If you'll remember, the 2008 election was supposed to be about foreign policy: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran, etc. That's one of the reasons the Democrats nominated Barack Obama; he was against the Iraq War from the beginning. And that's also one of the reasons the GOP nominated John McCain; he was thought to be stronger on national security than either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee.
But then a funny thing happened: Lehman Brothers went bankrupt in the fall of 2008 and the country stared into the abyss of another Great Depression. Suddenly, McCain's presumed edge on foreign policy was negated. The professional War Hero had never shown much interest in the economy; and the young, skinny guy from Chicago was thought to be cooler in a crisis.
Now, everyone has assumed for quite some time that the election next year would be about the economy. And, therefore, Romney has been seen to have an edge over the president. After all, Romney's a Harvard MBA and a founding partner of Bain Capital. (Never mind the last president with a Harvard MBA -- pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.)
But what if -- what if -- the economy recovers in 2012? And, what if things get dicey in the Middle East? (Or dicier?) Then who has the edge, the former governor of Massachusetts, who would presumably bring back all the Republican foreign policy hacks from the Bush years? Or the incumbent president who ended the Iraq War and got bin Laden and Qaddafi?
No comments:
Post a Comment