Master Debating?

What was most striking about last night's foreign policy focused presidential debate was how clearly Governor Romney wants to be President. That is to say, it was clear that from a foreign policy standpoint that he wants to be the current president.

Aside from some attempts to paint President Obama's economic policies as foreign policy liabilities (based on the notion that a weaker economy gives America less leverage) and a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking, I didn't hear a single case where Governor Romney articulated a meaningful distinction between how he would handle international situations and the way the President already is handling them. I could be missing something but, if the core of your foreign policy position is that you'd do what the incumbent is doing except for a few cases where you'd have done something else in hindsight, then you're not making a great case for a change of leadership.

Admittedly, presidential debates on foreign policy tend to favor the incumbent who's actually been on the job and tested by multiple tricky situations. However, when the only means you have to distinguish yourself from your opponent is the same thoroughly discredited accusations about the President's "apology tour"and empty promises to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, you haven't distinguished yourself as Commander in Chief material. Rather you've made the incumbent look that much more capable (dare I say, presidential?) and made yourself look like a wannabe. Needless to say, the greatest country on Earth deserves better than a wannabe.