The latest Republican debate on foreign policy revealed the shortcomings of some candidates, bringing Newt Gingrich closer to a showdown with Mitt Romney. The debate highlighted the need for a clear and concise foreign policy that addresses pressing issues such as terrorism and cybersecurity.
Gingrich, who was one of the front-runners in the Republican primary, struggled to articulate his vision for a post-9/11 foreign policy. He faced tough questioning from moderators on topics such as Iran and Syria, and his responses were often vague or dismissive.
Romney, on the other hand, presented himself as the establishment candidate with a clear and consistent record on foreign policy. His response to questions about terrorism was particularly notable, as he spoke of the need for a more measured approach that takes into account the complexities of the global terrorist threat.
The debate also highlighted the importance of cybersecurity in the post-9/11 era. Romney called for increased investment in cyber defenses and the creation of a national cybersecurity office. Gingrich's response to this question was less detailed, but he did acknowledge the need for greater cooperation between the US and its allies on cybersecurity issues.
Overall, the debate suggested that Romney is well-positioned to take on Obama on foreign policy, particularly if he can build on his experience as governor of Massachusetts and his record in the Senate. Gingrich, meanwhile, must convince voters that he has the vision and leadership skills needed to navigate a rapidly changing global landscape.
The Republican primary remains a crowded field, but Romney's strong performance at the debate put him firmly in the lead. The question now is whether he can sustain this momentum over the coming months and build on his gains in the upcoming caucuses and primaries.
Gingrich, who was one of the front-runners in the Republican primary, struggled to articulate his vision for a post-9/11 foreign policy. He faced tough questioning from moderators on topics such as Iran and Syria, and his responses were often vague or dismissive.
Romney, on the other hand, presented himself as the establishment candidate with a clear and consistent record on foreign policy. His response to questions about terrorism was particularly notable, as he spoke of the need for a more measured approach that takes into account the complexities of the global terrorist threat.
The debate also highlighted the importance of cybersecurity in the post-9/11 era. Romney called for increased investment in cyber defenses and the creation of a national cybersecurity office. Gingrich's response to this question was less detailed, but he did acknowledge the need for greater cooperation between the US and its allies on cybersecurity issues.
Overall, the debate suggested that Romney is well-positioned to take on Obama on foreign policy, particularly if he can build on his experience as governor of Massachusetts and his record in the Senate. Gingrich, meanwhile, must convince voters that he has the vision and leadership skills needed to navigate a rapidly changing global landscape.
The Republican primary remains a crowded field, but Romney's strong performance at the debate put him firmly in the lead. The question now is whether he can sustain this momentum over the coming months and build on his gains in the upcoming caucuses and primaries.
. He came across as super confident and in-control, which is exactly what you need when it comes to making tough decisions about terrorism and cybersecurity. Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich was like, "uh, sorry, didn't quite get that question" 
. It's like he was trying to out-governor Obama or something! 
But seriously, Romney's experience as governor of Massachusetts and senator gives him a solid foundation for tackling these issues. And can we talk about how important cybersecurity is in the post-9/11 era? It's like, we gotta stay one step ahead of those cyber-villains! 
I'm rooting for Romney to keep his momentum going – fingers crossed he can take on Obama and show us what he's got! 
he seems so much more level-headed than newt gingrich who just seemed all over the place lol idk about the cybersecurity thing but it sounds like romney has a solid plan in place 
I mean, I get it, foreign policy is super complex, but come on, you gotta have some ideas! 
His responses were like "um" and "uh" all night long... not exactly the kind of leadership we need in a president. And Romney just owned it, you know? He's got that whole establishment thing going on, but also actually seems to care about the issues. I'm kinda sold on him now, tbh 
But then again, we still have like a million other candidates vying for attention... fingers crossed he can keep this momentum 
. Can't they just give us straight answers for once? Like, seriously, Gingrich couldn't even define a clear foreign policy vision, it was like he was winging it 
. And don't even get me started on the lack of details from Romney's opponent, I mean, what's the plan, exactly? 
. It's not like we can just ignore this stuff and expect everything to magically work out. Come on, guys, get your act together! 
Gingrich is still my guy though, I love how passionate he gets about these issues... but his vagueness on key points kinda killed him in this debate. What do you guys think tho? Can Romney keep this up or was it just a fluke? 
... And honestly? I think Romney's probably in the best position right now to take on Obama. But we'll see how it plays out over the next few months 
I feel like some of these candidates are really struggling to show us what they're all about when it comes to foreign policy 
Can we trust him to make the right decisions for our country? 
but at the same time, i think mitt romney did a great job of showcasing his experience and expertise in foreign policy... he came across as really confident and level-headed 
and that national cybersecurity office idea sounds super important right now 
hope mitt can keep building on that momentum and not get too distracted by all the other candidates trying to take him down 
he's got a clear vision and it sounds like he's actually got some experience to back it up 
Gingrich, on the other hand, just seems kinda lost 
i mean, don't get me wrong, he's still got some good ideas, but his responses were pretty sketchy last night 
so yeah, if anyone can take on Obama on foreign policy, it's probably Romney 
, especially given his background as Speaker of the House. But at the same time, Romney's record on foreign policy can't be ignored – he's got experience and a clear vision for dealing with global threats. It's interesting to see how Gingrich plans to fill that gap, though... does he really have the chops to lead the party in this area? 
just watched the latest republican debate 
was on point 
with his foreign policy answers 
especially when it comes to terrorism 
and cybersecurity 
he showed a clear vision 
for the us and its allies 
definitely gave him an edge 
and seemed lost when asked tough questions 
and syria 
maybe he needs to brush up on his foreign policy skills 
now it's up to him to sustain this momentum 
. And let's not forget about cybersecurity - it's such a growing concern in this day and age. Romney's plan sounds solid, but has anyone really thought through the implications of creating a national cybersecurity office? 
, people need to wake up to Romney's hawkish foreign policy stance 
. I mean, what's his plan B on Iran and Syria? Just more of the same old bomb-and-diplomacy approach 
. The truth is, he's got a lot to learn about foreign policy and we need someone with some real vision for the future, like Newt 
. I mean, Romney is definitely the one who knows how to spin a good message and connect with voters on a clear agenda for America. But what worries me is that this debate didn't really give us much insight into their long-term vision or how they'd handle complex situations like war or economic crises 
. He just needs to solidify that message and figure out a way to make it more compelling than Romney's 
.