing businesses here as a result. That's powerful stuff and a great image to present to the viewers at home.

Oh, and when Romney says again that he will call China a "currency manipulator," remind people that he has so much money in offshore accounts that he is a one man currency manipulator!

That's called a zinger, Mr. President. TV watchers love 'em!

It's time to prepare now, Mr. President, and I could go on and on. After all, Romney is an easy one to nail on almost any issue. Bottom line: Stay cool, look Romney in the eyes, and be the boss. Oh, and if Romney begins every answer tonight with how he cares for 100% of voters, nail him again with that 47% remark. It never gets old and people love to hear you say it. I know I do.

But above all else, Mr. President, and I am basing this on the previous debates, the people watching care only about flubs, aggression, laughter, water drinking, disrespect, Big Bird, and how alert you are. Avoid all of these things and you will win.

See? I told you this was easy. Good luck, sir.

Frank Moraes:

I'm not expecting much from the debate tonight. It is on foreign policy, after all. And one of the candidates has no foreign policies. So I suspect that we will hear Romney claim that Obama has totally screwed up because of the Benghazi attack. And he'll go on and on about how tough he's going to get on China. And he'll talk about how he's going to make us energy independent by drilling more and "signing that pipeline!" I doubt we'll hear much more than that. Regardless, he will attack the president on really minor points while not taking any different policy positions.

We certainly won't hear anything about global warming. We won't hear anything globalization, except that free trade agreements rock! Actually, there's so much we won't hear about, it is hardly worth mentioning. The reason we won't get a real debate on foreign policy is that Romney and Obama pretty much agree on everything. The only thing that will be really interesting is exactly what new talking points Romney memorized.

The Benghazi Fugazi

By tmcbpatriot

Did he or didn't he? That does seem to be the question the righties are asking as they go absolutely crazy trying to find something, anything to pin on Obama with just days to go before the election. 

From the sound of it, you would think Benghazi was some monumental event that killed thousands, or maybe a story about some major terrorist leader who got away. But then those things happened on the other guy's watch, didn't they? And, if I recall, according to the right-wingers, none of it was his fault. It was all the result of bad intelligence. Yeah, that about sums it up, doesn't it?

Anyhow, the real story here is that we are close to ending this long, drawn-out election, and, let's face it, folks are tired and worn out. The right is looking for anything to blame Obama for, and up until now they've had nothing. Fast and Furious? It’s a bad movie with Vin Diesel. Birth certificate? See Donald Trump. Taking credit for killing Osama? Most of the country agrees with that assessment.

But with the election so close and the so-called "independents" now watching, politicians are more aware than ever that they need to offer these numbskulls something, anything that is easy to follow. Thing is, though, the "undecideds" do not have the mental capacity for thought on a deeper level. They cannot make up their minds after years to think about it, and no matter how you slice it Benghazi is not so simple to understand.

When the right talks about timelines and says things like, "declaring something an act of terror does not necessarily mean you are declaring it a terror attack," that just confuses these people even more.

Hell, I'm even dumbfounded by that one.

Oh, and by the way, those independents and undecideds you are expecting to connect with you on this issue? Well, remember the ones who asked questions during the second debate? They are still undecided! You think I'm kidding?

Republicans thought they had Obama after the first debate, but he came back strong and made Romney look like a petulant child. Now with the final debate tonight and it being on foreign policy, the GOP is working it to the hilt to make Benghazi the most talked about story of the week. It is their latest "worse than Watergate" moment centering on a president who is totally incompetent and of course totally, totally responsible.

But wait! (place record-scratching sound here)

Isn't this the same president who, after being president when Bin Laden and Gaddafi were killed, was said by the right to have been totally uninvolved in their deaths and totally not allowed to take credit? Isn't this the same president who loves drones and killing al Qaeda operatives as if he is playing a video game? Isn't Gitmo still open for business? Hasn't Obama actually kept us safe these past 3 1/2 years? Wasn't that the litmus test during those eight long years when a certain republican was president? So long as you didn't count 9/11, right?

Anyone? Bueller? McFly? Hello?

When Obama announced that Bin Laden was sleeping with the fishes, the right-wingers came out and said he had nothing to do with it. In fact, they said it was insulting for him to gloat when it was all the Navy Seals' doing. But now, with Obama back in the game after debate number two and with the final debate tonight, the president is suddenly totally responsible and accountable for Benghazi and has blood on his hands on par with Macbeth.

You see, Republicans are hoping all of this makes us forget that Mitt Romney turned this whole Benghazi thing into a political event in the first place and that even the father of the slain ambassador said "it would be abhorrent to make this into a campaign issue." Republicans are also aware that Obama has quite a few foreign policy accomplishments to brag about.

Bottom line, all of this is just fodder for tonight's debate, and it's going to backfire on Republicans big-time. No matter what they throw at Obama, he will just deflect it right back onto Romney. Meanwhile, Romney is sure to say something else so ridiculous that it becomes the only thing remembered. For those keeping count, he is 2-for-2 so far.

And if Republicans think the undecideds are going to make up their minds based on all of this, I have two words for them: jobs report!

Lest we forget, there is one final jobs report coming out just four days before the election. If the unemployment rate is lower than 7.8%, or higher than that, then those very same undecideds will have just one response to the Benghazi question: Benghazi? Who's he? 

(Cross-posted at Take My Country Back.)