Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, March 30, 2012

Mitt Romney Is Going to Attack President Obama on Foreign Policy, Naturally

Posted by on Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:42 AM

It's been a big week for Mitt Romney—he's traveled the country collecting the most boring endorsements of all time from obvious Romney supporters like George H.W. Bush, future vice presidential nominee Marco Rubio, and future spurned nominee for vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan. And now, Romney is about to go after President Obama on foreign policy. The Washington Post story begins:

Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney is preparing to broaden his challenge to President Obama’s management of foreign affairs, sensing political vulnerability in an area in which the incumbent has received his strongest public support.

With the nation facing a high unemployment rate and uncertain economic growth, foreign policy as a political issue has remained on the periphery of the presidential race. Republicans seeking their party nomination have trained their sharpest criticism of Obama on his economic record, where they perceive him to be weakest.

Barack Obama obviously has some weak points on foreign policy, particularly the fact that the American people are sick of the war in Afghanistan. But Romney's hawkish stance on Russia, on China, and, well, everywhere else feels like a throwback to the W. Bush era. (Not to mention his desire to beef up the military runs directly counter to his plans to shrink the budget.) That's probably because his foreign policy advisers are the exact same ones who've been behind Republican presidents for the last thirty years. If Romney really wants to make the foreign policy discussion a debate between the guys who invented the Bush Doctrine and the president who finally got Osama bin Laden, I think Barack Obama would welcome that fight.

 

Comments (11) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Urgutha Forka 1
I would think moderates and undecideds and people who don't pay any attention at all to politics (so, what? 90%, 95% of the population?) are favorable towards Obama's foreign policy. The Iraq war is over and Bin Laden is dead. They can't miss those huge things. They won't care about any little details... those are the things the die-hard liberals and conservatives will throw around, without actually changing anyone's mind.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on March 30, 2012 at 10:56 AM · Report this
Cascadian 2
You don't attack a president on one of his successes, unless you can flip a positive into a negative. Something like his facility with speaking you can flip into a claim of image over substance, and maybe even make it stick. But there's really no way to credibly flip his foreign policy into a negative.

To win Republicans need to focus on the bad things: unemployment, high gas and food prices (ignoring that inflation overall is low), small-time scandals that can make Obama look inept (no matter how unfairly) such as Solyndra and the "Fast and Furious" Mexican gun thing, and the unpopularity of health care reform and the fact it very well might be overturned. If they talked about nothing but that stuff, they might have a chance.

But luckily for us liberals, they are going to try and make the case that his foreign policy is bad, and that he's an un-American socialist, and that he bailed out Detroit, and that he wants to unfairly tax rich people, and wants to discriminate against Christianity, and hint about how black he is. And they're going to come off like the raving loons they are, and lose.
Posted by Cascadian on March 30, 2012 at 11:10 AM · Report this
3
If Romney is a throwback to the Bush era, he certainly doesn't have to throw himself very far. His position is really just an irresponsible caricature made for public consumption grafted on top of what is likely to be a continuation of the endless wars of Obama and Bush. Bear in mind Obama took us out of Iraq on Bush's schedule and left behind the world's largest embassy, guarded by mercenaries. He ramped up an illegal drone program in Pakistan, extended it into Yemen leaving dead children in both countries (killed with due precess no doubt), launched a plainly unconstitutional war in Libya, while Saudi forces marched into Bahrain, home of the 5th fleet, to prop up a murderous regime. Not to be a downer but let's not forget that Romney has been making a distinction without a difference.
Posted by Ian (not the name of a registered user) on March 30, 2012 at 11:23 AM · Report this
thatsnotright 4
Obama has Hillary Clinton for foreign policy (at least for now). She has done an amzing job, in my opinion. Romney has zero foriegn policy cred and would have to make do with some second-tier Bush retread, were he to be elected. Anyone have any ideas about who might be replacing Clinton?
Posted by thatsnotright on March 30, 2012 at 11:42 AM · Report this
Phoebe in Wallingford 5
Hawkish stances do not preclude friendly relations, Reagan proved that.
Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on March 30, 2012 at 11:48 AM · Report this
6
Did anyone notice the other day that Paulie Constant was the only Ameritard in existence who actually believed that phony vote --- which they knew they would lose --- against the oil depletion allowance was a serious vote!!!!!!!?????

Holy moley, the faux crats have had almost 100 years (1913-2012 --- 100-year anniversary in ONE more years, kiddies) and plenty of times when they were in the majority, but now in the slim majority, easily defeated, and in the minority in the House, they go for this charade of political theater of the absurd.
Posted by sgt_doom on March 30, 2012 at 11:53 AM · Report this
7
Now why the bloody hell don't we get advice from either Dan Savage or Paulie Constant like the below advice from Santorum?

http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/entry/…
Posted by sgt_doom on March 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM · Report this
approachingmidnight 8
i like it when i read rants including 'ameritard' and 'faux crats'.

as soon as i see that, i know there is going to be good intelligent commentary and analysis directly following those words.
Posted by approachingmidnight http://www.google.com/search?q=don't+argue+with+me+buster on March 30, 2012 at 12:07 PM · Report this
9
#7 You neglected to refer to Savage as "Danny".
Posted by paulus on March 30, 2012 at 1:28 PM · Report this
Reverse Polarity 10
Willard is going to have a difficult campaign in the fall. He can't hammer too hard on Obamacare when it is almost the same as Romneycare. He can't make much traction with foreign policy since he has zero foreign policy experience. He can't claim the mantle of veteran status to boost his cred with hawks. His business background may help him some with the Wall Street crowd, but his humor over firing people won't gain him many votes among the working class.

I suspect what we are seeing is his campaign floating trial balloons to see if they can find any issues that might gain any points for them.
Posted by Reverse Polarity on March 30, 2012 at 5:17 PM · Report this
11
"And they're going to come off like the raving loons they are, and lose."

Most of the American voters are raving loons. Who do you think they're going to vote for?
Posted by sarah70 on March 30, 2012 at 6:36 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy