Foreign Policy in November

[BushKenya]

With this election right now a dead heat, could foreign policy play into the game?  This election, by and large, is not about foreign policy, but Obama has a huge, rare strength in FP with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the ouster of Hasni Mubarak, and the ouster and death of Col. Moammar Ghadafi and the imminent ouster of President Assad of Syria.  If this race remain close even after the first debate, should the president play the foreign policy card?  Democrats are not generally known for strong foreign policy, but Obama has bucked that trend and with neither Romney or Ryan having foreign policy experience.

If the president did play the foreign policy card, could that break the tie and assure him of another 4 years as Commander-in-Chief?

[Jbrase]

With this election right now a dead heat, could foreign policy play into the game?  This election, by and large, is not about foreign policy, but Obama has a huge, rare strength in FP with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the ouster of Hasni Mubarak, and the ouster and death of Col. Moammar Ghadafi and the imminent ouster of President Assad of Syria.

Obama gets 0 credit for Mubarak's fall. That is all the Egyptian people and their military.

Also, this isn't 2004, the debate is going to be on economic policy, not foreign.

[ChairmanSanchez]

With this election right now a dead heat, could foreign policy play into the game?  This election, by and large, is not about foreign policy, but Obama has a huge, rare strength in FP with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the ouster of Hasni Mubarak, and the ouster and death of Col. Moammar Ghadafi and the imminent ouster of President Assad of Syria.

Obama gets 0 credit for Mubarak's fall. That is all the Egyptian people and their military.

Also, this isn't 2004, the debate is going to be on economic policy, not foreign.

The Obama foreign policy is the opposite of 2008. He rivals Romney in flip-floppiness.

[President Marokai]

With this election right now a dead heat, could foreign policy play into the game?  This election, by and large, is not about foreign policy, but Obama has a huge, rare strength in FP with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the ouster of Hasni Mubarak, and the ouster and death of Col. Moammar Ghadafi and the imminent ouster of President Assad of Syria.

Obama gets 0 credit for Mubarak's fall. That is all the Egyptian people and their military.

Also, this isn't 2004, the debate is going to be on economic policy, not foreign.

The Obama foreign policy is the opposite of 2008. He rivals Romney in flip-floppiness.

How is that, exactly?

[BushKenya]

With this election right now a dead heat, could foreign policy play into the game?  This election, by and large, is not about foreign policy, but Obama has a huge, rare strength in FP with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the ouster of Hasni Mubarak, and the ouster and death of Col. Moammar Ghadafi and the imminent ouster of President Assad of Syria.

Obama gets 0 credit for Mubarak's fall. That is all the Egyptian people and their military.

Also, this isn't 2004, the debate is going to be on economic policy, not foreign.

The Obama foreign policy is the opposite of 2008. He rivals Romney in flip-floppiness.

How is that, exactly?

[Senator Snowstalker]

Obama, contrary to popular belief, never ran as an anti-war candidate. He was only anti-Iraq, and even on that he supported a gradual withdrawal (which is what happened). He supported Afghanistan and was to McCain's right on drones in Pakistan.

[ChairmanSanchez]

With this election right now a dead heat, could foreign policy play into the game?  This election, by and large, is not about foreign policy, but Obama has a huge, rare strength in FP with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the ouster of Hasni Mubarak, and the ouster and death of Col. Moammar Ghadafi and the imminent ouster of President Assad of Syria.

Obama gets 0 credit for Mubarak's fall. That is all the Egyptian people and their military.

Also, this isn't 2004, the debate is going to be on economic policy, not foreign.

The Obama foreign policy is the opposite of 2008. He rivals Romney in flip-floppiness.

How is that, exactly?

Invading Libya, sending more troops into Afghanistan, sending troops down into Uganda, preparing action on Iran and Syria among other things.

[BushKenya]

With this election right now a dead heat, could foreign policy play into the game?  This election, by and large, is not about foreign policy, but Obama has a huge, rare strength in FP with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the ouster of Hasni Mubarak, and the ouster and death of Col. Moammar Ghadafi and the imminent ouster of President Assad of Syria.

Obama gets 0 credit for Mubarak's fall. That is all the Egyptian people and their military.

Also, this isn't 2004, the debate is going to be on economic policy, not foreign.

The Obama foreign policy is the opposite of 2008. He rivals Romney in flip-floppiness.

How is that, exactly?

Invading Libya, sending more troops into Afghanistan, sending troops down into Uganda, preparing action on Iran and Syria among other things.

Circumstances largely dictate the direction of foreign policy.  The president's plan does to a lesser extent.

And, to an earlier post of yours, It's true Obama didn't have anything to do with Mubarak's demise, but he will probably get the credit and at least will go down in the history books as one of his successes, even if he didn't have direct involvement.

[milhouse24]

At the end of the day, no one cares about foreign policy. 

Kerry ran on foreign policy in 2004 and still lost.  Gore lost.  McCain ran on the Iraq surge and lost.  GHWB ran as the Iraq winner and lost.  Dole ran as a ww2 veteran and lost. 

[Comrade Funk]

At the end of the day, no one cares about foreign policy. 

Kerry ran on foreign policy in 2004 and still lost.  Gore lost.  McCain ran on the Iraq surge and lost.  GHWB ran as the Iraq winner and lost.  Dole ran as a ww2 veteran and lost. 

That's one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen.

1.) Economy sucked in 1992.
2.) Dole lost because the economy was booming, there were no foreign problems, and Clinton was popular.
3.) Gore lost by pushing on foreign policy? Uh...no.
4.) The war wasn't unpopular in 2004 (as in, it was still pretty divided in polls).
5.) War was very unpopular in 2008, and the economy became the main issue after Lehman.

[GM Griffin]

[quote author=Speaker Jbrase link=topic=157676.msg3389739#msg3389739
Obama gets 0 credit for Mubarak's fall. That is all the Egyptian people and their military.
Also, this isn't 2004, the debate is going to be on economic policy, not foreign.
[/quote]

The final debate is solely on foreign policy, and the second debate is supposedly going to be a mixture of domestic and foreign issues. Because foreign policy is the final debate - and therefore the final impression voters will have between the two candidates debating - it could end up mattering quite a bit.

[President Marokai]

With this election right now a dead heat, could foreign policy play into the game?  This election, by and large, is not about foreign policy, but Obama has a huge, rare strength in FP with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the ouster of Hasni Mubarak, and the ouster and death of Col. Moammar Ghadafi and the imminent ouster of President Assad of Syria.

Obama gets 0 credit for Mubarak's fall. That is all the Egyptian people and their military.

Also, this isn't 2004, the debate is going to be on economic policy, not foreign.

The Obama foreign policy is the opposite of 2008. He rivals Romney in flip-floppiness.

How is that, exactly?

Invading Libya, sending more troops into Afghanistan, sending troops down into Uganda, preparing action on Iran and Syria among other things.

Obama campaigned on sending more troops to Afghanistan, we didn't "invade" Libya, we quietly assisted in resource procurement and sent temporary air support for the rebels, the Uganda forces are reported to be a grand total of 100 soldiers, and the latter is pure speculation.

Obama campaigned against large and poorly planned military excursions; not short-lengthed and limited engagements for a narrow purpose. He's performed exactly within the style of foreign policy he campaigned in, and most of his foreign policy efforts have been successful and near-perfectly planned. There are plenty of things to criticize Obama for, but his foreign policy is miles smarter than the Bush administration and a potential Romney administration.

[Ogre Mage]

Playing the foreign policy card will certainly not assure President Obama of reelection as it is a relatively minor issue in this campaign.

But to the extent that foreign policy is an issue, it is a positive one for Obama/Biden.  The comparisons to Jimmy Carter are foolish as the OBL raid did not turn out anything like the Iran hostage rescue mission.  No one can say he isn't ready for the 3 a.m. phone call now and Romney/Ryan have no experience or credibility on the issue.  Especially after Romney's world tour from hell. 

It would be unwise for Obama to trumpet on foreign policy, however. That card would be best used rarely and strategically.

[Free Palestine]

Unfortunately it's not a very big issue.  But then again, both major candidates are warmongers.

[Politico]

Obama cannot campaign on foreign policy without looking out-of-touch ala George H.W. Bush circa 1992. But they are more than welcome to try.

[Politico]

Because foreign policy is the final debate - and therefore the final impression voters will have between the two candidates debating - it could end up mattering quite a bit.

Date of the first debate: Wednesday, October 3.
Date of the September jobs report: Friday, October 5.

Date of the final debate: Monday, October 22.
Date of the final jobs report: Friday, November 2.

People are only going to talk about the economy from October 3-22. Then they may talk about foreign policy for a few days, but the economy will drown out everything the last weekend.

[Emperor SJoyce]

With this election right now a dead heat, could foreign policy play into the game?  This election, by and large, is not about foreign policy, but Obama has a huge, rare strength in FP with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the ouster of Hasni Mubarak, and the ouster and death of Col. Moammar Ghadafi and the imminent ouster of President Assad of Syria.

Obama gets 0 credit for Mubarak's fall. That is all the Egyptian people and their military.

Also, this isn't 2004, the debate is going to be on economic policy, not foreign.

The Obama foreign policy is the opposite of 2008. He rivals Romney in flip-floppiness.

How is that, exactly?

Invading Libya, sending more troops into Afghanistan, sending troops down into Uganda, preparing action on Iran and Syria among other things.

Obama campaigned on sending more troops to Afghanistan, we didn't "invade" Libya, we quietly assisted in resource procurement and sent temporary air support for the rebels, the Uganda forces are reported to be a grand total of 100 soldiers, and the latter is pure speculation.

Obama campaigned against large and poorly planned military excursions; not short-lengthed and limited engagements for a narrow purpose. He's performed exactly within the style of foreign policy he campaigned in, and most of his foreign policy efforts have been successful and near-perfectly planned. There are plenty of things to criticize Obama for, but his foreign policy is miles smarter than the Bush administration and a potential Romney administration.

$896 million is "quietly assist[ing] in resource procurement"? Obama launched a military campaign without any sort of compelling reason that went against US interest in the region while violating the Constitution. Obama unilaterally began a military campaign that he alone decided to do while spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money and risking American lives without even following the Constitution. He needs to return that Peace Prize.

[The Mikado]

Obama unilaterally began a military campaign that he alone decided to do while spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money and risking American lives without even following the Constitution.

The Libyan conflict was a NATO operation, not an American operation, and the US' treaty obligations to NATO have force of law.  Why should he have had to ask for permission from Congress to fulfill our treaty obligations in a NATO conflict?

[So the Heroes Fall]

I love people screaming about the supposed "imperialism" or whatever in Uganda. The US probably has more troops in Canada now than what is being sent to Uganda.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

With this election right now a dead heat, could foreign policy play into the game?  This election, by and large, is not about foreign policy, but Obama has a huge, rare strength in FP with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the ouster of Hasni Mubarak, and the ouster and death of Col. Moammar Ghadafi and the imminent ouster of President Assad of Syria.

Obama gets 0 credit for Mubarak's fall. That is all the Egyptian people and their military.

Also, this isn't 2004, the debate is going to be on economic policy, not foreign.

The Obama foreign policy is the opposite of 2008. He rivals Romney in flip-floppiness.

How is that, exactly?

Invading Libya, sending more troops into Afghanistan, sending troops down into Uganda, preparing action on Iran and Syria among other things.

Obama campaigned on sending more troops to Afghanistan, we didn't "invade" Libya, we quietly assisted in resource procurement and sent temporary air support for the rebels, the Uganda forces are reported to be a grand total of 100 soldiers, and the latter is pure speculation.

Obama campaigned against large and poorly planned military excursions; not short-lengthed and limited engagements for a narrow purpose. He's performed exactly within the style of foreign policy he campaigned in, and most of his foreign policy efforts have been successful and near-perfectly planned. There are plenty of things to criticize Obama for, but his foreign policy is miles smarter than the Bush administration and a potential Romney administration.

$896 million is "quietly assist[ing] in resource procurement"? Obama launched a military campaign without any sort of compelling reason that went against US interest in the region while violating the Constitution. Obama unilaterally began a military campaign that he alone decided to do while spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money and risking American lives without even following the Constitution. He needs to return that Peace Prize.

...How was the Libya operation risking American lives?

[Emperor SJoyce]

With this election right now a dead heat, could foreign policy play into the game?  This election, by and large, is not about foreign policy, but Obama has a huge, rare strength in FP with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the ouster of Hasni Mubarak, and the ouster and death of Col. Moammar Ghadafi and the imminent ouster of President Assad of Syria.

Obama gets 0 credit for Mubarak's fall. That is all the Egyptian people and their military.

Also, this isn't 2004, the debate is going to be on economic policy, not foreign.

The Obama foreign policy is the opposite of 2008. He rivals Romney in flip-floppiness.

How is that, exactly?

Invading Libya, sending more troops into Afghanistan, sending troops down into Uganda, preparing action on Iran and Syria among other things.

Obama campaigned on sending more troops to Afghanistan, we didn't "invade" Libya, we quietly assisted in resource procurement and sent temporary air support for the rebels, the Uganda forces are reported to be a grand total of 100 soldiers, and the latter is pure speculation.

Obama campaigned against large and poorly planned military excursions; not short-lengthed and limited engagements for a narrow purpose. He's performed exactly within the style of foreign policy he campaigned in, and most of his foreign policy efforts have been successful and near-perfectly planned. There are plenty of things to criticize Obama for, but his foreign policy is miles smarter than the Bush administration and a potential Romney administration.

$896 million is "quietly assist[ing] in resource procurement"? Obama launched a military campaign without any sort of compelling reason that went against US interest in the region while violating the Constitution. Obama unilaterally began a military campaign that he alone decided to do while spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money and risking American lives without even following the Constitution. He needs to return that Peace Prize.

...How was the Libya operation risking American lives?

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

I don't believe any US troops died in Libya, and besides, don't we want to get rid of horrible dictators?

[milhouse24]

At the end of the day, no one cares about foreign policy. 

Kerry ran on foreign policy in 2004 and still lost.  Gore lost.  McCain ran on the Iraq surge and lost.  GHWB ran as the Iraq winner and lost.  Dole ran as a ww2 veteran and lost. 

That's one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen.

1.) Economy sucked in 1992.
2.) Dole lost because the economy was booming, there were no foreign problems, and Clinton was popular.
3.) Gore lost by pushing on foreign policy? Uh...no.
4.) The war wasn't unpopular in 2004 (as in, it was still pretty divided in polls).
5.) War was very unpopular in 2008, and the economy became the main issue after Lehman.

People care most about domestic issues.  Any candidate that ignores domestic issues and has foreign policy as their trump card is a loser.  Foreign policy expertise is a losing card. 
Gore lost to Bush because Gore seemed out of touch with main street/small town america.  He was too busy learning the names of the cabinet members of India.  Remember how Gore made fun of Bush for not knowing the names of foreign world leaders? 
Kerry came close to winning on being a better Vietnam veteran but Bush still had more comfort with main street America. 

[Emperor SJoyce]

I don't believe any US troops died in Libya, and besides, don't we want to get rid of horrible dictators?

As you put it, he was "risking American lives". Do people have to die for their lives to be at risk? And was that 'horrible dictator' a threat to America?

[President Marokai]

I don't believe any US troops died in Libya, and besides, don't we want to get rid of horrible dictators?

As you put it, he was "risking American lives". Do people have to die for their lives to be at risk? And was that 'horrible dictator' a threat to America?

We assisted in toppling a dictatorship with a limited commitment of force and no loss of American soldiers' lives. I'd call that a bargain.