The Debates, Round Three

The presidential candidates didn't spend much time talking about foreign policy at last night's foreign policy debate in Boca Raton.  Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both spent more time talking about domestic policy, much to the chagrin of moderator Bob Schieffer - though both candidates did try to explain how their domestic policies would make America stronger abroad by building strength at home.  

When they did talk about foreign affairs, though, neither nominee committed any major gaffes. The closest either one of them came to making a gaffe was when Mitt Romney said that Iran wanted to dominate Syria because it offered "a path to the sea," even though Iran is on the Persian Gulf and thus is not a landlocked country.  In fairness to Romney, though, he might have meant that Iran wants a path to the Mediterranean Sea in particular, which Syria is on, and simply forgot to specify that.  Because it's a plausible conclusion that Iran may want access to the Mediterranean through Syria due to Syria's proximity to Europe.  Bear in mind that the Soviet Union, which never bordered the Mediterranean, hoped to see a Communist government established in Greece in 1947 to allow the U.S.S.R. direct access to the Mediterranean.  So an Iran with access to the Mediterranean Sea through Syria would certainly be something to consider.  And speaking of the Soviet Union, I would have to concede that Romney was right when he said that a post-Soviet Russia with Vladimir Putin at the helm should be considered a geopolitical threat, if only because the Russians have backed the government in Syria.  

That out of the way, I'm happy to announce that Romney didn't offer any other new or interesting insight to the debate, and spent a lot of time backing up his arguments with facts and figures that he could have easily memorized from the CIA World Factbook.  Nevertheless, his handling of facts he may have learned only two hours before the debate started made him sound like he knew what he was talking about, and he seems to have learned more about the world in a week than most low-information voters learn about the world in a year.  How could Obama respond to that?

Quite easily, it turns out.  The President showed a stronger command of military policy, emphasized our greater military expenditures than the next ten countries put together to blunt Romney's calls for military spending increases, and re-affirmed his own commitment to servicemen and veterans.  Obama stressed joint cooperation with Israel to keep Iran from getting the bomb, and he was more straightforward on the need to investigate the terrorist attack in Libya.  He also reminded voters that Romney wouldn't have aggressively pursued and killed Osama bin Laden.  But his most devastating blow to Romney came when Romney complained about how our navy is the smallest it's been since World War I.  Obama added that we have the smallest number of horses and bayonets since then, too, because we don't need a large navy to meet today's challenges any more than we need an equestrian cavalry.  

Romney did what he had to do - appear presidential and re-assuring. But Obama also did what he had to do - strengthen the case for his own re-election.  Foreign policy debates have little effect on the electorate, though, which is why Obama (and Romney) constantly veered into domestic policy.  And when they did talk about foreign affairs, Romney constantly sided with Obama on many issues.  But when he moved to the center (as he always does) to position himself more favorably, Romney left no reason as to why he would be different on foreign policy, except to build more ships.

I doubt this will move the polls much, but Romney's momentum may have been checked.