Is Foreign Policy Making a Comeback in Campaign 2012?
Just last month, no political analyst would have named Benghazi as an issue that could potentially affect the presidential election.
Yet the Arab Spring, Islamic extremism, Iran’s nuclear program, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s clear red line may find resurgent importance in this presidential run.
Voters have increasingly sent foreign policy, national security, and even terrorism to the rock-bottom depths of polls ranking the most important issues at the ballot box.
Yet presidential and congressional campaigns alike know that a turn of global events, as highlighted by the Sept. 11 attack in Libya and this week of world leaders streaming through Turtle Bay, can turn voters’ attention back to whether a candidate is equipped to best represent America’s and mankind’s interests on the global stage.
The third and last of the presidential debates next month will be focused on foreign policy. The Oct. 22 face-off will be moderated by CBS’ Bob Schieffer at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., a swing state whose voters have historically been concerned about international affairs issues ranging from Israel to Cuba.
That’s nearly a month away, and any number of topics could be catapulted into the headlines between now and then. But if Mitt Romney’s campaign strategy in recent days is any indication, Republicans are hoping that Benghazi and other hot-button crises can highlight their candidate’s commander in chief chops.
The Romney camp has been pushing out numerous stories to the media about the White House’s changing story on the nature of the attack on the U.S. consulate and about the security posture in light of previous attacks in the region.
“If the president thinks the tragic events in Libya were acts of terrorism, he should say so himself. Mitt Romney believes these tragic acts were terrorism and should be condemned as such,” Ryan Williams, Romney campaign spokesman, said Wednesday.
“You think he’d address the American people when something like this happens on the anniversary of 9/11,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said on Fox’s Hannity on Wednesday, adding a reference to the Obama camp’s criticism of Romney’s statement the evening of 9/11 slamming the administration for sympathizing with the attackers. “It’s unbelievable. It kind of reminds me of what Barack Obama likes to talk about other people about shooting first and aiming later. I think he should take his own advice. You know, this is a serious situation over there.”
Perhaps no Romney surrogate has unloaded on the administration as much as former George H.W. Bush chief of staff John Sununu, who blasted President Obama as too “lazy and detached” to sit through presidential briefings — for which Ambassador Chris Stevens paid the ultimate price.
“This president thinks he’s so smart, he doesn’t have to go through that!” Sununu said Thursday of Obama’s record of missed presidential daily briefings. “He thinks he doesn’t need to put the extra work in for going through that process. That’s why I say he’s lazy and detached. And unfortunately, Ambassador Stevens suffered the consequences of us not providing adequate security there.”
Even as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) called for more answers into the deadly attack, he tried to downplay any notion that the move was campaign fodder.
“The Republicans are working overtime to try to exploit a very normal, run-of-the-course, administrative letter that we agreed to on a bipartisan basis in our committee, simply to get some additional questions put in front of the State Department that are part of their already existing investigation,” Kerry said on MSNBC today.
“This is not a challenge. It is nothing new. It is not something out of the ordinary,” he said. “And I agreed to do it as a matter of bipartisanship, because we thought these were important questions that people ought to be examining.”
Kerry has been playing fellow Massachusetts man Romney in Obama’s debate prep.
Other Democrats chided that any finger-pointing over the Benghazi attack should wait as long a thorough investigation takes, or until members return to Congress and their investigative panels after the election in the lame-duck session.
“This tragedy, this loss of an American ambassador and three others shouldn’t be made part of the partisan fight that is our presidential election and other elections around the country. And I think it is difficult at times, frankly regrettable that some candidates have tried to seek political gain in characterizing this one way or the other,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said Tuesday.
“I really think what we should be focusing on is the important lessons we can learn from this, and sustaining America’s engagement in a critical part of the world, whereas you know, there are so many other places that demand and need our attention and engagement,” he added.
The Bengahzi developments follows the Republican jump on Obama’s comments that violent protests were “bumps in the road” on the Arab Spring’s path to democracy.
The Obama camp tried to turn focus to another part of the world with an ad that’s part economy, part foreign policy — accusing Romney of happily investing in Chinese companies while jobs go overseas. Romney has accused Obama of not being tough enough on China.
They took the meme one step further today when Obama today blocked a Chinese company from acquiring four wind farms in northern Oregon — the first time in more than two decades that a U.S. president has blocked this type of foreign business deal.
Kerry’s speech at the Democratic National Convention was likely a preview of how Obama will try to hit at Romney in that third debate.
“We’ve all learned Mitt Romney doesn’t know much about foreign policy. But he has all these ‘neocon advisors’ who know all the wrong things about foreign policy. He would rely on them — after all, he’s the great outsourcer,” Kerry said earlier this month in Charlotte. “‘President Mitt Romney’ — three hypothetical words that mystified and alienated our allies this summer. For Mitt Romney, an overseas trip is what you call it when you trip all over yourself overseas. It wasn’t a goodwill mission — it was a blooper reel.”
Foreign policy’s resurgence isn’t limited to the presidential race, though.
In one of the redistricting face-offs that saw incumbent pitted against incumbent, staunchly pro-Israel Rep. Steve Rothman (D-N.J.) was defeated by Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), who signed a J Street letter calling for easing the Gaza blockade and courted Arab voters in the mixed district. In opposing Rothman, the president of the American Arab Forum accused the congressman of disloyalty to America out of his support for Israel.
Pascrell now faces Republican Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who called on Pascrell last week to cease his support for New Jersey Imam Mohammad Qatanani, who was faced with deportation for failing to disclose that he was a member of Hamas. “As a congressman who swore an oath to protect the Constitution, Congressman Pascrell’s stated intention of doing ‘everything in his power’ to subvert the efforts of the American government to deport someone whose stated intention it is to remove our First Amendment rights – perhaps the most important pillar of our Constitution – is preposterous,” said Boteach. “Not only must Pascrell utterly repudiate Qatanani and return all donations he has received from the imam and/or his supporters, but Pascrell must repudiate his public comments defending the Imam.”
In California’s San Fernando Valley, two strong supporters of Israel now face each other in the general election after emerging the top two candidates in the primary: Ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.). Sherman currently has a 13- point lead over Berman, but that narrows to a five-point lead among Jewish voters.
For those Valley voters, their only choice come November will be to send a pro-Israel congressman packing thanks to redistricting.
Still, foreign policy was generally an afterthought at both nominating conventions and campaigns have tended to cater toward polls that show an electorate less concerned about the fall of a ruthless dictator as they are about a fall in unemployment.
That doesn’t mean both presidential camps aren’t playing like they believe they can gain ground on questions of global leadership and American exceptionalism.
Former President Bill Clinton welcomed Romney to the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York on Tuesday as a former governor who supported Clinton’s AmeriCorps initiatives.
“If there’s one thing we’ve — we’ve learned in this election season, by the way, it is that a few words from Bill Clinton can do a man a lot of good,” Romney quipped after thanking Clinton for the introduction.
Romney said he hoped to return to the meeting a year from now as president, “to remind the world of the goodness and the bigness of the American heart.”
“I never apologized for America. I believe America has been one of the greatest forces for good the world has ever known,” he said. “We can hold that knowledge in our hearts with humility and unwavering conviction.”
In another part of town, in another foreign policy speech just as suited for the campaign trail, Obama was telling the United Nations General Assembly that “America will never retreat from the world.”
“We will bring justice to those who harm our citizens and our friends, and we will stand with our allies,” he said. “We are willing to partner with countries around the world to deepen ties of trade and investment, and science and technology, energy and development — all efforts that can spark economic growth for all our people and stabilize democratic change.”
While the economy is clearly number one, there are many voters who are duly concerned over foreign policy. In fact, if not for the Radical-in-Chief’s mishandling of foreign policy, it would hardly be on the burner.
Consider:how is it possible that Americans will not have foreign policy in their sights, with the Middle East burning down? And, under whose watch did the region explode to an unprecedented degree? Who embraced the Muslim Mafia, like a man to his lover, all the while freedoms in America are under attack?
A rational person would also wonder:since the Islamist-in-Chief wants to be re-elected, why would he nudge these events along? Indeed.
http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/09/25/the-ties-that-bind-the-islamist-in-chief-to-sunni-islam-making-sense-out-of-a-potus-bowing-to-a-saudi-monarch-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
When the ties that bind a POTUS to Middle East interests are his first priority, everything takes a back seat. Some risks are worth taking.
How about the ongoing cluster frack in Afcrapistan becoming an issue? We have troops losing life and limb there for absolutely nothing but their general’s hubris and stupidity and career uber alles. The Generals just lifted the stay of execution they had given the troops by ordering them to welcome back what the Mad Generals call their “Partners in Peace” so it’s just a mater of time before they start shooting our troops in the back again and I’m sure that will just result in the Mad Generals ordering even more “sensitivity training” for the troops on how to respect Islam more so their “Partners in Peace” won’t use them for target practice quite so much.
That the people of America care so very little about America’s troops as to collectively allow our government to keep them in Afcrapistan, losing life and limb and being forced by their sick in the head generals, who care not one wit about them, to bow and scrape to Muslims and Islam, with almost suicidal ROE on top of it all, so as not to hurt the ‘feelings’ of Muslims, our “Partners in Peace” as our islamophile/’Noble People Of Afghanistan” generals call them, in what can truthfully only be described as a Trillion Dollar Bridge To Nowhere, paved with the lives and limbs of America’s troops, is a national disgrace.
I don’t think people care all that much about economic questions. Most would be willing to make sacrifices for a principle, and the economic status of most is not that much affected by who’s president to begin with. Perhaps Romney’s overemphasis on economics is the reason for his continuing unpopularity.
Stan, you said that “people do not care all that much about economic questions.” Stan, here’s an economic question over 8% of our population is asking: “Where can I find a job?” So, I’d say you might want to re-think your position, there.
Stan, you said that “most would be willing to make sacrifices for a principle.” That kind of talk is usually heard from ardent socialists when they are justifying the use of government force to take wealth from citizens in order to redistribute it. On the other hand, Stan, maybe you have something there. I will tell you this, Stan. There are many, many, many of us who are willing to sacrifice our lives to preserve the principle of representative democracy and its accompanying liberties.
Stan, you said that “the economic status of most is not that much affected by who’s president to begin with.” Stan, I would normally agree with you, but when you have a president who has made it his business to foist socialized medicine on us, who has eagerly socialized a major automobile manufacturer, who has regulated small businesses to death, who has stymied progress toward energy self-sufficiency, and who has engaged in crony capitalism with now defunct energy companies, … , well Stan, surely even you can agree that this statement of yours is pretty dumb.
Stan, you said that “perhaps Romney’s overemphasis on economics is the reason for his continuing unpopularity.” Stan, you sound a little threatened with that one. Stan, do you happen to work for a living? I mean a real job, not a government job. I could be wrong, Stan, but it seems to me that the only citizens who would find Romney’s emphasis on economics to be unpopular would be those who are currently benefiting from a government handout.
The thing is, on foreign policy, Romney has not really differentiated himself from Obama. What is he going to do, exactly? Declare war on Iran? On Libya? He’s big on criticizing Obama, but short on specifics of what he would do. Getting the US into yet another war is not going to get him elected.
Ultimately though, there is no solution in the Middle East. There’s never going to be peace there. Our meddling only makes it worse.
Well, thanks to the incessant biased drumbeats of the MSM, the one thing we know for certain about Romney is that, whatever he is, he is not a Muslim. I would say that alone qualifies him to do a better job than the likes of Obama.
“You think he’d address the American people when something like this happens on the anniversary of 9/11,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said on Fox’s Hannity on Wednesday, adding a reference to the Obama camp’s criticism of Romney’s statement the evening of 9/11 slamming the administration for sympathizing with the attackers. “It’s unbelievable. It kind of reminds me of what Barack Obama likes to talk about other people about shooting first and aiming later. I think he should take his own advice. You know, this is a serious situation over there.”
This is has troubled me most about this whole sad event in both Benghazi and Cairo. Aside from a short, pathetic, little statement that he gave right after the Benghazi attack on 9/11/2012, Obama has given NO major public speeches on this. None. Even though we have lost an American ambassador for the first time since 1979 PLUS three other people, Obama has NOT addressed the American public from the oval office or in front of a joint session of Congress. He gave a Mickey Mouse little speech at the UN that almost nobody saw or listened to, and that was it. Obama is hoping that if he ignores this topic long enough it will simply go away. And the mainstream media, which is complicit in this coverup, doesn’t even mention the fact that we suffered our WORST terrorist attack since 9/11/2001 on, of all days, 9/11/2012!!! Doesn’t this strike anybody as odd?
And, lastly, the mainsteam media has barely even mentioned the statement that Obama made that he does NOT now consider Egypt an ally. Um, isn’t this kind of important, especially to Israel? Isn’t it also important that an almost 40 year alliance that we’ve had with Egypt is now in the toilet? It is stunning, absolutely stunning, how the mainstream media is carrying water for this president. And it’s going to get more Americans killed if the mainstream media doesn’t start doing its job. Fast.
BENGHAZI and subsequent events have fundamentally altered the priorities of this election:
* Envoy tortured, defiled, and killed
* Embassies destroyed (under Int’l Law that’s our land there)
* Staff and military murdered (“no live ammunition allowed” “private contractor security”)
* Flags burned
* DEATH THREATS TO US ALL
* Obama COMMANDS RESPECT FOR ISLAM AND ITS PROPHET ABOVE OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Do I have to continue. There are scores of reputable sources for all of this!
This is the turning point for our Republic. The question has been squarely placed before the US: DO WE, AS AMERICANS, STILL HAVE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND WORSHIP? HUSSEIN DECLARES WE DO NOT. Poetry allows us to explore complex ideas in new ways. I hope this is worth reading:
“FELLOW AMERICANS…CAN WE TALK?”
You may think this a one-sided conversation,
But things are changing so FAST in our nation
And I now “hear you” through your acts and speech
Perhaps as well or better than if each
Of you were sitting with me now,
Striving to be as “friendly” as emotions might allow.
(So deep those feelings run! But we can STILL TALK.)
To start, might we agree upon “ONE THING”
And that is, in America we may sing
A song of life and love and hope unique
From all other flesh that we may see or seek.
Differences in our births or the trials of our lives
Cannot negate a truth which enemies would disguise.
We are, at least, “Fellow Americans”.
(We share a RIGHT TO TALK.)
Of all the times and lands who’ve gone before,
There are FEW, IF ANY who have been given more!
We, thus, are offspring of generations
Whose labors/sufferings created this great nation.
If you cannot admit you are such “heir”
Then I retract my outstretched hand and honest prayer—
(For we cannot talk. Pray God Forbid Such Failure!)
But if honor compels us to concede WE SHARE A DEBT,
Then you and I can hold “discussion” yet,
And seek to find SOME OTHER THING to share,
If honoring each other’s view is something that we dare.
I will admit, I don’t possess superior heart or reason,
To find it easy to offer any “Olive Leaf” this season.
(I have never seen such turmoil—but, BETTER reason for TALK.)
I strive to dig DEEP within my meager soul,
To hold back fear and bitterness and to CONTROL
That savage anger which now so threatens my life
That, if given free rein, might begin such sorry strife—
The likes of which were only seen before,
When forefathers created and kept opened freedom’s door.
Is this “ONE MORE THING” we can share?
(Self-Control allows us to “talk”–I COVENANT MY SELF CONTROL!)
In nations far away which have labored less,
We see conspiring “leaders” who possess
Only the arts of fraud, and jealousy, and strife—
They do not shrink to demand we give our life
Either as vassals of their own vengeful plans
Or victims, and “sacrifices” to their commands.
(Will we submit to a DENIAL OF OUR RIGHT TO “TALK”?)
IF WE HAVE “COMMON ORIGINS”, then the sound
Of despots and warlords which are now heard all around
Should COMPEL US to join JUST AS OUR FOREBEARS did
To push aside the differences by which they lived,
AND SEEK, AT LEAST, THE FREEDOM TO DECIDE
HOW WE, AS AMERICANS, SHOULD LIVE OR DIE!
(That, fellow Americans is COMPELLING reason to talk! )
CAN WE TALK?
At the polls, SO SOON, we will vote about people, policies, even state and local laws and propositions. BUT IF WE LOSE “FREEDOM OF SPEECH”, then every “social issue” IS IRRELEVANT. Neither “Bussssh, nor Romney, nor any other “individual candidate” imperils our FREEDOM OF SPEECH–but OBAMA.
Well done! — Hear, Hear — and LISTEN!