The electorate supports what he has done, is unpersuaded by his Republican critics, and doesn't care about his broken promises.
President Obama's foreign policy has provoked two very different critiques.
The one I've pursued, along with a small group of civil libertarians, non-interventionists, and disaffected progressives, emphasizes his broken campaign promises; his violation of the War Powers Resolution in Libya; the destabilizing effect of his drone campaign in Pakistan; the innocents the CIA is killing when carrying out his policies; and his embrace of indefinite detention.
Far more Americans are familiar with the critique offered by Republican politicians, conservative television and talk radio hosts, and neoconservative writers. In their telling, the president rejects American exceptionalism; is constantly apologizing for America; harbors an intense dislike of Israel; practices appeasement with regard to our enemies; seeks to cut military spending so much that we'll be vulnerable to foreign aggression; and is content to "lead from behind."
These critiques (the latter based mostly on distortions) share just one feature: the electorate is rejecting them both. Polling data suggests that as Election 2012 approaches, voters are broadly supportive of the actions he has taken, unpersuaded by Republican attacks, and unperturbed even by Obama's broken promises. Is he invulnerable to being attacked on foreign policy?