Debate might have nudged Romney from ‘potential’ to ‘probable’
October 24, 2012 12:01 AM | 2584 views | 5 5 comments | 10 10 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Mitt Romney might (or might not) have lost Monday night’s third and final presidential debate on points — but he achieved a key goal in the process. That is, he passed the “plausibility” test as a potential president.

It’s an uphill climb for any challenger to debate an incumbent president on foreign policy, as Romney did on Monday. It’s even more unusual for a challenger to hold his own, as Romney did. The Republican faithful have long known their nominee has what it takes to be president, but his performance on Monday likely was a key in persuading many who are less familiar with him that he is a candidate blessed with sufficient knowledge and judgment to perform capably in the Oval Office.

In so doing he undercut an oft-leveled Democratic scare tactic, i.e., that he is a war-monger. Obama would love to have you believe that Romney is itching to bomb Iran, but the Republican pre-empted the president on that one, saying, “I will stand with Israel if they are attacked.”

On a related topic, he said emphatically, “I don’t want to have our troops in Syria.”

He added that we shouldn’t be arming anybody there until we know who it is we are arming.

Rather than repeat his insistence that the U.S. stay on in Afghanistan past 2014, he expressed agreement, perhaps sensing growing public displeasure with the U.S. presence there, with that departure date.

On the controversial question of the administration’s nearly unrestricted drone warfare, Romney said, “I support that entirely and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology.”

Despite urging from his partisans, Romney passed up a chance to attack Obama in the lethal Benghazi debacle, instead quickly sliding into praise for tracking down and killing Osama bin Laden.

Obama has also been criticized for pressuring pro-U.S. dictator Hosni Mubarak into resigning, although, as Obama pointed out, his brutal repression of young, pro-democracy demonstrators made U.S. support increasingly untenable. Romney added that once anger against the repression exploded, “I felt the same way the president did.”

Over the objections of moderator Bob Schieffer, Obama and Romney kept circling back to domestic issues — the economy, the auto bailout, taxes — subjects clearly of more interest to the candidates and, one suspects, the voters as well. And Romney successfully made the link that a strong national defense is predicated on first having a strong economy, something Obama has been clueless on how to deliver.

Indeed, Obama — without much of a record to brag on — debated on Monday as if he, not Romney, were the challenger. He was on the attack throughout the evening, even descending to a snarky putdown at one point of Romney and the U.S. Navy.

Condescension, thy name is Barack.

The bottom line, though, is that Romney presented himself to voters as a plausible commander-in-chief, despite repeated efforts by Obama to show otherwise.

And that, in turn, might have been enough to edge him from “potential” president to “probable” president. We’ll know in two weeks.

Comments
(5)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
John Minor
|
October 24, 2012
Romney & Ryan have spent their entire campaign blabbing about what an awful foreign policy the President has. I believe they even referred to it as 'the worst foreign policy in the history of America'. Then Romney gets to the debate and agrees with everything the President is doing. How exactly does that make any sense at all? And how exactly does that make him a more plausible commander-in-chief? This guy flip-flops more than a pair of Tevas. Where does he stand on anything?
Timus
|
October 24, 2012
The only thing Romney passed was the "I can agree with eveything President Obama says!!" test!! Short of that you people can keep trying to spin Monday night as something it was not!
Mr Objectivity
|
October 24, 2012
What debate were you watching? Offering nothing of substance or agreeing with current US foreign policy equates to "passing the plausibility test as a potential president?"

I looked for the op-ed byline. There isn't one. It appears, objectivity is a lost art. Stick to the facts and save your beliefs for the op-ed pages.
anonymous
|
October 24, 2012
Somebody tell Romney Iran isn't landlocked.
CobbCoGuy
|
October 24, 2012
Somebody tell Obama that it's pronounced CORE-man, not CORPSE-man.

;)
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides