I think the point that struck home most for me during this third debate was the points Obama made about Romney fluctuating positions. He said, and I’m paraphrasing, that we needed strong, steady leadership, that that was the best strategy for dealing with turmoil in the Middle East. I thought that was a very interesting position to take. We normally hear about how we have to be strong militarily, or how we have to make it clear that we are not afraid to use force. I think Obama’s point about unwavering focus in our leadership was well received It was a refreshing change from the normal saber rattling that usually occurs, particularly when discussing the Middle East.
2 Comments on “No more saber rattling”
I like this idea in principle. But I don’t know what it means. Does it mean that will use sanctions and thereby punish the people for their bad government? Does it mean we send foreign aid?
Also I read the debate instead of watching it this go around because of a class conflict and what sounds good when spoken makes less sense when read… At least that’s what I found. I might resort to reading them in the future.
To preface, I’m an Obama supporter… but I absolutely agree with your point. I was recently talking with my father on this, and we both agreed that Romney in the primary election became vastly politicized to the right (namely to beat out his competitors), but now is trying to resort to moving back to the center. As President Obama pointed out, having that movement back and forth isn’t something that fares well in foreign policy. The economy will likely resolve itself regardless of who’s elected. Unfortunately, military decisions are made on a case-by-case basis that the President has ultimate authority on. If anything, this debate should have been the more important of the three.
Comments are closed.