Post by Velvetshady on Sept 12, 2012 10:52:10 GMT -5
I've never seen the level of rage expressed openly this morning at political comments as I've seen from the foreign service vets I know. Unfortunately, I don't think the average American cares/understands.
I've never seen the level of rage expressed openly this morning at political comments as I've seen from the foreign service vets I know. Unfortunately, I don't think the average American cares/understands.
I disagree. It is apalling. He didn't sound good, no matter what your sympathies. And the tenor of press coverage is strongly breaking against him.
But he spoke first! Obama is in the better position! lol.
Obama IS in the better position. Romney spoke first and didn't have the facts straight. Let alone that he tried to spin a national tragedy for political gain. If he had waited and responded to Obama's statement, he would have come off much better. The person who speaks first is rarely the most effective.
But he spoke first! Obama is in the better position! lol.
Obama IS in the better position. Romney spoke first and didn't have the facts straight. Let alone that he tried to spin a national tragedy for political gain. If he had waited and responded to Obama's statement, he would have come off much better. The person who speaks first is rarely the most effective.
I didn't get to see all of Romney's speech, but on top of not understanding why he chose to speak first, I also don't understand why he chose to answer questions. It just seems dumb. I thought Obama refusing to answer questions was the right way to go.
This is something that a) will look bad for him no matter what he says, and b) he should let the current administration speak and then respond to that if necessary with just a short speech or statement.
Obama IS in the better position. Romney spoke first and didn't have the facts straight. Let alone that he tried to spin a national tragedy for political gain. If he had waited and responded to Obama's statement, he would have come off much better. The person who speaks first is rarely the most effective.
To the bolded- then he should have STFU!
Obama (obviously) was privy to facts that Romney wasn't, which is likely why Obama held off a bit on his statement. Romney jumped the gun. He didn't know what he didn't know. He had no business making a foreign policy statement, but really that wasn't his intent. He was making a political statement. During a national tragedy.... On the anniversary of 9/11.... All out of line. And now he looks like an idiot.
But as to my original statement -- Romney's statement being uninformed and coming out before Obama's informed statement puts Obama in a stronger position.
I didn't get to see all of Romney's speech, but on top of not understanding why he chose to speak first, I also don't understand why he chose to answer questions. It just seems dumb. I thought Obama refusing to answer questions was the right way to go.
This is something that a) will look bad for him no matter what he says, and b) he should let the current administration speak and then respond to that if necessary with just a short speech or statement.
In this kind of situation, a subject matter expert, (i.e. the Secretary of State) should be doing the Q&A. The presiding official (i.e. the President) makes the official statement. Romney should have no role in this other than to express sympathy, but he is choosing to treat this as a political event. I am curious as to where he is getting his information.
"He did jump the gun. It revealed yet again that his foreign policy team is not ready for prime time," said David Rothkopf, a former Clinton State Department official. "It is ugly and amateurish. It also seems strangely out of character with Romney who elsewhere in the campaign seems inclined to be restrained to a fault."
This is what gets me too. Romney has not shown himself to be rash during his campaign. This is why I was honestly surprised when I heard about Romney's statement from last night.
I've never seen the level of rage expressed openly this morning at political comments as I've seen from the foreign service vets I know. Unfortunately, I don't think the average American cares/understands.
I disagree. It is apalling. He didn't sound good, no matter what your sympathies. And the tenor of press coverage is strongly breaking against him.
I wish I had faith people would remember this in Nov. I just had to block someone on FB for the first time ever, I actually like seeing different sides to most things, but I can't handle pictures of a dead US official being posted with the text "What are you going to do about it Obama?" I'm stepping away from my computer now.
"He did jump the gun. It revealed yet again that his foreign policy team is not ready for prime time," said David Rothkopf, a former Clinton State Department official. "It is ugly and amateurish. It also seems strangely out of character with Romney who elsewhere in the campaign seems inclined to be restrained to a fault."
This is what gets me too. Romney has not shown himself to be rash during his campaign. This is why I was honestly surprised when I heard about Romney's statement from last night.
desperate times, desperate measures and all that...
But he spoke first! Obama is in the better position! lol.
Obama IS in the better position. Romney spoke first and didn't have the facts straight. Let alone that he tried to spin a national tragedy for political gain. If he had waited and responded to Obama's statement, he would have come off much better. The person who speaks first is rarely the most effective.
Obama is in a better position because he isn't a complete newb at this whole "foreign policy" thing. Period.
Polls are showing that the country trusts Obama on foreign policy more than Romney. A Dem over a Rep in foreign policy! For the first time, like, ever. And they almost always trust Dems more on domestic policy, so...
Especially note the closing - a nod to the financial meltdown.
Romney of Arabia
Before the death of America's ambassador to Libya and three colleagues was confirmed this morning, Mitt Romney had stormed into the breach. It may go down as another case of his tin ear on foreign matters or a savvy campaign move. Stay tuned.
The Romney campaign last night issued a statement on the attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt, initially embargoed to midnight Eastern time, to come out after the anniversary of 9/11. The embargo was lifted after 10:00 p.m., and Mr. Romney's criticism of the president was everywhere: "It's disgraceful 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."
The charge is a stretch. The campaign referred to a statement put out early Tuesday by the U.S. embassy in Cairo—before the attacks—that condemned "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." A mob outside the gates was incited by an obscure film made in the U.S. about Islam, yet the misguided conciliatory message, to no one's surprise, went ignored, and the rioters breached the embassy walls. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who does speak for the administration, on Tuesday evening said "there is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney .This morning, a White House spokesman lashed back: "We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack." The left-of-center Twittersphere echoed the charge. President Obama offered a sober statement at the White House about the Benghazi killings—though he did not mention the Cairo incident or wade into politics.
Erring on the side of political caution, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, and GOP Reps. Eric Cantor and John Boehner on Wednesday issued their own condemnations of the attacks without pinning any blame on the Obama administration. Mr. Romney stood by his initial response. In a press conference Wednesday morning, he said that "I don't think we ever hesitate when we see something that's a violation of our principles," adding, "I think President Obama has demonstrated a lack of clarity on foreign policy."
This week's turmoil in the Middle East is the September surprise of this campaign. Mr. Romney has chosen to attack a commander in chief, in the midst of a crisis, who gets high marks in polls for his handling of foreign policy. Whether calculated or inadvertent, it's a risky move for the Republican challenger.
And here's the NYT coverage (which is more muted, and possibly not written as an opinion piece, but the comments to it pretty much mirror the comments on here):
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Mitt Romney on Wednesday took aim at the Obama administration’s handling of unfolding developments in the Mideast, including the death of an American ambassador in Benghazi, Libya, accusing the administration of a “severe miscalculation” and calling its handling of the matter “akin to an apology.” He also defended his own actions after coming under fire from Democrats for politicizing the issue.
The crisis emerged as a test of Mr. Romney’s handling of a fast-breaking international crisis. Mr. Romney had pledged not to criticize President Obama on Tuesday, the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, but by Tuesday evening, his campaign had reversed course, releasing early a statement that had been embargoed until midnight that criticized the president’s handling of violence at the American Embassies in Egypt and Libya.
“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,” Mr. Romney said in a statement that went out just before 10:30 p.m. “It’s disgraceful 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.”
Mr. Romney’s comments were referring to a statement released by the American Embassy in Cairo that condemned an American-made Web film denouncing Islam — the catalyst for the protests and violence in Cairo. However, the embassy’s statement was released in an effort to head off the violence, not after the attacks, as Mr. Romney’s statement implied. (Though the embassy staff in Cairo later said on Twitter that their original statement “still stands” — a Tweet they then tried to delete — the Obama administration disavowed the embassy’s statement).
Mr. Romney’s statement, which also came out before news that J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, had been killed in the attacks, quickly came under fire from Democrats, who accused him of politicizing the violence in the Middle East at a particularly delicate time.
“We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack,” said Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, in an e-mail statement.
The crisis comes as Mr. Romney has been on the defensive on the foreign policy front, as his campaign has been struggling to respond to criticism from Democrats and even some on the right for failing to mention, during his address at his party’s national convention in Tampa, Fla., the war in Afghanistan or to thank American troops abroad.
On Wednesday, Mr. Romney canceled a campaign event so he could address the crisis.
“I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values, that instead when our grounds are being attacked and being breached, that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation,” Mr. Romney said at the Wednesday morning press conference. “An apology for America’s values is never the right course.”
Asked if politics should come to a halt in the wake of the deaths of four Americans, Mr. Romney replied: “We have a campaign for presidency of the United States and are speaking about the different courses we would each take with regards to the challenges that the world faces.”
Yes, he naturally looks like a smirking douchebag.
LOL!
FTR, I just thought I'd through it in here since we were talking about his statement. Really, I find it amazing how both sides create the fb posts at the speed of light.
We're not being welcoming to other opinions today, I don't think. There's no one here but libs.
This should be a unity horse idea. Which I suspect it is and that accounts for the silence.
I think Toledo began this post with comments from Republicans, and I posted the WSJ article. So both sides are represented, it's just even the Republicans think the man is a jackass.
Post by mkesweetie on Sept 12, 2012 14:46:34 GMT -5
My Romney loving mother has twice now shared Sarah Palin's thoughts on the matter. On Facebook. Oh my god. I can't imagine blocking her, but I don't know what else to do!
But many of the comments from the WSJ article defend Romney. I really do not think this is going to change much wrt people's perception of him. Libs are going to like him even less and Cons may not like this, but that is not going to change their vote.
I disagree. The libertarians aren't going to like this, and Romney badly needs them. I don't think he was making much headway with them to begin with, but undermining national security? Not good Romney. Not good at all.
But many of the comments from the WSJ article defend Romney. I really do not think this is going to change much wrt people's perception of him. Libs are going to like him even less and Cons may not like this, but that is not going to change their vote.
I disagree. The libertarians aren't going to like this, and Romney badly needs them. I don't think he was making much headway with them to begin with, but undermining national security? Not good Romney. Not good at all.
They may not like it, but it's not going to drive them to vote Obama. At best, they might stay home.
Post by msmerymac on Sept 12, 2012 15:41:32 GMT -5
The winner always needs some number of people to switch - or to just come out and vote who wouldn't be likely to. This doesn't seem like the kind of thing that will inspire people to come vote for Romney. Maybe not against him, but not for him.