And Then There Was One …Debate That Is. What Will Obama’s Strategy Be?

The Romney campaign team are rightfully feeling good about their chances of winning now that the first two presidential debate and the VP debate are behind them.  The polls are very favorable.

So, going into next Monday’s debate on foreign affairs, Romney would appear to be in the driver’s seat. All indications are that only a very serious misstep could stop Romney from a  victory on November 6, only three weeks away. Being a foreign affairs debate, and considering the fiasco of the events leading up to the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya (inadequate security) and the Obama administrations bumbling explanations of what really happened (spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video), it would seem that Romney will have no problem making the President look inept and possibly involved in a cover up for purely political reasons.

In the opinion of this humble observer, it would be a big mistake for the Romney team to get overly confident, I would be a mistake for them to underestimate just how low Barack Obama will stoop to win reelection. In the debate the other night, when Obama was asked by a member of he town hall audience, Kerry Ladka, who turned down  the request for additional security in Benhazi, Obama never answered the question. Instead Obama got on his high horse and told the world that he is president and Commander-in-Chief and everybody works for him and he was offended that Governor Romney was trying to politicize a national security matter. He said that, as soon as the word came that there was an attack on the Benghazi consulate, he immediately was on the phone to hiss national security advisors giving orders to do this, that, and the other thing and the very next morning in the Rose Garden he spoke to the American people about the “terrorist attack”. Of course, Mitt Romney called him on the lie that he (Obama) had refered to the attack as a “terrorist attack” and not as a spontaneous protest over some video. As we are all aware, the moderator, Candy Crowley, came to Obama’s rescue. But, my point is this. President Obama never answered Mr. Ladka’s question. President Obama was not prepared to answer Mr. Ladka’s question.

According to this Washington Post article, President Obama spent a few minutes after the debate with Mr. Ladka. Mr. Ladka reports that Obama gave some further explanation.

… However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist” designation. The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka.


As to Ladka’s question about who turned down the Benghazi security requests and why, Obama reportedly told him that “releasing the individual names of anyone in the State Department would really put them at risk,” Ladka says.

Folks, you can  bet that come next Monday’s debate, President Obama will be prepared and he will have invented a plausible explanation on why he delayed so long on calling the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack and instead put the blame on the spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam video. It might go something like this.

Obama: Governor Romney has demonstrated he is not fit to be President. governor Romney intentionally tried to politicize this tragic death of our Ambassador to Libya and three of his staff and the national security issues that were in play by criticizing  what he clearly does not understand, When it comes to national security, I as President and Commander-in-Chief can not always divulge everything we know. Of course I knew this was a terrorist attack within in minutes of the attack beginning. We had live feed from the security cameras at the Benghazi Consulate and our intelligence people were working to identify some of the people involved in the attack. I, as Commander-in-Chief, gave the order that we should not go public with what we knew. It  was important that the terrorists did know what we knew and that is why I gave the order to go the spontaneous attack do the video. Now, unfortunately we had too many leaks on what really happened and I gad to then go public with what we knew. But, you can bet that I am going to get to the bottom of those leaks. My point is this, Governor Romney understands nothing of national security and he was reckless in trying to politicize this tragic event.

Of course, all the above is conjecture on my part. But, I do believe that Obama will come to the next debate with a plan to defuse the Benghazi issue to the extent that he can. We need to keep in mind that in this 90 minute debate the Benghazi issue will not get more than ten minutes before the moderator moves the debaters on to a different subject.

On the issue of Syria, Mitt Romney must, in my opinion, be very careful. Every time I’ve heard Romney on the issue of Syria, he has been very assertive in accusing President Obama of not doing enough to help the people of Syria who have been murdered by tr+ens of thousands by Syrian president Assad. I would caution Mr. Romney to be very careful  on the subject of Syria. He needs to understand that America has no horse in that race. All parties to the Syrian conflict are anti-American. I believe that Obama is going to try to set a trap for Mitt Romney. Obama would like nothing better than to paint Romney as a warmonger. I can just see Obama looking into the camera and pointing his finger at Mitt Romney and saying “If governor Romney is elected President, he will take America into a costly and bloody war that no American wants and what America can ill afford.”

The election is yours to win or lose, Mr. Romney. Do not let Barack Obama trick you into saying something stupid,

Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

32 thoughts on “And Then There Was One …Debate That Is. What Will Obama’s Strategy Be?

  1. 1. Stay out of Syria at all costs! Romney must emphasis. this.

    2. There are too many leaks at the White house…and damn President obama for and his administration for being the source of most of them.

    3. Romney cannot get overconfident. The press will continuously pound the airwaves with the message that only stupid racists vote against the Sun God.

  2. Folks, you can bet that come next Monday’s debate, President Obama will be prepared and he will have invented a plausible explanation on why he delayed so long on calling the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack and instead put the blame on the spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam video.

    I agree with you again, Jim. I wonder, thought … if Obama was worried about disinformation, we have to ask, “From whom?” Is Obama suggesting that our own intelligence sources engage in disinformation?

    If that’s Obama’s argument, it sinks below the lying capability of a first-grader. But here is Romney’s problem: Obama knows the truth of what happened, and there is no way Romney should call him out on it. He cannot get away with calling Obama a liar in the court of public opinion … but what he can do, and should do, is chose a different tact. Rather than belaboring “What did you know, and when did you know it,” I think Romney should simply say, “Even if Mr. Obama is being truthful with us now, he cannot escape the fact that his response to the Benghazi attacks were at least sophomoric, and more likely grossly incompetent. This is not the man who we can trust in foreign policy.”

    Of course, Mr. Romney has not contacted me for my advice, so …

    Want to do a link exchange, Jim?

    1. Mustang, I just found this comment in my spam file. I have no idea why that happened.

      “He cannot get away with calling Obama a liar in the court of public opinion ”

      I agree. Romney has to tres lightly but he can still throw doubt on Obama’s words. IMO, Romney should focus on Obama’s overall policies in the Middle East and how they have made the region unstable and more dangerous. But, Romney hasn’t asked for my advice either.

      Mustang, give me a clue what “link exchange ” means. I’m sure it is something I would be glad to do.

  3. Well, Syria is already a bloodbath, and it may have passed the tipping point, so I am not opposed to helping push it over in a way that screws Iran.

    I think Romney has the easier job next week. Obama needs a home run, Romney doesn’t. All Romney needs to do it so continue to look and sound presidential, putting his ideas out there, critiquing Obama and sounding reasonable, which will attract the moderates and undecideds.

    1. On Syria we will have to agree to disagree, Kurt. Syria is importantto Russia. There are already rumors we habe been senfing arms fia Libya, bia Turkey. Russia needs a stable Syria. Let them try to straighhten it out. We will have plenty on our plate with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt and Libya. We have nothing to win in Syria.

  4. Beware of the gotcha questions. They will come in the form of: who’s is the president of…fill in the blanks. Maybe as did mr. Godfathers pizza guy:.. Ubezekadtan…what are you going to do about it. I am willing to lay a bet that attempts will be made to ambush him and make him look weak. What was the Bush doctrine anyway, and who cared.

  5. Romney knows he doesn’t need to hit it out of the park. All that’s required is a steady, solid performance, projecting a general sense of mastery of the subject matter and a vision. I think he’s good at that kind of thing. Obama,on the other hand, needs a miracle to reverse the current trend. Doing reasonably well is not enough for his campaign. He might try too hard and hurt himself.

  6. According to the latest polls posted on RealClearPolitics Romney leads nationally, but is behind in important battleground states where the war will be won or lost:

    I’ve just started looking at polls since we are so close to the election. They can finally start to taking on meaning.

    Am I wrong, or is FiveThirtyEight at the NYT not publishing poll results this election?

  7. I believe Mitt Romney has a good opportunity to bring this election firmly into his corner. I also believe that the attacks in Libya could play an important role in that, Mainly because Candy Crowley set it up to be a decisive topic of discussion at the last debate. The lie has been exposed and Romney needs to drive that point home, forcefully.

    At the same time, he does need to be careful how he treads the topic of foreign policy. I am sure Obama will have some excuses about this or that failure, but his record should speak for itself. Romney doesn’t need to wade deeply into the waters about Syria. As you said, Obama could use that to set a trap to make him appear a warmonger.

    Good post, Jim.

  8. Mr. Romney is not in a position to challenge Obama on what he knew, or when he knew it. But he is able to offer alternative explanations: for example, “If you were doing your job, Mr. President, we wouldn’t have lost an ambassador and three other fine Americans.”

    Jim, can we do a link exchange?

    1. “If you were doing your job, Mr. President, we wouldn’t have lost an ambassador and three other fine Americans.”

      I like that.

      I’d love to do a link exchange. But, first you are going to have to tell me what it is. 🙂
      I am not very computer literate.

  9. Syria–I agree with your assessment. Caution! The last thing voters want to hear is rumblings of another middle east conflict esp. with Iran already on the chess board.
    The #1 thing we have to do is GET OUT THE VOTE.
    AND the one good thing about moderator Candy Crowley inserting herself into the debate & aiding Obama is that she caught hell for it–and backtracked the next day on several news shows. Monday’s moderator will use that as a cautionary tale and hopefully bend over backwards to appear neutrai.

  10. Romney needs to come out of this debate without any big mistakes. Obama will be lying, as usual, and Mitt needs to call him on that by getting in his face. Real close. Plus, Mitt needs to get really pissed and loud when Obama once again says, “What the governor just said is not true”. Obama needs to have his nose flattened when calling a man a liar. Where I am from you just don’t do that if you want to keep your good looks.

    The Candy Crowley thing will have only a small effect. But, her craw-fishing on what she said was not done when tens of millions of the voting public was watching. She has done her damage. Move on, but you are allowed to toss vegetables and rotten eggs if the fat bitch makes a personal appearance within range of your throwing arms.

    1. We men like that red meat, don’t we Bob? The women , however, are not so keen on it. The gender gap is closing and we had best keep it going in that direction.

      I doubt Crowley will be comong to Venezuela, so if sge gets in your range, snack her once with a tomato for me, will you?

  11. Speaking of conjecture, it is rumored that the October surprise will go down on Monday and I believe it might just be a drone strike on the man believed to be responsible for the Libya attack, if I am right Romney will be neutered during the debate and momentum will swing back to Obama.

    1. I would not put something like that beyond the Obama administration, but hope we aren’t bombing the crap out of people simply because we think they are responsible.

    2. What? Because Obama can order a drone strike on an assailant that shouldn’t have gained access to the consulate in the first place he should be re-elected? I don’t buy the thought that an action like that would be nearly enough to sway the electorate.

    3. Boy, oh boy! Let us hope they kill the right bastard and not just any bastard. Sadly, with this administration we will never know if they are telling us the truth or not. I really don’t think it will get Obama off the hook. His policies are still responsible for the deaths of four Americans.

  12. Romney has to be careful. However, he shouldn’t ignore the little gift that Obama gave him last night when BHO said that the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi was “not optimal.” In my view, that statement from Obama is on a par with several of Biden’s gaffes.

  13. Obama and his team think that their strong suit is foreign policy, and that this is a Romney weakness. Bizarre and downright delusional, I know, but that is what they believe. Obama also spent the last debate appealing to his base rather than swing voters, and being overly aggressive. Expect more of the same in this debate. The result will be paraded in the press as an Obama victory, but it will have been a bad mistake. People are looking for stability, and not the endless drama that Obama has provided. If Romney can come across as principled, on top of the issues, and strong on support for American values and defense, but not a warmonger, then he will win both wavering independents and the election. Not that he is in much danger of losing to begin with, at this point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s