UPDATE 2-After Libya misfire, pressure on Romney in foreign policy debate - Reuters [ournewsa.blogspot.com]
American Faust: From Condi to Neo-CondiFrom a deprived and segregated childhood in Alabama to becoming the most powerful woman in the world: Condoleezza Rice cuts an extraordinary and enigmatic figure. This incisive doc tells a mesmerising Faustian tale of a woman whose pursuit of power destroyed her core values and rocketed America into a fateful new direction. Leading her own defence through a series of candid interviews, this is political biography like no other. Growing up in the heart of the Black Civil Rights resistance, Rice came of age amidst violence and racial oppression; "it was awful", she recalls. Desperate to escape, it was at university that Rice discovered her political ambitions: "I remember the exact lecture that won me over. It was about how Stalin had consolidated his power. I thought; this is terrific". Under the wing of her professor, she became a realist; "realists believe that all that matters in the world is power." She quickly abandoned her engagement to football star, Rick Upchurch, when an opportunity to work in Washington arose. "She chose power over love" he muses. Early on in her career Rice stood out as a ruthless leader. Critics describe how as a board member of Chevron she wilfully overlooked evidence of the violent abuse of Ogoni tribesmen in her drive to expand the company. Meanwhile, she jumped back and forth from Democrat to Republican: "her goal was to always be in a seat of power". But it was her "unusual relationship" with Republican candidate George Bush that was to ...
* Romney expected to tread more cautiously on Libya
* Ex-businessman could be out of his comfort zone
* Polls show Obama's foreign policy edge shrinking
By Matt Spetalnick and Steve Holland
WASHINGTON, Oct 21 (Reuters) - When President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney face off on Monday in their third and final debate, it will be the Republican challenger's last best chance to recover from his botched "Libya moment" and exploit vulnerabilities in his opponent's foreign policy record.
But Romney has an uphill struggle to make his case against Obama, who will be buoyed by the advantages of incumbency as well as polls showing him with an edge - though a shrinking one - on the question of who is more trusted in global affairs.
This week's debate in Boca Raton, Florida, coming just 15 days before the election and devoted entirely to foreign policy, could be the riskiest of the three nationally televised showdowns for Romney, largely because of his inexperience and recent blunders on the world stage.
Romney's missteps in criticizing Obama's handling of a deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi - the focus of a vividly testy exchange in the previous debate - have complicated his broader strategy of trying to cast the president as a weak steward of American power abroad.
Deprived of one of his most potent lines of attack, expect Romney to instead focus more of his criticism on Obama's policies toward Iran, Israel, Syria, China, Afghanistan and Russia.
"Obama has a record, and Romney doesn't, so he can just cherry-pick the arguments," said Jon Alterman, a former State Department policy planner now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington. "But that doesn't mean any of it will stick."
Romney's aides hope that chipping away at Obama's credibility on foreign policy and national security - areas the White House once saw as largely immune from Republican attack - can help put him over the top with undecided voters in the final weeks of a White House race still too close to call.
WILL VOTERS CARE?
Obama's policies have faced setbacks recently, from challenges to U.S. interests in the Middle East to a string of attacks on U.S.-led NATO forces in Afghanistan by the Afghan troops they are supposed to be training.
A report in The New York Times that the Obama administration has agreed in principle with Iran to hold one-on-one talks over Tehran's nuclear program could provide a fresh avenue for Romney to cast Obama as too willing to accommodate.
Republican Senator Rob Portman, Romney's sparring partner in mock debates ahead of Monday night, warned Obama against sidelining U.S. allies in the diplomatic front against Iran.
"The other thing that gets interesting about the story, if it's accurate, it sounds like the U.S. is taking a position that we're likely to jettison our allies," he told NBC's "Meet the Press." "The last thing we would want to do is abandon our allies on this and make it a one-on-one negotiation," he said.
It remains to be seen how much traction any of this will have with voters, whose main concerns by far are the economy and jobs.
The problem for Romney is that in focusing on Obama's trouble spots, he also further exposes his own weaknesses.
As former governor of Massachusetts and an ex-businessman, he is out of his comfort zone when not focused on domestic and economic matters.
That was evident in last week's debate when he mistakenly said Obama took weeks to acknowledge that the Benghazi assault - which claimed the lives of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans - was a terrorist attack.
Obama, who said he had done so in aa appearance in the White House Rose Garden the day after the attack, challenged Romney to "check the transcript" and chastised him for trying to score political points from a national tragedy.
A slew of pundits dubbed it Romney's "Libya moment," and some of his own aides conceded privately that Obama got the better of him.
On top of that, Obama managed to shift the focus away from the thornier question of whether the administration had ignored requests to beef up diplomatic security in Libya.
Romney went silent on Libya after Tuesday's encounter but aides say the Republican, hunkered down in debate prep in Florida this weekend, will be ready to deal with it on Monday night when it is all but certain to come up again.
What Romney hopes to do is press his point, drowned out in the last debate, that the recent wave of anti-American violence in Libya and other parts of the Middle East shows Obama's foreign policy is "unraveling before our very eyes."
At the same time, he will want to avoid giving Obama another opportunity to go on the offensive.
"I doubt the governor will end up parsing words. That's not the most productive thing to do," said Eliot Cohen, a Romney adviser and neoconservative foreign policy expert at the Johns Hopkins School of International Studies in Washington.
Romney must also show voters he has what it takes to be a capable commander-in-chief, and he will seek to counter any attempt by Obama to "paint him as an insane warmonger," Cohen said.
Obama - who has touted the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as a signature foreign policy accomplishment - has signaled he could use the debate to caution war-weary voters of the risk of a more hawkish Romney presidency.
At a campaign rally in New Hampshire last week, Obama suggested Romney was promoting the kind of foreign policy that "takes us into wars without a plan to get us out."
A Pew Research Center survey, conducted after the first debate but before the second, showed Obama ahead 47 percent to 43 percent on the question of who would make wiser foreign policy decisions. That was much narrower than Obama's 15 percentage-point advantage in a poll early last month.
LOOKING FOR CONTRASTS
Romney will be under pressure to sharpen contrasts with Obama when the two men sit side-by-side across the table from moderator Bob Schieffer, known for a cantankerous demeanor with guests on the Sunday morning CBS news show "Face the Nation."
The 90-minute debate will be divided into six segments: America's role in the world; the war in Afghanistan; Israel and Iran; the changing Middle East; terrorism; and China's rise.
Critics have accused Romney of relying on generalities and platitudes - he has hearkened back to Ronald Reagan's "peace through strength" doctrine - and he could be put on the spot if he resists providing specifics.
Romney has promised to tighten the screws over Iran's nuclear program. He has accused Obama of "leading from behind" as Syria's civil war expands, and of a politically timed exit from the unpopular Afghanistan war.
But in each case, critics say, he has not detailed alternatives policies.
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
Find More UPDATE 2-After Libya misfire, pressure on Romney in foreign policy debate - Reuters Articles Question by DesiDani(still waiting for 12am): In your own personal opinion is there any problem with China's "One child policy"? Yes or no, and please explain why in your own words. Courage: you are right. plus there is the selling of kids, fines for those who want a child. kidnapping of kids by those who want another child. The rich can go around the rules and pay the extra money, but the poor have to resort to hiding there own children. Imagine having to pay a $ 1000 fine for your son or daughter, yes, it is a major failure. Best answer for In your own personal opinion is there any problem with China's "One child policy"?:
Answer by The Tao of Atheism.
I think, it's necessary with the high population.
Answer by Feathered Serpent
Its distasteful but probably necessary.
Answer by Ray G
I don't know enough about the details of the policy other than you are encouraged to only have one child and that it is preferred to be a boy. I do have a problem with the sexist thing. It also represents too much government intrusion on the private lives of citizens, but that is the usual way of Communism.
Answer by Maurice
It's necessary because without it, more people would be starving and homeless.
Answer by toomordgs
yes it causes massive social disruption and to date it hasnt worked
Answer by bikerchickjill
Yes. No one should be able to tell another person what to do with his or her body.
Answer by Rico JPA
It's a great policy. Unless you'd like say 500 million chinese dropping by your bar on e night. They order a beer and sit down. You (think to make a little extra cash for all the extra work this'll cost you is totally reasonable) tell that the drink will be twenty dollars plus tip. The chinese sit back and all five hundred mill share it between them. You're a little uncomfy so you make small talke, "You know," You say, "We don't see too many chinee here. And they reply in perfect unsison, "Yes, and at these imperialist running dog explotation of the worker prices, you're not likely to see many more."
Answer by The Real Shaz 3
No, its necessary
Answer by loves christmas lights
I agree with it so much, I wish the US would do some sort of program.
Answer by AxlConrad
Positives and negatives, including infanticide here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
Answer by Rosemonster
Other than the killing/aborting of countless baby girls because their parents "needed" a boy to carry the family name resulting in spoiled little boys sometimes called "little emperors", I see no problem. This is what happens when we attempt to tamper with human nature. Yes, overpopulation is a problem and I do not claim to have the solution, I just don't think this is it.
Answer by Courage
It's horrifying. You've got the overpopulation of boys to girls right now, making it so that there are more men to women in the city. This has killed little girls, caused abortions for no other reason than it's a girl, and is going to cause a real issue in the future. It's made the "Little Emperor Syndrome" where the child is so doted on by parents that he/she grows up spoiled rotten and no one knows precisely what this will do long-term (though the spoiled rotten behavior does seem to continue onward as they tend to be putting off marriage or having no children at all.) And then you have the problem of the 4:2 ratio. Ie, 4 grandparents being taken care of by 2 parents who also must care for their child. This is such a recognized problem that the government is allowing those in this situation to have 2 children so that hopefully it will take the pressure off of the next generation (who would have the 4 great-grandparents, 2-grandparents and their own kids to take care of...) The number of people leaving the farms has made it so that the government allows more than one child in the farmlands, but because of the pressure to educate and advance in the way their culture is focusing right now (in the past it was for the children to learn the ways of the family, take care of older people, and be expected to help more. The oldest might have gotten highly educated, the younger ones would have helped at home.) Now, with all the focus on the one child, the more educated path is considered almost the only path you want your child to take. Economically it's a disaster waiting to happen. Culturally, it's been a disaster for a long time now.
0 comments:
Post a Comment