A lengthy discussion on what more we know (and don’t know) about Romney’s approach to foreign policy as seen through his advisors (all sides represented), his positions (less than other areas), and his approach to diplomacy (an impressive number of study groups, a disastrous European trip, messaging problems, and John Bolton lurking in the shadows):
Those disputes have been shelved, at least until Nov. 7, advisers say. “ ‘After the election,’ that’s what they say in all the conference calls,” one member of the team said after trying, unsuccessfully, to argue for more specificity in one of Mr. Romney’s recent statements on the Middle East. He added, “They see little benefit in resuming the battles that preoccupied the Bush White House, at least for the next month.”
Two of Mr. Romney’s advisers said he did not seem to have the strong instincts that he has on economic issues; he resonates best, one said, to the concept of “projecting strength” and “restoring global economic growth.” But he has appeared unconcerned about the widely differing views within his own campaign about whether spreading American-style freedoms in the Middle East or simply managing, and limiting, the rise of Islamist governments should be a major goal.
Now conservative voices (“needs to persuade people that he’s not simply a George W. Bush”) are matching the more liberal NYT editorial board to call for a reveal on the Romney foreign policy, (“Americans deserve an intensive, textured and honest discussion on foreign policy”).