Mr Candidate goes to London

[gamerunknown]

@psudotriton ruber ruber

insulted the country he was visiting.

I’m sure it’d soften the criticism from American exceptionalists. For about a minute.

@adaher

Objectively

Oh, I’m glad you’ve alighted at an empirical scale for such a nebulous concept. Care to share it with the rest of us?

@Finagle

That’s pretty cold.

Like you, I enjoy sitting down and watching dressage with a cold Bollinger in my hand without my wife’s presence. Mitt “man of the people” Romney.

[Typo_Knig]

@adaher

While Fox certainly has a right-wing bent, is the Mitt story the most important thing going on right now? The first thing I observed when this became a big deal was that the sectors of the media that are more liberal have Obama’s back and are trying to create a new story to distract from the previous story that was a problem for the President.

Objectively, neither the “You didn’t build that” gaffe nor Romney’s poor performance in Britain are top stories.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I hate tu quoques in general, but this one is particularly ridiculous.

Romney’s performance in London is not, I think, especially important, except inasmuch as Romney’s sniping at Obama for lackluster diplomatic performance is no longer on the table. How can he mock Obama for his crappy gift to the Prime Minister, after his own London performance? But whether or not it’s important, it’s a set of real gaffes.

Obama didn’t make a gaffe with “you didn’t build that.” It’s not a gaffe, it’s a coordinated, calculated misinformation campaign by right-wing sources who conduct a lie by omission to make it look like he said something that he obviously didn’t say. What he actually said is something that should be noncontroversial. In fact, the Daily Show on Thursday (?) did a wonderful side-by-side comparison of Romney saying almost exactly the same things that Obama was actually saying.

The Romney gaffes are making the news, not because they’re important, but because they’re funny. The Obama “gaffe” is making the news, not because it’s important or funny, but because of a deliberate and dishonest smear campaign.

Don’t sully yourself by becoming party to that campaign.

Romney wants to be POTUS, and Leader of the Free World. The first time he chose to put himself on the international stage, he went for an easy go with (arguably) our closest ally. Romney screwed the pooch big time. That’s news worthy. His performance as a diplomat does not bode well for a possible Romney administration.

And what Left Hand of Dorkness said about Obama’s truth and the republican distortion.

[waterj2]

@adaher

Irrelevant, since Republicans had the majority. They could just vote him down, a much more significant obstacle than the filibuster. Clinton still beat them.

Bill Clinton beat the Republicans? And got his health care bill passed? As I recall he had a majority in Congress for his first two years to do so.

I’d say that Obama’s record at getting Democratic priorities through Congress is better in under four years than Clinton’s was in eight.

[Bozuit]

@denquixote

…when you go about insulting the one head of a state that has had our back for almost two hundred years, no matter how badly we behave.

Come on, she’s not that old.

[Enkel]

@Bob Ducca

So if the focus should continue to be on what’s happening here at home, why is Romney spending a week abroad?

Because if he just went to watch his pony dance, that wouldn’t have been a tax write-off and he’d have had to pay out of pocket. Now that he’s folding a EU vacation into his “job hunting” his campaign can pay for everything.

[adaher]

@The_Hamster_King

Poland is a minefield for the unwary. I predict he says something stupid about the Holocaust.

No! No one would ever do that.

[adaher]

@waterj2

Bill Clinton beat the Republicans? And got his health care bill passed? As I recall he had a majority in Congress for his first two years to do so.

I’d say that Obama’s record at getting Democratic priorities through Congress is better in under four years than Clinton’s was in eight.

He beat them politically. He won reelection and ended up getting credit for the economic boom. Clinton never had to whine that obstruction was ruining his Presidency.

As a matter of fact, I don’t recall any president ever making that excuse. It’s lame and demonstrates a lack of leadership ability.

[Simplicio]

@adaher

As a matter of fact, I don’t recall any president ever making that excuse. It’s lame and demonstrates a lack of leadership ability.

Worked for Truman. (and Obama has the advantage that its actually true of the current Congress, where with Truman it was an exaggeration at best).

[adaher]

Truman, good example. Although not one I’m sure Obama would like to be compared with given that he really should have lost that election and his popularity was in the toilet. Americans really do not like whiners. And Truman is better at seeming steely than Obama is.

Then there’s the fact that all of Obama’s predecessors from Eisenhower to Bush worked well with opposition Congresses, either by cooperating with them or cowing them. Obama is capable of neither because he refuses to change course. He acts as if the 2010 election never happened. He just keeps proposing the same bills he proposed before 2010. Clinton was a lot more deft.

[Bridget_Burke]

Yup, I’d try to change the subject, too, if my Nominee Presumptive had made so many stupid mistakes. Right now, on the front page of the Times site (behind the paywall):

Carl Lewis tells Romney he should stay at home after Olympic gaffe

…Most significantly of all, senior figures in all three political parties suggested that they had not been overwhelmed by Mr Romney in person and were disappointed by his Olympics gaffe. The Republican challenger saw Tony Blair in his Mayfair offices, then went to Parliament for Mr Miliband, and across to Downing Street for Nick Clegg, William Hague, Mr Cameron and finally George Osborne.

One diplomatic source said of the encounters: “It is worse than Sarah Palin in terms of basic diplomacy.” Another said: “There is none of the stardust of his opponent.” Mr Romney is narrowly behind Barack Obama in the polls, however, on 46.4 percentage points against 45.1…

And there’s still a link to an earlier version of the story–with a headline calling him “Nowhere Man”…

[adaher]

No question he fumbled an easy opportunity. But you are making more of it than is there, and the lack of movement in the polls will prove to you how relatively unimportant this is.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@adaher

No question he fumbled an easy opportunity. But you are making more of it than is there, and the lack of movement in the polls will prove to you how relatively unimportant this is.

Do you mean that Romney wasn’t making this trip hoping to move the polls? That this trip wasn’t important to him? I think it was. I think it was supposed to give him some credibility.

Otherwise, it’s just a vacation in the middle of a presidential campaign.

I think spin and distraction are your purposes here, and I think you’ve got alot of work ahead of you.

[adaher]

No, I agree that he was trying to establish foreign policy cred and failed. However, you act as if Presidential candidates need foreign policy cred to win elections. They don’t. Further, sitting Presidents make plenty of diplomatic errors, including the incumbent. Romney’s gaffes are nothing special. Just a missed opportunity.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@adaher

Then there’s the fact that all of Obama’s predecessors from Eisenhower to Bush worked well with opposition Congresses, either by cooperating with them or cowing them.

You’ve got it backwards: opposition congresses have worked with presidents. This group is unique in their leader’s stated efforts to make defeating Obama their #1 priority; when Obama proposes things that they used to support, they oppose them. There is no working with the current batch of Congressional Republicans. They don’t want Obama to look good, and since he campaigned on a spirit of bipartisanship, they absolutely can’t give that to him.

That’s what makes this situation unique.

[adaher]

The other thing that makes this situation unique is that the President hasn’t changed his agenda one iota since the 2010 election defeat. Since Republicans were elected to block that agenda, it would make sense that they would continue to block it until it changed.

The other unique thing is that the Democrats are almost as uninterested in anything the President proposes as the Republicans.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@adaher

No, I agree that he was trying to establish foreign policy cred and failed. However, you act as if Presidential candidates need foreign policy cred to win elections. They don’t. Further, sitting Presidents make plenty of diplomatic errors, including the incumbent. Romney’s gaffes are nothing special. Just a missed opportunity.

I act that way? Wasn’t Mitt the one in London?

So what if other people make e,rrors? That’s just a pathetic statement about your desire to distract.

“A missed opportunity?”. Sure, in the same way that someone failing to do something easy is a missed opportunity. Oh, I didn’t fail Algebra, I just missed my opportunity to pass.

Even Karl Rove called his failure in London a “head scratcher.”. Your spinning is the worst kind of sour grapes. Romney must think it was as important as the campaign time and resources he is spending on it. It’s not just “an opportunity,” it’s an intentional effort on his part. He failed miserably. He ended up with British papers calling him Mitt the Twit.

Spin away, Spinny McSpinnerton.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

You’ve got it backwards: opposition congresses have worked with presidents. This group is unique in their leader’s stated efforts to make defeating Obama their #1 priority; when Obama proposes things that they used to support, they oppose them. There is no working with the current batch of Congressional Republicans. They don’t want Obama to look good, and since he campaigned on a spirit of bipartisanship, they absolutely can’t give that to him.

That’s what makes this situation unique.

This is true. There has never been a group so committed as this. The present Republicans has not only set records in terms of filibusters, but they’ve been willing to do damage to America to serve their own party. The debt ceiling opposition was unprecedented, hurt the US credit rating, and was extremely costly financially.

This group has also been unusual in terms of refusing to support their own positions in service to opposing Obama. He cannot change his agenda to get support, because they just change theirs. Clinton could triangulate because those Republicans had a fixed position he could work from. The present weasel fucks lack the integrity even of the Republicans of Newt Gingich’s era!

[adaher]

More lame excuses. Republicans cooperated with the President to pass the South Korea and Peru FTAs. Republicans have also shown what they believe in by passing actual laws which the President could counter with his own offers. What was the President’s response to the Ryan budget? “We have no plan, we just don’t like yours.” What was Clinton’s response to the Gingrich budget? “They want to balance the budget in seven years, I want to balance the budget in ten.”

Leadership vs. no leadership.

BTW, if the Republicans win the Senate but not the Presidency, and they keep on sending laws to the President which he vetoes without counteroffers, who will be the obstructor then?

[ElvisL1ves]

And now that he’s in Israel, he’s continuing what his party claims to be the tradition that foreign policy stops at our shores by declaring Jerusalem to be its capital, and supporting bombing Iran.

Even Bush sometimes remembered to shut the fuck up.

[adaher]

I knew that one was coming. the reversal will also come on schedule. at least on that one, Romney’s flop flop is the norm. Obama made the same dumb promise.