Why is Romney speaking before the President?

[soontobeka]

I know this is going to come off as petty but IMO, he needs to wait till after Obama has spoken before giving his "official" remarks on what has taken place.

[jillboston]

Because he is an asshole?

[eclaires]

Scheduling? IDK.

[cookiemdough]

Desperation to seem tough on foreign policy issues

[eclaires]

Or that, lol.

When is Obama speaking?

[EloiseWeenie]

He has less responsibilities, so he has time to make a statement. Plus, it's game time. He'll be making a statement on everything.


Sent from my idiotPhone

[bab]

I'm so angry with Romney. He's really disgusting.

So desperate and such a disrespectful asshole.

[summer]

I'm going to go with asshole. Could you imagine if this were the other way around?

[marie427]

Sept 12, 2012 9:35:41 GMT -5 EloiseWeenie said:

He has less responsibilities, so he has time to make a statement. Plus, it's game time. He'll be making a statement in everything.


Sent from my idiotPhone

I get that, but if he really does have more time, then why not wait until after Obama makes his statement?

[jillboston]

Sept 12, 2012 9:37:39 GMT -5 summer said:

I'm going to go with asshole. Could you imagine if this were the other way around?

This.

[njjeninky]

I didn't think it was possible to think less of Romney than I already did, but he managed to do so with this situation.

[luckyval]

Did the convention teach him nothing - going first does not put him at an advantage. That's like rule #1 of American Idol, too

[soontobeka]

Sept 12, 2012 9:33:47 GMT -5 eclaires said:

Or that, lol.

When is Obama speaking?

10:35 from the Rose Garden.

[Deleted]

Because he can.

I'm guessing while he may get some briefings and information, he probably hasn't had the responsibilities on his plate the POTUS does.

So why not try to earn some political points while his opponent, you know, tries to govern?

I think that's part of the luxury of campaigning while not holding the position you're campaigning to get. And that applies to both sides when we have a situation lIke this.

[anonymous]

I don't get why he is speaking at all. He is not involved in US government I don't really understand why he thinks it's his place to speak, candidate or not.

[smock]

I also didn't realize that Mitt made comments last night condemning an embassy release from Egypt trying to calm down the protestors.

www.salon.com/2012/09/12/mitt%E2%80%99s_shameful_libya_statement/

"“It’s disgraceful,” Romney’s statement, which was released late Tuesday night, read, “that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

That’s not at all what happened, of course. The actual chronology goes something like this: As anti-American protests inspired by a crude Terry Jones video began gathering steam, the U.S. embassy in Cairo – and not the Obama White House — put out a statement condemning “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

The obvious intent was to cool the passions of the protesters. As Marc Ambinder explained, it was “exactly what Americans inside the embassy who are scared for their lives now and worry about revenge later need to have released in their name.”

The foolishness of Romney’s reaction is glaring. Pretending that the statement from the U.S. embassy in Cairo was anything other than a completely understandable and reasonable attempt by its occupants to save their own lives borders on disgraceful. Romney’s implication that the statement was issued at the height of the attacks is also false; it was actually released earlier in the day, a preventive measure aimed at keeping the protests from turning violent."

[jillboston]

Sept 12, 2012 9:43:19 GMT -5 @writergal49 said:

Because he can.

I'm guessing while he may get some briefings and information, he probably hasn't had the responsibilities on his plate the POTUS does.

So why not try to earn some political points while his opponent, you know, tries to govern?

I think that's part of the luxury of campaigning while not holding the position you're campaigning to get. And that applies to both sides when we have a situation lIke this.

No. When it comes to national security the other side takes the role as the loyal opposition and STFU. This is unprecedented. I have been following elections since 1976. This is beyond the pale.

[Deleted]

I meant in general terms. It's always easy to say "here's what I would do" when you're not in office.

I didn't mean it in relation to this specific instance. I'm with you on Romney.

[NitaX]

Let me just gone 'head and say it.

Romney -

GO OVER THERE AND SAT DOWN!!!!!!!!

[pixy0stix]

WTF?! I'm just catching up on the news from this morning. This is so so stupid of the Romney camp.

[Velvetshady]

Sept 12, 2012 9:53:33 GMT -5 @mx said:

Sept 12, 2012 9:47:39 GMT -5 smock said:

I also didn't realize that Mitt made comments last night condemning an embassy release from Egypt trying to calm down the protestors.

www.salon.com/2012/09/12/mitt%E2%80%99s_shameful_libya_statement/

"“It’s disgraceful,” Romney’s statement, which was released late Tuesday night, read, “that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

That’s not at all what happened, of course. The actual chronology goes something like this: As anti-American protests inspired by a crude Terry Jones video began gathering steam, the U.S. embassy in Cairo – and not the Obama White House — put out a statement condemning “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

The obvious intent was to cool the passions of the protesters. As Marc Ambinder explained, it was “exactly what Americans inside the embassy who are scared for their lives now and worry about revenge later need to have released in their name.”

The foolishness of Romney’s reaction is glaring. Pretending that the statement from the U.S. embassy in Cairo was anything other than a completely understandable and reasonable attempt by its occupants to save their own lives borders on disgraceful. Romney’s implication that the statement was issued at the height of the attacks is also false; it was actually released earlier in the day, a preventive measure aimed at keeping the protests from turning violent."

This was one of the first things I read this morning. I can't imagine the Romney campaign criticizing American soldiers so I'm very disappointed that they would do so to American diplomats.

I'm not disappointed, I'm furious. And terrified of what will happen if he wins. How does one have any success with diplomatic relations when one has openly done this to the diplomats?

[IIOY]

Sept 12, 2012 9:47:39 GMT -5 smock said:

“It’s disgraceful,” Romney’s statement, which was released late Tuesday night, read, “that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
;

This is shameful and I'm disgusted by Romney and Reince Priebus. There are moments when politics need to be set aside; this is one of them.

[smock]

It really feels like Romney only cares about scoring political points from this terrible situation.

[ttt]

If there was any doubt about Romney having no idea how to deal with foreign policy situations or diplomacy, it should be completely dispelled now.

[eliseb0323]

Generally the last speaking position is considered to be the most advantageous. Considering both Romney and Obama are speaking close to each other, Obama has the better position. In an event with numerous speakers, the highest ranking person speaks last.

[smock]

Sept 12, 2012 10:15:28 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

Generally the last speaking position is considered to be the most advantageous. Considering both Romney and Obama are speaking close to each other, Obama has the better position. In an event with numerous speakers, the highest ranking person speaks last.

This isn't an event. There isn't a schedule.

Waiting for the president to respond to an attack on American diplomats before you start slamming him for "sympathizing with the attackers" should be common sense. Unfortunately, it seems like Romney's top priority is victory at any cost.

[charminglife]

Sept 12, 2012 10:15:28 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

Generally the last speaking position is considered to be the most advantageous. Considering both Romney and Obama are speaking close to each other, Obama has the better position. In an event with numerous speakers, the highest ranking person speaks last.

Yeah, I dont think their remarks were an 'event' that they coordinated. ^o)

[soontobeka]

Sept 12, 2012 10:20:41 GMT -5 smock said:

Sept 12, 2012 10:15:28 GMT -5 eliseb0323 said:

Generally the last speaking position is considered to be the most advantageous. Considering both Romney and Obama are speaking close to each other, Obama has the better position. In an event with numerous speakers, the highest ranking person speaks last.

This isn't an event. There isn't a schedule.

Waiting for the president to respond to an attack on American diplomats before you start slamming him for "sympathizing with the attackers" should be common sense. Unfortunately, it seems like Romney's top priority is victory at any cost.

Thank you.

[summer]

Part of me knows Obama has other things to do today, but part of me wants him to go hard on this and the Priebus tweet. The RNC is calling the president a sympathizer today!

[pixy0stix]

Sept 12, 2012 10:25:43 GMT -5 summer said:

Part of me knows Obama has other things to do today, but part of me wants him to go hard on this and the Priebus tweet. The RNC is calling the president a sympathizer today!

Should Obama, personally, engage the crazy, or should other people handle it, or should it be ignored?

It'll be interesting to see how the Obama camp responds.