Debate #3, Obama wins, but will it make a difference?

Mitt Romney, disguised as Little Sir Echo,    flew into the presidential debate   on the wings of a dove. Mitt  Romney etched a sketch as only wanting peace as he  tried to avoid being branded  Mr. Bluster and Blundering Interventionist War Monger ("bellicose" was the Democrat's  operative code word pre debate).   Obama was ready for him and pinned him on his  frequent metamorphoses and initial wrong headed  judgment calls that he changed later to agree with the President.  We are asked to trust Romney?  We should wonder which Romney will show up if he makes it to the White House?  Will he bring his neo-con advisers with him, the same ones that talked us into invading Iraq? With no firm commitment to any policy, unless it benefits him at the moment, how can we be sure he would not flip back to the neo con position later?

 The President presented the voters with  the choice between more military spending or more domestic spending and investment and he presented himself as a dependable, steady hand on the wheel that has been consistent since day one.

It will take a few days for us to see how the polls play out and whether it will make any difference. Common wisdom is that voters do not care about foreign policy this year (it is indeed the economy) and that challengers have an advantage because they can make wilder accusations since they are not bound by being knowledgeable about state secrets or  responsible for  official policy.  However, Obama did succeed in tying foreign policy to  domestic economic issues of prime interest to voters and in that regard he  may have pulled off a coup.

If Obama can stress these points,(cannot trust him; need nation building at home )  in ads and every opportunity he can in the next two weeks, it might make a difference.  The time clock is running and the two minute drill is needed,
 
Pres. Obama dominated the debate by using every opportunity to anticipate well publicized  GOP criticisms  and to make  pre emptive strikes, bringing up the topic first , making his case, and forcing Romney to respond. Romney was left either agreeing or splitting some hairs, and sometimes just repeating the talking points for which he had prepared in advance.

Obama's strategy was most evident in his personalized  riff on Israel , showing  empathy and  reaffirming the US would defend Israel if Iran attacked.. Obama's  unkindest dig at Romney occurred when he  recalled his trip  to Israel as a candidate almost as if it were a pilgrimage while he contrasted his visit with Romney  who had treated his recent trip  like a campaign fund raiser. For those not following the preceding campaign back and forth on Israel, they may have wondered why the attention. It had much to do with the Florida east coast vote and Jewish support elsewhere.

 If Obama accomplished anything with his strong performance, it was to make GOP attack lines ring hollow  that he was leading by behind.  He made a strong case for his accomplishments,  made it clear he knew where he was going and what he intended to do.  By being an echo, Romney looked like he was the one leading from behind Obama..

 Some lines of the debates were more about Ohio and women than they were about foreign policy.  The issue of interest to the Midwest is indeed saving the auto industry. The question raised  is whether or not Romney had asked for government  underwriting of bankruptcy, If he had, it was a startling fact never before disclosed to the public or even mentioned by Romney before this debate  or  in his infamous op ed in the New York Times headlined with “let them go bankrupt” .  

 What fact checkers and investment bankers said at the time was that the capital markets were frozen and there was no private sector money  to keep the doors open while the auto industry  reorganized.  The ripple effect would have been huge as the suppliers and even more  dealers went under, unbailed out and too dead  to be revived.  The government had to provide the capital because no private capital was available so Obama stepped in with the bailout.  Romney as an investment guy should have known that, or if he did, he was making a political point and a dishonest one. Those auto workers know that and so do the suppliers. Why is this critical? Ohio, heavily dependent on auto manufacturing,  is probably the most important state that will determine the outcome of the election. Without it, neither candidate can win.

So far as women were concerned, the CNN instant tracking focus group of undecided showed the approval register rose every time the President mentioned that the US needs to invest more into education (instead of $2 trillion for the military Romney proposed  which the Pentagon never asked for).  That is the tradeoff.  More money for the military or for education and domestic programs that build our nation ?  As Obama put  it so clearly : we should not be nation building abroad; we should be nation building at home. That may be the best line of the night for a war weary electorate nervous about their economic future.
 

CNN instant polls of debate viewers, weighted toward Republicans, still awarded the President the win  by about 8 points.

Footnote:

Here is Romney’s reference to a bailout check in the New York Times op ed and note there was no reference to a federal guarantee of a bailout, just refinancing and establishing a new auto maker after the doors were closed.  Of course, there was no private capital available to be guaranteed by government and that is the fatal flaw of his position.  He wrote:  “The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.”    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0

.

 .

What Obama can do in the debate: paint Romney 's foreign policy as bully, bluster, and blunder

What Pres. Obama can do in the debate Oct. 22 on foreign policy is to paint Romney as the one most likely to bully,  bluster and blunder  us into another war, keep us in Afghanistan longer, and result some politically intolerable cuts in domestic spending that will extremely harmful to all of us in some way.

 While most of Romney's official positions as outlined in op eds and speeches lately,  sound as if he differs only from Obama's policy to speak softly while carrying (and using) a big stick is by speaking loudly about the same.  That is a dangerous perception: Chest thumping and rhetoric is not a plan.  In fact, it might even talk the American public into approving the US getting  into a conflict in which we have either no direct interest or could get us in a quagmire: i.e. an Iraq blunder again.  The same group that talked us into Iraq is the same that is advising Romney on foreign policy.

Obama can make the point that Romney's brand of leadership is bluster leading to blunder. What is going on in the Middle East is a revolt of the next generation,  and the lid taken off of ethnic/religious  conflict that had been suppressed by dictators now deposed,  and a power struggle to fill the vacuum, forces beyond our control.  What it takes is an understanding of this to come out on the right side.  Shaking the big stick would be counter productive and shows Romney's inexperience.  His views are dangerous.  not only because they will make enemies where we need to make friends, but it will more likely lead us into war again and a drain on our economy and damaging to our future.

Romney has already made it clear that he views withdrawal from Afghanistan conditional on what is happening on the ground; Obama has stood by withdrawal the end of 2014 (while leaving some troops there) and made the case that waffling on the date would keep Afghanistan dependent on us instead of becoming responsible for their own security.

To rationalize this bully policy of bluster,, Romney plans to increase US expenditures for the Pentagon by $2 trillion over 10 years.  Not even the oft criticized Paul Ryan budget went that far as financier Steve Rattner, writing in the New York Times Oct. 14,points  out. He continues..

 .." the military is not asking for such an increase. Such an increase would force giant reductions, about 40 percent, in everything that’s left.

“Everything else” isn’t some catchall of small items, like feeding Big Bird. We’re talking about a vast array of programs including civilian and military pensions, food stamps, unemployment and disability compensation, the earned income and child tax credits, family support and nutrition, K-12 education, transportation, public safety and disaster relief. And on and on....No doubt some of what is buried within 'other mandatory and non defense discretionary spending' can be eliminated. Perhaps Americans won’t miss a few national parks or the space program.But also nestled within this category are critical outlays for investments in infrastructure and research.Eating the seed corn is never advisable....."

What Obama needs to do in the debate  is to get off the defensive posture regarding accusations of  leading from behind and misfires on BenGhazi and force the conversation to turn to an attack on Romney's bully, bluster, and blunder foreign policy. Romney would be the bull in the china closet.  Obama must put Romney on the defensive enough to shake voters' confidence in  Romney as a safe and preferable commander in chief. The case is there to be made.