Maggie's Farm

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.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Monday, October 22. 2012

How Romney can benefit from the last debate

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.


(If he has the nerve to talk about respect, and bowing to foreign leaders, that would be fun but would not win any votes. This is fun too: Chavez, Castro, Putin endorse Obama... )


That's his message, or should be.

Posted by The News Junkie in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 11:36 | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

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.
#1 DrTorch on 2012-10-22 12:05 (Reply)
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.
#2 phil g on 2012-10-22 12:07 (Reply)
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.
#3 MTF on 2012-10-22 12:34 (Reply)
You're totally off base: The Romney goal must be to woo the low-information/ undecided voters -- notably the babes.

This is done by acting Alpha and putting the boy-king on the defensive so that his betatude shines forth.

ANY reparte that causes the Wan to beta-fy himself is a winning gambit.

The crazy idea of harkening back to the Cold War ethos as a campaign positive -- is just that: crazy.

It doesn't connect with low information voters AT ALL.

Mitt should want to have the Wan pulling a Ralph Kramden, "a hamma, hamma, hamma..."

In that regard, Bengazigate is a most excellent trope. It fuses the Nixonian stonewalling to the corruption that is Chicago on the Potomac.

-------

Am I the only one to note that 'leading from behind' is a homo-erotic term of supremacy?

All military men know that one must 'lead from the front' -- NEVER from the rear.

As the great bard would opine: sometimes a play on words is more than a cigar.

Puff on that.
#4 blert on 2012-10-22 19:34 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.