Mitt Romney has in recent weeks unleashed a torrent of criticisms on the Obama administration, much of it focused on instability and looming dangers in the Middle East. At the same time, he touted his foreign policy bona fides from sea to shining sea.
As in the case of Libya, Romney demonstrated a penchant for getting ahead of the facts and thus effectively sullying any credibility he may have had to pose salient questions. In every instance, down to the syllable, Romney has been proven wrong—and often in sharp disagreement with himself.
So then, no one should be surprised by his rambling presentation Monday night on the debate stage in Florida. It is telling when campaign surrogates, including running mate Paul Ryan, refuse to claim victory.
Republicans are predictably (and rightfully) distressed about Romney’s performance. This third and final presidential debate presented a singular opportunity for the candidate to demonstrate an intimate understanding of the issues and articulate with clarity a well-reasoned vision for our leadership around the globe.
He failed. Miserably.
At times appearing pained, a bleary eyed Romney seemed incapable of effectively prosecuting the president’s foreign policy record. There are reasonable questions to be asked. Romney, however, seemed too caught up in the fantasy bubble machine to discern them. When pressed, he was unable to pinpoint meaningful policy differences. That is unless you count hurling epithets at our enemies over the White House fence.
The Romney Doctrine, if one indeed exists, seems largely comprised of chest thumping and bluster.
The former Massachusetts governor spent much of the evening rocked back on his heels, his blanket of arguments in tatters. Controlling the tone and tenor of the debate, President Obama seized every opportunity to belittle his opponent’s lack of national security experience. “When it comes to our foreign policy,” Obama said blithely. “You seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.”
When Romney later chided Obama for an increasingly smaller naval fleet, the president responded with a lesson his opponent will never soon forget. Yes, the U.S. Navy fleet is smaller today that it was in 1917. And it should be.
“Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets,” the president said. “Because the nature of our military has changed.”
Obama went on to explain what an aircraft carrier was. I half expected him to draw Romney a diagram, complete with stick figures and clouds.









