Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Romney's Critique of the Obama Foreign Policy



Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is speaking out on President Obama's foreign policy. (Photo by Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News)

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is joining the chorus of Republicans critical of how President Obama is handling foreign policy, penning an op-ed this morning in National Review that describes the president as "timid" on the world stage.

Romney's broad criticism -- as explained in the piece -- is that Obama has been far too apologetic regarding America's past role on the world stage. "The leader of the free world has been a timid advocate of freedom at best," wrote Romney. "And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking."

Romney went on to lambaste the president for his offers of "silence, smiles, and a handshake" during the Summit of the Americas, a reference to the greeting between Obama and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez that has been seized on by the right as a sign of Obama's acquiescence to the international community.

In truth, the striking thing about Romney's critique is not the content of it (former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders have said the same) but the fact that the former Massachusetts governor chose to sound off on a foreign policy matter.

In a recent interview with the Fix, Romney said he was picking his spots in terms of offering his ideas on the national scene; "I really don't feel the need to speak out on every issue that is being considered in the nation," he said at the time.

To date, Romney had largely kept that pledge -- making his voice heard on economic matters but staying silent on international issues. This op-ed breaks with that trend and is a recognition by Romney that if he wants to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2012 he needs to fight Obama on all fronts -- foreign and domestic.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 21, 2009; 12:22 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2012 , White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: White House Cheat Sheet: Cheney Keeps on Swinging
Next: Can Republicans Win Back Congress in 2010?

Comments

Chavez, as much as we might wish he were different, is a duly elected leader. What would Mitt Romney do? Sell him a used car?

Posted by: sverigegrabb | April 22, 2009 11:25 AM
***********************************************

Very intelligent post.... the "used car salesman" jab.
It's due to that sort of mentality that we are now blessed with the most inept POTUS in history (right next to Carter).

Yeah...we sure wouldn't want a "used car salesman" with tremendous financial and economic prowess leading us through perilous economic waters right about now, would we?!

Right now you have "Taxachusetts" wishing they had their Republican governor back and then we have individuals that are worried because that Republican governor is just too slick! Give me a break.

Posted by: akheaps76 | April 24, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

jake d------ you are wasting your time talking to these hollowheads about Mitt !
One of the anti-Romney posters said"Mitt doesn't know nothing(geez..really bright )
about ,blah,blah,blah!Doesn't know nothing
means he knows..period!But this quote represents the intelligence posted here!
So Romney wasn't born poor...big friggin deal!Mass. is now wishing Romney was gov.
it is in the news today!Morons is too nice
for what I feel about all these ignorant
comments about Romney!He straightened out
the olympics and waived his fee($1,000,000)
He took Mass. out of debt in less than 4 years! He was a very successful business
person! So all of failures can rave and rant all you want he is a proven winner!
As for all the preachers who will not vote
for Mitt! I wish to thank you folks for
giving us Obama..idiots!
Obama..a rump kissing wimp!He reminds me
of jimmy crack corn carter- kissed the holy
leader of Iran on the cheek and said hey..this guy is a believer! Less than 30 days our embassy was taken hostage! Those
animals only recognize power...duh!
Maybe Obuma was talking about all you gut-
less "mouthers" here! After all he said, America is a bunch of losers and bad guys!
As for N. Korea...ohhh,gee,they are such big bad guys we don't want to make them mad
do we...!? Puke!China..another enemy that you cowards fail to see! You don't get attacked because you have power and are not afraid to use it!When you wet your pants like Obuma..your going to get your butt kicked! Iran ...arrested a lady and put her in prison.... and knew they could do that w/out any real reaction from...
that His Majesty..THE SPINELESS ONE!
ELVIS

Posted by: geneman39 | April 22, 2009 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Observer44: Last time I checked, a blockade against North Korea would be tantamount to an act of war. Posted by: JakeD"

Uh, Jake, hate to tell you, but since we are already at war with North Korea, and have been since September, 1950, that distinction is somewhat arbitrary. And, by the way, for all you good Republicans who hate it when U. S. forces work under U. N. auspices, ALL u. S. Forces in South Korea are technically there under U. N. auspices. The blue flag flys over U. S. Bases there, and also over FLEACTS Yokosuka. The Main Enlisted club was officially flying the U. N. Flag when last I was there, in 1980.

Just thought you ought to know.

Posted by: ceflynline | April 22, 2009 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Apparently Mitt knows how many friends George's approach to diplomacy won us.

A POTUS who is comfortable with not needlessly insulting heads of other states is something Republicans can't easily understand, but of course a President who listens to points of view he doesn't necessarily share is also some thing Republicans don't easily comprehend.

BUT, it figures. For balance in discussing the Chavez affair CBS had Dana Perino for the Republican side. Since she didn't have a White House to tell her which lies to tell she was only a little lost.

The GOP has a great stock of genuine losers available to espouse its side of any issue. Mitt being one of the bigger losers last year.

Still, the Daytno Daily News accidentally juxtaposed three editorials on the left hand page, all calling for good republican parts of the Miami Valley to pass renewal tax levies for local school systems that have run into financial straights because, being in mid to high rent Republican school districts the tax cutting proclivities of their majorities suggest that the renewals are on their way to defeat, while the Right hand side Op Eds were lots of Republicans blubbering "No taxes and no spending." It happens that the shop I was reading these blubberers has locally provided music, and it played Burl Ives something, and it gelled: the Republican party has fund its ideal political space.

"Where the lemonade springs, and the blue bird sings,

In the Big Rock Candy Mountain"

Now we know, they have found TBRCM and they can have anything they want and never have to spend any money.

It ain't Koolade they are drinking, it's lemonade, in TBRCM

Unemployment is past ten per cent? Don't Worry, Be Happy, in TBRCM.

So the Republicans have decided on what they want: Don't ask them to help clean up the mess we are in, and certainly don't ask themto help pay for the cleanup. Thhey on't want the government to hire people who need jobs to do the jobs we really need doing, and they really don't want to have to pay for those jobs to be done.

They want to live "Where a bum can stay for many a day and he won't need any money"

In TBRCM.

(Sigh) we liberals, of course, have to live here in the reality based universe.

Posted by: ceflynline | April 22, 2009 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Sverigegrabb,

When discussing this article yesterday, I was asked your very question; what would Romney or McCain have done in the situation with Chavez.

Of course none of us can know but I did observe Romney’s behavior throughout last year’s campaign and I think he would have been cordial. I think he would’ve shook Chavez’s hand but I don’t think the exchange would’ve gone beyond civil and polite. I can’t imagine he would’ve had an ear-to-ear grin on his face or given him the high-five handshake that symbolizes either a very friendly relationship or some form of kinship. Romney’s approach likely would’ve been measured and appropriate.

I believe McCain, on the other hand would’ve been equally inappropriate in his response. His demeanor would have been the polar opposite of Obama’s overly friendly behavior. Based on my observations of McCain at debates last year, I think McCain would’ve looked down, looked away, or turned away and if Chavez had extended a hand, McCain likely would’ve ignored it. If you recall, McCain wouldn’t look at Obama at all during the first debate and he acted similarly towards some Republicans in primary debates. Its been reported that he will not look at those he dislikes. Were McCain the President, he likely would’ve caused an equal controversy for his obvious display of disdain.

Posted by: Ci2Eye | April 22, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney.

The most professional Business minded candidate for President. Unlike Obama who has no experience operating any business, other than being the figurehead of the DNC, and Liberal Extremist movement.

Obama's Jimmy Carter foreign policy will be about as effective as it was for Jimmy. You think Obama would be intelligent enough to follow a successfull example like Ronald Reagan, and not a failed one like Jimmy Carter. But as I have noted several other times, it is Liberal Extremist Agenda before Country for Obama and the current Democrat Leadership.

I wish moderate Democrats, would take back the reigns of the DNC from the Liberal Extremists nutjobs. I also wish Obama would show some of the intelligence many of his supporters continue to say that he has.

Posted by: ignoranceisbliss | April 22, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

What might strike some Americans as 'timid' or 'unsure'--or even as Obama's effort to swing the pendulum as far away from Bush 43 as possible--strikes me (in essence an outsider, not having been brought up in a context of shoot-'em-up cowboy westerns, with the 'bad guys' wearing black hats and the 'good guys' wearing white ones) as nuanced and thoughtful.

What was Obama supposed to do when Chavez came over to him? Put his hand behind him like a schoolboy? I think it's important for Americans to see this in context: for decades and decades (Battista, Sadaam, Fujimori, the Shah of Iran etc., etc.) the US has backed in overt and covert ways, dictators who were to its (political) liking until they shook off the guiding hand on their shoulders. Then suddenly, they were 'tyrants' with consequences we all are well aware of. So, the truth is that in the past the US had nothing against so-called dictators so long as they were of the right--in all senses of the word--ilk.

Chavez, as much as we might wish he were different, is a duly elected leader. What would Mitt Romney do? Sell him a used car?

Posted by: sverigegrabb | April 22, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

The problem that Mitt has, as well as any potential 2012 GOP nominee, is that BHO foreign policy is more pragmatic than ideological. Yes, to a degree he's acting as something of an anti-GWB, but that's somewhat required, given the colossal mess left of things by GWB. The new administration has to do some repair before making real new progress. The problem this creates for Mitt & his cohorts is they're left with trying to distance themselves from Obama, which naturally pushes them back to the neocon / Bush 43 cowboy-diplomacy school. Because Obama's foreign policy looks most like the pragmatic Bush 41 foreign policy, the only familiar alternative for Mitt is the neocons. So he's preaching to the choir at the Nat'l Review, regurgitating their talking points to establish some foreign policy 'bona fides'.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2009 9:58 PM | Report abuse

So, Mitt, what say you about GWB--our last braniac president--walking hand in hand with the Saudi king?? Is this the sort of support for tyrannical, chauvinistic, terrorist-supporting fundamentalists that makes a president, or the US, look good? Is this the sort of standing up to dictators and America-haters that you support?

Hell, like 'em or not, at least leaders like Chavez and Ortega were elected, which is more than you can say for Saudi Arabia's leaders, and for that matter, for Bush II the first time around.

As usual, Romney is ill-informed, selective in who he criticizes, and totally inconsistent in his positions, which is why he is not president or vice president of the United States. Hallelujah!

Posted by: CorvusCorax51 | April 21, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

So, Mitt, what say you about GWB--our last braniac president--walking hand in hand with the Saudi king?? Is this the sort of support for tyrannical, chauvinistic, terrorist-supporting fundamentalists that makes a president, or the US, look good? Is this the sort of standing up to dictators and America-haters that you support?

Hell, like 'em or not, at least leaders like Chavez and Ortega were elected, which is more than you can say for Saudi Arabia's leaders, and for that matter, for Bush II the first time around.

As usual, Romney is ill-informed, selective in who he criticizes, and totally inconsistent in his positions, which is why he is not president or vice president of the United States. Hallelujah!

Posted by: CorvusCorax51 | April 21, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

So, Mitt, what say you about GWB--our last braniac president--walking hand in hand with the Saudi king?? Is this the sort of support for tyrannical, chauvinistic, terrorist-supporting fundamentalists that makes a president, or the US, look good? Is this the sort of standing up to dictators and America-haters that you support?

Hell, like 'em or not, at least leaders like Chavez and Ortega were elected, which is more than you can say for Saudi Arabia's leaders, and for that matter, for Bush II the first time around.

As usual, Romney is ill-informed, selective in who he criticizes, and totally inconsistent in his positions, which is why he is not president or vice president of the United States. Hallelujah!

Posted by: CorvusCorax51 | April 21, 2009 7:06 PM | Report abuse

You can help end global poverty by calling your Senator and telling them to support the Global Food Security Act. It gives $500 million in food aid where it's needed most.

Tell them all the money that just got saved on military cuts can now go towards saving the world. Congressional staffs record all these calls - even 20 can sway a Senator's vote!

See more at http://www.borgenproject.org

Posted by: RyanBr | April 21, 2009 7:02 PM | Report abuse

If I were Mitt Romney, I'd probably want to lash out at some authority figure after being passed over by the American people for president, and by John McCain in favor of Sarah Palin for vice president.

Clearly, Romney thinks that the quality of his foreign policy judgement exceeds President Obama's. While I would have preferred that the President didn't greet Hugo Chavez with such a big smile, I do think that he did the right thing by chatting with him.

To paraphrase an overused question, "What would Mitt have done?" Conveniently, he doesn't tell us. Put another way, whenever he did tell us what he'd do, when he was running for office, he somehow usually managed to change his mind pretty shortly thereafter, so we never really knew what he'd do either. Together, these provide only some of the reasons why even Republicans rejected him at the polls in the last presidential primary season.

Posted by: CorvusCorax51 | April 21, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Ci2Eye:

Somewhere in the middle is where I'd like to see BHO as well, though I'd prefer farther from the "obstinate" (GWB) side of the scale and closer to the "accommodating" (BHO) side of the scale. I do think you're right that BHO is trying to be a bit of an "anti-GWB" right now. I am hoping that what we are seeing is BHO's learning curve. To me, the early signs are that BHO will pursue a fairly pragmatic foreign policy, more akin to GHWB.

Frankly, the public appearances of BHO smiling and shaking hands with people like Chavez doesn't really bother me. There are tons of pictures out there with JFK smiling and laughing with Khrushchev, Nixon with Brezhnev, Reagan with Gorbachev, even GWB with Putin. It's just part of diplomacy. I'm more of a TR guy ("speak softly and carry a big stick").

The Cuban Missile Crisis surely was Khrushchev testing JFK, though in the context of the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs. BHO has shown some resolve in sending more troops to Afghanistan and continuing GWB's Predator strikes in Pakistan. He's also implemented a fairly aggressive diplomatic push with Holbrooke and Mullen in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

On the whole, I've been pretty satisfied with BHO's foreign policy for the past 100 days, his personal appearances (and that gift exchange with Brown) not withstanding.

Posted by: mnteng | April 21, 2009 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Ci2Eye, but I can't agree with that. It's time to IMPEACH OBAMA for failing to prosecute Cheney! If Articles of Impeachment won't force Obama's hand, then maybe the NEXT President will:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/41872

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Jake,

I think past administrations should refrain from criticism of new administrations. Likewise, I think new administrations should refrain from blaming the past administration for current problems. After all they wanted the job knowing what the conditions were so get to work solving it and let the people decide who is to blame. Further, they should never mention criminal action against a previous administration just because they disagree with actions they took. None of that is helpful to the Nation.

Having said that, there would be exceptions for very egregious or criminal actions but nothing Bush/Cheney did rises to that level nor has anything Obama has done so far been so serious that it merits criticism from the last administration. Bush was right when he said Obama “deserves” his silence.

So, lets not impeach or prosecute anybody. At least not yet.

Posted by: Ci2Eye | April 21, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

For all those disagreement with Romney's assessment, how about this: I am (honestly) willing to support impeachment of Obama if he doesn't turn Cheney over for prosecution. Will any of you sign a petition for that or not?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Mnteng,

I would agree with much of your assessment. Obama does seem more inclined towards listening and consensus building than Bush and that’s good. I think Bush changed after 9-11 becoming very determined and somewhat stubborn. As you indicate, his approach could aptly be described as “my way or the highway”. I think he said at one time that nations were either with us or against us. As he saw, it in the wake of a devastating attack on America, there was no middle ground.

But Obama seemingly has been trying overly hard to not be George W. Bush and instead comes across as unsure of himself and overly accommodating when he should be more forceful. Perhaps neither Bush or Obama’s approach is exactly right.

I think what Romney references is the need for Obama to speak with more conviction of the great accomplishments of our Nation in freeing people from tyranny rather than being so quick to point out our own failings. Certainly our detractors can point to where we may have failed but the President shouldn’t be so quick to do so. And, while I would applaud Obama for trying to improve relations around the World, it is rather premature for the American President to be seen smiling and giving the high-five handshake with Hugo Chavez. At this point, he should be civil but not overly friendly with a dictator who has shown no inclination towards reform.

More importantly, Romney points to the importance for America’s new leader to be seen as strong and willing to take the steps necessary to confront problems in the World. One can argue that the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 was a test of the resolve of America’s youthful new President orchestrated by Nikita Khrushchev who saw Kennedy as somewhat weak. It was a test that Kennedy passed and that our latest President might avoid by adapting a stronger posture.

Perhaps that posture shouldn’t be as obstinate as George W. Bush but not quite as soft Obama has been thus far either.

Posted by: Ci2Eye | April 21, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Observer44:

Last time I checked, a blockade against North Korea would be tantamount to an act of war.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"Timidity"? What countries, exactly, does Romney think Obama should attack or invade?

Posted by: Observer44 | April 21, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

JRM2 writes:
So nearly ALL conservatives agree that Ronald Reagan is their shining example of a leader, so why do they have a problem with returning to his "values", like the same tax rates.

Why is it when he sets the rate it is acceptable but when Obama says he is going to let tax cuts expire (returning to the days of Reagan's tax-code) they throw a hissy-fit and declare the death of the American way by a socialist and marxist leader?

______________

Comparing Reagan to Obama is not an apples to apples comparison. Reagan brought the top tax rate DOWN to 28% whereas Obama will effectively be RAISING the top tax rate (to an amount equal to the Clinton years, not the Reagan years - check historic tables)

And socialism comes into the conversation because of what Obama is using the tax dollars for - to redistribute wealth to the lower tax brackets! He is paying for those tax breaks through taxation of the upper brackets.

Posted by: boosterprez | April 21, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

BTW: he wasn't "re-elected" three times, either (so we were both wrong ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

How can I be "pathologically incapable of admitting error" if I also said you are right, that I forgot about his re-election as a PART-TIME "lowly state senator"?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

Your exact words were "correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush was also RE-ELECTED Gov. which Obama has yet to do in any office he has held."

And you were wrong -- BHO was re-elected to one of the offices he has held. So, in the sense that you specifically asked me to correct you, it does matter regardless of what you think about elections in Chicago. But I know that you are pathologically incapable of admitting error.

THOSE are the facts.

Posted by: mnteng | April 21, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I couldn't care less, especially since I enjoy pointing out your (continued) refusal to answer said question. Claiming "it misses the point" is not an answer.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"You OTOH couldn't even answer a simple question (below)."

If your feelings have been hurt, I apologize. My post at 3:32 should suffice to address the question you seem to think so important. In my opinion, it misses the point.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Ci2Eye:

I agree that GWB had more executive experience than BHO, but I don't agree that the "timidity" to which Romney refers is necessarily due to a lack of executive experience on BHO's part. I think there are significant differences in temperament and personality between the two that can more than explain their different approaches to foreign policy. GWB was more of a brusque "my way or highway" guy and BHO is more of a listener. GWB was proud to expound on American exceptionalism at all times, whereas BHO seems to view the admission of failings as a sign of strength.

I just think that BHO is much more deliberate a person than GWB, who was a bit rash.

Posted by: mnteng | April 21, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

You OTOH couldn't even answer a simple question (below).

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

No, bsimon1, I actually said: "Like THAT matters." THAT being mnteng's argument (which I already said: "correct me if I'm wrong") getting dead people to vote him in again as a lowly state senator matters to whether Obama is the most inexperienced person to be elected President in at least 50 years.

Those are the FACTS.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

JakeD writes "Like [facts] matter."


Says it all right there.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

Like that matters.

drindl:

Carter and Clinton were both worse Presidents than (either) Bush.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

this romney piece is a piece of crap.

talk about instilling fear into the american people.
what? Romney wanted President Obama to go to every country, stand on their soil, at their podium and tell them
"you will do as we say, period".

Right Romney, you jerk.

AND, by not doing so, our President weakened America!

Did Romney want President Obama drawing lines in the sand everywhere? To prove what. That we are the GREAT UNITED STATES!
And then tell me, where is he going to draw a line in the sand.
N. Korea? How?
Russia? How?
China? How?

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 21, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of whether the Texas governor's post is "weak" relative to other governors, George W. Bush had presided over the second largest state and an economy far larger than many nations plus served in leadership roles in the private sector so one can conclude that he had executive experience while Obama did not.

I am not here to defend Bush but he was more experienced than Obama and I think the perceived timidity of Obama that Romney references stems from his inexperience as a leader of anything and his desire not to incite anyone so early in his Presidency.

Posted by: Ci2Eye | April 21, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

You're wrong. BHO was re-elected to the IL Senate 3 times from the 13th district.

Posted by: mnteng | April 21, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse


jake:
You actually listened to Palin explain that she knows the Bush Doctrine.
PUHLEEZE Jake!
Palin understands nothing in the real Wash DC.
The Bush Doctrine was a solid document presented to the UN in Feb. 2003. It outlines the "ideal democracy" and steps to achieve it. Somewhat like 41's New World Order.

Operation Enduring Freedom had the premise of "you are with us or against us". Bush made it very clear in his "hot pursuit" speeches and his "wanted dead or alive" speeches.......that you are with us or against us and any state harboring terrorists will have to deal with us.
That was surrounding 9-11.

The Iraq War and prior to it (Feb 2003) was the birth of the Bush Doctrine.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 21, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Whether bush had experience or not is moot. He was one of the most incompetent presidents in history--that's all that counts.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

I understand that the TX Gov. is one of the weakest governorships in the nation -- Obama was even that -- correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush was also RE-ELECTED Gov. which Obama has yet to do in any office he has held.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"Whether you like George W. Bush or not, he had far more experience upon entering office than Barack Obama. That is simply a fact."

Posted by: Ci2Eye | April 21, 2009 3:42 PM |

It is also a fact that the TX Gov. is one of the weakest governorships in the nation. The Texans out there will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure, but the TX Constitution dispersed many of the executive functions among a broad array of elected officials who don't even have to be of the same political party as the Gov. I think it is called a "plural executive", since the Gov. doesn't exert direct control over any of the other officials. Also, the Legislature only meets every other year in TX.

So, while GWB might have had a bit more executive experience than BHO upon entering the Presidency, to say that he had "far more experience" in governmental affairs is a stretch, countering GWB's executive experience with BHO's legislative (state and federal) experience.

Posted by: mnteng | April 21, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

So nearly ALL conservatives agree that Ronald Reagan is their shining example of a leader, so why do they have a problem with returning to his "values", like the same tax rates.

Why is it when he sets the rate it is acceptable but when Obama says he is going to let tax cuts expire (returning to the days of Reagan's tax-code) they throw a hissy-fit and declare the death of the American way by a socialist and marxist leader?

Posted by: JRM2 | April 21, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

Did you see that I answered your questions to me? It's not that hard to do so ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"Additionally, Bush had started and run an oil company and run a baseball team and his father was a former President.
Posted by: Ci2Eye | April 21, 2009 3:42 P"
---------
He was gifted into the Texas Rangers and traded Sammy Sosa shortly before he became a big star, his oil ventures all failed miserably.

He just had the wrong kind of experience, that has become painfully evident.

Let's see how Obama does.

Posted by: JRM2 | April 21, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

tbn writes
"It was all Gorbachev. And he was never recognized for it."

Not in this country, but he is elsewhere.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

VTDuffman:

You could easily win the argument if Obama actually had more experience -- so, as bad as you think Bush's experience was, it doesn't matter -- Obama had less.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

TheBabeNemo:

My reference to "Sarah" was to the most recent GOP candidate for Vice President and current Governor of Alaska. She (infamously) was asked about the Bush Doctrine, which I know as:

"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Nothing about "democracy" in that. The National Security document I referenced does, indeed, cover the spreading democracy portion you mentioned.

Is that clear enough for you now?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"Additionally, Bush had started and run an oil company and run a baseball team and his father was a former President."

Bush ran both the Oil Company and the Baseball franchise into the ground. Are you sure you want to use that as "experience."

Gtting into a debate over "experience" with you is a waste of time anyway. You have already come to the conclustion that President Obama is the "least experienced," so you will dismiss any experience on the part of Obama to prove yourself right. Your premise isn't objective, therefore no one can "win" the argument.

Posted by: VTDuffman | April 21, 2009 3:52 PM | Report abuse

"Additionally, Bush had started and run an oil company and run a baseball team and his father was a former President.
Posted by: Ci2Eye | April 21, 2009 3:42 P"
---------
He was gifted into the Texas Rangers and traded Sammy Sosa shortly before he became a big star, his oil ventures all failed miserably.

He just had the wrong kind of experience, that has become painfully evident.

Let's see how Obama does.

Posted by: JRM2 | April 21, 2009 3:52 PM | Report abuse

" a reference to the greeting between Obama and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez that has been seized on by the right as a sign of Obama's acquiescence to the international community."

'a greeting' -- all this manufactured outrage over a greeting. This is how hysterical these rabid wingers are. every day they manufacture a new 'outrage' to have a hissy fit over.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Reagan had more blood on his hands than bush ever will...

"During the 1980s the Reagan administration sponsored an anti-Sandinista guerilla movement known as the Contras (a proxy paramilitary based in Honduras and Costa Rica, largely consisting of northern highlanders known as the Milpas and led by former Somoza regime soldiers) against the democratically elected Sandinista government in Nicaragua. The resulting war killed over 50,000 people, mostly civilians.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse


no....Gorby was always the force behind the wall coming down.

answer my other question jake.

i was not mentioning the national strategy document of 2002 at all.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 21, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

TheBabeNemo:

Didn't you just "recognize" Gorbachev for it? And, if you really think that's the first time someone has printed "It was all Gorbachev" you haven't read the NYT lately, have you?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

jake-what are you talking about?

No wonder Sarah was confused. I didn't even know you were referring to the National Security Strategy of the United States published over a year later on September 20, 2002.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 21, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that the rightwingers want a dictator who destroys the checks and balances of our democracy? I really don't get it.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Ci2Eye:

Thanks (but they don't care about the truth, even though the only "hedge fund" involvement among all the Presidential contenders was DEMOCRAT John Edwards ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

romney is nuts.
and so is anyone else if they think Reagan ended the Soviet Union.
I'm so sick of Reagan getting all the credit for that when he made one sentence in a speech.
He was so far into Alzheimers by that speech, he probably didn't even remember saying it. Nancy probably wrote it.

It was all Gorbachev. And he was never recognized for it.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 21, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

knjincvc,

George W. Bush was the former governor of Texas prior to becoming President. As such he had presided over the second largest state by both geography and population. His state has the second highest gross state product in the United States. It was second only to California and if it were a nation, its GDP would rank 15th in the World.

Additionally, Bush had started and run an oil company and run a baseball team and his father was a former President.

Whether you like George W. Bush or not, he had far more experience upon entering office than Barack Obama. That is simply a fact.


Posted by: Ci2Eye | April 21, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1 writes:
"The question, within the context of this Fix post, is: what does Mitt think?"

First paragraph: We should be proud of the Bay of Pigs.

Second paragraph: We should never criticize previous administrations' foreign policy while on foreign soil.

Third paragraph: "Words matter"

Fourth paragraph: Seize DPRK funds, sever their banking access, blockade because they launched a missile.

Fifth paragraph: Sanction Iran because DinnerJacket said they can enrich uranium. Hint at military options.

Sixth paragraph: BHO is a pussy.

Posted by: mnteng | April 21, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

TheBabeNemo:

No wonder Sarah was confused. I didn't even know you were referring to the National Security Strategy of the United States published over a year later on September 20, 2002.

drindl, hiberniantears, and bsimon1:

If we are all done discussing Romney, and want to discuss Reagan now, I think it's only fair I should tell you I think the Boland Amendment(s) proporting to outlaw Iran-Contra arms deals were un-Constitutional infringements on the President's role as commander in chief. Bring it on!

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse


bsimon: agreed
mitt and repulsives don't want us to be on the correct side of the river on any issue.

it's so inherent in the GOP (party).
Bring people down.
Tell them why --because, of course, they messed up.
Instill them with fear of messing up.
Inspire them with fear that if they mess up again, OMG, we will get you.
Instill with fear that our President is driving the country down.
Inspire them to be fearful of what our President is doing.

the definition of terrorism is:
"to instill and inspire fear".
Republicans are great at it.
WMD is one example.
My god, Hussein had a bomb ready to launch at us...and all we ended up finding were 2 drums of toxic waste (from landfills) at the end of a long watering tunnel (but that tunnel was for transporting washing machines and dryers full of chemical weapons).
yeah, sure, right, fine.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 21, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

BabeNemo writes
"Yes, the words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them."

Or, to paraphrase, "words matter". The question is about more than words, however. Approach is important too. President Obama seems to think that treating others with respect is more productive than being demeaning or insulting. Sometimes it is productive to meet with our enemies, despite what the critics say. President Nixon did this, when he visited China. President Reagan did this as well, in meeting with Soviet leaders. The question, within the context of this Fix post, is: what does Mitt think?

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Yes, there was all that business In Latin america with Reagan funding the rightwing paramilitaries that slaughtered thousands of innocents. That probably kept him too busy to fool with Saddam.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

That's right... Ronny Raygun also sold weapons from Tehran to Kabul to Islamabad. That definitely helped.

Posted by: hiberniantears | April 21, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

reagan also installed the shah of iran, didn't he?

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 21, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

"Reagan had bigger fish to fry than Saddam at the time."

Funneling arms between Ortega & Tehran?

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse


the Bush Doctrine is an actual "thesis".
In print.
It describes democracy and how democracy is the only way to go.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 21, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Just to set the record straight:

Romney was a venture capitalist not a hedge fund manager. He founded Bain Capital which helped finance and start businesses.

Romney's father was the former chair of AMC and a former governor of Michigan but only had a fraction of the wealth accumulated by his son. According to published reports, upon his father’s death, Mitt Romney donated much of his inheritance to Brigham Young University for the creation of the George Romney Institute of Public Management. With the rest, he set up trust funds for his children. Thus, Romney’s wealth today came more from his own work and diligence than from his inheritance.

One may disagree with his statements today regarding Obama's actions as President but that is no reason to minimize his achievements or mischaracterize the nature of his work.

Posted by: Ci2Eye | April 21, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse


jake--sure, there are things he COULD say that would not expand freedom.
but he hasn't said them.

so the answer to your original question is yes--either way.
"The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them"?
Yes, the words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them.
Yes, and also, PUTTING specific words that you THINK were spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them.


Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 21, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Didn't we go over this already? Reagan had bigger fish to fry than Saddam at the time.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Ronald Raygun sold Saddam his army, so yes.

Posted by: hiberniantears | April 21, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Just for clarification: was Ronald Reagan part of the "my way or the highway" group?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Maybe if you and others would stop giving credence to these GOP fools, they will cease their useless chatter. Romney is just another rich kid who has had an easy time in life. He knows nothing about diplomacy or even working with the "enemy" to gain trust. He is part of the "my way or the highway" group. He, Newt, Ensign, et al should get their thongs untangle and stop trying to imagine what is not there.

Posted by: hadelaide | April 21, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I thought the "Bush Doctrine" was that the U.S. would make no distinction between terrorists and their sponsors, where ever they may be? As for my (hypothetical) question about Obama -- it is a logical follow-up to your answer -- why can't I ask it, other that pointing out that there are indeed things he could say which would NOT expand freedom?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

What would North American Jesus do?

God guided Bush, so he claimed. God told Bush to never listen to our adversaries. But do tell them they're our enemies. Threaten them. Even attack them. And please also torture anyone you think might be our enemy. Just make it up as you go. Ignore the Constitution and the rule of law. Just do whatever you want and don't explain yourself. Just tell everyone its for freedom. And if you do these things in God's name the world will be a better place and we will all be closer to God.

Look how well that's worked. America was never so screwed up. I give Obama a lot credit for working to restore our image abroad. Bush left an enormous mess of everything.

Posted by: jryan758 | April 21, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse


jake:
you can't ask the second question--it is an assumption--you're taking your first question out of context.

"So, if Obama said "I have just signed an Executive Order rounding up Japs into internment camps" that would EXPAND freedom?!"

your first question has been answered in my previous post.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 21, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse


Bush Doctrine:
in Feb 2003, when Bush had to "sell the Iraq war to the UN"...before March 19th, 2003 deadline to Saddam...
he went to the UN with 2 documents.
A Decade of Defiance and Deception (on Saddam's breaking 16 resolutions, WMD, etc)
and
the Bush Doctrine.
The Bush Doctrine was the document that pi***ed everyone off.
A Decade of Defiance and Deception was indeed a wonderful document and sold the war to the UN, because the UN hadn't done much as you know---with Hussein.
The "sell" of the Iraq War, that Baby Bush did in Feb. 2003 to the UN, was a good sell, except for the Bush Doctrine.
Which, BTW....dictates how countries should live.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 21, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Back to bsimon (for just a moment):

I will give you credit for TheBabeNemo answering your question. You see, that wasn't so hard -- regardless of your opinion of my negotiating style -- was it? Now, here are my answers to your questions.

Q. After criticizing others' strawmen, why do you create your own?

A. I didn't create a strawman. Quoting from MITT Romney's op ed (that you still refuse to read and BTW mnteng refused to accurately summarize) is not, by definition, a strawman on a thread about MITT Romney's op ed.

Q. Is it the job of the President to promote freedom abroad?

A. Yes, according to none other than JFK (see Inaugural speech). Cf. Washington's Farewell Address.

Q. If so, how much time, money and other resources should be devoted to this agenda?

A. No more than 5% IMHO (although physically travelling abroad is not necessary and, I think, Obama should lead by example during this economic CRISIS by refusing to take Air Force One anywhere except in an emergency).

Q. Is it, to pick a random example, more or less important than focusing on the domestic agenda?

A. Both foreign and domestic agendas are vitally important to the United States. Domestic is probably more than 50/50 right now, given the economic CRISIS that is sinking further and further. That doesn't mean Obama can afford to ignore foreign policy.

Q. Should taxes be raised to promote a freedom agenda?

A. No.

Q. Or should other budget areas be cut (if so, what?)?

A. Yes. For starters, the National Endowment for the Arts (that's $350 million right there ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

So, if Obama said "I have just signed an Executive Order rounding up Japs into internment camps" that would EXPAND freedom?!

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Which "Bush Doctrine" are you talking about, dude (he asks in his best Sarah Palin accent)?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Do you at least agree that "The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them"?

that one???

too general jakey.
the words of a leader --yes, can do either.
however, in Obama's case.....his words will expand the frontiers of freedom.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 21, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

jakey--what question is that?
didn't read it

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 21, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse


oh give me a freaking break here folks.

We sure the heck DID dictate to other countries.
It was called the Bush Doctrine (after 9-11) and his administration constantly shoved it down every country's throat.
Along with other "things", this is the one reason we are not liked. The Bush Doctrine TELLING everyone-telling every head of every country, that at ALL COSTS, you will have democracy or we won't like you.


This is why we are not liked.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 21, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Here it is (one last time):

Do you at least agree that "The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them"?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

TheBabeNemo:

Can YOU answer the question bsimon refuses to answer?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

After he sat listening to a 52-minute tirade about America the Fascist Imperialist tyranny, a droll Barack Obama told the media that the rant by Nicaragua’s Daniel C. Ortega “wasn’t about me.” No, it wasn’t. It was about America which evidently didn’t concern the narcissistic(snip) And it did not occur to him to defend America since he himself wasn’t named: thus the narcissism. Also the lack of patriotism.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | April 21, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas.

GET A FREAKING LIFE ROMNEY! How the heck did our President "shrink from defending liberty here in the Americas".
Taking out of context you fundamentalist Mormon.
Because President Obama did not "recognize" Ortega's rantings.
Romney is clutching at straws bigtime and we will begin to see his "ignorance" more and more.

Ortega rants and raves. No one shows up for his ranting & raving.
Iran's Amadin...whatever rants & raves the same way and the important countries don't show up and the countries that are there, leave.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 21, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

knjincvc:

Using perfect 20/20 hindsight, we can definitely see warning signs clearly now. The generally-accepted definition of "recession" however is negative GDP for two entire quarters. Some economists prefer a more robust definition of a 1.5% rise in unemployment within 12 months.

sean_donaldson:

After 4-8 years of Obama (especially if the Anti-Christ meme grows), sure. My wife and I are Christian conservatives, and so are many of our friends and family.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Its irrelevant. Does anyone really think the Christian Right is going to turn out in massive numbers for Romney? And does anyone think its possible for the Republicans to win the White House without a massive Christian Right turn out? Romney can attempt to be Bush3 all he likes ... unfortunately for him the community he needs aren't going to hold their noses and vote for him.

Posted by: sean_donaldson | April 21, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

“Given the economic crisis that hit in September-October,”

The recession started in 2007 but all of the GOP candidates were telling us the “Economy is basically sound”.. go shopping…..don’t worry…..but be fearful…

Posted by: knjincvc | April 21, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Outstanding article Romney penned in the National Review ... worth reading.

Brings up a lot of questions about how the constant criticizing of the United States by a sitting president (especially on foreign soil)is being perceived in the world.

My question would be: What have you gained by denigrating and marginalizing your own country? Bowing to foreign kings? How again does that help us, and our allies?

I can see where Iran, Muslims, and even Russia gain ... but their gain is our loss.

Posted by: playfair109 | April 21, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"I would be happy to answer your questions to me just as soon as you answer my question already pending to you."


Hard line negotiations, Mitty Style!


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

“I challenge you to tell me which former President during that time frame had less experience.”

That would be the part time governor from Texas.

“Romney has a health care and energy plan that relies on private business rather than the government.”

Well so far insurance companies have done wonders for health care. 47 million Americans without health care and millions more under insured.
Energy plan that gives tax breaks to oil companies who then fix oil prices.

Romney is a hedge fund manager and more of the same.

Posted by: knjincvc | April 21, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

mnteng- thanks for the summary.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

This is the same guy that when running for President said he would bring the jobs back to Detroit. Than said afterwards, let them go bankrupt.

He is against legacy debts. In English that means pensions and medical benefits. He places no blame on the companies, just the workers.

He also has no foreign policy experience, he should just shut up.

Posted by: tailpipe62 | April 21, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

You're not missing much by not reading the piece. Mitt's advocating seizing DPRK funds and blockading them because they shot a malfunctioning missile. Yeah, that's a great idea. I'm sure the Chinese wouldn't mind having the Seventh Fleet floating around less than 100 miles off their coast.

Then Mitt makes the mistake of assuming that Ahmad-dinnerjacket is the ruler of Iran just because he has the title of President.

It's a relatively juvenile piece that could have been written by any of the College Republicans here.

Posted by: mnteng | April 21, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

EarlC:

Are you still around?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

knjincvc:

Given the economic crisis that hit in September-October, I think I can make a fairly good argument that the Harvard MBA would have beat the pants off Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"If it wasn't for everyone else that ran for President last year... THEN Romney would be president. Very true."

2008 was not a GOP year. Romney can carp all he wants about President Obama but the bottom line; after 8 years of the cheney/bush administration even a GOP president would be fighting an uphill PR campaign to restore America's world reputation.

Posted by: knjincvc | April 21, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

bsimon:

I would be happy to answer your questions to me just as soon as you answer my question already pending to you.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"Do you at least agree that "The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them"?"


After criticizing others' strawmen, why do you create your own?

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone else, then, who wants to actually discuss the topic of Romney's op ed (having read it, hopefully)?"


C'mon Jake. Just take the excerpt cited by The Fix.

Is it the job of the President to promote freedom abroad?

If so, how much time, money and other resources should be devoted to this agenda?

Is it, to pick a random example, more or less important than focusing on the domestic agenda?

Should taxes be raised to promote a freedom agenda? Or should other budget areas be cut (of so, what?)?

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Ci2Eye:

That assumes that Obama even took a valid oath of office ; )

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

Did you read the op ed piece?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Drindl,

Rather than spew attacks on the former President, tell me why you "LOL" at the statement that Obama is the most inexperienced President in at least 50 years. It is a fact. I challenge you to tell me which former President during that time frame had less experience.

I don't ask for an analysis of their accomplishments in office but rather their relevant experience acquired prior to taking the oath-of-office.

Posted by: Ci2Eye | April 21, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

knjincvc:

Romney has a healthcare and energy plan that relies on private business rather than the government. God willing, if I am still alive in 2012, I will vote for him.

bsimon:

Do you at least agree that "The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them"?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

"And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking."

Talking about bold action is always easier from the sidelines. What does The Mitt propose to do? Invade North Korea? Surely, he's not talking about economic sanctions because history has taught us that those don't work, at least for DPRK.

And clearly Willard doesn't remember the reactions of JFK, RMN, RWR, or even GWB at their first meetings with other foreign leaders if he's worried about BHO's "silence, smiles, and a handshake". Perhaps he would have rather had BHO get up to the lectern after Chavez and say, "El Diablo esta recien aqui. Tiene un olor a azufre."?

Posted by: mnteng | April 21, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney, does not know nothing about running a business or a country he is an other Bully Repulican, what did the bully did to us for the past 8 years, jusr bankrupt our generation and next generation.

Posted by: tqmek1 | April 21, 2009 12:37 PM


You're to stupid to be here, go away.

Posted by: askgees | April 21, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” a surge of confidence rose that would ultimately breach the bounds of the evil empire."

Evil empire ... axis of evil it's all name calling.

When Reagan made his speech the USSR was already imploding due the collapse of oil prices.

After all of Romney's flip-flops in 2008 he's toast as a presidential contender. I can see him as VP but conservative republicans first have to find a leader and define exactly what their plans are for health care,energy (besides drill baby drill)financial regulatory issues, environment, repaying social security ....

Posted by: knjincvc | April 21, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else, then, who wants to actually discuss the topic of Romney's op ed (having read it, hopefully)?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Mitt is the ultimate empty suit.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2009 1:42 PM

That's not possible, Obama holds that position.

Posted by: askgees | April 21, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"Read the article, then we can discuss."

Sorry. I don't follow links to the review.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

"If it wasn't for Huckabee, Romney would be President of the United States today."

Thank God for Huckabee. I can't imagine what we'd be facing now if we had a President who couldn't beat Gomer Pyle for the nomination.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

Yes. Read the article, then we can discuss.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

EarlC:

Ask and ye shall receive.

http://www.iwar.org.uk/homesec/resources/olympic-security/romney.htm

"The after-action reports we received from Atlanta, and the lessons that were passed on to us by the public safety community, indicated that many of the problems in Atlanta reflected how slow we were as a nation to begin to recognize that terrorism was becoming a security issue inside the United States. When Atlanta began preparing for the 1996 Games, there had not been a successful foreign terrorist attack on US soil. Then, in 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing happened, and most of us heard of Osama Bin Laden for the first time. Not long thereafter, Timothy McVeigh stunned us all by his brutal attack on innocent people in Oklahoma City. Meanwhile, in Japan, terrorists used Sarin gas in the subways – showing how easy it was to wreak havoc and death in what had previously been regarded as a safe urban area. The reports we received indicated that with each new incident, the planners would develop ways to prevent and respond to these types of attacks. However, the planning effort faced an incredible obstacle due to the dozens and dozens of federal, state and local law enforcement and public safety entities involved in Games security and safety – with no clear command and control structure for Games planning. There was relatively clear understanding of who was in charge after an incident occurred – but there was no structure establishing who was in charge of planning for Games safety and preventing a terrorist incident from happening."

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Romney always keeps his collar buttoned and his necktie tight, so the foreskin won't slip up.

Posted by: FlownOver | April 21, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"The leader of the free world has been a timid advocate of freedom at best," wrote Romney. "And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking."


Does Mitty give us any ideas of what he would have done, were he in Obama's place? Or is he, as is typical for his type, just criticizing without offering a reasonable alternative. It wasn't too many years ago that conservatives scorned nation building. Yet now the President is supposed to be focusing on a 'freedom' agenda? How, by insulting the elected leaders of south america who initiate policies with which we don't agree? Like it or not, Chavez, Morales & Ortega have been elected by the citizens in their countries. What's Mitt's proposal, that we invade those countries and appoint puppets properly deferential to us? I suppose he thinks the 50-odd year Cuba embargo has been a wild success too.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

'Whether one is Republican or Democrat, the fact is Barack Obama is the most inexperienced President we've had in at least the last 50 years.'

LOL. after Uncurious George the cokehead fratboy, I'm amazed these loons can even spew this crap.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

If it wasn't for everyone else that ran for President last year... THEN Romney would be president. Very true.

Posted by: hiberniantears | April 21, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

And, does anyone else want to discuss the thread topic?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Let all the Republicans put themselves out on the same limb. President Obama has done exactly what he has said that he would do. He won the election. I never heard Romney or any other Republicans voice any loud criticism against Bush for almost 8 years. When faced with a loss in November, they started campaigning against Bush.

At this time when America needs all the friends that it can get, Romney and others need to watch their tongues. As long as Obama is not doing harm, he is helping us win friends and hopefully starting to make inroads on the terrorism front. Again, one less enemy helps. Now, I would like to hear Romney's take on domestic terrorists.

Posted by: EarlC | April 21, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Whether one is Republican or Democrat, the fact is Barack Obama is the most inexperienced President we've had in at least the last 50 years. He went from being an unaccomplished junior Senator who had served less than a single term to being President of the United States. That rapid accension shows. He had never met foreign leaders or traveled significantly until late in the campaign and now he appears uncomfortable and ill-at-ease during his visits with foreign heads-of-state.

It's as if he knows he is in over his head so he tries to be friendly, likable and is willing to say what he knows foreign leaders want to hear in an attempt to get along and be accepted. His behavior is typical of someone newly promoted that doesn't yet have the experience to fully perform their designated role.

I would hope that with time he would display more strength and courage but I think for now, Romney is correct in his observations that the new President has been timid in his advocacy for freedom and American exceptionalism.

Posted by: Ci2Eye | April 21, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Do you want to see my voter registration card?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

hiberniantears:

If it wasn't for Huckabee, Romney would be President of the United States today.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

JakeD is as much of a registered independent as Romney is a Catholic. PUHLEEEEEZE!

Posted by: hiberniantears | April 21, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

BobbyYarush:

Maybe it is "faith" -- call me old fashion if you want -- whatever it is, I am registered Independent, and I will NOT vote for either candidate who gets abortion and the Second Amendment off their agenda. Sorry.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Mitt is the ultimate empty suit.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Romney... isn't he the guy who was run out of Massachusetts, and then got run out of the Republican presidential primary? Oh right, he is. This guy has about as much credibility as the guy walking around Times Square in a sandwhich board advertising the imminent return of Jesus.

Posted by: hiberniantears | April 21, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Clearly the target audience is the base, not the public. If he published an Op-ed on foreign policy in the NYT, Wa Post, WSJ or other major newspaper, the move might be called bold. A 'preaching to the choir' piece in the Review is not particularly significant, in my view.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 21, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Its easy for Romney to now sit back and what how the public reacts to Obamas national and international policies... only to use the tactic next election cycle... this is the worse type of candidate... anything for power. Your fooling yourself if you think Mitt Romney is the answer to the nations woes. Republicans are so out of touch its a mazing. Republicans are going to have to step into the 21st century and get abortion and the second ammendment off of their adgenda. It really is laughable when I hear the terms christian conservatism... Republicnas that continue to consider these types as their base ... will never be elected again. Why is it these educated people dont see this?? Faith?? :)

Posted by: BobbyYarush | April 21, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"Funny, I haven't noticed Republicans who actually know anything about foreign policy - people like Condi Rice or Colin Powell or Brent Scowcroft - blasting Obama"

Condi Rice knew something about foreign policy????
News to me!

Posted by: knjincvc | April 21, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

woodard3:

What part of "2012" is not "moving on"?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney amassed most of his wealth at Bain & Co. and its affiliated private equity firm.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/11/AR2007051102183.html

In other words: he EARNED it!

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Romney is just another sore Republican Loser. Hey you guys lost,time to move on, and come up with something new... remember we Democrats have great memories for the most part and are going to hinder any GOP efforts to get anything done. Sound familiar?

Posted by: woodard3 | April 21, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

knjincvc:

Ronald Reagan did not defeat the Soviet Union by simply "yelling and name calling". As for MITT's wealth, he has given away more to charity than he ever got from his dad.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Mitt worked for Bain Capital. Any shmuck who thinks he cares about the ideology of either party has their head so far up their breaches that their... uh... head is um... well... coming out of their mouth.

The larger point here is that nobody bats an eye whilst the GOP propped up Saddam, or Musharaff, or the House of Saud, or the Chinese Communist Party... but honoz! Obama shook hands and received a book from a... wait a second, from a what? Oh right, a democratically elected Venezuelan president who would probably be a heck of a lot more pro-American right now had the Bush Administration not led a coup attempt against him in the earlier part of this decade. Chavez is a bully, but he's an elected bully, and one who is considerably less autocratic and entrenched than, say, Putin... You remember Putin, right GOP? No? Well, Putin is the guy who eyes you gazed longingly into whilst thinking warmly on the nature of his soul.

Posted by: hiberniantears | April 21, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

Well, for starters, MITT was quoting JFK and FDR. Seriously, "Next canard?" was actually a rhetorical question -- you keep it up though -- anyone else want to discuss the thread topic?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"He didn't inherit his money and worked hard for it."

Mitt Romney is the son of former Michigan Governor, American Motors chairman and 1968 presidential candidate George W. Romney, and 1970 Michigan U.S. Senatorial candidate Lenore Romney.

Romney is from wealth just like Bush only smarter.

My question, who wrote the latest conservative republican talking points?
They all seem to be reciting from the same play book.

I presume conservative republicans would rather President Obama resort to name calling like the last administration did.

Chavez give us our oil!

Evo MORALES give us our oil, tin, natural gas, zinc, tungsten, antimony, silver, iron, lead, gold and lithium!!!

Ortega give us our Iran-contra arms and money as well as any offshore oil!!

Yup! Yelling and name calling has worked well for the USA!!!

Posted by: knjincvc | April 21, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"Since I dispute that Afghanistan and Iraq was "a disastrous war that wasted a trillion dollars of taxpayer money", yes, I think accepting that book was much worse. "

Since one can't dispute reality, contrary to what you teabaggers think, i have no comment because you will only respond with vitriol and propaganda.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Definition of a canard: everything that ever came out of Mitt romney's mouth. How's that JakeD?

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

twshen5:

Sabato doesn't even anticipate some tragoc catastrophe pushing the GOP back into the White House.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

WOW. NOW I'M REALLY WONDERING...

...IS SOMETHING IN THE WIND?


Please see comment on earlier thread about Cheney:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/cheat-sheet/042109white-house-cheat-sheet.html

http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | April 21, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Good pt about the surprise being that Romney spoke out on this issue rather than the content itself. After all, when it comes to vitriol against POTUS, no one entertains quite like Newt. From my perspective, the problem is that his stance does not speak beyond the base. Most of the readers of NRO already agree with him. And for that crowd, he is probably even money w/Palin. I am reading Sabato's "The Year of Obama," and based on the key trends, the GOP party is in serious trouble when it comes to national politics.

Posted by: twshen5 | April 21, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

This thread is about Romney, not Tiahrt or Steele. Do you have another canard about Romney?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Nevadaandy:

I believe that Romney was critical of Bush for not stopping North Korea as well. That's not "fear" mongering. It's called CONSISTENCY.

drindl:

Since I dispute that Afghanistan and Iraq was "a disastrous war that wasted a trillion dollars of taxpayer money", yes, I think accepting that book was much worse. But, then, again by comparison so was the White House Easter Egg fiasco. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Another republican bows and scrapes before Great Leader Comrade Rush-- the spectactle of the entire party groveling at the feet of this fat drug addict is amusing:

'Last week in an interview with the Kansas City Star editorial board, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) risked alienating thousands of ditto-heads by giving his honest opinion of whether Rush Limbaugh was the "de facto leader of the GOP." "No, no, he's just an entertainer," Tiahrt said.

According to the Wichita Eagle (via Kansas Jackass), Tiahrt's office is now also rushing to apologize:

Asked about the episode and resulting Web buzz, Tiahrt spokesman Sam Sackett said Tiahrt was not speaking negatively about Limbaugh but was trying to defend him against the suggestion that Limbaugh could be blamed for the GOP’s woes. "The congressman believes Rush is a great leader of the conservative movement in America -- not a party leader responsible for election losses," Sackett told The Eagle editorial board. "Nothing the congressman said diminished the role Rush has played and continues to play in the conservative movement."

As ThinkProgress has noted, other Republicans have made similar courageous statements, only to eventually back down in the face of Limbaugh's great power.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele: On March 1, Michael Steele went on CNN and said, "Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary. Yes, it's ugly." The next day, he backtracked and told Politico, "My intent was not to go after Rush -- I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh." On Jan. 27, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) noted that Limbaugh and other conservative talkers are able to "stand back and throw bricks" instead of offering "real leadership" in the middle of high-profile public policy battles. The very next day, he went on Limbaugh's show and offered his "sincere regret" for his comments.

Republicans should be careful -- looks like that "foot-in-mouth disease" is contagious.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Was Romney looking for Obama to be like Bush and accuse other leaders of being an Axis of Evil? Name calling only inflammed the leaders of North Korea and Iran, it didn't stop them from pursuing the development of nuclear arms. Obama's foreign policy is based on diplomacy - something the Bush administration ignored.

A terrorist according to the dictionary is one who inspires fear. Romeny,Cheney and the other Republican are therefore terrorists for trying to inspire fear among Americans that the President is not able to keep us safe. They are no better than the Islamic radicals who seek to bring terror on America. They continute to have a my way or the highway mentality.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | April 21, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Romney has no credibility on anything except torturing the family dog, inheriting scads of money and shipping job out of the country.

OH, but I'm sure he can tell you where to get a great facial for $500...

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

MITT can win in 2012 without Massachusetts (but, maybe not without New Hampshire ; )

At least he understands:

The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them. When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” a surge of confidence rose that would ultimately breach the bounds of the evil empire. It was the same confidence that had been ignited decades earlier when John F. Kennedy declared to a people surrounded by Communism that they were not alone. “We are all Berliners,” he said, because “freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confident commitment, spoken as he led us into the war that would free millions in Europe, inspired not only Americans but freedom fighters around the globe: “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” Such words of solidarity, of confidence, and of unwavering conviction that America is indeed “the last best hope on earth” are what freedom’s friends would have expected to hear from our president when our nation was slandered.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Ooooh, accepting a book--omigod. That's much worse than leading the country into a disastrous war that wasted a trillion dollars of taxpayer money and killed thousands of young Americans. Oh so much worse.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

This would be meaningful if not for the fact that nobody in Massachusetts even cares about Romney any longer. Great hair and family wealth can only get you so far.

Posted by: hiberniantears | April 21, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

At least MITT knows enough to avoid shaking Chevez's hand and accepting some anti-American book as a gift.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

661oldpost:

Neither did Ronald Reagan (or Barack Obama, for that matter). There's NO job that can prepare someone adequately for President of the United States. Next canard?

playfair109:

Good point.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

And Mitt Romney claims to know anything about foreign policy based on what? His extensive service in the Senate, or, maybe his stint as special envoy to the Middle East, or his years working in the State Department. Oh, wrong Mitt Romney. This is the loud mouthed, fake Bush knockoff, shoot first and then shoot second, obnoxiously smug Mitt Romney. So his basis for commenting on foreign policy is, what? Is his favorite restaurant the International House of Pancakes?
Funny, I haven't noticed Republicans who actually know anything about foreign policy - people like Condi Rice or Colin Powell or Brent Scowcroft - blasting Obama. Just the loudmouthed kooks who got us into this mess in the first place.

Posted by: 661oldpost | April 21, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Romney has the credentials to be believable on anything he says about business, taxes, foreign policy...

But the real reason I like Romney is that Barney Franks doesn't.

Posted by: playfair109 | April 21, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

MITT Romney was brought in to head the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics after a bribery scandal and economic set-backs made it look doomed for certain disaster. Almost single-handedly, Romney aided in reorganizing the committee and helped to fix the budget shortfall of $379 million, renewing sponsor enthusiasm and pulling off an eventual success.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

tgmek1:

If I understand what you are saying, Romney is just the same as Bush (even though he disagreed with Bush on several domestic and foreign policy issues)? He didn't inherit his money and worked hard for it. You didn't hear about him rescuing the Salt Lake City Olympics?

Good luck running with that in 2012.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney, does not know nothing about running a business or a country he is an other Bully Repulican, what did the bully did to us for the past 8 years, jusr bankrupt our generation and next generation.

Posted by: tqmek1 | April 21, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Sorry fot the double post.

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I wish that Romney has gotten the GOP nomination (if nor foreign policy, at least he knew something about running businesses).

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I wish that Romney had gotten the GOP nomination (if not foreign policy, at least he knows something about fixing businesses).

Posted by: JakeD | April 21, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company