>>> foreign policy as we've been discussing is intruding into what had been a political campaign focused entirely on the economy. so how have the candidates handled the challenge in joining me mark halperin , senior political analyst for msnbc and "time" magazine editor at large. mark, what about mitt romney , his initial response and whether or not he should give a major foreign policy speech next week and lay out how he would handle this?
>> obviously his initial response got some pretty negative reviews and i think it obscured to some extent what the romney campaign would like to focus on, which is this set of events happening now, very difficult for any president to deal with to be sure, fits in with the critique governor romney has long made about the president and his foreign policy . so it's an opportunity for governor romney if he does want to move off the economy, make these bigger arguments about international affairs and national security , to give a big speech. i thought for 48 hours that he almost certainly would and still think he will. i know some are advising him to do it. it does mean moving awah i from the economy and just from a purely political point of view there's a risk. however, governor romney believes in the critique he's making and i think it's always helpful for a presidential candidate to give a speech if there's something they feel strongly about and this is an area he does.
>> his foreign policy and critique is based on his book "no apologies" and that was his immediate instinct for that news release that was released right as the state department , the administration, scrambling to find out what had happened to their diplomats. is that a policy, i'm just trying to cope with, you know -- is weakness and the whole argument that we are any time we talk to adversaries apologizing for u.s. position, is that the core of his policy?
>> well, that's a good question. there's no doubt that it is a fair critique to say that governor romney in this instance and in his book and other cases has put forward the notion that the president has apologized or that the president's foreign policy is based on apologizing when that isn't accurate. and that he needs to find i think some more specifics. how does his policy differ? some controversy now about whether in enunciating his iran policy and their nuclear program. he differs from the president. he said in an interview twice he doesn't differ. his advisors are trying to say he does. both in specific theaters, country relations, specific issues, there's -- he's not had necessarily a break through co cohesive and clear set of policies. a speech is an opportunity. there are areas he does differ from the president but more often than note he's overstated what the differences are. if he does feel he can put together a cohesive speech with real specifics, this is an opportunity. the crisis going on right now is an outgrowth of the arab spring. the president and the administration haven't handled it perfectly. no one could. there are areas where it's possible to criticize. but as your question suggests if he just criticizes and he doesn't have some actual concrete proposals both for elites who will be looking for real specifics and real actual differences, as well as to the general public looking for broad themes for the most part then giving a speech would be a mistake. if he does have specifics in these -- in the current crisis and more broadly, i think it would serve him and the country well to hear the contrast between the incumbent and what governor romney says he would do differently.
>> and mark, the current schedule, the president's current schedule, is to practically fly over the united nations dropping down to give a speech, meeting with the secretary general but not meeting with any of the foreign leaders not with president morsi, to the distress of the egyptians, not with prime minister netanyahu or any others. it is unusual. they clearly thought this is the week before the first debate. they don't want a foreign policy blow up. they don't want something to happen. is that a wise course for the white house to think they can finesse foreign policy ?
>> from the time they made that decision from a purely political point of view, it was a wise course. both the president and romney are expected to speak at the global initiative. that's a forum where a lot of eyes will be on them. if the world is still in the kind of explosive situation we're in right now, i wouldn't be surprised if the president did add some meetings to his schedule. he does have that flexibility. at the time they made that decision, i think voters in the battle ground states would rather hear the president talking about politics at least if the crisis abates to some extent, then they care whether the president has the bilateral meetings that presidents normally fit into their schedule when they come here for the general assembly and the clinton global initiative .
>> thank you very much.
>> thanks, andrea.
>> all this will be discussed on "meet the press" on sunday with david gregory . i'll be among david's guest. you've
>> obviously his initial response got some pretty negative reviews and i think it obscured to some extent what the romney campaign would like to focus on, which is this set of events happening now, very difficult for any president to deal with to be sure, fits in with the critique governor romney has long made about the president and his foreign policy . so it's an opportunity for governor romney if he does want to move off the economy, make these bigger arguments about international affairs and national security , to give a big speech. i thought for 48 hours that he almost certainly would and still think he will. i know some are advising him to do it. it does mean moving awah i from the economy and just from a purely political point of view there's a risk. however, governor romney believes in the critique he's making and i think it's always helpful for a presidential candidate to give a speech if there's something they feel strongly about and this is an area he does.
>> his foreign policy and critique is based on his book "no apologies" and that was his immediate instinct for that news release that was released right as the state department , the administration, scrambling to find out what had happened to their diplomats. is that a policy, i'm just trying to cope with, you know -- is weakness and the whole argument that we are any time we talk to adversaries apologizing for u.s. position, is that the core of his policy?
>> well, that's a good question. there's no doubt that it is a fair critique to say that governor romney in this instance and in his book and other cases has put forward the notion that the president has apologized or that the president's foreign policy is based on apologizing when that isn't accurate. and that he needs to find i think some more specifics. how does his policy differ? some controversy now about whether in enunciating his iran policy and their nuclear program. he differs from the president. he said in an interview twice he doesn't differ. his advisors are trying to say he does. both in specific theaters, country relations, specific issues, there's -- he's not had necessarily a break through co cohesive and clear set of policies. a speech is an opportunity. there are areas he does differ from the president but more often than note he's overstated what the differences are. if he does feel he can put together a cohesive speech with real specifics, this is an opportunity. the crisis going on right now is an outgrowth of the arab spring. the president and the administration haven't handled it perfectly. no one could. there are areas where it's possible to criticize. but as your question suggests if he just criticizes and he doesn't have some actual concrete proposals both for elites who will be looking for real specifics and real actual differences, as well as to the general public looking for broad themes for the most part then giving a speech would be a mistake. if he does have specifics in these -- in the current crisis and more broadly, i think it would serve him and the country well to hear the contrast between the incumbent and what governor romney says he would do differently.
>> and mark, the current schedule, the president's current schedule, is to practically fly over the united nations dropping down to give a speech, meeting with the secretary general but not meeting with any of the foreign leaders not with president morsi, to the distress of the egyptians, not with prime minister netanyahu or any others. it is unusual. they clearly thought this is the week before the first debate. they don't want a foreign policy blow up. they don't want something to happen. is that a wise course for the white house to think they can finesse foreign policy ?
>> from the time they made that decision from a purely political point of view, it was a wise course. both the president and romney are expected to speak at the global initiative. that's a forum where a lot of eyes will be on them. if the world is still in the kind of explosive situation we're in right now, i wouldn't be surprised if the president did add some meetings to his schedule. he does have that flexibility. at the time they made that decision, i think voters in the battle ground states would rather hear the president talking about politics at least if the crisis abates to some extent, then they care whether the president has the bilateral meetings that presidents normally fit into their schedule when they come here for the general assembly and the clinton global initiative .
>> thank you very much.
>> thanks, andrea.
>> all this will be discussed on "meet the press" on sunday with david gregory . i'll be among david's guest. you've