Foreign policy?

[OCinBuffalo]

Douche? I dunno...but selective memory? Definitely. Let's begin:

First and foremost yes, it's the economy stupid. I do get that.

 

But I've heard a lot of countless Romney surrogates basically answer questions about Romney's questionable foreign policy rhetoric by saying "Americans don't care about that" or "Americans aren't thinking about" and they're only thinking about their jobs.

Precisely as the countless Obama surrogates did when Obama was getting elected. It's bad politics to criticize foreign policy while its happening. Obama had his thing hanging out of his shorts on the the Surge, and he didn't want to step on it. Given both, he wisely gave very little specifics. Ultimately, the economy crash was the best thing to happen to Obama, since it distracted from his multiple FAILS on foreign policy in the debates.

 

So, Obama wasn't very specific until late in the race, until he was clearly going to win. I doubt Romney will be either, and will it be clear who is going to win? It's a tactical political decision, not a subject for character analysis. If you try to make it so, you will inadvertently bring up Obama's record on foreign policy prior to 2008. That would be a stupid choice for any Obama supporter...for reasons that should now be obvious.

My one problem with this is that...I do care about that. And I'm an American. And I'm not here to bash Bush for a war I supported when he started it...but Iraq was a **** show. And while the housing bubble and investment bankers are probably to blame most...Bush wars all over are probably next on the list.

 

That said...Romney/Romney Co. seems to go around blasting Obama on foreign policy while spouting nonsensical rhetoric himself/themself. And if you ever get any specifics out of him/them then...they end up sounding as though they are still saying nothing or they are at best Obama's advisers and they hate themselves (in that on rare occasion he they talk sense and it's the same)

Hysterical. Especially the part of about the economy and the wars.

 

When the Bush economy was doing well, in spite of the Bush Wars, because the Bush tax cuts worked as designed....liberals were shocked. That's why they lost seats in 2002. So was Europe. So, liberals started bitching about shared sacrifice, invoking WW2, and that it wasn't fair for the poor to be fighting in wars, while the rich benefited from such a strong economy.

 

Now, that economy has taken, and stayed, in a down-turn, they want to blame the wars? I thought the evil was the lack of shared sacrifice? So what was a side effect has now become a cause? (Or, do you not have any shame at all, you argument of convenience mfers?)

 

Despite the facts that the liberal savior recruited and deployed the very best liberal college professors who know the liberal economic/green, or should I say "socialist in environmentalist clothing" playbook better than anyone...they still failed miserably. That's because the playbook sucks. It's filled with Mike Mularkeyesque "shovel ready, non-Keynsian multiplier, throw money to Democrat machine bosses" trick plays, that just don't work. Don't use the age-old "first excuse of the communist" and tell us these professors simply didn't implement it right. IF these Harvard, Berkley professors don't know how to do "social justice/green jobs"...who the F does?

I mean...I know what a campaign is. I know it's not that specific. But aside from closing guantanamo...which by any neutral analysis proved to be politically impossible...Obama ran on ending Iraq, increasing Afghanistan, and killing Osama. Well...check...check...check...

Again, selective. What about the "reset button"? What about that...innovative..."listening" approach? Susan Rice is screaming at the Russians right now...perhaps she forgets the button was pressed? Oh, and what has happened? We started screaming at/threatening the Russians, NOT listening, and we got: results. That's because power and strength is what the UN knows...since most of them are there solely due the ruthless use of both. Please explain: Since when is Obama doing the exact opposite of his campaign promise...fulfilling it?

 

Look, I didn't care about the Guantanamo thing much. But is it a useful example: Obama, and far too many liberals, are too affected to understand GITMO. They/he simply couldn't know that he couldn't close it. So, when he was promising that he would, he was sincere. I sorta give him credit for that. Of course, having an adult's understanding of the terror war, and war in general, would have been helpful.

 

Once Obama got in office, I have given him credit here for developing an adult's understanding. He realized that bowing to Saudi kings was only useful for comedy. He wised up quick. The best thing that could have happened to Obama? The bowing, while at the same time getting the unearned Peace Prize, and being mocked for it, shook him out of it. He proceeded to avoid the Jimmy Carter completely.

 

But...where's the "drone strike everybody, even Americans, without due process...so I DON'T have to put them in GITMO, and look like a complete ass" on your checklist?

 

When I said "adult understanding" that's what I mean. I don't fault the guy for killing rather than capturing. Given the bed he's made, what else? So, he's killing them, rather than putting them in a place he hasn't closed. Dead or GITMO? I can't say which is better. He has taken the lesser? evil, owned it, and then drove it. The only bad part is we aren't getting the intel from the dead. We won't know the effect of that for years, if ever.

 

Ultimately, if Obama had to do it over, I doubt he'd say a word about GITMO. Having GITMO, and being able to perp walk every single terrorist he could claim credit for catching into it would have been a lot better both for the country and for the Obama Campaign....I mean....Administration. But, he is doing the best he could with his newly found adult understanding.

 

This is the single biggest reason why I think your concerns about Romney are unfounded: thus far Romney seems to know better than to get himself into things like Obama's GITMO trap. The same way I just avoided being called out on this later, in case Romney does step in it big. I used "thus far" and "seems". I bet Obama wishes he had said "thus far GITMO doesn't seem like a good solution to this problem" instead of his invective.

 

Romney largely knows to do this, and is NOT bound by some cabal of affected idiots pushing him to destroy the military power of this country, and trying to subject us to one-world government...because they are writing the campaign checks. And, I doubt Romney will care much when the other cabal of paranoid idiots starts telling him to attack Iran....because they are writing the the checks(...in shekels). Instead, Romney will look for the ROI, and judge all plans on that, as any evil, Bain Capitalist would do.

[Fan in San Diego]

First and foremost yes, it's the economy stupid. I do get that.

 

But I've heard a lot of countless Romney surrogates basically answer questions about Romney's questionable foreign policy rhetoric by saying "Americans don't care about that" or "Americans aren't thinking about" and they're only thinking about their jobs.

 

My one problem with this is that...I do care about that. And I'm an American. And I'm not here to bash Bush for a war I supported when he started it...but Iraq was a **** show. And while the housing bubble and investment bankers are probably to blame most...Bush wars all over are probably next on the list.

 

That said...Romney/Romney Co. seems to go around blasting Obama on foreign policy while spouting nonsensical rhetoric himself/themself. And if you ever get any specifics out of him/them then...they end up sounding as though they are still saying nothing or they are at best Obama's advisers and they hate themselves (in that on rare occasion he they talk sense and it's the same)

 

I mean...I know what a campaign is. I know it's not that specific. But aside from closing guantanamo...which by any neutral analysis proved to be politically impossible...Obama ran on ending Iraq, increasing Afghanistan, and killing Osama. Well...check...check...check...

 

I know Romney was head boss man at Bain but the President doesn't exactly reign over the global or even national economy like Romney did at Bain in terms of control and the objectives are not purely profit but people. One thing the President does reign supreme over is foreign policy. So when I hear people from that camp saying that Americans don't care about foreign policy I wonder if they 1) recall the last decade 2) look at the world today 3) consider me American or 4) understand what the President is.

 

I know this takes and anti-Romney slant...but it is sort of a legitimate complaint IMO about some of the stuff coming out of that campaign movement. This stuff matters and this stuff is the #1 thing the President does unilaterally. It's first on his job description. And the fact that I'm not sold and almost anything he's serving up is concerning to me...and I think if you are asking me to vote you commander in chief id deserves more than a "nobody cares about that shut up."

 

Agree? Disagree? I'm a liberal douche?

 

+1

[LeviF]

The British media is still trying to explain how they lost to dagos in the Euro this summer (sorry just felt like throwing that in there)

!@#$ you, !@#$ing WOP.

[ieatcrayonz]

Romney on foreign policy should be the same as on the economy: I am not Obama.

 

Look at where the Los Gatos foreign policy has gotten us.

[Rob's House]

Guys I'm going to admit for a while I thought Axle Rose was cool. I was wrong.

Guilty

[meazza]

!@#$ you, !@#$ing WOP.

 

[dayman]

As predicted Romney touched on foreign policy in Israel (no ****) on "foreign soil." His "I won't comment on foreign policy on foreign soil" w/ MOrgan was just what it always was..."I'll only give speeches about foreign policy I won't talk in interviews or answer follow up questions about it."

[dayman]

I think there is a Mitt interview to air on Fox news any moment on "on the record" if anyone is interested in knowing ahead of time.

[Fan in San Diego]

Could Romney come off as being a bigger douche than he already is. Way to go Romney insult everyone who are non Americans or Jews for being culturally challenged. Your weasel eyes and ways are showing. Glad you won't be our President in November.

[3rdnlng]

Could Romney come off as being a bigger douche than he already is. Way to go Romney insult everyone who are non Americans or Jews for being culturally challenged. Your weasel eyes and ways are showing. Glad you won't be our President in November.

 

 

Why, will you have him killed by then?

[erynthered]

Why, will you have him killed by then?

 

 

:lol:

 

Careful, he's PM'd the mods already. Saying you, LA and I are picking on him.

Ahhhhhh, poor baby. Fccuking puussy.

[B-Man]

Could Romney come off as being a bigger douche than he already is. Way to go Romney insult everyone who are non Americans or Jews for being culturally challenged. Your weasel eyes and ways are showing. Glad you won't be our President in November.

Sad.

 

 

 

The Most Striking Thing About Mitt Romney’s Overseas Trip…

 

…has been the press coverage. It has been hypercritical, to put it mildly. It started in England, where Romney’s observation that certain logistical issues relating to the Olympic Games were “disconcerting”–a judgment that has since proved resoundingly correct–was treated as a major diplomatic faux pas. Already forgotten, apparently, is the press’s attempt to make something sinister out of a Romney aide’s reference to America’s “Anglo-Saxon heritage” and its “shared history” with Great Britain. Of such thin gruel do liberal reporters and editors try to generate controversy.

 

Then it was on to Israel, where Romney’s visit can fairly be characterized as triumphant. Without criticizing President Obama, he made it clear, in a ringing speech in Jerusalem, that his administration would be far friendlier to Israel than Obama’s. Romney’s speech was widely hailed in Israel as well as in the U.S., and probably enhanced his standing with many American Jews. Not to mention the fact that he raised $1 million from contributors with whom he met the next day.

 

And yet press coverage has focused mainly on the Palestinian reaction to Romney’s pointing out that Israel’s “culture” has much to do with its prosperity relative to its neighbors, much as America’s culture explains its economic advantages over Mexico. The Palestinian objection was silly, and here is a news flash for American media: Romney isn’t angling for the Palestinian-American vote.

 

Romney’s visit to Poland has been successful, too. He received a virtual endorsement from Lech Walesa.

 

By any reasonable standard, Romney’s trip has been successful. Yet press coverage has been unrelentingly negative. This AP story sums up the press’s angle well: “Another hiccup? Romney’s foreign trip not smooth.” To hear the AP tell it, Romney has committed one blunder after another.

 

None of this will have any effect on the election, except insofar as Romney benefits with pro-Israel voters and with Polish-American and Catholic voters. But it is a useful reminder that the media-formerly-known-as-mainstream are still lying in wait, and will pounce on any opportunity to give the Obama campaign a boost. They they have had so few openings to do so is a tribute to the discipline of Mitt Romney and his campaign.

 

John Hinderaker

 

.

Edited July 31, 2012 by B-Man