A matter of tactics
ON FOREIGN POLICY candidates placed separate spin on similar policies
BOCA RATON, FLA. It didn’t take — long for Barack Obama to telegraph his strategy for the third and final presidential debate.
After a brief, 30-second opening summary of his accomplishments Monday night, the U.S. president turned to face his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, across the table and said, “And, you know, Governor Romney, I’m glad that you agree that we have been successful in going after al-Qaida, but I have to tell you that, you know, your strategy previously has been one that has been all over the map and is not designed to keep Americans safe or to build on the opportunities that exist in the Middle East.” And so it went. Romney attempted to take the high road by coolly and dispassionately describing his policies and how he would fix a world endangered by “Muslim extremism” and Chinese cyber attacks to keep the U.S. safe, while Obama returned to his polished attack strategy of painting Romney as a candidate who sets his policies according to the voter weather vane.
Within the framework of Monday’s debate, Obama’s attacks often seemed gratuitous. But in the context of his first debate — in Denver three weeks ago, where the roles were reversed and it was Romney who was the relentless aggressor — Obama clearly felt he had no choice. Looking presidential and calmly outlining past success and future policies in the first debate, while Romney freely beat up on him, had killed Obama’s momentum and had breathed new life into Romney’s floundering campaign. Obama wasn’t going to let that happen again. He didn’t last week in Long Island, N.Y., and he didn’t in battleground Florida.
Three times Obama referenced Romney’s policies as being “all over the map,” adding other similar phrases as the night wore on.
And three times Romney replied that “attacking me is not talking about an agenda” — or variations thereof.
The Republicans knew what was coming and had sent in the heavyweights to disseminate the message that President Obama was not acting presidential.
Senator John McCain set the tone as he toured the network booths in spin alley prior to Monday’s debate, reciting his lines with appropriate disdain and shock at the president’s “unpresidential” performance last week in Long Island. “I have never seen a president or a presidential candidate behave in the way that he did,” he said. “It’s a sign of desperation but also not a lot of class.”
John Sununu, former Republican governor of New Hampshire, read from the same script after Monday’s debate, as did all the Republican spin doctors.
The Democrats, too, had their spin. For them Obama looked like a “commander in chief,” “decisive” and “strong.”
In Denver, the Republicans said Obama looked weak, confused and unpresidential. In Long Island and Boca, they labelled a combative Obama as arrogant, classless and, unpresidential. The man couldn’t win.
But when all was stamped and labelled, and judging purely on Monday’s debate, the two candi- dates weren’t that far apart on the fundamentals of maintaining peace and stability. Faced with Iran’s nuclear ventures, with terrorism in an unstable Muslim world, with a poverty-stricken, nuclear Pakistan and its extremist factions and terrorist incubation schools, and with the aggressive rise of China — all invoked the same policy approach from both candidates: diplomacy, diplomacy and diplomacy, backed by sanctions and a powerful military. Only a hairline crack separated them on methodology.
As Obama said at one point: “You know, there have been times, Governor, frankly, during the course of this campaign, where it sounded like you thought that you’d do the same things we did, but you’d say them louder.”
Which was why the final message to voters was: Do you want the tried and true Obama with a record of “eliminating” arch-enemy Osama bin Laden, crippling the al-Qaida command structure and stopping Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or do you want to throw the dice on a rookie Republican with a record of being “all over the map” who just might return us to Bush’s wars?
You choose.