We have two impressive people running for president. I fully realize that is not a judgment universally shared in our polarized, partisan, red-blue divided nation. But Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both smart and knowledgeable leaders of admirable character who have succeeded in every aspect of their careers. The campaign has showcased, however, their strikingly different life experiences and worldviews. There is every reason to believe they would take us in very different directions in foreign policy.
Romney’s two years as a young Mormon missionary in France, exposure to the international marketplace in business and, especially, his adept leadership in saving the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics — have given him many of the necessary diplomatic skills presidents need to cope with a complex global environment. He has been at his best as a candidate in calling for strong American global leadership and for insisting that a revived domestic economy and balanced budgets are the only way to sustain our military and diplomatic power abroad.

Comments
How about the REAL foreign policy confusion? Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, trying to decide how to FAKE their way out of non response to the Benghazi embassy debacle. Then they decided to COVERUP by LYING to the American people and to the UN by saying that "The Video Did IT!"--Now we see e-mails to prove that Obama and Clinton knew what happened within 2 hours. Barack Obama is NOT a smart and knowledgeable leader by any sense of the imagination. He is the worst and most dishonest Commander in Chief ever.
This comment has been removed.
It is amazing how the scrutiny place on Romney was never placed ont he neophyte Barack Obama in 2008. His plan was have tea parties with Chavez, Castro and all the world's thugs. He thought his own charm could change the behavior of bad actors in the world, and he has had a lesson in reality ever since.
NEW PARAGRAPH: The reference the offending the British here is just laughable, and is a media hack reciting the Obama talking points of Romney's foreign trip. All Romney did was express concern about somthing that had been in the news. The Obama lovers in England feigned outrage at such an insult, to the delight of the left wing here. But please. Obama chose to go on The View while refusing to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu. That was a true slight to an important ally. But you will not read about that in the Globe.
Prof. Burns is absolutely correct: Mitt Romney is not ready to be commander in chief of this country. Romney's proven dishonesty means no foreign leader can trust him about anything. Romney's demonstrated flip-flopping on major policies creates profound uncertainty and again reflects his lack of character and steadiness. And Romney's growing record of insults, uneducated comments, and extremist right-wing views alienate millions of people around the world with his incompetence and arrogance. Romney is another failed Bush presidency waiting to happen, and we can't afford such disastrous leadership now or at any time.
Prof. Burns apparently can find nothing good to say about Romney's foreign policy, and he meanwhile praises Obama for his accomplishments to date. Would it be going out on a limb to speculate that Burns is a pro-Obama Democrat? Obama has been a passive and cautious leader who has largely let events drive policy rather than attempt to control events. He has voted "present" at every international situation that has required US leadership. It's hard to imagine a less committed leader. What little the government has done to date has largely been a continuation of the Bush Administration's policies. Obama may not have made major mistakes, unless you count the four dead diplomats in Benghazi, but he also has been a lackluster and overly cautious leader at a time when a steady and strong US leadership would be most helpful.
The good news for Mitt is that he has at least four huge mansion-houses to choose from for wound-licking purposes: Belmont MA, La Jolla CA, Park City UT and Wolfeboro NH. Pray with me this morning that he will never again buy his way into the public eye, and for his sake, that he finds something productive to do with his millions besides constantly running for President.
Blisterpeanuts and others below are blinded by partisan smoke. In some respects Romney betrays another tradition in the Republican Presidents. General Eisenhower arranged an end to the Korean War, he stopped in its tracks and turned back the Israeli-British invasion of Egypt, he did not intervene in Hungary, Poland and East Germany when anti-communist unrest erupted, and he relied on SEATO and NATO alliances to contain the USSR. Not a bad record. President George H.W. Bush responded to the invasion of Kuwait by seeking a strong alliance with the international community, pursued the war in an intelligent manner, limited the war's aims, and withdrew from Iraq leaving in place a counterbalance to Iran. Pretty sophisticated. In some important ways, then, President Obama continues a tradition in foreign policy that has had very adept Republican practitioners.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
poppycock
Yea, climate change, that's really what's on everyone's mind nowadays. All these annoying and silly distractions like a consulate burned to the ground and the diplomats inside brutally murdered, the black flag of al Queada hoisted over our embassy in Egypt, our troops in Afghanistan being gunned down by our so-called allies, another Islamic terrorist bomb plot in NYC foiled, our Secretary of State negotiating with the OIC [Organization of the Islamic Cooperation] on how much we should water down our 1st Amendment to make it more compliant with Islamic sharia law as it pertains to blasphemy, CAIR [Council on American Islamic Relations] given editorial control over our military and security organizations training materiels. President Romney will bring this craven grovelling to an abrupt end. Not by expanding any wars but by the simple recognition that we are in fact under seige by Islamic jihad both in the traditional military sense and from within. He will immediately purge all of our govermnet agencies of the Islamic apologists who have wormed their way into policy making postions. He will not worry about "repairing divisions with the Muslim world" he will make it clear that it is up to the Muslim world to repair divisions with us.
This comment has been removed.
Nick,
Maybe what Romney is missing is the experience that you get as a community organizer?
This comment has been removed.
It was great strategy on Romney's part. Boil things down to the basics for swing state voters - if you want the economy turned around and jobs created, Mitt's your guy. He even wove that into his foreign policy strategy saying we had to have a stong economy to ensure we can protect ourselves. I have no idea what he really thinks but I've got to give him credit. The last debate may have put him over the top.
Some of the NUANCE under Obama:
Russian attack submarine in the Gulf of Mexico
Chinese surveillance vessels on Thursday entered Japan's territorial waters around a group of islands claimed by China, for the first time in three weeks
Eliminated missile defense in Polish and Czech sites to appease Russians.
Syria president is a "reformer"
Benghazi
Daylight between US and Israel - and not visiting Israel
Siding w/ Chavez in Honduras
Violating a sovereign state w/ F&F (and not telling them)
Leaking national security secrets and using the SEALS as a campaign booster
We are LESS popular in the Muslim world now
Nicholas, that you start your article with such a jaw-dropping whopper, an opinion so out of touch with any reality, allows the reader to prepare himself for the drivel likely to follow!
Whatever you may think about Obama's success as a community organizer, a State rep, or a Senator, where his only distinction may be voted PRESENT more than anyone else...as a President he has a four year record that can only be described as miserable: record unemployment, record new regulation, record deficits, record growth in dependency programs, record low post-recovery growth, just as starters.
If you call this a record of success, we can imagine what foolish opinions you'll offer next!!!!
This comment has been removed.
As someone who voted for Romney for governor in 2002 and witnessed his personal transformation to align with an extremist party that is closer to the one his father had chastised and rejected in '64, I have stopped being surprised by his wavering on previously held positions. The core of Mitt Romney is a hyper-political opportunist who is currently focused on making the ultimate big deal, which, for him, is a next-in-line promotion to the presidency. His centrist views on foreign policy expressed in the debate for the first time that night are just another example of his marketing skills to attract another target clientele. Rather than pay attention to his myriad positions, I choose to focus on the company he keeps. His key foreign policy advisers include Bush-era unilateralists including the self-proclaimed anti-diplomat, former UN Ambassador John Bolton. Romney unveiled at the debate that he was somewhat of a foreign policy neophyte and would need to extensively rely on his selected advisers for direction in dealing with Mid-East volatility and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Despite Romney's assurance of military action as a last resort, Bolton would advise that a last resort option be deployed much sooner.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.