So, Romney is using the tragic killings overseas to attack and humiliate our U.S. president

[bigtree]

That plays right in with the motives of the terrorists abroad. Someone overseas has to be thinking right now that this is an excellent way to influence or manipulate the American election process.

How utterly contemptuous of American interests and security of Romney to provide the ready companion in this campaign to the voice of these terrorists' violence. Bush did this all throughout the 2004 presidential campaign as he echoed, word for word, every utterance that the 9-11 terror suspects put out in their attempt to manipulate and influence American politics and policy.

It's clear that Romney doesn't care what despicable individual or group he aligns his remarks with; just as long as it furthers his ambition to be president. Republicans used to understand that our foreign policy is best directed with a good measure of bipartisanship. Not anymore.

This present batch of republicans doesn't care what American interest or individual abroad they put at risk, as they almost reflexively work to weaken the influence and credibility of the man with the highest responsibility in the land. It's absolutely traitorous behavior.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. BOTH PARTIES DO THIS!!!!

except that they don't (though I'm sure that the GOP MSM will muddy the waters on this too)! I'm not sure that I ever once heard Democrats politicize something like THIS! Romney/Priebus are disgusting excuses for human beings for pouncing on something like this to attack President Obama. Did they even issue statements offering their condolences for the people killed/injured before attacking President Obama?

[Democat]

2. Will the family of the ambassador condemn Republicans attacks?

Politicizing this degrades the man who was tragically killed.

[Grown2Hate]

3. Maybe I'm being naive here, but I can't IMAGINE this is going to play well with the American public.

IMMEDIATELY criticizing our sitting President (OBVIOUSLY to try and score political points during a campaign), with little to no mention of the victims? Doesn't feel like this will play well at all.

[bigtree]

4. what makes your point so important

. . . is that Romney is actually criticizing the very statements that the embassy staff had issued in an attempt to stave off the impending violent protests; to save their own lives.

Romney's glaring and obvious lie that the statement was issued after the attack is highlighted by the fact that it came out earlier in the day with the hope of the diplomats and others that they could ward off the attacks and calm the swelling protests. It's more than just one of his 'gaffes.' It's Romney CAUGHT using his lies in a most despicable and shameful manner.

[Grown2Hate]

6. Goddamn. I didn't even KNOW that part (didn't know WHAT the fuck Rinse was referring to in that

tweet). The word insidious comes to mind...

[Lucy Goosey]

10. Oh, wow, you're right

I hadn't checked the timeline; this makes Mitt's statement much worse, and it was already fucking terrible.

[el_bryanto]

5. Romney is boxed in

He is dedicated to serving his base, which will love and agree with this comment. His campaign has made the same calculation Bush made in 2004; there's not enough of a middle ground to worry about. Instead focus on charging up your base and discouraging the Democratic base (by, say, denying them the right to vote). If Romney gets all the republicans out, and Obama gets somewhat less than all the Democrats out, Romney wins.

In 2004 it felt like a choice, this time around I think this is the only path Romney is allowed to take. His base is not going to allow him to do anything other than what he's doing.

Not that this excuses it; just explaining why I think they did this.

Bryant

[bigtree]

7. he's got to be pushing it

. . . trying to interest a constituency which really hadn't traditionally embraced military adventurism abroad until Bush made Iraq an successful reelection issue (or until conservatives were forced to defend selling arms for hostages to defend Reagan). So, you could be right that the Romney campaign sees an opportunity to galvanize their base around some critique of the president's resolve or competence in foreign affairs.

Problem is for Romney, I think, is that the American people don't appear to have much of an appetite for more military protection schemes. I don't believe that Romney's policies or policy intentions (or, more important, the republican party's) even support all of the bluster from him about interventions and such.

In my opinion, it's an appeal that requires more than the lip service he's giving it. He can't just invent another 9-11 to galvanize Americans behind his warmongering to any significant degree. He's restrained in that by the same politics today that have a majority of Americans unconvinced that Afghanistan occupation is the best way to deal with the difficulties and challenges we face in that region.

Like I said, that anti-interventionist attitude had been shared more by conservatives in the past, I believe, than it has been the cause of liberals or Democrats. Whether Romney can re-fuel that interventionist fever Bush was able to leverage off of 9-11 remains to be seen.

[el_bryanto]

8. I don't know that it has much to with interventionism as it does with Obama hatred.

I don't know if they want more wars, but the Republican base definitely likes hearing "There guy is a weakling who isn't willing to stand up to the Muslim threat."

Bryant

[bigtree]

11. the guy who killed bin Laden?

. . . this guy?





. . .that's their 'weakling?'


Troop Support in Afghanistan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002634625

[el_bryanto]

12. Well you aren't looking at those pictures through Republican eyes

If i put on my tea party specs I see Troops cursing our weak president on the bottom and in that top photo . . . isn't that W being embraced by the troops?

Woops - i need to take these off - they give me a headache.

Bryant

[bigtree]

14. ha!

I think we're talking about a static group of conservatives which comprises around (a wild guess) 43% to 47% of those who bother to vote. If Romney is still working to appease them, he's in deep trouble.

In the process of ginning up this artificial outrage, he's sure to alienate the 'independent' and persuadable voters he needs to break the 'natural' enthusiasm the Obama campaign is generating through the President's appeals and policy.

[el_bryanto]

15. I think you are right that it is a losing strategy

But I think it's the closest thing to a winning strategy available to Romney. I think he, personally, might really prefer to be saying "I'm a professional competent adult who can come in and fix the mess Obama has created in a non-partisan way working with people on all sides of the fence." He was governor of Mass., after all.

But if he ran that campaign his base would revolt. So rather than risk 43 to 47% of his base he is conceding the middle ground.

Bryant

[nolabear]

9. Romney is willing to sacrifice anything to pander. That + sheer ignorance is a dangerous combo.

[MineralMan]

13. Romney will be the one who is humiliated in the end.

President Obama has this one. And he has a bullier pulpit than Romney will ever have.