Tonight's debate should be interesting, especially since most of the focus should be on Barack Obama and his foreign policy record. It will be difficult to make this debate all about Mitt Romney, which has been the president's strategy in the previous two debates, because it will be about what Obama has done--or failed to do. Things we can be sure of hearing? China, Israel, Iranian nukes, Libya, Russia --"I'll mention it to Vladimir"--and trade. Things we may not hear about but should be addressed: transition in Cuba, Venezuela and Iranian missiles in South America, the impact of U.s indebtedness on global stability, and America's relations with the European Union--especially as it may be beginning to unravel.
Wow, all hands on deck for this liveblog!
Despite the common refrain that there are no substantial differences between Obama and Romney on foreign policy issues, they differ dramatically on their vision of America’s role in the world. That’s what will frame tonight’s debate from start to finish. Obama’s belief that engagement is the wisest course for U.S. foreign policy will be challenged by Romney’s case for American exceptionalism.
Two sides have different needs tonight: Obama to try for a big night against Romney. Romney wins with a tie. He doesn't need to trump Obama. But he is sure to try on Libya, when the opportunity arises.
Here's a prediction: on Iran, Benghazi, and China, Romney will go after Obama. On every other foreign policy question, he'll find a way within the first 30 seconds to pivot to his main message on jobs and the economy. Afghanistan -- pivot to soldiers returning home, need for Veterans Affairs to offer them the best health care possible. Sequestration -- pivot to 130,000 jobs in Virginia at risk, 23,000 in Pennsylvania, 18,000 in Colorado and 35,000 in North Carolina.
Will be interesting to see how Bob Schieffer uses the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis -- maybe to ask about nuclear weapons in the wake of Putin's rejection of Nunn-Lugar renewal; or, maybe about unforeseen crises that affect presidents early in their first term, and the approach they will take to solving them -- particularly a question for Romney.
This is very important evening for both of them--this election is about leadership and they must demonstrate they have it. Whoever does it best wins.
Will be interesting to see how Bob Schieffer uses the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis -- maybe to ask about nuclear weapons in the wake of Putin's rejection of Nunn-Lugar renewal; or, maybe about unforeseen crises that affect presidents early in their first term, and the approach they will take to solving them -- particularly a question for Romney.
I wish the Yankees were still playing. Outside of wishful thinking, this is a very important night for both, President Obama is still trying to make up for the first debate and unless this is a blow out he will not be able to achieve that. Mitt Romney has to remain strong, resolute and determined but not get overly heated toward the president.
How many are watching this -- versus Monday Night Football and game 7 of the Cardinals-Giants?
First words of candidates to each other: "Good to see you again." So the deceptions start.
Schieffer is asking too many questions in the first question.
Candidates seem friendlier toward each other then ever before. That is the impact of the Al Smith dinner.
From Letterman: "Arab Spring is not a brand of soap."
Romney needs to ask a version of his economy question: In the wake of all the violence in the Middle East, do you feel safer today than you did four years ago?
Gov. Romney does not come out with an all out attack against President Obama, but does well going through the issues. Congratulating President Obama on getting Osama bin Laden takes that issue off the table.
Romney laying out a good case on the reversals in the Middle East and smart to lead with a nod to the demise of Osama bin Laden. But a good observation that America "cannot kill" its way out of teh unfolding crisis.
Obama skipped the obligatory thanks to Schieffer, host university, and wife.
The argument about the transition out of Afghanistan reminds me of Nixon's policy of Vietnamization.
I'm not sure that cost-savings are a strong argument for Obama's conduct of policy toward Libya.
Romney summarizes the major Middle East policy--Iran's drive for nuclear weapon-making capability, Syria's spiraling crisis, instability in Libya, and the volatility of the Arab Spring--and then calls for a "comprehensive strategy to reject this kind of extremism."
Romney line very good: "We can't kill our way out of this mess." Shows knowledge of countries of North Africa.
President going directly after Romney too quickly. Should have let it go to second question.
I disagree, Robert. For undecided voters, if Romney looks as presidential as Obama, it could make all the difference. But the president will hit him for his inconsistencies, on Libya, Afghanistan, etc. Romney just said in his prepared answer is that it's not about how many we kill. And then, in his first unprepared answer, he talked about he we kill them.
Romney raising "gender equality" in the Middle East is a good answer to the Obama's campaigns continuing allegations that the GOP is engaged in a "war on women."
Obama attacks Romney's strategy as "being all over the map." Romney counters that his strategy is not only about counterterrorism, but also about going after the roots of extremism in the Muslim world. He calls for economic development through coordinated economic development, gender equality, rule of law through better civil societies.
I agree with Robert, and the first answers are underlining that--we have already heard these issues be discussed, and can be sure both candidates are well prepared.
President Obama going after Mitt Romney looks unpresidential and unnecessarily angry.
The foreign policy of the 1980s seemed to work out pretty well, as I recall. Cold War over. Berlin Wall down. We won.
"The 1980s are calling and asking for their foreign policy back." A funny line, but given that the audience isn't allowed to react it comes off as a bit flat.
Romney is demonstrating he knows the field--Obama is going after him personally; not a good tactic for this subject.
Wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map. Nice.
Strong and steady, not wrong and reckless--Obama's got his zingers flying tonight.
Romney has clearly practiced this comeback to any and all attacks on his past flip-flops. Effective.
"Attacking me is not an agenda"
Romney is looking way more presidential.
Romney is clearly not going to let Obama push his way into his answers tonight. That will be a plus. Nice use of the Vladimir comment as well. Romney seeming presidential.
Romney was talking I believe about a UN Development Programme report for the Arab world which came out a decade ago. It was a terrific report. It is shocking, amazing, and wildly disingenuous to hear someone whose senior adviser wants to "lop a couple floors off the UN" citing it approvingly.
President Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney square off in the final 2012 presidential debate, focused on foreign policy and national security. Watch the debate and get instant analysis here from U.S. News’s team of bloggers from Thomas Jefferson Street and World Report.
Welcome to the U.S. News opinion live blog of tonight’s foreign policy debate. This debate is focused on foreign policy and national security, but one thing to watch will be the extent to which each candidate manages to pivot and turn a foreign affairs issue back to domestic politics. Remember, for example, that each time Barack Obama or Mitt Romney talks tough about China they are trying to appeal to Ohio voters.
Tonight's debate should be interesting, especially since most of the focus should be on Barack Obama and his foreign policy record. It will be difficult to make this debate all about Mitt Romney, which has been the president's strategy in the previous two debates, because it will be about what Obama has done--or failed to do. Things we can be sure of hearing? China, Israel, Iranian nukes, Libya, Russia --"I'll mention it to Vladimir"--and trade. Things we may not hear about but should be addressed: transition in Cuba, Venezuela and Iranian missiles in South America, the impact of U.s indebtedness on global stability, and America's relations with the European Union--especially as it may be beginning to unravel.
Despite the common refrain that there are no substantial differences between Obama and Romney on foreign policy issues, they differ dramatically on their vision of America’s role in the world. That’s what will frame tonight’s debate from start to finish. Obama’s belief that engagement is the wisest course for U.S. foreign policy will be challenged by Romney’s case for American exceptionalism.
Here's a prediction: on Iran, Benghazi, and China, Romney will go after Obama. On every other foreign policy question, he'll find a way within the first 30 seconds to pivot to his main message on jobs and the economy. Afghanistan -- pivot to soldiers returning home, need for Veterans Affairs to offer them the best health care possible. Sequestration -- pivot to 130,000 jobs in Virginia at risk, 23,000 in Pennsylvania, 18,000 in Colorado and 35,000 in North Carolina.
As the debate gets started, the Foreign Policy Initiative (where I work) invites you to check out Debating the Future of U.S. National Security: Essential Facts for the Final Presidential Debate. It highlights some important factoids and issues about tonight's topics that the public and news media may find helpful to understanding U.S. foreign and defense policy over the last four years.
Romney was talking I believe about a UN Development Programme report for the Arab world which came out a decade ago. It was a terrific report. It is shocking, amazing, and wildly disingenuous to hear someone whose senior adviser wants to "lop a couple floors off the UN" citing it approvingly.
