It’s often because they’re telling people what they want to hear. In the case of presidential candidates and foreign policy, voters really don’t like to hear that there are a lot of situations in which American involvement is either unwanted, impossible, or irrelevant. So foreign policy platforms often consist of little more than “I will get other countries to do what we want” even though that promise is absurd.
One positive thing this did do was to define the differences between Governor Romney’s and Mr. Obama’s foreign policies.
The tone of his speech was clear: I’ll put American troops on the ground in the Middle East again. If nothing else should send you running, it’s the idea of another protracted land war in that cesspool.
The description, “Babe in the woods” comes to mind. Hard to ever credit a GOP accusation of Obama naiveté given this speech by Romney and his summer slip ups.
I’ll give Romney some credit on domestic policy, in that despite his flip-flops, I believe he actually has plans for things like deregulation, tax policy, cutting spending, and so on. Yes, those plans change every two weeks, and the details are kept hidden, but I do believe the positions are the product of original thinking.
His foreign policy platform has zero original content. Virtually every single position he puts forth seems to have no novel thinking or indication of any particular worldview: it is all “You know what Obama is doing? I will do the exact opposite.”
And I’m convinced that the whole reason that Romney talks about the Navy and the number of ships so often isn’t necessarily the national security aspect of how many ships are needed, but a way to appeal to states where shipbuilding is a seriously big industry. Virginia is a close contest and shipbuilding is a big part of the Norfolk economy, for example.
The military means jobs in Virginia. You can’t go wrong here by advocating more military spending. George Allen is running here on the fear that military spending might be cut and I suspect Romney was supporting that, since he was speaking at the Virginia Military Institute.
I don’t think Romney really has a foreign policy himself. He is more of an economy kind of guy, based on his background. He has no doubt taken his foreign policy straight from the party and that’s the same people who were setting the policy during the Bush years. Shouldn’t be any different.
Scary stuff. Attack first ask questions later policies. Can’t understand why anyone in the military would welcome the prospect of having a guy like that in the White House controlling their lives. Hasn’t our volunteer fighting force had enough tours of duty over there already?
I rewatched his foreign policy speech. I noticed how he talked in the beginning of the speech about “the awful costs and consequences of war”. I do not believe that he knows anything about that at all. On the other hand, at the end of his speech when he concludes, “The 21st century can and must be an American century. It began with terror and war and economic calamity. It’s our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom and peace and prosperity.” – “terror and war and economic calamity” - that’s George W. Bush, “freedom and peace and prosperity” - that’s Bill Clinton!
Because as we all know, the backing of the US Government would instantly give great regional credit to the protesters and cause their government to throw up it’s hands and cave in, right? :dubious:
I think that’s exactly what a lot of voters do want to hear. Some still remember Vietnam.
Hmm, here’s an idea. The last presidential debate is going to focus on foreign policy. I wonder if Romney is deliberately making extreme statements now in the hopes that Obama will be coached and prepared to argue against them. Then during the debate, he can pretend he never said those things and advocate more reasonable policies. That will make Obama appear unprepared and Romney will be seen as the reasonable one.
Here’s also an idea:
That this guy can make so much sense and, at the same time, get such a vitriolic criticism by average Americans – and here on Dope – is the biggest mystery of American politics to me.
Is there some reason you didn’t refer to him as President Obama?
My theory is that the undecided American voter likes to be lied to, a lot. Ninety four percent of the country has already made up there mind, the one’s who are undecided are the same ones that watch “Dancing With the Stars” and “Survivor”; not that’s it bad to do so, but it’s mostly escapism from reality (can you really blame them sometimes?). But they are more interested in style than substance, believe that both are blatant liars and don’t believe that it makes a difference which one will win. It would require too much thought on their own part to make an informed decision; but they go to the polls and vote anyway. :smack:
It just might have something to do with the fact that he’s a radical extremist with a completely obnoxious personality.
By saying Rand Paul “makes so much sense,” are you referring to this speech in particular, or his views in general? Because I have to remind you that he’s the guy who went on the Rachel Maddow show, talked about how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 impinges on the free speech rights of lunch counter owners who want to exclude black patrons, and then tried to clear up his position by saying that he never should have gone on that talk show.
That’s why everyone laughs at him.
Actually, the lowest # of ships in the Navy since 1916 was 2007, when there were 278. Additionally, the Navy already has plans to build 34 ships over the next four years.
Number of ships? Cool: Obama only needs to commission a few hundred “Sloops of War” at less than a million each, and we’d have the largest Navy of any nation, ever, in all of world history. Easy, and inexpensive!
It may have something to do with his suggested amendments to strip aid to Egypt as part of a post office bill. Could also be to do with his desire to add a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, his low rating for animal welfare, his opposition to increasing the debt limit, his desire to end the federal reserve, his support of homeschooling*, his claim Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, his opinion that PPACA is unconstitutional and his opposition to public healthcare, his support for DADT repeal (as in, he wants to ban homosexuals from the military), his opposition to immigration reform (unlike Reagan, who actually appreciated that capitalism functions with free movement of labour and fixed capital) and his support for a flat tax.
None of those issues would get much traction around here (*the previous holds true in conjunction with his opposition to other public institutions and his ardent support for other “Christian” legislation).
This thread is still the only place i’ve hear/read any mention of this whatsoever.