With the third and final presidential candidate debate focusing on foreign policy and national security, the Obama campaign has a new video today making the case that Mitt Romney simply fails the Commander-in-Chief test. At nearly five minutes, it's far too long for broadcast, but as an informational video, it's pretty brutal.
The clip features commentary from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Admiral John Nathman (ret.), and former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy, who collectively make the case that the Republican just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Of particular interest was Albright's criticism, in large part because she didn't hold back. "In Gov. Romney, what worries me is just a series of statements that show that he's not ready for prime time in terms of national security," she said, adding, "We cannot afford to have Gov. Romney and Congressman Ryan as president and vice president because of Gov. Romney's lack of understanding of the issues that a Commander in Chief has to deal with. That is dangerous."
That's pretty tough stuff from the nation's former top diplomat.
The clip also features John Kerry explaining, "Romney just says things that are not true, are irresponsible, and is willing for political expedient reasons to put at risk our foreign policy. I find it as irresponsible in a candidate as anything I have ever seen in all the years I've been in public life."
Looking back over my own recent notes on Romney and foreign policy, there's ample evidence to bolster the larger indictment. Even when the former one-term governor tries to present a vision of his own, Romney ends up not saying anything of substance -- and that's when he has the benefit of a teleprompter. In general, over the course of the last six years, Romney has struggled to even be coherent in most areas of international affairs. Abroad, he's even been reduced to a laughingstock.
I don't doubt that the candidate will be well prepared for tonight's debate, and will no doubt stick to the script he's carefully memorized, but given his record, he'll have an enormous amount of ground to make up when it comes basic foreign policy competence.
Leave a Comment:
The most unfortunate fact about this prime-time foreign-policy debate, is that the low-information voters will be watching the NLCS Game 7 and/or Monday Night Football.
I hope that the President refrains from interrupting Romney too much. Letting Romney talk at length on foreign policy is the best way to win tonight. (Remember when Obama said "continue" to Romney, just waiting for him to put his foot in his mouth last week?)
Totally agree. Let him talk. Usually the more a liar talks, the more lies he has to remember. Part of the reason why it's so easy nowadays to show how inconsistent he is. Let him talk.
The President should cut him off at the pass.
Letting Romney speak was the mistake he made in the first debate.
That's a pretty broad statement there... I'm interested in all 3 items - Monday Night Football, NLCS game 7 and yes the debate. I consider myself to be well informed because of websites like this one and paying attention to the correct things and not all of the lies and spin from TeaPubs.
Just making a point that not all that watch sports when the debate is on is not a low-information voter.
Knobson,
I completely agree! No useful purpose is served by allowing a liar to get away with lying.
#1.2 is correct. Most of the 60 million viewers only sense verve and who's on offence.That's what Obana has to give them to win. Substance and nuance go right by unnoticed. Sad but true.
@Knobson: I don't mean BHO should let Romney run the clock, but simply to allow him to speak, like he did with the misstatement about the Rose Garden comments last week. If the time gets out-of-balance, the moderator will give one side more time at the end (which is more impactful anyway).
IMO the mistake in the first debate was looking down at his notes all the time, and saying "$5T tax cut" instead of "20% tax cut" over and over.
@mks: No offense meant. I watched last week's debate on my phone w/ one earbud and watched the ALCS game 3 last Tuesday. Tonight I imagine I will watch the debate and then the 2nd half of the Lions and Bears.
I'm just fearful of a 1st debate redux.
The President needs to get in there, comma, and politely step on Romney's dick every chance he gets.
I apologize for the crude reference, but that's just how I feel about it.
Since they'll be seated at a table, no telling what will be going on down there!
Agree with all above who say "Don't let him get away with the lie"
At every turn , just like the last time .
"That's not true governor "
Why can't I watch my Giants tonight?
I already voted! P.S. the DVR is set.....
Go Giants......
The lady with the lamp, lights the way for others.
Today's Republican would have the statue reversed, and if all possible match back to France, liberty and equality and all, but keep the chains.
No, no, no watch the debate, President Obama needs all the cheerleaders he can muster up. Lesman James.
To say Romney doesn't have the background is rather odd because Obama also didn't have background in foreign policy when he took over in 2008.
The only up side is that Obama picked a foreign relations guy as VP while Romney got a budget dude
Well, yes. But, you're analogy is a little flawed. By this reasoning, Romney will be strong on budget matters because he picked Ryan. Except that they both suck at budget matters. And that's not even up for debate. I would argue that this analogy helps Obama. It would seem to demonstrate that at bare minimum, he's was quick study, could be trusted on foreign policy, be coherent and yet be the anti-Bush we really needed. But Romney's been running for prez since god knows how long and STILL sucks on budget matters. Not quite as odd when you think it through.
There's another difference: Obama laid out a clear vision for what he wanted to do in terms of foreign policy broadly and specifically. People on both sides of the isle mocked him for being naive.
Example:
9/26/08 Pres. Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze_pG6Q62HA
OBAMA:
Romney, on the other hand, has been vague and at times ignorant on many foreign policy issues.
I agree that the simple lack of background isn't a strong argument, any more than it was against Obama in '08. However, Obama did actually have some experience with it in the Senate, where expanding the program to secure nuclear materials around the world was one of his signature achievements.
The big difference, however, is that Romney has repeatedly published op-eds on foreign policy that get basic facts ludicrously wrong, and that he seems unable to talk to any foreign leader without embarrassing himself. On one hand, there was inexperience, and on the other, there's willfull ignorance.
At the time Obama was elected President, he had already served for several years on the Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and on Homeland Security, and he was the Chairman on the Subcommittee on European Affair. You may argue that those assignments were not enough to make someone "qualified" in the area of foreign policy experience, but it is substantially more than the big fat zero Mitt Romney brings to the table. Also, we do have the benefit of Obama's four years as President to evaluate and on the whole, I find his foreign policy satisfactory. From Romney, all we have are his pronouncements as to what he wishes to do as President, and that is quite enough to paint him as an ignorant, war-mongering fool who will have us in a shooting match with Iran and a trade war with China within the first year. What more do you need?
But that is the point. Obama had the sense of responsibilty to choose someone with experience to be one heart beat away from the presidency (dare I say he thought of "country first"). Romney and indeed McCain previously made purely political selections. Furthermore one had the sense that Obama had actually thought about foreign policy and had formulated his own ideas and had a position that he could defend, e.g. his stance against the Iraq war. Romney leaves a vacuum that will be filled with the policies of the ex Bush advisors that he has surrounded himself with.
"Someone" in business- Steve Jobs?- said, "The secret of my success is that I hire people smarter than I am."
Evidence shows that Obama has done that.
Evidence also shows that Romney has not done that.
Those on the right tend to be inordinately fond of ignorant, war-mongering fools.
It's about time we started pointing out how Romney-Ryan’s total lack of experience being directed by Bush's national security advisers will bring us the same old tough talk that leads us to overextending our resources, limiting our ability to succeed. All of us have seen in a big way how President Obama’s focused leadership demonstrates the strength of speaking clearly and carrying a big Special Forces stick. This isn't about taking credit, it's about making it clear to everyone, how important it is to have a commander-in-chief who understands focus, because this leads to many more successes, with far less costs to our soldiers and civilians. All of our men and women defending this country always do a great job wherever their focus and resources are directed, so leadership matters. This President continues to direct more focus and resources on going after the terrorists, which has resulted in getting more high-level targets in his first 4 years than in the previous 8, and yes this includes Osama bin Laden. Republicans may be sick of hearing it, but those who lost loved ones on 9/11, aren’t.
Having a commander-in-chief who is better able to convince our international partners to share the burden of policing the world saves us money and lives while at the same time leading to successful international military campaigns such as the one that led to the overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya. We need to understand that leading from behind means LEADING others to share the burdens.
90% of Israelis do not support military action against Iran's nuclear program without the US, because they know they can't do it alone and no matter when we do it, there will be serious consequences, so until we absolutely have to, the majority of Israelis, unlike Republicans, are not in a hurry to attack Iran. The decimation of terrorist organizations around the world, the first-ever international sanctions against Iran, the first-ever cyber-attacks against Iran's nuclear program, Iran's increased willingness to negotiate and unprecedented intelligence cooperation are all reasons why the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense Ehud Barak said that president Obama has done more for the security of Israel than any other previous President. If this election is largely about the economy, President Obama has demonstrated he's the sort of commander-in-chief who knows how to focus our blood and treasure to get more results with less cost.
@DAY: It was Lee Iacocca. Similar sayings for others, eg Bear Bryant.
I don't think Steve Jobs ever admitted that anyone was smarter than him.
That is true, but at least O had the proper philosophy on the world, and he worked on world issues in the senate, so it is a little strong to say he had no experience. I have only seen Willard insult other countries, or get things wrong.......
Doubly Odd.
Doubly Odd.
Can you find a Republican who can say Obama did not have foreign experience?
Can you find a Republican who can say Obama did not have foreign experience?
I thought the Republicans would not talk of nothing else?
I thought the Republicans would not talk of nothing else?
I believe that Romney is downright dangerous when it comes to foreign policy and national security. At the presidential level, ignorance is not bliss, it is catastrophic.
Exactly. And that is what we had with the Dubya administration.
Put a comment in the wrong place.
Europe might wish to start stocking up on aerodynamic shoes...
Strange coming from a man who converted two people as a missionary in france, in 4 years; it must have been hard to get the French off their wine and mistresses! Who is the french european that speaks french; that would be Willard!
Over the last 18 months you can't tell me that people haven't been paying attention! WE don't even have to go back that far - remember Romney's "European" vacation, where he pissed off everyone with his non chalant off the cuff remarks in every country that he went to? At least Shrub was smart enough to realize that he wasn't even remotely interested in "foreign policy" and stayed his butt on this side of the pond for the most part! Romney is both patrician enough and dumb enough to actually think that the rest of the world revolves around what he's got to say as President, really?! Why am I hearing the rest of the world being openly dismissive of a Romney/Ryan presidency! Shudder the thought!
The media reports polls 155,000,000 to 155,000,000 (50/50) so who's paying attention? Much?
Former chief of Israel’s intelligence service Mossad, Efraim Halevy, on Mitt Romney:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/al-monitor/israelsecurityiran.html#ixzz2A2DySOjZ
They may not be a majority, but never underestimate the number of people in the US who would be quite willing to "go to another world war over 'values'".
If Mormans beleive America is the worlds center and the "holy land", how can Americans trust Romney to act rationally? His beliefs handcuff him to untenable positions. Someone negotiating between the Palestinians and Israelis who thinks the Garden Of Eden is in Iowa has blinders on. Romney calls the Palestinians "culturally inferior" to Israelis, and his own religion condones multiple wives.
The problem for friend and foe alike is that no one can have any confidence that they know Romney's policy on anything as he has been all over the map. Worse, by staking out hard and fast positions in a campaign, he has limited available options should he be elected.
So far, it is all about raw ambition over every thing else.
People thought Sen. Goldwater was dangerous and he had been in the senate for years. We do not need a Mormon with an army to try to impose his will on the world.
FuturePrez, that isn't exactly true -- Obama had dealt with foreign issues that come before the Senate, and had specifically worked with Dick Lugar (as good a mentor on foreign policy as he could have) on the important issue of securing loose nuclear material and other weapons in the former Soviet block.
All Romney has is being an expert on Caymen banking laws.
Can you find a Republican who can say Obama did not have foreign experience.
As nation of immigrants and illegal immigrants, foreign relationship must have happended, since we're here now.
I still think the British newspapers named him correctly. Seems like it rhymed with Mitt.
I'm Mitt Romney and I do indeed have foreign relations experience:
I went to France to avoid a war, and I talked to foreign athletes in the Olympics...does that count?
As long as we're being snarky, what about his vast experience in foreign policy as governer of Massachusetts...ya got them maple syrup encrusted libs out of Vermont, them summer turists flocking in from Jersey, and Provincetown flaunting itself right there in the middle, middle east so to speak. Can't get too much more "foreign" to a sheltered rich guy from Utah.
much much //snark//
He was declared dead in France, but was he ever declared alive and well.
The fact that Mitt Romney doesn't seem to understand that there are 194 other countries in the world and that they ALL get CNN speaks volumes.
If you are President of the United States what you say is heard outside Kansas and Wyoming and it is what you are saying for all of us. Even when he speaks as a candidate for that office the world is listening, not just conservative American voters.
Yes, I am living in Brazil and all of the Brazilians that I know dread the fact that Romney could be the next president of the United States. It would be a disaster. We are overjoyed that Obama is the U.S. President. He saved Brazil´s economy from going down the tubes, too. If the U.S. had had a Depression, it would have affected the whole world. Many of us here watch the debates live on our computers.
An American in Brazil
Mitt just wants to avenge his father's legacy. Also, the Presidency is the plumb item on his resume he needs to make up for the raping and pillaging he inflicted as a raider capitalist.
Oh, gawd. Not another Republican with a father complex! Wasn't Iraq lesson enough? The only weapons of mass destruction turned out to be in Bush I's pants...
You said it better than I did!
We have a pretty good idea of the republican "budget plan". A)cut taxes for the wealthy to the bone
B)Cut taxes and regulations on Corporations while getting rid of the minimum wage
C)Gut SSI and send the funds to a private investment fund to prop up the stocks the wealthy will be dumping
D)End Food stamps and other "welfare to work" programs so the poor can be forced to work at slave wages and tossed on the junk pile if they get sick or injured
E)Spend a few trillion on military boondoggles and start world war three
F)End the civil rights bull and stop democrats from voting
G)Hand the keys to the country over to corporate "America" while letting the evangelists write legislation to enforce their dogma upon us all.
Don't know about you but I will be at the polls early and then go home to oil my gun and sharpen my ax--just in case Mr. Hanging Chad cheats Obama out of the Presidency.
All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others...
Well at least cannibalism makes business sense. But will cause Romnesia.
This year must have been the "historical Revisionism" part of the Levon...I mean novel, 1984. I can't forget, I mean remember. That's it, I'm oughta here, Edward needs me to remove those scissors.
Another very real problem is that Romeny thinks that being POTUS is the same as being CEO. Being the CEO, Pres, Sec., Treas. & Sole Shareholder of a company is like being a dictator who reports to himself. No one to question his decisions/actions and everyone laughs at his "jokes" or "pranks" as the Romney's call it.
I don't believe that Romney is capable of admitting he doesn't know something; or capable of taking advice. I think he thinks he will issue "commands" and fire anyone who doesn't follow them. You know just like Congress always does exactly what POTUS commands! Ha! Lady Ann has hinted several times at Romney's state of mind and she's fears for him. We should listen to her.
It's very sad to me that we even have someone like him as a choice let alone that he appeals to so many folks - for whatever reason. Romney and the cadre he surrounds himself with are living in the 1950's and he pines for yesteryear of the Cold War. Along with his fantasy of being a MI State Trooper glorying in the power of pulling people over for imagined infractions, he must have fanatized about being the supreme commander of a superpower and saving the world from the likes of others like himself. Guess he can't wait til he becomes a god and is the supreme power of his own planet!
Maybe I can find another planet to live on if he's elected.
Just make sure it's not the one he'll be the god of when he dies!
Jo 6pack, there's a family moving out on the planet to the left of us. If you can hurry, it's a steal.
hmmmm....let us pause and think for a moment.......EVERY person you mentioned from Albright to Kerry, is an operative for the Democrat party.....now if you put some Republicans in there, you MIGHT have some credibility.....however, all you quote are Democrats....imagine!!! ROFL....you are too funny.....keep the lines coming!!!!
Most of us watched that entire video. I did. Will those who support R/R viscerally and without question, whether with abject hatred for Obama or not, even bother watching that video, or give what it says a second thought?
No. We persist in believing that enough facts will persuade them. They are not persuadable. I find them immune to facts, immune to logic, in thrall to the various ideas they embrace on faith rather than reality.
I've given up. I will vote, because people died so that I could do so, so that I *would* do so. Even though I know they are voting against their own interests, supporters of R/R will probably vote, too. My despair is that more than half those who vote will demand a country that would, by force of law, dismantle the constitutional protections the rest of us rightfully claim as shelter. We insult the Bill of Rights by calmly watching various majorities vote them down. What part of "Rights" do they -- and we -- not understand?
What has happened to my country? My various ancestors arrived here from England well before the Revolution. One helped found Hartford, Connecticut. One was a junior officer at Valley Forge (I have copies of his pay slips.) Some owned slaves, passing them down in their wills. At least two were burned out by Sherman. Some fought for the Union. Few served in 20th-century wars. I was an Alabama youngster when Dr. King arrived in Montgomery. Parents starved as children taught their one child well enough that she knew that the history and country her family had helped build had not yet gone far enough. Much more was and is left to be done, but she -- I -- can do no more. There are several young and vigorous prophets of the future, and I love their voices and their bravery; but there are many more American Taliban eager to do them violence.
And now it all seems to be over. I was incredulous at the election of Bush in 2000, confident that, once his foolishness was clearly seen, the American people would quickly discard him. I was wrong. Now I am among the half of Americans who, while aware of the missteps of the past 4 years, understand the much that has been done well: the half who understand what is truly at stake *this* time, too.
Perhaps there is hope in changing demographics. For every Judge Vaughn Walker, though, there is a more powerful Antonin Scalia and his equally blinkered brethren. For every Warren Buffett, there is a Leon Cooperman. For every Paul Krugman, there are the corporate robots at Fox News and the millions who guzzle their poison.
Let us hope and work so that Obama wins, forestalling the ultimate agony for another few years. Whether we "win" by 50.1% or not, though, this battle seems lost. We have lost it -- or, at least, I have. I am no longer able to fight it. My time is nearly over.
Thanks, a voice in the wilderness.
I hope the President will bring up the politicizing of Libya by Darrel Issa (so full of himself and oh so bipartisan) to release documents that are exposing people to retaliation/death. This is what I have been talking about. It should be bipartisan to try to find out what happened without playing gotcha politics, that might expose TMI during an ongoing investigation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/20/darrell-issa-libya_n_1991064.html
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/issa-carelessly-outs-libyan-civilians
After blasting Wikileaks he carelessly publicizes too much information that outs cooperative Libyans.
Some folks are acting as if Libya is 100% anti America, when we had people assisting our people.
This Rethuglican foreign policy is just attack, attack, get folks riled up with naming enemies and saying we have to attack now.
America does not want more wars.
Darrel Issa is Romney Foreign Policy Adviser?
No, but he is on a witch hunt, trying to create the image of conspiracy in the Libya 9/11/12 attack. Doing his best for his party, not his country.
Please think before you vote, based on this subject alone.
Would you give Willard the nuclear football codes? I would debate seriously with anyone that thinks that he wouldn't use them.......
POTUS opening statement tonight, " It's difficult to prepare for an intellegent, honest debate with an opponent that displays all the signs of suffering with MULTIPLE PERSONALITY DISORDER. I never know which opponent will show up. As you all know, my opponent has taken every stance on every issue raised... even though he has NO experience in most of these issues. That said I will do my best in trying to anticipate which Mitt Romney I will be addressing! His latest stand would make many people think they were listening to me!, So, let's get started!"
Just a suggestion...
Helena - I, too, despair. The defining moment for me was that I lived in a country where half the people are ok with the sentiment shouted by the crowd at that one GOP debate, "let him die!" It is one of the reasons I am now an expat. I don't want to live among people like that.