Darn, you’re right. Romney’s handled foreign policy issues *so *well.
“Apologizing for America” is an empty phrase that appeals only to people who can’t separate their egos from their need for America to look tough. Republicans have been accusing Democrats of it forever. As I said, any response Obama makes will be an invitation for Romney to depict some statement or other (like the speech in Cairo) as an apology. What good does that do for Obama? Then they have to argue about what he said and it makes it sound like an apology is a valid interpretation. He has an actual foreign policy record, so he doesn’t have to bother with this crap.
Wait. Are you trying to argue that Romney has no foreign policy experience? If so, that would be a weird argument, considering four years ago.
If not, then the argument comes down to how well Romney would be at handling foreign policy issues as compared to Obama. It used to be that Obama had a significant lead over Romney in that category, but that lead has since greatly diminished, meaning that people have either soured on Obama (i.e., they saw his handling of the Libya situation), they have come to agree with Romney on some foreign issue (i.e., tough trade regulations against China) or a combination of both.
And I think you’re convincing yourself of what the Romney campaign wants everybody to believe. If Romney had substantive criticisms, he wouldn’t be making noise about Obama apologizing and emboldening terrorists by being weak and how Obama isn’t a good enough best friend to Israel. There’s no substance to any of that. Meanwhile most of Romney’s foreign policy pronouncements have been just assinine. This is not an area of strength for him.
Bob Schiffer has outlined the five topics that will be discussed over six different segments tonight. They are:
• America’s role in the world
• Our longest war - Afghanistan and Pakistan
• Red Lines - Israel and Iran
• The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism - I
• The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism - II
• The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World
Yeah, ending that war in Iraq. What an ass.
AKA: 2/3 of the debate spent talking about a region we wouldn’t give two shits about it if weren’t for holy sites and oil. Awesome.
I am most anxious to see how Romney handles Benghazi. Will he reiterate the claim that Obama took weeks to acknowledge it as a terrorist attack after the moderator made him look bad on it last time?
Basically, I’m curious to see if he digs himself into a hole, because I agree that Romney essentially “wins” a tie tonight. Or, at least he won’t lose anything in case of a tie.
In post #22, you said:
So do you believe no Republican candidate has ever had “substantive criticisms” of a Democratic president because they criticize them for being “weak”? Or will you acknowledge that accusing Democrats of being “weak” does not mean that, in this case, Romney lacks any substantive criticisms of Obama? I mean, I can think of four.
1.) Obama’s failures in Afghanistan (the military there is in disarray)
2.) Obama’s weak stance on Iran and strained relationship with Israel
3.) Obama’s handling of Benghazi, and current conflicts in the ME
4.) Obama’s weak handling of China (China has been thumbing its nose at the Obama administration for a while now)
He was following the timetable set out by the Boosh.
If that were what I thought, I’d have said it. I said the “apologizing for America” thing is empty rhetoric, which it is, and I said Romney’s policy positions indicate he has nothing of substance to say.
And Romney’s position is that it’s good the U.S. is leaving, but the withdrawal timetable is bad, but he’ll stick to it.
Already dismissed. And Romney has no alternatives on Iran. He has threatening words and complaints about Obama’s credibility, but no actual ideas.
This line of attack worked out great for Romney last week!
I know the country agrees to pretend otherwise every presidential campaign, but these guys are not running for president of China. During the next four years the U.S. will continue to do tons of business with China and continue to complain about China at the same time.
In other words, he doesn’t let the Israelis dictate US policy.
“We need America to get tough! I’m going to expand out defense budget by trillions of dollars and everybody will kneel down to our awesomeness!”
“Trillions of dollars? How will you pay for it?”
“Tax cuts!”
Romney will insist that America stand firm in its defense of Taiwan. We’ll just borrow the money from China to pay for it.
Shit, almost forgot the Apology Tour! There won’t be any details, like when it happened, where it happened, or what was said. Everybody already knows all that stuff. No need!
What are the drinking game rules? I’ve got a bottle of tequila and I want to get tipsy.
“Strained relationship with Israel” means the U.S. and Israel have worked together on the current sanctions package. So the U.S. and Israel are mortal enemies now I guess.
Look for Mittens to offer Reagan as an example : “He commanded Gorbachev to tear down that wall and he did! Awesome!”
Re: the benghazi thing
Well, that was last week. In the intervening week, a Republican congressman leaked the names of a bunch of friendly foreign nationals. I’d say that Romney can credibly argue that Darrell Issa is less likely to compromise national security and betray the country’s friends under a Republican administration.
Sanctions are in place. What more do you want? Not for anyone to bomb Iran, I hope; there’s no way that ends well.
Wow, where is Europe, where is Russia, where is Latin America, where is India? It’s like the Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East. the Middle East, and China.
Given reports of Fidel’s ill health this week, I do hope Obama says somethng or other about Cuba.
And Venezuela. Maybe we should now be satisfied Chavez’ government is popular with the people, and make friends?