Live-Perlblogging the Boca Raton Debate
Final thoughts: I think Obama wiped the floor with Romney on the substantive foreign policy issues, although Mitt didn’t have any major unforced errors this time. To me, the most remarkable part of this debate was that Romney — who was Moderate Mitt tonight and left his neoconservative advisers at home — basically echoed everything the president said, but harder. On drones, Iran, Syria, he was unable to really distinguish himself. Obama looked strong and coherent, and called out Romney for his inconsistency. Who knows if this will really move the polls. Romney was strong enough to not derail his candidacy. Conservatives will argue that he won, but I think it’s clear that Obama was the stronger candidate tonight.
But we went 90 minutes without talking about Europe, and there was way too much time riffing on the same domestic policy talking points we heard last week. Schieffer was no Lehrer (even if he did say “Obama’s Bin Laden”), but he was no Raddatz either. In the closing statements, Romney basically didn’t mention foreign policy at all, which I think about sums it up.
9:28: OK, we’ve heard about the auto bailout enough. This is the foreign policy debate. And I just can’t get over the fact that the Eurozone crisis wasn’t a part of this.
9:21: China-bashing time. Romney is confident that he would be better at protecting Americans from the economic damage caused by cheap Chinese stuff. I honestly don’t know.
9:14: On drones, again Romney agrees, but we can do more. These are not the drones you’re looking for.
9:11: Romney doesn’t want to divorce Pakistan. Can you get a divorce from a country?
9:07: When last running for president, Romney Obama’s promise to take out high-valued terrorist targets in Pakistan “ill-timed and ill-considered.” And for so much talk of Israel, not one mention of the Palestinians.
8:58: Apology tour? Obama zings Romney on his Israeli fundraising tour.
8:56: Obama says he will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Romney claims that US sanctions have not done enough. Here’s my colleague Johan Olofsson on Iran’s rial crisis:
This fall is a direct result of a U.S. led economic sanctions and freezing Iranian financial assets. As a result, the Rial has plummeted with a lack of foreign currency coming in due to trade. While a weak currency is usually good for exports (your country’s goods are cheaper relative to those of other countries), this does not apply to Iran since the sanctions are forbidding countries from trading with them.
8:54: Romney riffs on the Apology Tour at last. Interesting considering that Romney has basically made the case for the president’s foreign policy in Iran tonight.
8:50: The trend seems to be that Obama outlines his foreign policy, and then Romney says something along the lines of, “Yeah, that, but WAY HARDER BRO.”
8:44: Obama crushes Romney on having fewer ships (which has already been largely debunked): “We have fewer bayonets too.” Crowd LOLs here in the Danforth University Center (even though the Cards are getting crushed).
8:40: Now Romney is going remove Obamacare “to the extent it’s humanly possible.” Is Schieffer asleep or can we get this back to foreign policy?
8:37: OK hope you enjoyed watching the foreign policy debate. It’s now over.
8:33: Obama calls out Romney for trying to take us back to the “wrong and reckless” Bush Doctrine. Romney’s answer? The 5 point plan (recited with almost 9-9-9 gusto). And now we’re on pure domestic policy. It’s clear that both candidates are eager to talk economics.
8:27: First we agree on Assad and now on Mubarak. Shorter Mitt: I agree with the president’s shrewd foreign policy but he’s weak for doing it!
8:25: Obama winning the Israel-mentions tally.
8:24: Romney thinks Assad must go. Obama thinks Assad must go. Agreement!? Obama: “He doesn’t have different ideas” on Syria.
8:20: Obama’s strategy so far: 1) Demonstrate that he is clear and consistent and 2) remind people what Romney has actually said in the past. Moderate Mitt is the one debating tonight, talking about working with our international partners in Syria. His talking points on Assad are basically Obama’s.
8:12: Foreign policy of the 1980s, social policies of the 1950s, and economic policies of the 1920s. Obama’s got the zingers ready tonight. He calls Romney “wrong and reckless,” citing his inconsistent record.
8:08 CST: Looks like we might get Moderate Mitt tonight.
Preliminary Thoughts: Earlier today, Politico released the topics for tonight’s debate:
- America’s role in the world
- Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan
- Red Lines – Israel and Iran
- The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I
- The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II
- The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World
As Dan Drezner points out, that means 2/3rds of this debate is about the Middle East. The Eurozone crisis, Russia, North Korea, and Latin America are all absent. That won’t prevent the candidates from riffing on those talking points if they have them, but still, 2/3rds is a lot.
Tonight’s main issue is Benghazi — and with good reason. For all their gabbing, the candidates haven’t said anything meaningful about the attack with regard to US policy in the region going forward. The president assures voters he is Really Super Serious on foreign policy — he killed Osama bin Laden, remember? Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has criticized the administration on Benghazi twice, and twice looked like an idiot. First, he put out an inopportune press release during the attack that made look him look opportunistic. Then in last week’s debate, he went off on the “acts of terror” screed only to be live-rebuked by Candy Crowley. Neither candidate has properly articulated why his policy, given the attack, would be the more pragmatic and expedient approach to the Middle East. How involved should the US be in the Arab Spring, for instance? These are the questions that need to be asked and need to actually be answered.
To be sure, Romney will allege that Obama has “apologized for America.” But this isn’t really consistent with the record (e.g., Bin Laden, pirate-slaying, drones galore). Say what you want about Obama’s foreign policy, the man’s only real high-profile disaster has been Benghazi. But issue after issue — from Iran to Afghanistan to Russia — Romney has failed to truly distinguish himself from Obama’s foreign policy other to say Obama’s “weakness” emboldens our enemies. What would he do different?
This is understandably tough to articulate. Global conditions often shape a president’s foreign policy, not the other way around. I get that it’s Romney’s job to call the president weak on everything, but he also needs to say what, exactly, he would do different. It’s not the easy choice. An incumbent president is, by definition, more knowledgeable about the foreign policy landscape than the challenger. When Romney has talked specifics, his ideology sounds more like Bush redux. If Obama can coolly point out Romney’s contradictions while remaining confident on his own foreign policy bonafides, he will come out the victor.
I think Romney will play it safe tonight, being very careful not to endure another “acts of terror” cringefest. But the fact is, it’s going to be hard for him to credibly criticize a president who has been (at least) perceived as a shrewd foreign policy mind. I’m interested to see if Obama really presses the governor to articulate his own specific plan, and then if that plan is a nebulous attack on Obama’s weak rhetoric or good old fashioned Bush 2.0. Either way I think this debate will be more of a challenge for Romney.