Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Romney campaign until now: Foreign policy a 'shiny object' that 'real Americans' don't care about
Romney campaign until now: Foreign policy a 'shiny object' that 'real Americans' don't care about
by Laura Clawson
Mitt Romney's campaign has made it clear for months now that they knew foreign policy was not their candidate's strong suit. Right up until they decided to use the killing of American embassy personnel in Libya to try to score political points against the president, Romney's campaign advisers were dismissive of the very idea that a presidential candidate should maybe occasionally be able to talk about foreign policy without totally shitting the bed.
In July, Romney senior communications adviser Tara Wall dismissed the notion that Romney should have an Afghanistan policy:
This may have come as news to the more than 80,000 U.S. troops still in Afghanistan and their family members and friends. For that matter it may have come as news to the taxpayers still paying for this 11-year war. But maybe troops and taxpayers don't count as real Americans to the Romney campaign.
Last week, explaining his omission of troops serving in Afghanistan from his Republican National Convention speech, Romney himself said that including them would have just been a "laundry list." Because the people whose lives are at stake in the decisions he would make as president were apparently no more important than undershirts or socks.
On Tuesday, Buzzfeed quoted Romney foreign policy adviser Robert O'Brien saying that the Obama campaign was using foreign policy as "a distraction" and a "shiny object."
Then, just hours after that reiteration of the idea that Barack Obama's foreign policy strengths and Mitt Romney's manifest foreign policy weaknesses were off limits for serious discussion because, hello, irrelevant distraction, the Romney campaign decided to dive into foreign policy—head first into an empty pool, as it turned out. In retrospect, it looks like those descriptions of foreign policy as a distraction were just telegraphing how the Romney campaign itself intended to use the subject of all of America's relationships with the entire rest of the world.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130805/-Romney-campaign-until-now-Foreign-policy-a-shiny-object-that-real-Americans-don-t-care-about
by Laura Clawson
Mitt Romney's campaign has made it clear for months now that they knew foreign policy was not their candidate's strong suit. Right up until they decided to use the killing of American embassy personnel in Libya to try to score political points against the president, Romney's campaign advisers were dismissive of the very idea that a presidential candidate should maybe occasionally be able to talk about foreign policy without totally shitting the bed.
In July, Romney senior communications adviser Tara Wall dismissed the notion that Romney should have an Afghanistan policy:
Unfortunately it’s disappointing that the attacks, these recent attacks on all these issues outside of what the issues are relative to Mitt Romney are diverting away from what real Americans want to talk about.
This may have come as news to the more than 80,000 U.S. troops still in Afghanistan and their family members and friends. For that matter it may have come as news to the taxpayers still paying for this 11-year war. But maybe troops and taxpayers don't count as real Americans to the Romney campaign.
Last week, explaining his omission of troops serving in Afghanistan from his Republican National Convention speech, Romney himself said that including them would have just been a "laundry list." Because the people whose lives are at stake in the decisions he would make as president were apparently no more important than undershirts or socks.
On Tuesday, Buzzfeed quoted Romney foreign policy adviser Robert O'Brien saying that the Obama campaign was using foreign policy as "a distraction" and a "shiny object."
Then, just hours after that reiteration of the idea that Barack Obama's foreign policy strengths and Mitt Romney's manifest foreign policy weaknesses were off limits for serious discussion because, hello, irrelevant distraction, the Romney campaign decided to dive into foreign policy—head first into an empty pool, as it turned out. In retrospect, it looks like those descriptions of foreign policy as a distraction were just telegraphing how the Romney campaign itself intended to use the subject of all of America's relationships with the entire rest of the world.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130805/-Romney-campaign-until-now-Foreign-policy-a-shiny-object-that-real-Americans-don-t-care-about
Romney's foreign policy cheerleading squad outnumbered
by Joan McCarter
Mitt Romney's disgraceful statement and his despicable performance in response to the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and four other Americans in Benghazi hasn't totally alienated him from society, just from civilized society.
Here's his cheerleading squad, so far. The half-governor from Alaska, who really doesn't need to be quoted here. It's enough to know that Sarah Palin is standing by Mitt. So is the only politician who might actually be more self-serving and opportunistic than Romney, Newt Gingrich, who says that Romney as president would be "enraged" and "offended" by both the Egyptian and Libyan responses to the attack. Because what a president wants to do in the middle of a foreign policy crisis is make the situation worse with the governments in question. Oh, and Rep. Allen West is on Romney's side too, not in defending Romney per se, but in finding this an excellent time to attack the president. That right there should be enough to make the Romney camp reconsider this line of attack, but hey, this is the candidate who embraces Rep. Steve King, so they aren't going to be scared off by West.
Of course, RNC lighweight chair (PeeWee Herman) Reince Preibus immediately jumped on Romney's attack of the U.S. government, and in fact doubled down on it, tweeting, "Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt." And Romney will never be alone as long as Washington Post embarrassment Jennifer Rubin is alive and kicking. She insists that people like Bill Kristol, legacy neoconservative, are rallying to Romney's side. Well, sort of in the case of Kristol.
In other words, Romney isn't necessarily right in his statement, but he was right to attack the president during a crisis. Patriotism!
So who are the Republicans not on the Romney bandwagon? Here's one:
Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice ignores him entirely with a gracious statement, including thoughts of Ambassador Chris Stevens, "a wonderful officer and a terrific diplomat who was dedicated to the cause of freedom." Republican congressional leadership has also been muted and responsible in their responses, none of them—Paul Ryan included—even referencing Romney's action, or using the attacks as an opportunity to attack the administration. House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed their sympathy for the families and their resolve for unity, with McConnell saying, “We honor the Americans we lost in Libya and we will stand united in our response.”
Former Republican presidential nominee John McCain was actually quite classy.
Some fine company Mitt's got for himself on this one. But at least he's still got his biggest fan.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130852/-Romney-s-foreign-policy-cheerleading-squad-outnumbered
by Joan McCarter
Mitt Romney's disgraceful statement and his despicable performance in response to the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and four other Americans in Benghazi hasn't totally alienated him from society, just from civilized society.
Here's his cheerleading squad, so far. The half-governor from Alaska, who really doesn't need to be quoted here. It's enough to know that Sarah Palin is standing by Mitt. So is the only politician who might actually be more self-serving and opportunistic than Romney, Newt Gingrich, who says that Romney as president would be "enraged" and "offended" by both the Egyptian and Libyan responses to the attack. Because what a president wants to do in the middle of a foreign policy crisis is make the situation worse with the governments in question. Oh, and Rep. Allen West is on Romney's side too, not in defending Romney per se, but in finding this an excellent time to attack the president. That right there should be enough to make the Romney camp reconsider this line of attack, but hey, this is the candidate who embraces Rep. Steve King, so they aren't going to be scared off by West.
Of course, RNC lighweight chair (PeeWee Herman) Reince Preibus immediately jumped on Romney's attack of the U.S. government, and in fact doubled down on it, tweeting, "Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt." And Romney will never be alone as long as Washington Post embarrassment Jennifer Rubin is alive and kicking. She insists that people like Bill Kristol, legacy neoconservative, are rallying to Romney's side. Well, sort of in the case of Kristol.
One can question the timing and tone of Mitt Romney’s statement last night. One can note he wasn't as fluent and clear as he might have been at his press conference this morning. Still, the fact remains that the events of September 11, 2012, represent a big moment for the country. Romney is right to sense this, and to seize on this moment as an occasion to explain the difference between his foreign policy and President Obama’s. He’s right to reject the counsel of the mainstream media, which is to keep quiet and give President Obama a pass.
In other words, Romney isn't necessarily right in his statement, but he was right to attack the president during a crisis. Patriotism!
So who are the Republicans not on the Romney bandwagon? Here's one:
Peggy Noonan: "I don't feel that Mr. Romney has been doing himself any favors in the past few hours."
— @CPHeinze via web
Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice ignores him entirely with a gracious statement, including thoughts of Ambassador Chris Stevens, "a wonderful officer and a terrific diplomat who was dedicated to the cause of freedom." Republican congressional leadership has also been muted and responsible in their responses, none of them—Paul Ryan included—even referencing Romney's action, or using the attacks as an opportunity to attack the administration. House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed their sympathy for the families and their resolve for unity, with McConnell saying, “We honor the Americans we lost in Libya and we will stand united in our response.”
Former Republican presidential nominee John McCain was actually quite classy.
Just watched an excellent and moving stmt by Sec. Clinton- just the right message and tone.
— @SenJohnMcCain via web
Some fine company Mitt's got for himself on this one. But at least he's still got his biggest fan.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130852/-Romney-s-foreign-policy-cheerleading-squad-outnumbered
Romneyshambles, again.
"the Romney campaign had not prepared sufficiently for ‘a visit of this magnitude’"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021035280
Note:
Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
