Mitt’s disappearing act
The GOP nominee knew there was no way for him to win the foreign policy debate, and it really showed
Topics: Opening Shot, Politics News
The good news for Barack Obama is that Monday night’s debate went better for him than the other two. The bad news is that it figures to have the least impact on Election Day.
Three weeks ago in Denver, the president was practically comatose, while Mitt Romney was glib and confident in a way many viewers hadn’t seen before. Last week, Obama bounced back and turned in an impressively punchy performance, but Romney held his own (except for his awful Libya flub) and scored some real points on the economy. On Monday, Obama showed up with some strong material, challenged his opponent persistently, and was met with surprisingly little resistance from Romney.
That Romney was playing it safe became clear moments into the debate, when he took Bob Schieffer’s lead-off question about Libya and immediately sought to broaden it out, launching into a discussion about Egypt and the Arab Spring. He also complimented Obama on ordering the bin Laden raid, but then added that “we can’t kill our way out of this mess.” Obviously, Romney had no interest in a repeat of last week, when his assertion that Obama had waited two weeks to call the attack on the Benghazi consulate a terrorist act blew up in his face. This time, Romney seemed content to run out the clock.
And it went that way for most of the night. Sure, Romney repeated some of his standard attacks on Obama’s foreign policy leadership, branding him insufficiently concerned about Israel and even dredging up the “apology tour” nonsense. And when he could, he tried to pivot away from foreign policy and to remind voters about the fragile state of the domestic economy. But Romney wasn’t eager to engage Obama on many specific points, or to offer a significantly different vision of America’s role in the world. He agreed with Obama on drones, on Afghanistan and even on Syria, acknowledging that besides calling for the arming of rebels he doesn’t have a different course of action in mind.
I think three factors contributed to this. The first is that Romney and his team recognized that foreign policy isn’t their strong suit in this election. His campaign strategy depends on economically anxious voters turning on Obama; there’s just not much room for foreign policy and national security in this equation – and it shows in how little effort Romney and his party have put into defining their international agenda. This was going to be a tough debate for Romney to win, no matter what.
Steve Kornacki writes about politics for Salon. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki More Steve Kornacki.





Advisers Urged Obama Early On To Release Comprehensive Benghazi Timeline
Democrats Let Sen. Patrick Leahy Stand Alone In Support Of Gay Couples
Virginia Republicans Aren't Flocking To Anti-Gay Lieutenant Governor Hopeful
Israeli Ambassador Says Kerry Will Do A Fine Job Getting Peace Negotiations Going
Comments
50 Comments