We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Re Mitt Romney’s toughest debate, he probably can't "win" on details of foreign policy. However, the election is not about details of foreign policy. There are no votes in the Benghazi mess up and coverup, and nobody cares too much about the entire crack-up in the ME, or whether Obama hearts Putin.
I think Romney can make his mark on two themes. First, the importance that America remain the leader of the free world, and the most generous and helpful nation on the planet. Second, that America's beneficial influence is founded on two things: our ideas of freedom and the wealth born of (relatively) free markets. The Reagan approach, minus the Cold War. That leads back to talking about prosperity at home.
I disagree, I think there are plenty of votes to be gained, or at least secured, by addressing Benghazi. That is, the security/soccer mom vote.
If Romney can present a credible case that he cares about Americans abroad, and that he'd have prevented this event, and that the Obama admin is culpable, he can tie up those votes. Throwing in Fast and Furious wouldn't hurt either.
Yes he can demonstrate the US as leader, Benghazi and FnF are details.
The other problem w/ Romney is that he's an interventionist, and I doubt would even consider being Reagan w/o the Cold War. That will hurt him both strategically, and tactically as he gets bogged down in technical details.
If the polling is correct about the economy/jobs being the most important issue, not sure how this debate will make much of a difference in the race at this point.
My impression is that Obama has projected weakness and would continue to do so. My Jacksonian impulse leads me to desire to get out of the Middle East or go in full guns blazing. I hate this lead from behind strategy.
Romney seems to have recruited the standard neocon advisors so not sure there's really much difference between Bush-Obama-Romney strategy. Hopefully Romney could project more strength and be a more avid defender of our interests. I'd also like to see an assessment of who our important allies are and build those relationships.
I can't see how enabling and fostering relationships with the Moslem Brotherhood is beneficial. Would rather simply accept them as the enemy they are and manage accordingly.
The President will argue he's "ended the Iraq war and ending the Afghan war", that "al Qaeda is significantly weakened, even winding down" and our "alliances are stronger than ever".
Since none of those assertions are even remotely true it's hard to know where to start.
Iraq is a developing catastrophe for us, what with Revolutionary Guard troops in the country protecting al Qaeda and Hamas training camps, the Afghans think they're soon kicking us out and have already resumed throwing acid at schoolgirls.
al Qaeda seems to be strengthening by the hour across North Africa as well as west Asia and the middle east.
Our allies don't know where we stand on much of anything, and we've abandoned most of them at one point or another anyway over the last four godforsaken years, so fewer and fewer are willing to stand beside us.
Good luck tonight Romney. The Democrats think Obumbles is the "foreign policy president" but, to me, his policies look like they have brought the world to the brink of chaos and strife. I hope you can make those points clear to undecideds and persuadable Obama supporters.