Honestly, there are plenty of critics on the left that consider Obama more hawkish (but more effective) than George W. Bush.
Romney is criticizing his fictionalized version of Obama's foreign policy, but the both their foreign policies are essentially the same. Romney's campaign has been doing this shit all along, with the most obvious example of 'You didn't build that' being taken out of context.
Edit: Although, recent comments made by Romney and his campaign suggest that he believes the Obama administration bungled the 'Arab Spring', suggesting that America shouldn't have allowed Islamic groups to rise to power, despite being elected democratically.
Bush instigated the Iraq war, as part of a Neo-Con agenda to improve America's security and interest by spreading American democracy. Well, I guess Romney and the Neo-Con's want to amend that to American 'Christian' Democracy.
It will be interesting to see how the debates go. Because it could indicate that Romney is more much of a Zionist than anyone previously thought. He's certainly selling himself that way.
To clarify, his criticism was in Islamist (not Islamic) groups coming to power.
“Clearly we’re disappointed in seeing Tunisia and Morocco elect Islamist governments,” Romney said in the interview with Israel Hayom. “We’re very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world.”
Islamist is a blend of Islam and government so the worry is that countries that elect an Islamist government will turn into a theocracy. It also creates an internal problem between the secular military and the religious government - a common problem in the middle east.
(The election) sets up what is likely to be an uneasy ruling alliance between two longtime rivals, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian military, which has been the country's backbone of power and has ruled Egypt since former President Hosni Mubarak stepped down last year.
But the Brotherhood's long power struggle with military is far from over. The military has pledged to hand over power to Mr. Morsi by the end of the month. But Mr. Morsi will assume a presidency crippled by military-imposed constitutional changes that have stripped the office of most of its powers.
Mr. Morsi faces daunting challenges and a divided nation, where many are deeply suspicious of the Brotherhood's Islamist agenda. "They definitely have an agenda to impose Islamic Shariah," said Ahmed Saied, head of the secular Free Egyptians Party, referring to Islam's legal code. "We are dealing with people who are full of question marks and I really don't know where they want to take the country. I'm not comfortable with this."
So, the situation is a bit more complex than you are making out to be.
It's exactly as Defacer said though - those groups were elected democratically. What exactly should the US have done, according to Romney, if it wasn't letting the people decide for themselves who they wanted to elect?
No, Defacer said the Romney didn't like that an Islamic government was elected. He said that Romney wanted Arab countries to be "American Christian Democracies".
All Romney said was that he was disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected. That's it. He never said we should have stopped them from being elected.
But come on. Saying you're disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected implies you prefer the alternative. I should have put the word 'Christian' in quotations, because America seems to fancy itself as being founded on 'Christian' values.
You didn't write that Romney preferred the alternative. You wrote that he thinks American should have "not allowed" the Islamists to come to power. That's a HUGE difference. You also wrote that his issue was with an Islamic government and that he wanted them to have a 'Christian' one.
What you wrote implies that Romney is so bigoted against Islam that he'd stop a democratic process. If that was not your intent, please clarify what you really meant.
The exact problem is that we don't know what course of action Romney would have preferred. Defacer's posts are speculative, I'll give you that, but if you criticize policy by the current administration you should try and come up with an alternative, especially as a presidential candidate.
American presidents don't have control over internal affairs in Egypt, and the only real decision they can make is behind what group they place their support. Obama went with 'wait and see' and then threw his support behind the protestors once it was pretty clear they were going to overthrow Mubarak. I think its fair to say that almost any American president would have done the same thing, because its the smart move to make in this situation. Romneys criticism is completely unfounded and extremely shallow; magically wishing for islamists not to come to power doesn't do anything.
(Also, on an unrelated note, the reports of islamists in the egyptian government are caricatures of the actual situation. You have to realize that the muslim brotherhood is one of very few broad organized movements in Egypt, and that they have left a lot of their islamist roots behind them. The fact is that combining islam with democracy scares western politicians and western voters, while it simultaneously is the only way actual democratic institutions will ever develop in the middle east. You encapsulate fringe groups in the democratic process, which will then either disappear because they offer no tangible solutions, or they move to more mainstream positions.)
Romney was disappointed in the election results and thinks that Obama should have pushed for more democratic reforms prior to the Arab spring.
What is "completely unfounded and extremely shallow" about that?
How should he have pushed for more democratic reforms exactly? He doesn't have control of the legislative process in Egypt and unless they're hoping to arm twist the Egyptians with economic clout or boots on the ground, there's no real way to push for democratic reforms except talk... and they can always ignore talk. Pushing for more democratic reforms prior to Arab spring is basically saying that I would've done the same thing only faster and better. Easy to say on the sidelines.
Yes, Romney was saying that Obama should have used more raw political power (just talk) to push for more democratic reforms. It was a minor criticism of Obama that for some reason people have decided to latch onto as if it were a big deal.
Let's first remember why noone listens to the US in international affairs anymore and why the US has no moral authority left. 8 years of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice running the foreign policy process, completely overrunning a president with no actual opinions on foreign policy destroyed your soft power, even straining relations with close european allies (Nye wrote about this back in 2003/2004 already). Now look at Romney, his foreign policy 'platform' and his foreign policy advisors and despair.
I think part of the reason Obama's foreign tour worked out well (apart from his massive personal appeal) was because he wasn't running against an incumbent. Trying to show foreign policy chops against an incumbent who has arguably done pretty well on that front has much more risk than reward.
On July 31 2012 10:51 ticklishmusic wrote: I think part of the reason Obama's foreign tour worked out well (apart from his massive personal appeal) was because he wasn't running against an incumbent. Trying to show foreign policy chops against an incumbent who has arguably done pretty well on that front has much more risk than reward.
Did NO ONE in the Romney campaign consider this?
Every disaster so far has been due to something that came out of the dude's mouth. Hard to blame circumstances for that.
On July 31 2012 10:51 ticklishmusic wrote: I think part of the reason Obama's foreign tour worked out well (apart from his massive personal appeal) was because he wasn't running against an incumbent. Trying to show foreign policy chops against an incumbent who has arguably done pretty well on that front has much more risk than reward.
Did NO ONE in the Romney campaign consider this?
Every disaster so far has been due to something that came out of the dude's mouth. Hard to blame circumstances for that.
Romney has definitely had some gaffes on this trip, but calling them "disasters" is rather melodramatic. No one is going to remember any of this one month from now.
Honestly, there are plenty of critics on the left that consider Obama more hawkish (but more effective) than George W. Bush.
Romney is criticizing his fictionalized version of Obama's foreign policy, but the both their foreign policies are essentially the same. Romney's campaign has been doing this shit all along, with the most obvious example of 'You didn't build that' being taken out of context.
Edit: Although, recent comments made by Romney and his campaign suggest that he believes the Obama administration bungled the 'Arab Spring', suggesting that America shouldn't have allowed Islamic groups to rise to power, despite being elected democratically.
Bush instigated the Iraq war, as part of a Neo-Con agenda to improve America's security and interest by spreading American democracy. Well, I guess Romney and the Neo-Con's want to amend that to American 'Christian' Democracy.
It will be interesting to see how the debates go. Because it could indicate that Romney is more much of a Zionist than anyone previously thought. He's certainly selling himself that way.
To clarify, his criticism was in Islamist (not Islamic) groups coming to power.
“Clearly we’re disappointed in seeing Tunisia and Morocco elect Islamist governments,” Romney said in the interview with Israel Hayom. “We’re very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world.”
Islamist is a blend of Islam and government so the worry is that countries that elect an Islamist government will turn into a theocracy. It also creates an internal problem between the secular military and the religious government - a common problem in the middle east.
(The election) sets up what is likely to be an uneasy ruling alliance between two longtime rivals, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian military, which has been the country's backbone of power and has ruled Egypt since former President Hosni Mubarak stepped down last year.
But the Brotherhood's long power struggle with military is far from over. The military has pledged to hand over power to Mr. Morsi by the end of the month. But Mr. Morsi will assume a presidency crippled by military-imposed constitutional changes that have stripped the office of most of its powers.
Mr. Morsi faces daunting challenges and a divided nation, where many are deeply suspicious of the Brotherhood's Islamist agenda. "They definitely have an agenda to impose Islamic Shariah," said Ahmed Saied, head of the secular Free Egyptians Party, referring to Islam's legal code. "We are dealing with people who are full of question marks and I really don't know where they want to take the country. I'm not comfortable with this."
So, the situation is a bit more complex than you are making out to be.
It's exactly as Defacer said though - those groups were elected democratically. What exactly should the US have done, according to Romney, if it wasn't letting the people decide for themselves who they wanted to elect?
No, Defacer said the Romney didn't like that an Islamic government was elected. He said that Romney wanted Arab countries to be "American Christian Democracies".
All Romney said was that he was disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected. That's it. He never said we should have stopped them from being elected.
But come on. Saying you're disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected implies you prefer the alternative. I should have put the word 'Christian' in quotations, because America seems to fancy itself as being founded on 'Christian' values.
You didn't write that Romney preferred the alternative. You wrote that he thinks American should have "not allowed" the Islamists to come to power. That's a HUGE difference. You also wrote that his issue was with an Islamic government and that he wanted them to have a 'Christian' one.
What you wrote implies that Romney is so bigoted against Islam that he'd stop a democratic process. If that was not your intent, please clarify what you really meant.
The exact problem is that we don't know what course of action Romney would have preferred. Defacer's posts are speculative, I'll give you that, but if you criticize policy by the current administration you should try and come up with an alternative, especially as a presidential candidate.
American presidents don't have control over internal affairs in Egypt, and the only real decision they can make is behind what group they place their support. Obama went with 'wait and see' and then threw his support behind the protestors once it was pretty clear they were going to overthrow Mubarak. I think its fair to say that almost any American president would have done the same thing, because its the smart move to make in this situation. Romneys criticism is completely unfounded and extremely shallow; magically wishing for islamists not to come to power doesn't do anything.
(Also, on an unrelated note, the reports of islamists in the egyptian government are caricatures of the actual situation. You have to realize that the muslim brotherhood is one of very few broad organized movements in Egypt, and that they have left a lot of their islamist roots behind them. The fact is that combining islam with democracy scares western politicians and western voters, while it simultaneously is the only way actual democratic institutions will ever develop in the middle east. You encapsulate fringe groups in the democratic process, which will then either disappear because they offer no tangible solutions, or they move to more mainstream positions.)
Romney was disappointed in the election results and thinks that Obama should have pushed for more democratic reforms prior to the Arab spring.
What is "completely unfounded and extremely shallow" about that?
How should he have pushed for more democratic reforms exactly? He doesn't have control of the legislative process in Egypt and unless they're hoping to arm twist the Egyptians with economic clout or boots on the ground, there's no real way to push for democratic reforms except talk... and they can always ignore talk. Pushing for more democratic reforms prior to Arab spring is basically saying that I would've done the same thing only faster and better. Easy to say on the sidelines.
Yes, Romney was saying that Obama should have used more raw political power (just talk) to push for more democratic reforms. It was a minor criticism of Obama that for some reason people have decided to latch onto as if it were a big deal.
Just so you know, I'm not purposely ignoring your argument/discussion, I've just been really busy trying to hit deadlines at work and can't keep up right now.
On July 31 2012 11:51 Probulous wrote: Does the same go for Obama's "build it" gaffe?
That wasn't a gaffe, it was Romney's propaganda team taking a few words out of context. What Obama actually was referring to was that a large part of America's "land of opportunity" reputation is based on infrastructure such as roads, education, etc. that make success possible. I think that's a pretty reasonable statement.
On July 31 2012 11:51 Probulous wrote: Does the same go for Obama's "build it" gaffe?
No, that is much more serious and won't go away. Inadvertently and clumsily insulting the Brits is one thing. Insulting a large portion of the American voting public is another.
On July 31 2012 11:51 Probulous wrote: Does the same go for Obama's "build it" gaffe?
That wasn't a gaffe, it was Romney's propaganda team taking a few words out of context.
I laugh every time that I see this rebuttal. The quote looks even worse when one reads everything in context, because it becomes obvious that it isn't just a throwaway line.
On July 31 2012 10:51 ticklishmusic wrote: I think part of the reason Obama's foreign tour worked out well (apart from his massive personal appeal) was because he wasn't running against an incumbent. Trying to show foreign policy chops against an incumbent who has arguably done pretty well on that front has much more risk than reward.
Did NO ONE in the Romney campaign consider this?
Every disaster so far has been due to something that came out of the dude's mouth. Hard to blame circumstances for that.
Romney has definitely had some gaffes on this trip, but calling them "disasters" is rather melodramatic. No one is going to remember any of this one month from now.
that's the critical american public for you
but on a more serious note,
I am quite wondering why such gaffes are even possible as this guy must have been coached like hell, and considering the countrys he chose to make his charm tour are all ruled by rather conservative parties at the moment ( poland and israel even notoriously conservative since like the dawn of time)
Well he got poland left where he will try to do a "Reagan" which should be easy - yes should I said
On July 31 2012 11:51 Probulous wrote: Does the same go for Obama's "build it" gaffe?
No, that is much more serious and won't go away. Inadvertently and clumsily insulting the Brits is one thing. Insulting a large portion of the American voting public is another.
I don't know, it's a little borderline.
Obama's gaffe was baffling, but more a result of clumsily making the basic point that, yes, the government uses your taxes to make shit that everyone benefits from, including entrepreneurs and zillionaires.
Obama didn't re-brand his entire campaign around the 'I like firing people' gaffe, and I consider it in the same spectrum of stupidity.
On July 31 2012 11:51 Probulous wrote: Does the same go for Obama's "build it" gaffe?
That wasn't a gaffe, it was Romney's propaganda team taking a few words out of context. What Obama actually was referring to was that a large part of America's "land of opportunity" reputation is based on infrastructure such as roads, education, etc. that make success possible. I think that's a pretty reasonable statement.
On July 31 2012 11:51 Probulous wrote: Does the same go for Obama's "build it" gaffe?
No, that is much more serious and won't go away. Inadvertently and clumsily insulting the Brits is one thing. Insulting a large portion of the American voting public is another.
One simple question, two completely opposite opinions...
My point is that if you dismiss this by saying "People will forget", you have to be consistent. For all you know Obama's team will keep banging on about how Romney is Bush 3 regarding his foreign policy. They may manage to make this an issue by constantly referring to it. Sure you can explain it away but then you can do the same for Obama's statement.
Bare in mind foreign policy is one area where the president does have a huge amount of power, unlike domestic policy which is mostly controlled by congress. As an outsider I would hope that foreign policy has a decent impact on who wins the election.
On July 31 2012 10:51 ticklishmusic wrote: I think part of the reason Obama's foreign tour worked out well (apart from his massive personal appeal) was because he wasn't running against an incumbent. Trying to show foreign policy chops against an incumbent who has arguably done pretty well on that front has much more risk than reward.
Did NO ONE in the Romney campaign consider this?
Every disaster so far has been due to something that came out of the dude's mouth. Hard to blame circumstances for that.
Romney has definitely had some gaffes on this trip, but calling them "disasters" is rather melodramatic. No one is going to remember any of this one month from now.
that's the critical american public for you
but on a more serious note,
I am quite wondering why such gaffes are even possible as this guy must have been coached like hell, and considering the countrys he chose to make his charm tour are all ruled by rather conservative parties at the moment ( poland and israel even notoriously conservative since like the dawn of time)
Well he got poland left where he will try to do a "Reagan" which should be easy - yes should I said
I think most of the criticism/morbid fascination with Romney come from foreigners, actually. We seriously don't understand why American voters take him seriously. Nothing that he's said or done contradicts the stereotype that he is a hyper-religious vulture capitalist that will say anything to become president.
Obama has his share of negatives, but it's hard to imagine why people think Romney would be a better replacement.
And to be clear, I don't blame conservatives or Republican voters for supporting Romney, I blame the GOP for allowing themselves to be hijacked by neocons and freshmen congressmen with extreme and uncompromising agendas. It's these extreme and often contradictory positions that has made it so hard to find a better or more fitting candidate.
On July 31 2012 11:51 Probulous wrote: Does the same go for Obama's "build it" gaffe?
That wasn't a gaffe, it was Romney's propaganda team taking a few words out of context. What Obama actually was referring to was that a large part of America's "land of opportunity" reputation is based on infrastructure such as roads, education, etc. that make success possible. I think that's a pretty reasonable statement.
On July 31 2012 11:51 Probulous wrote: Does the same go for Obama's "build it" gaffe?
No, that is much more serious and won't go away. Inadvertently and clumsily insulting the Brits is one thing. Insulting a large portion of the American voting public is another.
One simple question, two completely opposite opinions...
My point is that if you dismiss this by saying "People will forget", you have to be consistent. For all you know Obama's team will keep banging on about how Romney is Bush 3 regarding his foreign policy. They may manage to make this an issue by constantly referring to it. Sure you can explain it away but then you can do the same for Obama's statement.
Bare in mind foreign policy is one area where the president does have a huge amount of power, unlike domestic policy which is mostly controlled by congress. As an outsider I would hope that foreign policy has a decent impact on who wins the election.
I don't think that the two positions are inconsistent at all. As I said, there's a big difference between insulting the nationals of a foreign country and insulting the very people that you need to vote for you. Think about it this way. Which gaffe do you expect to see in political ads? I can't imagine Obama or his allies doing one ad with Romney's statements about London. On the other hand, everyone expects to see Obama's gaffe run in ad after ad until the election.
For the record, Obama didn't shut down Guantanamo and kept several black sites operational, recognizing the need for the CIA/military to hold prisoners. Iran is nowhere near capable of launching a effective nuclear weapon. And he didn't 'apologize' for America, unless you think 'apologizing' is simply acknowledging that America has had their share of differences with other nations.
He gave a speech about the occasional necessity of war while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, for fucks sake.
On July 31 2012 11:51 Probulous wrote: Does the same go for Obama's "build it" gaffe?
No, that is much more serious and won't go away. Inadvertently and clumsily insulting the Brits is one thing. Insulting a large portion of the American voting public is another.
I don't know, it's a little borderline.
Obama's gaffe was baffling, but more a result of clumsily making the basic point that, yes, the government uses your taxes to make shit that everyone benefits from, including entrepreneurs and zillionaires.
Obama didn't re-brand his entire campaign around the 'I like firing people' gaffe, and I consider it in the same spectrum of stupidity.
See, that's why what Obama said is so bad. There were so many easy ways to make that point without shitting on individualism. He could have done everything from playing the basic class warfare game that he's been playing for years to adopting JFK's "Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Instead, Obama spent several minutes explaining why no one succeeds without government.
On July 31 2012 11:51 Probulous wrote: Does the same go for Obama's "build it" gaffe?
No, that is much more serious and won't go away. Inadvertently and clumsily insulting the Brits is one thing. Insulting a large portion of the American voting public is another.
I don't know, it's a little borderline.
Obama's gaffe was baffling, but more a result of clumsily making the basic point that, yes, the government uses your taxes to make shit that everyone benefits from, including entrepreneurs and zillionaires.
Obama didn't re-brand his entire campaign around the 'I like firing people' gaffe, and I consider it in the same spectrum of stupidity.
See, that's why what Obama said is so bad. There were so many easy ways to make that point without shitting on individualism. He could have done everything from playing the basic class warfare game that he's been playing for years to adopting JFK's "Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Instead, Obama spent several minutes explaining why no one succeeds without government.
Ugh, when you put it that way, I see what you're saying.
To quote his point: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
If he just cut to the chase and kept it as simple as that, it would have just been another day on the campaign trail.
However, I do understand the desire to address the increasingly diehard anti-government rhetoric that is consuming GOP ... he just did a crappy job.
On July 31 2012 11:51 Probulous wrote: Does the same go for Obama's "build it" gaffe?
That wasn't a gaffe, it was Romney's propaganda team taking a few words out of context.
I laugh every time that I see this rebuttal. The quote looks even worse when one reads everything in context, because it becomes obvious that it isn't just a throwaway line.
I laugh when people laugh too. It's a strange cycle of perceived intellectual superiority, isn't it?
I give zero shits about Romney's "I like to fire people" or w/e. Obama's "you didn't build that" is the same thing. Bad wording while trying to make a point.
On July 31 2012 11:51 Probulous wrote: Does the same go for Obama's "build it" gaffe?
No, that is much more serious and won't go away. Inadvertently and clumsily insulting the Brits is one thing. Insulting a large portion of the American voting public is another.
I don't know, it's a little borderline.
Obama's gaffe was baffling, but more a result of clumsily making the basic point that, yes, the government uses your taxes to make shit that everyone benefits from, including entrepreneurs and zillionaires.
Obama didn't re-brand his entire campaign around the 'I like firing people' gaffe, and I consider it in the same spectrum of stupidity.
See, that's why what Obama said is so bad. There were so many easy ways to make that point without shitting on individualism. He could have done everything from playing the basic class warfare game that he's been playing for years to adopting JFK's "Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Instead, Obama spent several minutes explaining why no one succeeds without government.
How in gods name did what he say shit on individualism? That's beyond upsurd. How can he get trouble for saying taxes fund roads?
My feeling is that, while a lot of people do care and are truly offended by the gaffes / whatevs that have happened so far, close to 100% of them already had decided on a candidate.
EPT
