Don't it make you want to say "Huh?"

Tonight's debate was slated to be all about foreign policy, and for the most part it was. But if you hoped to learn more about Romney's foreign policy, tough luck.

Well, that was...odd.

I'm not entirely sure what to think about that (the debate, I mean). I would have expected Romney to be more the aggressor, but he wasn't. It was almost as if he didn't want to upset the President. Huh?

Romney played his old game of stating a position diametrically opposed to his previous stated policy, and flat-out denying that he had ever held his previous position. Moreover,  Romney often seemed to have given up on developing his own foreign police and adopted Obama's. Huh?

A bit of a dustup happened when they got onto the subject of the auto bailout, with Romney again trying to rewrite the record on his famous "let 'em fail" position regarding Detroit, claiming that he never had that opinion. Huh?

Romney accepted Obama's position on withdrawal from Afghanistan, even accepting Obama's stance on a firm withdrawal date, a position totally opposite the one Romney has taken in the past; a position directly contradicted by all of Romney's previously stated positions. Huh?

And Romney never challenged Obama on Benghazi, which was one of Obama's weakest positions in the last debate, essentially giving Obama a walk. This should have been Obama's Achilles' heel, but as it turned out Romney skipped over that point. It seemed like Romney didn't want to risk another gaff on this subject, even though I would assume Romney was better prepared to meet this than he was. Huh?

(OK, that was the last "Huh?" I promise.)

It was a well-mannered debate, a mostly civilized debate, and thus a more boring debate, but that was about what I expected. Like the first debate, Romney's sudden 180-degree turn on many issues seemed to throw the president, but Obama was more willing to challenge Romney whenever this occurred.

Overall (and remember this is coming from an Obama supporter) I would have to say that Romney looked the weaker of the two. His flip-flopping around like a fish stranded on the shore certainly didn't help him. I thought Obama looked on far more solid ground on most points, and gave the audience a grasp of what his foreign policy would be in the next four years. I got no such view into Mitt Romney's head.

Please forgive my return to boxing metaphors here: I thought Romney's "rope-a-dope" strategy didn't work so well, his jab-jab-clench often interrupted by a stumble that ruined his rhythm, his attempts to stay out of Obama's reach making him appear the weaker of the two. I would have to give this win to Obama.

The Blues Viking

The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.