President Obama is so wrapped up in being Obama, he can’t see that not having a plan for the next for years is a problem when you’re running for re-election. During the final debate on foreign policy, Obama oozed with revisionist history of his record and added a theatrical element to his delivery, glaring at hole through Romney. Meant to be intimidating I’m sure, Romney responded to Obama’s stares and interruptions with calm and confidence, leaving Romney looking like the only adult in the room, as someone commented to me.
Romney described the debate and Obama’s re-election campaign well: “Attacking me is not an agenda.” Throughout the 90 minutes, Obama resorted to his worn out, false attacks on Romney: tax cuts for the rich, Bain Capital shipping jobs to China and so on and so on.
When Romney cautioned the Navy is the smallest since 1917, Obama mocked Romney like a bullying teenager. “We also have fewer horses and bayonets, than in 1916 said Obama, so the question isn’t a game of battleship, it’s what are our capabilities.” Uhmm, for the past four years, Obama seems to have been handling foreign policy like it’s a game, without focus. Who sunk America’s foreign policy?
If anyone looked like he had a “reckless” foreign policy that was “all over the map,” it was President Obama. As Romney pointed out time and time during the debate, America isn’t safer under Obama’s presidency. “We can’t kill our way out of this mess,” referring to the killing of Osama bin Laden, which Obama seems to think defines a foreign policy strategy.
One of Romney’s strongest moments was his exchange with Obama over Israel and the threat of a nuclear Iran. Obama declared the relationship between America and Israel has never been stronger and Israel is our greatest ally in the region. I’m sure this was news to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who all but pleaded with Obama to take a stand against Iran’s nuclear ambitions with the threat of military action yet Obama refuses.
In scathing clarity, Romney pointed out not only is Iran four years closer to building a nuclear weapon, Obama has never visited Israel. “You went to middle East, flew to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey Iraq and you skipped Israel and they noticed you skipped Israel.” Romney added that the relationship with Israel is so strained that 38 Democrat Senators sent Obama a letter telling him he needs to repair tensions with our greatest ally in the Middle East.
From the beginning of his presidency, Romney noted Obama said “he would meet with the world’s worst actors Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong Il,” and couldn’t wait to give a speech to the Muslim world in Egypt, apologizing for America.
What would Romney do differently? He would go after the bad guys, as he said, but also show American leadership abroad with a comprehensive strategy that doesn’t abdicate decision making to the United Nations, particularly Russia and China. Among other things, Romney would stand with Israel and tighten sanctions on Iran and demonstrate unequivocally there will be consequences if Iran doesn’t end its nuclear ambitions.
After two years of witnessing President Assad butcher 30,000 Syrians and take no action, Obama declared in the debate “Syria must determine its own future” and said he was “confident Assad’s days are numbered.” Romney, on the other hand, called the crisis “a humanitarian disaster” and said while he doesn’t want to engage America in another war, we have to “take leadership.” If elected president, Romney said he would work with our allies and arm the insurgents to topple Assad because Syria is the only partner Iran has in the region and is arming Assad to gain strategic control in the Middle East.
In the face of his failed record, Obama retreated back to domestic policy and talked about the critical importance of “nation building here at home.” Of course this is code for more spending. I thought the $800 billion stimulus was supposed to build up our nation again. He like Romney pointed out America can’t be strong abroad if it’s fiscal house isn’t in order but in contrast to Romney’s plan to create 12 million jobs, Obama offered no plan.
Instead Obama sang the same tune, declaring America can reduce its deficit by asking the wealthy to pay more to fund more investments at home. Raising taxes and continuing to spend while making no cuts to government won’t reduce our $16 trillion debt.
Obama also said he wants “to hire more teachers in math and science.” Taking this all in like the older, wiser uncle, Romney simply responded, “we have to grow the economy and it’s not going to happen by just hiring teachers.” Or rather creating more union jobs. As he did successfully in the two previous debates, Romney reminded voters again of the obvious, Obama’s plan “hasn’t worked.”
Closing out the ball game, Romney ended with this. “I'm going to make sure that we get people off of food stamps, not by cutting the program, but by getting them good jobs,” he said. Romney promised to take responsibility as president and “work with” Americans “to get the country back. “
In Contrast, Obama closed with more of the same, government spending and debt but curiously added “I always listen to your voices.” This is ironic thing to say because Obama never listened to the American people. In 2009, Americans wanted jobs but Obama gave us what he wanted Obamacare.
The problem with Obama is his narcissism gets in the way of him doing his job. The “rise of the oceans didn’t slow and our planet didn’t begin to heal,” as Obama arrogantly predicted his election would produce in his victory speech. A fiscally conservative Democrat told me the day after the debate Obama blew a great opportunity being elected the first black President. After so much ego over the past four years, America needs humility of leadership. America needs Mitt Romney.
Crystal Wright is author of the newly released book Con Job: How Democrats Gave Us Crime, Sanctuary Cities, Abortion Profiteering, and Racial Division. She is also the principal owner of the Baker Wright Group, LLC , a full service public relations firm, specializing in communications counseling, media relations, message development, media training and crisis communications. The firm’s approach is straight forward: an unvarnished approach to public relations.