FOUR MORE YEARS!

[thegreekdog]

By soft power I mean those elements of American power that don't necessarily involve military engagement. It's more nebulous than military intervention, but involves diplomacy, economic ties, and cultural expansion.

Experience wise I think Obama has the edge now- four years as commander in chief kind of trumps governor of Massachusetts and business experience at Bain Capital when it comes to foreign policy experience.

The old trope of a neophyte congressman Obama doesn't really play out. Romney is the neophyte on foreign policy now. I can understand why someone would see him as strong domestically, but abroad he's seen as weak and easily manipulated.

His recent foreign visits kind of cemented that view. In the UK he was seen as a bit of an ass, and the current Israeli government seem to see him as a pawn.

These are not the seeds of a strong foreign policy.

Well, yeah (on Obama vs. Romney foreign policy now). I would trust Obama more than Romney with foreign policy, but only if there was some difference between Obama foreign policy and Bush foreign policy. Since there isn't, I don't.

As for soft power, I can't agree. The last four years have seen the continued the prosecution of two wars without any de-escalation. Additionally, President Obama ordered strikes on other countries in the Middle East.

I tend to think, however, that a President McCain would have done more than that; but soft diplomacy is not the phrase I would use for President Obama.

[BigBallinStalin]

It may also be the size of our economy and our involvement in every nation on the globe.

The president has not given any indication he would reduce our involvement in every nation on the globe. I wish that was one campaign promise he would have kept.

I meant that globally, people would rather have Obama running the world's largest military & economy than Romney.

I'm not so sure there is that big a difference.

Agreed. Those who set the general trajectory of the US military are the heads of the Pentagon (Dept of Defense), State Dept, and to a smaller degree the intelligence agencies and the FBI. Each president is usually uninformed, so they pick a National Security Council (NSC) of people they generally agree with (for whatever logical and arbitrary reasons). Then those former head honchos (DoD, etc.) inform the NSC on the limits of what can or can't be done (which of course can be cherry-picked). (for the sake of brevity, I'll end here).

In other words, some people like Sym and JB overestimate the US president's capability to control the US military. This isn't suprising though. Wherever someone sees order of some sort, they're bound to attribute it to one person or central planner (instead of attributing it to the interactions of individuals within organizations whose actions lead to intentional/planned and unintentional/unplanned order).

To a lesser extent, it's like saying that the GDP increased by 3%; therefore, president X is awesome cuz he did it all.

[Symmetry]

By soft power I mean those elements of American power that don't necessarily involve military engagement. It's more nebulous than military intervention, but involves diplomacy, economic ties, and cultural expansion.

Experience wise I think Obama has the edge now- four years as commander in chief kind of trumps governor of Massachusetts and business experience at Bain Capital when it comes to foreign policy experience.

The old trope of a neophyte congressman Obama doesn't really play out. Romney is the neophyte on foreign policy now. I can understand why someone would see him as strong domestically, but abroad he's seen as weak and easily manipulated.

His recent foreign visits kind of cemented that view. In the UK he was seen as a bit of an ass, and the current Israeli government seem to see him as a pawn.

These are not the seeds of a strong foreign policy.

Well, yeah (on Obama vs. Romney foreign policy now). I would trust Obama more than Romney with foreign policy, but only if there was some difference between Obama foreign policy and Bush foreign policy. Since there isn't, I don't.

As for soft power, I can't agree. The last four years have seen the continued the prosecution of two wars without any de-escalation. Additionally, President Obama ordered strikes on other countries in the Middle East.

I tend to think, however, that a President McCain would have done more than that; but soft diplomacy is not the phrase I would use for President Obama.

I think the dichotomy you need to be looking at is Obama vs the Bush era for how foreign nations view Obama. You're right to say that Obama hasn't rejected hard power, but he's projected soft power far more than the 8 years of foreign policy before him.

Bush Republicanism left a very bitter taste in the mouths of most foreign countries, and while Obama hasn't lived up to his promises, he's still seen as better than a return to the Republicans.

[jay_a2j]

UNINSTALLING OBAMA.....……………. █████████████▒▒▒ 90% complete.

[stahrgazer]

I think that Romney's strengths lie only in domestic economic policy. I can't see him as effective on any kind of international front, militarily or economically.

Romney's strengths don't even lie there, if you really peruse his record. He and a few of his Bain buddies made hundreds of millions, but most of the companies they made their money from got stuck with the bill and ended up bankrupting, costing tens of thousands of US jobs spread over a few different companies.

He claims credit for 'balancing the budget' for the Olympics, right? Know how he did it? He managed to convince the Federal Government to give them the money... then spent alot more than the predecessors of that Olympic committee had planned to spend.

So, he was really good at borrowing... but isn't that what so many people accuse Obama of being too good at? Even to the point of accusing Obama for borrowing stuff Bush set up and left Obama with the blame and us with the bill (hmm much like Romney did with those businesses his Bain Capital took such interests in.)

He may or may not have been a good Governor of Massechusetts. He installed a state-wide mandatory health insurance requirement (the model for the Affordable Care Act that many call Obamacare) but from everything he says, he'll repeal it for the nation, which means one of his only "claims to fame" is something he won't go for as President. Heck, he won't even continue to go for it for Seniors - his idea of Medicare is give them a 1-time voucher and let them fend for themselves (unless you're a baby-boomer large-voting-voice 55 or older Senior).

Another "claim to fame" Romney has is ensuring that anyone who graduates high school with certain grades get tuition-free college, but that's another thing he will cut from the federal levels.

In other words, he's done a lot of damage to the little guy and small businesses that few will really talk about - he won't. No details. Those few things he's "praised" for in his state, thus, can be claimed to be his good ideas, are ideas he's rejecting for the Nation after all. And it's curious that he's not carrying the state he was supposedly such a good governor of; Massechusetts residents are mainly saying: OBAMA, FOUR MORE YEARS!