Romney’s eyes look a little red. Tired? Anxious? Good line from Romney: “We can’t kill our way out of this mess.” (Talking about instability in the Middle East.)
Actually, Obama’s eyes look red too. Maybe it’s the cameras.
Too bad they’re sitting down this time. I think striding around was good for both men. Seemed to wake up Obama.
Obama gets in the first hit: Romney’s strategy in regard to the region “has been all over the place.”
Romney gesticulates more than Obama, which I find sort of surprising.
Another hit from Obama: Romney called Russia – not the Middle East – our biggest foreign policy challenge. “Every time you’ve offered an opinion about the region, you’ve been wrong.”
Romney comes back strong, correcting Obama on Russia. Yes, he called it a geopolitical problem, but “in the same paragraph” he identified Iran as our biggest national security threat.
The guys are mixing it up now, talking over each other. Obama is rather condescendingly lecturing Romney.
“Syria is Iran’s route to the sea,” says Romney, which neglects, Mr UD points out, Iran’s long coastline.
Romney’s long-suffering smile is a little odd after awhile.
Obama, in talking about Egypt, makes an elegant reference to JFK (the moderator began by noting that today is the fiftieth anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis.)
Romney’s effort to characterize our weak economy as a threat to our power and influence abroad is rather unconvincing.
“America is stronger now than when I came into office.” Obama answers strongly. “Our alliances have never been stronger.”
What happened to foreign policy? They’ve wandered totally into domestic policy. Bob Schieffer is being a wimp. Get Candy Crowley in there!
Romney says the navy has fewer ships than it did in 1917. “Governor, we also have fewer bayonets and horses. Things have changed. There are now, for instance, submarines; boats that go under the water.” Ouch. Fantastic comeback from Obama. On Romney’s budget: “We’ve visited your website quite a bit. The numbers still don’t work.” Getting laughs from the audience. Strong stuff from Obama.
Both men have beautiful speaking voices (Obama also sings well, while Romney’s singing voice is painful). Mellifluous is the word that comes to mind.
I’d say that generally Obama seems nimbler, more energetic. Romney feels a little flat-footed, reciting policy paragraphs but not punching well. I’d even suggest that Romney’s age relative to Obama’s is showing a bit.
The seated arrangement is hurting Romney. Obama is now going down a long list of examples of Romney being “all over the place” on foreign policy, versus Obama’s “clarity of foreign policy.” If they were standing, Romney would be striding about; here, he’s forced to sit there and take it.
“When Tunisians began to protest, this nation moved to support them before anyone else.” Good answer from Obama in defense of our response to the Arab Spring.
Obama has also told, throughout the debate, lots of human interest stories (Romney has told none).
Romney’s good on the trade imbalance with China. In fact, he’s now telling his first story: His encounter with counterfeit valves.
They’re both keeping their tempers. “People can look it up,” says Romney calmly, on the matter of exactly what he said about Detroit and bankruptcy.
Another anecdote from Romney. Good. On the other hand, his repeated statement – “I love teachers.” – comes across as empty, and in fact Schieffer just made fun of it.
Closing statements now.
Instant responses here, with our friends:
Obama won the debate.
I don’t know. They agreed about so much.
October 22nd, 2012 at 11:05PM
“Syria is Iran’s route to the sea,” says Romney, which neglects, Mr UD points out, Iran’s long coastline.
Not to mention the fact that Iran has no border with Syria.
October 23rd, 2012 at 3:08AM
adam: Yup.
October 23rd, 2012 at 5:59AM
Who knows what Romney really thinks, about foreign policy, about anything. Still his arrogance is worrying. He didn’t serve in the military, nor have any of his 5 sons. He’s been pretty incautious shooting his mouth off about issues in the volatile Middle East. That arrogance & tough guy posturing by a man-boy who never saw real fightin’ reminds me of another W.
We can’t risk a term with Willard.
October 23rd, 2012 at 7:00AM
What fascinating insight into the liberal mind. Thanks UD.
You corrected the president on his remarks. He said, for example, “ships that go underwater”, and you transcribed the correct term “boats”. UD for Secretary of the Navy! Maybe then you can convince the president that when the Navy says it needs 313 ships to carry out its mission he should listen, and not dismiss them as outmoded as horses in combat. Which, by the way, CIA and special forces rode alongside the Northern Alliance to defeat the Taliban in the last decade.
October 23rd, 2012 at 7:26AM
Next someone will throw out the idea of Lawrence of Arabia redux. On a camel. The movie is 50 years old now, and it was prescient. Watching the scene in Damascus of the Arab Council train wreck at the end of the movie, one cannot help comparing its failure with the Iraqi Parliament. Thank heavens we got out of there. Actually, thank Obama.
October 23rd, 2012 at 7:34AM
And what do you imagine the councils look like in Egypt? Libya? Thanks Obama!
October 23rd, 2012 at 11:45AM
Hi Shane: Not very deep insight into the liberal mind to be found there, I think. What little insight there is would be to the English professor’s mind.
October 23rd, 2012 at 11:52AM
I stand corrected; how much difference should I suppose there to be?
October 23rd, 2012 at 11:58AM
As English professors go, Shane, I’m to the right of Attila the Hun. There are nuances.
October 23rd, 2012 at 12:31PM
Obama’s comment about the ships, horses, and bayonets didn’t seem all that intelligent to me. Aircraft carriers and submarines are *included* in the count of total ships (yeah, I know subs are called “boats,” but when the Navy reports its total ships, they are still included), so singing the praises of carriers and subs as compared to other ship types doesn’t really have much to say about what the overall number should be.
Unless he wants to argue that carriers and subs are so powerful that they reduce the need for other ship types…which would ignore the fact that carriers don’t operate alone but rather in battle groups including multiple frigates and destroyers. In any event, carriers and subs have been a significant element of the Navy for a long time…and battleships have not…so it’s hard to see how the comment is relevant to a discussion on appropriate current force levels.
It was mainly just snark, IMO.
October 23rd, 2012 at 12:34PM
A nicely-presented set of data on USN ship mix, 1886-2011, is here:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm
October 23rd, 2012 at 1:02PM
Obama’s comment about the ships, horses, and bayonets didn’t seem all that intelligent to me.
I think the point he was making, which seems to be have been lost in a flurry of nonsense about horses and bayonets, is that in and of itself the fact that the US Navy is now smaller than it was in 1916 is utterly meaningless. Are the global strategic challenges the US faces today the same as they were in 1916? Is the nature of naval warfare the same? No? Then what the fuck is the point of the comparison, other to invoke some fatuous benchmark of hawkishness?
October 23rd, 2012 at 2:07PM
Romney didn’t just compare the fleet with 1916, though, Alan, he compared it with the range of dates *at any time since 1917*…which is a very different metric.
October 23rd, 2012 at 2:18PM
So what?
Why does it matter what size the Navy is today compared to the past? What analytical value does it possibly have?
The only relevant measure of the Navy’s size today is the strategic situation it faces today.
October 23rd, 2012 at 6:40PM
Does it matter that given the strategic situation it faces today the Navy thinks it needs 313 ships, but the POTUS, with his sure gift for strategic forethought, ignores that?
October 24th, 2012 at 2:32AM
Does it matter that given the strategic situation it faces today the Navy thinks it needs 313 ships, but the POTUS, with his sure gift for strategic forethought, ignores that?
Just for the record, then, are we agreed that Romney’s boogeyman factlet about 1916 is meaningless? Yes?
As for what the Navy “thinks it needs” – does that matter? Sure, it’s significant, and no doubt the Pentagon takes it into serious account when deciding on future defense appropriations in consultation with the White House. But – get this – I bet the Air Force also thinks it is too small. And the Army. And the Marines. And the Coast Guard. The nature of strategy is in making trade-offs between what’s ideal and what’s possible, given the finite pool of resources you have – not simply doling out anything on demand.
What cracks me up about Republicans is that they’re obsessed with the empire-building character of government bureaucracy, unless that government bureaucracy happens to kill people for a living. Then all of a sudden they turn into awe-struck schoolgirls who’ll go along with anything it wants. Has it ever occured to you that the Navy might have its own self-interested reasons for wanting to be bigger than it currently is?
October 24th, 2012 at 10:24AM
Indeed the point Romney was making was to put the question: do you believe Obama is making the right decisions about our defense posture? The question of the Navy is an example. So, no, the 1916 “factlet” is not meaningless. You might disagree as to its relative importance, but that hardly puts it out of bounds in a debate about foreign policy.
Have you ever thought that the primary function of the federal government in our system is national defense? We have a federal republic form of government around here. We Americans are preternaturally aware of the consequences of public choice theory. We have recognized the necessity of investing a great deal, a dangerous amount, of power in a federal government for the purpose of national defense. We, and the entire world, are demonstrably better off for the effort.
So do you teach that the US defense establishment is a government bureaucracy that happens to kill people for a living? That believing in strong national defense out of necessity but otherwise jealous of your liberty makes you an awe-struck schoolgirl? In America? To Americans? For a living? I would say that kind of chutzpah is really rather admirable, except that it’s not really surprising in the modern academy.
October 24th, 2012 at 10:39AM
Alan…”Why does it matter what size the Navy is today compared to the past? What analytical value does it possibly have? The only relevant measure of the Navy’s size today is the strategic situation it faces today.”
In principle, of course, any budget should be determined via a bottom-up analysis of mission and the requirements driven from that mission. (See McNamara, Robert: Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System.) In actuality, historical experience on resources is often used, sometimes to good effect. For example, say you’re running a factory with 1000 direct production workers, and you expect next year’s sales to be 10% higher, with about the same product mix. Business school professors, and people who sell ERP software, would like you to get out the bills of material and the operation sheets for every product, multiply them by sales expectations, and calculate your labor needs that way. But really, you probably won’t go too far wrong if you just figure you’re going to need 10% more people. (Indeed, the “correct” bottoms-up analysis will likely have flaws, because the production model that it embodies will necessarily depart from reality to some extent.) And if everyone is working too much overtime and it’s costing you a bundle and people are making mistakes and quitting in frustration, that should be a factor too.
In the case of a navy, if the ships are all employed flat-out and don’t get properly maintained and sailors are quitting because they never get home, that’s telling you something about force levels. I don’t know if this is really the case in the USN today, but a lot of officers (and I’m talking working-level people, not admirals) seem to think it is.
I’m very, very familiar from personal experience with the tendency of organizations to demand more resources in all circumstances, and I’m sure that Romney, as an experienced executive, is also.
October 24th, 2012 at 10:45AM
No, the 1916 “factlet” is not meaningless. You might disagree as to its relative importance, but that hardly puts it out of bounds in a debate about foreign policy.
I’ll be happy to consider it if you can advance the slightest reason why I should – other, that is, than ’tis so.
So do you teach that the US defense establishment is a government bureaucracy that happens to kill people for a living? That believing in strong national defense out of necessity but otherwise jealous of your liberty makes you an awe-struck schoolgirl?
Assuming that defense appropriation is unique amongst all forms of government activity because, um, It’s All About Heroes does strike me as being a bit credulous, yes.
But here’s the deal, Shane. I won’t tell you how to teach chemistry if you don’t tell me how to teach history. Particularly as you seem to have no sense of the ironic use of language. ‘K?
October 24th, 2012 at 10:52AM
I’m very, very familiar from personal experience with the tendency of organizations to demand more resources in all circumstances, and I’m sure that Romney, as an experienced executive, is also.
David, surely you must understand that We’re Talking About the Navy Here. We’re Talking About the Navy Here! These folks are Officially Heroes. Normal skepticism about bureaucratic mission-creep simply doesn’t apply. Whatever they want, they get. Ask Shane.
October 24th, 2012 at 1:10PM
Ah, it’s all irony. That explains a lot.