Once Again Romney Says The Same Thing As Obama But Claims It's Different

[Shayna]

Not quite 3 months ago, President Obama gave a speech in Kabul, following a visit with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, during which they came to a mutual agreement on upcoming U.S. troop withdrawal from that country. To wit:

@NY Times

Lest anybody miss the point, the document Mr. Obama signed with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during the whirlwind visit was formally titled the** “Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement.”** It is meant to address the United States’ role even after the American-led alliance ends its combat role in 2014.

“This time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end,” he said in a speech laden with references to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the nation’s response to it.

The speech did not lay out any new timetable for what Mr. Obama said was the goal for Afghanistan: “a future in which war ends and a new chapter begins.”

“Our troops will be coming home,” Mr. Obama said. “Last year, we removed 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. After that, reductions will continue at a steady pace, with more of our troops coming home. And as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.” …

“We’re not going to do it overnight. We’re not going to do it irresponsibly,” Mr. Obama said. “We’re going to make sure that the gains, the hard-fought gains that have been made, are preserved.”

Any details about the exact pace of the withdrawal are unlikely to come before the November elections.

The agreement deals not only with military and security issues, but also with assistance in building Afghanistan’s economy and its democracy, both of which are frail. It allows a vestigial American military presence without committing either side to numbers, and it gives Afghanistan sovereignty without cutting it loose entirely from the United States as a sponsor and mentor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/world/asia/president-obama-visits-kabul-to-sign-partnership-with-afghanistan.html

Flash forward to 2 days ago, Tuesday, July 24, and a speech by Mitt Romney at the Veterans of Foreign Wars’ annual meeting, where Mr. Romney had this to say:

@Mitt Romney

As president, my goal in Afghanistan will be to complete a successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014.

So even the Moonie Times wants to know, “Isn’t that the same as Mr. Obama’s plan?”

Of course not, declares the Romney campaign! [LIE COMING …] “They set a calendar date for the sake of setting a calendar date for pulling the troops out. … Governor Romney’s important distinction was that we want to turn over the power to the Afghan security forces when they’re ready and consistent with the advice and the counsel that is given from commanders on the ground.”

What?

Listen up, team Romney, at some point your guy’s going to have to face President Obama in a debate. When that happens, and he’s asked this question, if he has the gall to tell the American people that same cockamamie nonsense y’all just spewed, he’ll be wiping more than just egg off his face for the remainder of the campaign.

[nogravity]

When Romney says it, it has the requisite Anglo Saxon heritage appreciation.

[Shayna]

Lol :d

[Steve_MB]

@Shayna

… Governor Romney’s important distinction was that we want to turn over the power to the Afghan security forces when they’re ready and consistent with the advice and the counsel that is given from commanders on the ground."

A useful principle. For instance, it could be applied to welfare reform – cut people off when they tell you they’re ready and when a committee of welfare administrators determines that the program can be trimmed back. I’m sure the GOP is getting right on that as we speak…

[adaher]

That’s Romney’s primary shortcoming, he can never just say, “I agree with the President”, because that’s not what his supporters want to hear. And Romney never says anything his supporters don’t want to hear. To the President’s credit, he doesn’t mind punching a hippie if it will help him with the middle.

[Knorf]

Romney’ll just shake that etch-a-sketch, come up with a new position, and pretend it’s what he’s been saying all along. And almost 50% of voters will cheerfully agree.

[adaher]

50% of voters recognize the shortcomings of their favored candidate. It’s the other 50% that are still holding onto an illusion. There is not a single problem with Mitt Romney that doesn’t apply just as much to the President.

[2ManyTacos]

@adaher

50% of voters recognize the shortcomings of their favored candidate. It’s the other 50% that are still holding onto an illusion. There is not a single problem with Mitt Romney that doesn’t apply just as much to the President.

That is not true. Mitt Romney, as a man and as a politician, is completely and utterly spineless, having flip-flopped on virtually issue he has ever addressed just to pander to his base. The saying that “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything” rings true for Romney because his record and statements show that he stands for absolutely nothing.

The POTUS, for any weaknesses that he has, actually has a set of convictions that he hasn’t wavered on as he defended them.

[adaher]

Ah yes, like gay marriage, the individual mandate, Guantanamo, raising taxes in a recession, and a net spending cut.

Now name five things Mitt’s flipped on. Then you’ve proved my point. Name six and maybe you can claim he’s a little worse in that regard. And those five were just ones I thought of in one minute. Given a little research I’m sure there’s a lot more.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@adaher

Now name five things Mitt’s flipped on.

Hereare a few more than five, with cites.

[HansGrosse]

Let me ask you this question, adaher: What WOULD it look like if you had a hypothetical presidential candidate who stood for nothing and flip-flopped on everything just to pander to whoever was listening to him at the time?

After answering that, answer this: How is that hypothetical candidate any different from Mitt Romney?

[adaher]

Are we talking about the President, the only man in history to do a flip-flop-flip(on gay marriage). Not even Romney’s pulled that one off.

If you hate flip floppers who stand for nothing, then you’ll support Gary Johnson. Otherwise, just be honest about your real issue with Mitt Romney: He’s a Republican.

[Inner_Stickler]

I don’t think I’ve ever hidden the fact that I have issues with republican politicians.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@adaher

Are we talking about the President, the only man in history to do a flip-flop-flip(on gay marriage). Not even Romney’s pulled that one off.

But Romney absolutely has…in the more discriminatory direction, the direction that goes the *opposite *way of civil liberty and human rights. Yay for your guy.

[adaher]

All I’m asking is that you be realistic about the candidate you support. It is not necessary to believe a candidate to be perfect, or even very good. We choose the best one available. IMO, given his private sector and gubernatorial experience, and compared to the incumbent’s poor record, the clear choice is Mitt Romney. These are traits the two have which are actually different from one another.

Disliking Mitt Romney because he’s a spineless politician with no core beliefs would be as bad as… well, disliking Barack Obama because he’s a spineless politician with no core beliefs. If you’re realistic about your candidate and have been paying attention, you’ll find that this is actually a trait both have in common.

That was a nice list of Romney flip-flops, but my list of Obama flip-flops was just off the top of my head, and they are performance flip-flops, which gives them more weight. As in, he said he’d do one thing, he did another as President. Can you find examples of things Romney promised to do as governor but then did the opposite?

Positioning yourself to run for national office is something most candidates, including Barack Obama, do. When he was in Illinois, he was far too liberal to be elected President. He changed some of his views and made himself electable. Romney, being a Massachusetts moderate Republican, also opportunistically changed his views to be more acceptable to the electorate. But will he flip back when he’s elected, or will he keep his promises? We know the answer to that question with Obama. On a whole bunch of big issues, he simply wasn’t telling the truth.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

“Tu quoque-a-doodle-doo.”

Got it.

[adaher]

If the President was still against gay marriage, would you be supporting him? I rest my case. Romney’s opponents are mostly complaining about issues they don’t even really care about. Because if they did, it would be a dealbreaker when considering reelecting the President.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Shayna

“They set a calendar date for the sake of setting a calendar date for pulling the troops out. … Governor Romney’s important distinction was that we want to turn over the power to the Afghan security forces when they’re ready and consistent with the advice and the counsel that is given from commanders on the ground.”

Isn’t the Romney camp simply asserting that Obama will turn over power to Afghanistan at the end of 2014, no matter what, while Romney will use that date as a goal, but might not turn over power until later, if need be? I’m not going to parse everything both have said on Afghanistan, but I think that is the gist of Romney’s position.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@adaher

That was a nice list of Romney flip-flops, but my list of Obama flip-flops was just off the top of my head, and they are performance flip-flops, which gives them more weight. As in, he said he’d do one thing, he did another as President. Can you find examples of things Romney promised to do as governor but then did the opposite?

Is there a move pitiful “debating” technique than changing the topic in the middle? Just give us some cites about actual Obama flip-flops.

[Enderw24]

@adaher

Ah yes, like gay marriage, the individual mandate, Guantanamo, raising taxes in a recession, and a net spending cut.

Obama didn’t “flip flop” on gay marriage. He changed his mind. I know you’re sitting there rolling your eyes thinking “what the hell’s the difference?” and the answer is that Obama didn’t come in to the Presidency promising he’d support DOMA and when he announced his support of gay marriage it was just his opinion. He wasn’t rolling it out with a bunch of policy changes. He had one belief. He thought about it and said “you know what? my previous belief was wrong.” People are allowed to do that! I admire people who can come to those conclusions. What’s not acceptable is whitewashing the past and obsfucating the fact that he’d previously not supported gay marriage.

Obama didn’t “flip flop” on the individual mandate. He compromised on what he considered to be the most viable option for passing the legislation. And he did this turning AWAY from his base. People on his side are still pissed about that. Seriously, who the hell flip flops away from your supporters? Romney sure as hell wouldn’t.

Guantanamo. Well, you got me there. That’s a flip flop. See? I’m not entirely unreasonable.