National syndicated New York Times columnist David Brooks, known for his moderate conservative (oxymoron?) positions on political affairs, just wrote (July 23, 2012) a very insightful piece on President Obama's foreign policy capabilities. In the article, Brooks concludes that;
" Overall, though, the record is impressive. Obama has moved more aggressively both to defeat enemies and to champion democracy. He has demonstrated that talk of American decline is hooey. The United States is still responsible for maintaining global order, for keeping people, goods and ideas moving freely. And, partly as a result of his efforts, the world of foreign affairs is relatively uncontentious right now. Foreign policy is not a hot
campaign issue. Mitt Romney is having a great deal of trouble identifying profound disagreements. If that's not a sign of success, I don't know what is."
I about fell out of my chair when I read this column. Obama has an "impressive" foreign policy record. Coming from a moderate (I thought "moderates" were extinct?), Brooks' column lays out the basis for his conclusions, and they are all factual, not skewed by political narratives or by political operatives. But why mention this column here? Because Mitt Romney is about to address the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Reno, Nevada and slam Obama on, you got it, foreign policy. Romney will continue what I call his "Appeaser and Apologizer" rhetoric, even though every single fact checking service (even those oft-cited by the right wing) state the claims are "baseless."
In addition to continuing to make these unfounded claims, the Romney campaign has also revealed that Mitt will be slamming Obama for the security leaks that are currently being investigated. According to the Romney camp, Mitt's speech will include the following statement about the leaks:
"...(they)..betrays our national interest. It compromises our men and women in the field.
And it demands a full and prompt investigation, with explanation and consequence.
Whoever provided classified information to the media, seeking political advantage for
the administration, must be exposed, dismissed, and punished. The time for stonewalling
is over."
Well said Mr. Romney, if any of it was actually true. Once again, Mr. Romney raised rhetoric without mentioning exactly what he means. What leaks have actually compromised our troops? Were the leaks initiated to gain a political advantage or was it hubris by a staffer trying to appear "important" to a member of the media? Mr. Romney, please give us specifics and stop stating the obvious. "...exposed, dismissed and punished." Just like your tax returns Mitt? Now Mitt wants to play the "Leaders are responsible" card?
According to his campaign, Mr. Romney will also attack Obama for severe cuts to defense, even though such cuts are mandated due to the inability of Congress to pass a budget. When the debate raged about extending the debt ceiling, GOP members of Congress held the negotiations hostage demanding deep cuts to every social program. When they could not reach an agreement, they decided to bluff and install a mandatory cut to all spending, including defense. Now it seems the Democrats will be calling the GOP's bluff when the extension of the tax cuts will again be debated right before the upcoming election. All polls indicate Americans overwhelmingly support the extension of tax cuts to the Middle Class, but not to anyone making over a net income of $1 Million.
Romney is also suffering a bit by other distractions in the news. Seems Romney has been enjoying quite a spike in Twitter supporters. In fact, as many as 142,000 plus suddenly began supporting Mitt just over the weekend. When folks began investigating this huge spike of supporters, they found that virtually all of them were brand new to Twitter, had no followers of their own, had no personal profiles and lacked the ability to conduct simple postings other than 'I support Mitt.' Moreover, the conclusion reached by many experts is that these new "supporters" are merely automated machines electronically logging into Twitter just to give the impression that Romney's on-line support is growing. The worst part of this scheme? A ton of these new "supporters" have IP addresses outside the United States. Sounds crazy right? Not according to former Newt Gingerich staffers. They claim Gingerich paid foreign companies for Twitter "supporters" to boost his claims of increased popularity during the primary campaign. How high tech can it get? Naturally, Romney campaign officials deny any involvement in this fraud.
What the Romney camp cannot deny though is the most recent report (July 24, 2012) from The Washington Post revealing that over 80% of all Romney campaign advertising has been paid for by Super PACs and not individual supporters. Is Romney the "Astro-Turf" candidate? Is Romney the best candidate money can buy? Are Americans paying attention to this issue? But there is more! Really?
It has been reported that prior to coming to "save" the Winter Olympics in 1999, Mr. Romney made a lot of promises. One of those promises was that all records pertaining to the financial management of the Games would be "transparent" and available for the public to review. For those that cannot remember, the Olympics that year was mired in financial calamity and was on the verge of collapse. Mitt Romney was hailed as the "savior" of the games because under his management, the Games were saved. What has not been widely reported is that Romney brought with him many folks from Bain to take over the management, but that is not the problem. It appears Bain may have provided the funding necessary to revive the Games and allow Romney to take the credit. Also not a bad thing...unless...it can be shown that Romney not only came into the Games, he commandeered them for personal gain. Tons of paraphernalia of the Games featured Romney's face, including buttons, pins, posters, programs and even the official Olympic Video. It makes one wonder. If Obama's mother allegedly lied some 50 plus years ago about her son's birthplace in order for him to be eligible to be president (which is NOT a requirement under Article II or the 14th Amendment), then perhaps Mitt "invested" in the Games in an effort to create a national profile for himself as a future politician? Who ran the Games actual management AND decided to use it as a vehicle for Romney's political future? He's been running for public office ever since he left the Olympics (unless he was also running Bain, but we may never know those facts).
According to reports, none of the records relating to the Games have ever been released (just like Mitt's complete tax returns). To make matters worse, the Romney campaign now claims that Mitt resigned from the Salt Lake Organizing Committee in early 2002 to run for governor of Massachusetts and “was not involved in the decision-making regarding the final disposition of records.” Gee, this sounds a lot like his claims about Bain. He left Bain in 1999, so he has no idea what Bain was doing after his departure to "run" the Olympics. He left the Games in 2002, so he has no idea what was going on with the records from the Games because he was making a "run" for Governor. Romney seems to like to use the "Leaders are responsible" card when it benefits him, but easily dismisses its application to matters in which he was involved. What was it that Romney was saying to the Veterans? "Seeking political advantage...must be exposed...." "The time for stonewalling is over!" Oh, we've got "transparency" on Romney! We see right through him!
" Overall, though, the record is impressive. Obama has moved more aggressively both to defeat enemies and to champion democracy. He has demonstrated that talk of American decline is hooey. The United States is still responsible for maintaining global order, for keeping people, goods and ideas moving freely. And, partly as a result of his efforts, the world of foreign affairs is relatively uncontentious right now. Foreign policy is not a hot
campaign issue. Mitt Romney is having a great deal of trouble identifying profound disagreements. If that's not a sign of success, I don't know what is."
I about fell out of my chair when I read this column. Obama has an "impressive" foreign policy record. Coming from a moderate (I thought "moderates" were extinct?), Brooks' column lays out the basis for his conclusions, and they are all factual, not skewed by political narratives or by political operatives. But why mention this column here? Because Mitt Romney is about to address the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Reno, Nevada and slam Obama on, you got it, foreign policy. Romney will continue what I call his "Appeaser and Apologizer" rhetoric, even though every single fact checking service (even those oft-cited by the right wing) state the claims are "baseless."
In addition to continuing to make these unfounded claims, the Romney campaign has also revealed that Mitt will be slamming Obama for the security leaks that are currently being investigated. According to the Romney camp, Mitt's speech will include the following statement about the leaks:
"...(they)..betrays our national interest. It compromises our men and women in the field.
And it demands a full and prompt investigation, with explanation and consequence.
Whoever provided classified information to the media, seeking political advantage for
the administration, must be exposed, dismissed, and punished. The time for stonewalling
is over."
Well said Mr. Romney, if any of it was actually true. Once again, Mr. Romney raised rhetoric without mentioning exactly what he means. What leaks have actually compromised our troops? Were the leaks initiated to gain a political advantage or was it hubris by a staffer trying to appear "important" to a member of the media? Mr. Romney, please give us specifics and stop stating the obvious. "...exposed, dismissed and punished." Just like your tax returns Mitt? Now Mitt wants to play the "Leaders are responsible" card?
According to his campaign, Mr. Romney will also attack Obama for severe cuts to defense, even though such cuts are mandated due to the inability of Congress to pass a budget. When the debate raged about extending the debt ceiling, GOP members of Congress held the negotiations hostage demanding deep cuts to every social program. When they could not reach an agreement, they decided to bluff and install a mandatory cut to all spending, including defense. Now it seems the Democrats will be calling the GOP's bluff when the extension of the tax cuts will again be debated right before the upcoming election. All polls indicate Americans overwhelmingly support the extension of tax cuts to the Middle Class, but not to anyone making over a net income of $1 Million.
Romney is also suffering a bit by other distractions in the news. Seems Romney has been enjoying quite a spike in Twitter supporters. In fact, as many as 142,000 plus suddenly began supporting Mitt just over the weekend. When folks began investigating this huge spike of supporters, they found that virtually all of them were brand new to Twitter, had no followers of their own, had no personal profiles and lacked the ability to conduct simple postings other than 'I support Mitt.' Moreover, the conclusion reached by many experts is that these new "supporters" are merely automated machines electronically logging into Twitter just to give the impression that Romney's on-line support is growing. The worst part of this scheme? A ton of these new "supporters" have IP addresses outside the United States. Sounds crazy right? Not according to former Newt Gingerich staffers. They claim Gingerich paid foreign companies for Twitter "supporters" to boost his claims of increased popularity during the primary campaign. How high tech can it get? Naturally, Romney campaign officials deny any involvement in this fraud.
What the Romney camp cannot deny though is the most recent report (July 24, 2012) from The Washington Post revealing that over 80% of all Romney campaign advertising has been paid for by Super PACs and not individual supporters. Is Romney the "Astro-Turf" candidate? Is Romney the best candidate money can buy? Are Americans paying attention to this issue? But there is more! Really?
It has been reported that prior to coming to "save" the Winter Olympics in 1999, Mr. Romney made a lot of promises. One of those promises was that all records pertaining to the financial management of the Games would be "transparent" and available for the public to review. For those that cannot remember, the Olympics that year was mired in financial calamity and was on the verge of collapse. Mitt Romney was hailed as the "savior" of the games because under his management, the Games were saved. What has not been widely reported is that Romney brought with him many folks from Bain to take over the management, but that is not the problem. It appears Bain may have provided the funding necessary to revive the Games and allow Romney to take the credit. Also not a bad thing...unless...it can be shown that Romney not only came into the Games, he commandeered them for personal gain. Tons of paraphernalia of the Games featured Romney's face, including buttons, pins, posters, programs and even the official Olympic Video. It makes one wonder. If Obama's mother allegedly lied some 50 plus years ago about her son's birthplace in order for him to be eligible to be president (which is NOT a requirement under Article II or the 14th Amendment), then perhaps Mitt "invested" in the Games in an effort to create a national profile for himself as a future politician? Who ran the Games actual management AND decided to use it as a vehicle for Romney's political future? He's been running for public office ever since he left the Olympics (unless he was also running Bain, but we may never know those facts).
According to reports, none of the records relating to the Games have ever been released (just like Mitt's complete tax returns). To make matters worse, the Romney campaign now claims that Mitt resigned from the Salt Lake Organizing Committee in early 2002 to run for governor of Massachusetts and “was not involved in the decision-making regarding the final disposition of records.” Gee, this sounds a lot like his claims about Bain. He left Bain in 1999, so he has no idea what Bain was doing after his departure to "run" the Olympics. He left the Games in 2002, so he has no idea what was going on with the records from the Games because he was making a "run" for Governor. Romney seems to like to use the "Leaders are responsible" card when it benefits him, but easily dismisses its application to matters in which he was involved. What was it that Romney was saying to the Veterans? "Seeking political advantage...must be exposed...." "The time for stonewalling is over!" Oh, we've got "transparency" on Romney! We see right through him!
RSS Feed
