Mitt has written an op-ed for National Review Online, in which he calls Pres. Obama “a timid advocate of freedom”. The text:
At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas.
In his first press interview as president, he confessed to Arabic television that America had “dictated” to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has fought to free other nations from dictators. And in Strasbourg, the president further claimed that America has “showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” London’s Daily Telegraph observed that President Obama “went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.” Of course, it was not just the Daily Telegraph that was listening: People around the world who yearn for freedom, who count on America’s resolve and support, heard him as well. He was heard in China, in Tibet, in Sudan, in Burma, and, yes, in Cuba.
The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them. When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” a surge of confidence rose that would ultimately breach the bounds of the evil empire. It was the same confidence that had been ignited decades earlier when John F. Kennedy declared to a people surrounded by Communism that they were not alone. “We are all Berliners,” he said, because “freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confident commitment, spoken as he led us into the war that would free millions in Europe, inspired not only Americans but freedom fighters around the globe: “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” Such words of solidarity, of confidence, and of unwavering conviction that America is indeed “the last best hope on earth” are what freedom’s friends would have expected to hear from our president when our nation was slandered. Instead he offered silence, smiles, and a handshake.
Even more troubling than what he has or has not said is what he has not done. Kim Jong Il launched a long-range missile on the very day President Obama addressed the world about the peril of nuclear proliferation. As one of the world’s most oppressive and tyrannical regimes is on the brink of securing the “game changing” capability to reach American shores with a nuclear weapon, the president shrinks from action: no seizure of North Korean funds, no severance of banking access, no blockade.
Not to be outdone by Kim Jong Il, President Ahmadinejad announced that his nation has successfully mastered every step necessary to enrich uranium, violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has signed. So, like North Korea, Iran will have changed the world’s equation for peace and security: It will be capable of devastating Europe and America, and of annihilating Israel. And as with North Korea, the Obama administration chooses inaction — no new severe sanctions, no hint of military options. Ahmadinejad can act with confidence that the forceful options once on our proverbial table have been shelved.
Vice President Biden was right that the new president would be tested early in his administration. What the world learned was not good news for freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world has been a timid advocate of freedom at best. And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking. We are still very early in the Obama years — the president will have ample opportunity to defend America and freedom, and to deter nuclear brinkmanship. I am hoping for change.
Mitt doesn’t break any new ground here, but this rather neoconservative summary of some of Obama’s blunders abroad will probably please much of the base (some of which have questioned his hawk credentials) . What does everyone think about it?
April 21st, 2009 at 8:01 am
Wow Anthony, I was just looking to post this link in the comments section and you already had the story. Nice job!
April 21st, 2009 at 8:02 am
Well written, Mr. Romney.
April 21st, 2009 at 8:04 am
1,
Thank you! I saw the headline on Drudge and figured people here would want to know about it as soon as possible!
April 21st, 2009 at 8:33 am
As I’ve said for a long time, Obama is scary. Good job by Mitt.
April 21st, 2009 at 8:34 am
Obama now at his lowest level of approval in Rasmussen since his inauguration.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
April 21st, 2009 at 8:35 am
Mitt makes good points here that needed made. Others without any political ambitions have made them, too, and in my mind they have done so with even greater force. But that’s a minor critique that doesn’t detract from Mitt’s commentary.
Here’s a question that Obama’s promises and (in)actions leave unanswered: When do we start to see the desired effects of this “more humble” approach to foreign policy?
During the past year’s campaigns, we heard the Democrats and the mainstream media implore us to take the more humble posture on the international stage. There were also those on the libertarian right who told us that America’s supposedly aggressive, militarist stance left our adversaries with no other choice but to acquire nukes as a last resort to protect themselves against “unilateral” U.S. intervention.
So now we’ve done what the leftist internationalists were demanded by electing their political celebrity. He has spent several weeks on an international junket telling the world that he understands where our international critics are coming from.
What happens next? When do the Iranians suspend their nuke programs and allow IAEA inspectors free reign? How long before the North Koreans reverse course and befriend the one-time imperialist, capitalist aggressor?
When do we get to see the results of this new, humble, self-depricating course of mealy-mouthed, flexi-spine appeasement?
April 21st, 2009 at 8:36 am
Only 33% in Massachusetts Favor Incumbent Governor in 2010
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/states_general/massachusetts/only_33_in_massachusetts_favor_incumbent_governor_in_2010
“One-third of the state’s voters (34%) now approve of the job Patrick is doing as governor, including only eight percent (8%) who Strongly Approve.
This marks a 14-drop in approval for the governor since February, but it’s roughly the same place he was in the polls a year ago. Sixty-five percent (65%) now disapprove of Patrick’s job performance, including 39% who Strongly Disapprove.
Forty-nine percent (49%) say Patrick’s Republican predecessor, Mitt Romney, did a better job as governor, while 32% say Patrick is the better of the two. Sixty percent (16%) say neither man did a good job.”
April 21st, 2009 at 8:54 am
Thanks for posting this AD.
April 21st, 2009 at 9:01 am
Good job, Mitt.
The past few weeks have been depressing with everything Obama has done/not done on foreign policy. We should all be deeply concerned with Israel. Obama is sending all the wrong messages, does not want to even talk to Netanyahu, and is asking Israel to give up everything for a little help with Iran. The question is, what kind of help? They’ve made it clear there will be no attack on facilities. Rahm said there will be a 2 state solution, no ifs, ands, or buts. Oh brother.
April 21st, 2009 at 9:03 am
8. Do you prefer that our potential leaders stand by and say nothing?
April 21st, 2009 at 9:05 am
Romney’s Shot
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/Romneys_shot.html#comments
“Romney’s op-ed, and its timing, also offers a glimpse of the emerging dynamic among the Republican Party’s most visible leaders. Romney is essentially the anti-Newt in his approach to 2012: Disciplined, cautious and as aware of the danger of overexposure as Gingrich is prolific and scattershot.”
April 21st, 2009 at 9:11 am
Obama is now -4% amongst men when subtract strongly disapprove from strongly approve.
April 21st, 2009 at 9:17 am
This stance is perfectly in keeping with our country’s critics abroad who have most loudly denounced American support of Israel, which is always identified with any and all American interactions with Israel short of overt opposition to anything Israel does or suggests.
The question here is the same. What does this new stand-offish approach to Israel gain us in tangible terms? How does all the anticipated international love for America manifest itself, and when?
We’ve been lectured again and again that we needed to make this foreign policy course correction. Okay, done. Now what are the benefits of this change, and when will be start seeing them?
April 21st, 2009 at 9:20 am
Edit: when will we start seeing them?
April 21st, 2009 at 9:20 am
Obama’s approval in Massachusetts is only 58% according to Rasmussen….so he’s actually underperforming relative to the vote percentage that he won on November 4th.
Massachusetts is oddly one of the states in which we’ve made some decent gains since Clinton in 1996 and Gore in 2000 if you go by the two-party vote in those two elections. Sean Oxendine had a write-up that talked about Obama’s performance in Massachusetts on November 4th.
http://www.thenextright.com/sean-oxendine/where-corn-dont-grow
April 21st, 2009 at 9:27 am
Jay Cost, one of the smartest analysts in the business from our side….
Michael Steele Does So-So
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/04/michael_steele_does_soso.html
“Geraghty concludes that the concerns some have had about Steele as RNC chairman are looking “increasingly overblown.” I think that is conclusion is a bit hasty. The jury is still out on Steele’s ability to raise cash.
Let’s put this in historical perspective. We’re in the first quarter of the midterm election cycle. So, for comparative purposes, that means that January through March of 2005 are the best months for comparison. In that period, the RNC received $34.2 million, of which $32.3 million were contributions (as opposed to transfers, offsets, or other miscellaneous receipts). Meanwhile, the DNC received $16.7 million during that period, of which $14.1 million were contributions.
So, the RNC is not even close to matching the pace it set four years ago, but it is doing a little bit better than the DNC was (then and certainly now).”
April 21st, 2009 at 9:29 am
Hmmm I think all of us are peeved at the world apology tour Obama has been on but i’m guessing Mitt actually disappoints the neocons here.I don’t see him advocating military action in various places.Also interesting numbers from Mass atleast in Mitt’s case it seems absence makes the heart grow fonder.
April 21st, 2009 at 9:30 am
Here’s a novel suggestion in response to yesterday’s UN Racism conference, held so auspiciously on Adolf Hitler’s birthday: Abolish the UN!
Excerpt:
April 21st, 2009 at 9:56 am
Patrick’s low approval seems to coincide with the fact that back in March he trailed the state treasurer by 5 in the Democratic primary:http://www.suffolk.edu/offices/20580.html#anchor35023
April 21st, 2009 at 10:09 am
Obama Approval/Disapproval Rasmussen Crosstabs (H/T Brandon from the Hedgehog Report)
Overall 53.91%/45.18%
GOP: 20.57%/77.06%
DEM: 84.60%/15.16%
IND: 47.14%/52.63%
April 21st, 2009 at 10:14 am
Tommy Boy,
Please email me.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:19 am
Hmmm…this site is heading toward being cutting edge. I’ve moved it up to my third stop of the day. Keep up the good work.
Mr. Romney’s measured piece is right on, but doesn’t reflect even a small portion of the anger I feel at what Obama is trying to get for himself at the expense of this great country.
Nonetheless, I am ready to unabashedly push Romney for 2012, and I would support any legal effort, impeachment, recall petition, whatEVER to empty Congress and our lame presidency of the present squatters in order to put in real people who understand real issues and have the moral courage to implement the will of the people.
Did you all catch Katrina Pierson’s(think that’s her name) speech? She encapsulated perfectly the basic premise for what is at stake here. I can’t wait for this thing to unfold, freedom ALWAYS triumphs when there are even just a few people with guts and integrity willing to speak out and act.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:21 am
Oh yeah, and I second the motion for abolishing the UN.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:24 am
Did anyone find it ironic that the FBI listed today, as their number 1 most wanted, a left-wing animal rights domestic terrorist? LOL.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:27 am
well written piece, but indeed predictable
April 21st, 2009 at 10:36 am
Predictable, yes I agree. It’s also predictable that Palin and Huck will not write an op-ed like this or the other ones from Romney.
Does it matter? Yes, I think so. Some leaders (Romney, Sanford, Newt) are comfortable in the role, and others are not (Palin, Huck).
To be fair, Palin has her hands full. She’s had a rough month what with her failed leadership in the legislature, the senate picks, the AG, and her family issues.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:46 am
Romney correctly calls a stunning lack of leadership by Obama. It is good to call to attention what real leadership would have and should have done.
I am convinced that Obama’s lack of leadership experience is hurting America. He is totally beholden to advisors to tell him what to do and ill-advised at that.
Obama wanted to be president, he wanted the title and the trappings, the admiration and the fame. Its all a game of dress-up to him. He is not a real president. He is a president in name only–a PINO if you will.
Romney sees how ill-served we all are by this president. I hope this will be a call to action–Obama needs this constructive criticism about how a real leader should act.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:28 am
In the beginning after the election I sat back held my breath and waited. Praying that it would all work out, then Obama opened his mouth and non truth came out. I am so scared of what will happen if the Dems aren’t stopped. Finding out that the wonderful tax break promised is nothing more than getting money now but will be nailed for it at the end of the year. There is no break for that 90%. Then he makes a total mockery of what the United States of American stands for. He is making us a totally laughing stock and I know that our founding fathers are turning over in their graves. Please Mr. Romney we must stop them. I haven’t a real answer, since shooting on site isn’t legal and if we wait long enough the 2nd Amendment will be no more. And that I am afraid will be only a start. Obama and his group will dismantle everything we stand for. Everything. I am scared to death and at 65 that isn’t a fun thing to think about.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:34 am
I don’t think it ever hurts to have obvious mistakes written in a well mannered narrative to educate the masses. The media already spreads Obama’s message, so the more that write of Obama’s poor decisions only helps reach more of the fence sitters that put him in office.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:38 am
Obama, Udall Approvals Somewhat Weak
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CO_421.pdf
“Barack Obama and Mark Udall each won their elections in Colorado last year by pretty solid margins, but Public Policy Polling’s first look at their approval numbers since taking office finds relatively weak numbers for them in the state.
Obama receives approval from 49% of voters with 45% dissenting. For Udall it’s just 41% approval and 46% disapproving. For each that’s a much smaller swath of the electorate approving of their job performance than voted for them last fall, and it looks like a lot of that may have to do with their standing among independent voters.”
April 21st, 2009 at 11:57 am
MarkG and others have posted comments similar to the following:
I actually think we need to be a little more patient here. While it may feel insulting that Obama talks the U.S. down internationally, my experience has shown that a willingness to acknowledge mistakes and humility can go a long way in diplomatic relationships. Sure, maybe Obama goes too far in characterizing the actions of the U.S. in a negative light by appearing to accept all the foreign criticism and even give some of his own; however, I think that in the end what is important is if his approach bears fruit.
Before you all go ripping Obama for not getting results, I would urge you to see how his new approach fares. He has not been in office for very long, and he is just at the beginning of diplomatic relationships. We haven’t had much time to see how it will play out. I really think that the tone Obama is striking may yield results with some of these foreign leaders. I also think that if the situation called for it, my gut feeling is that Obama would take any action necessary; if the situation demanded it, I don’t think he would rule out military intervention. I think he may be smart though by not talking about it.
Just wait and see; don’t end up with egg on your faces.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:59 am
I don’t see any fresh thinking here. It is basically some boilerplate, partisan and not intellectually honest criticism (which is fine). Then a tribute to Reagan (which is again, fine, but the GOP needs to move on).
Then Romney is basically complaining that Obama hasn’t done enough yet to take out the regimes in North Korea or Iran.
The base will like this, but there isn’t much constructive stuff here.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Obama open to some interrogation prosecution
But president concerned about the impact of hearings
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30325495/print/1/displaymode/1098/
April 21st, 2009 at 12:02 pm
32. Move on from the foreign policy example of Reagan. Right. (eye-rolling here)
April 21st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
As I read this, I thought, literally, how different our country would be today if my state hadn’t grabbed on to the coattails of a hatemonger. We have the leaders who can keep this country on the right path. It’s going to be a matter of getting out of our comfort zones and making sure we support them.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
30 – Thanks for all the interesting tidbits Tommy Boy, especially the encouraging news in Massachusetts and Colorado.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:07 pm
SteveS -
What would you like to see, a call for revolt? As was mentioned earlier, Romney consistently comes through with the measured, thoughtful, confident points of a leader.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
10 – Martha, I believe he was referring to Anthony Dalke (aka AD) who posted this piece. I don’t think he was referring to it as an advertisement. Also, I don’t see the point in bringing up Palin and Huck when they aren’t the subject at hand and none of their supporters are bashing Mitt on this.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:09 pm
I like the ending. “I am hoping for change”. Romney kills it again. Great op-ed. someone made the point that you don’t get this stuff form other potential contenders except sometimes Gingrich. Gingrich may be an ideas man but Romney is a powerful and articulate communicator.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Gallup: Big Gov’t. Still Viewed as Greater Threat Than Big Business
Democrats’ views have changed, now view big business as greater threat
In your opinion, which of the following will be the biggest threat to the country in the future?
Big government 55%
Big business 32%
Among Republicans
Big government 80%
Big business 10%
Among Independents
Big government 59%
Big business 30%
Among Democrats
Big government 32%
Big business 52%
April 21st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
SteveS – liberal hack! Get a job!
April 21st, 2009 at 12:25 pm
A majority of young voters support or would not oppose what seems to be amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Young Voters, GOP, and Race
By Kristen Soltis
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/young_voters_gop_and_race.php#comments
“Younger voters are more comfortable with immigration reform than are older voters. In a May 2008 New Models study, age was a significant factor in terms of belief in the statement “Illegal immigration is significantly hurting the country”. While a majority of young voters still believe the statement (51%), there is a softening of opinion among young voters compared to the overall (62%) and particularly compared to older voting groups. Furthermore, in a Spring 2008 Harvard Institute of Politics study of 18-24 year olds, when presented with an immigration reform proposal that would give “illegal immigrants now living in the U.S. the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements”, 46% of the respondents in the Harvard study supported the proposal while 30% opposed it and 24% neither supported nor opposed. This is not to say younger voters are not concerned about illegal immigration, but rather that they are likely to be more open to reform.”
April 21st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
40. Ouch. in this society that is like biting the hand that feeds them. Nothing personal, but I prefer going to the supermarket or department store over the smaller 5,000 foot stores with very limited selection like the old days before big business was big business.
Corrupt CEO’s can be dealt with and may impact those working for that company. A corrupt government is the only one you have and can’t be dealt with until an election and effects everyone in the country.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Kristofer, these characters would rather be on the public welfare than get a job. Unfortunately, there is not as much incentive to be responsible and get a job.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Yeah i started laughing when i read that last little bit too: “I am hoping for change.” Well played Mitt. Keep brushing up all those credentials.
I’ll be toasting his election in 2012.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“We’ve been lectured again and again that we needed to make this foreign policy course correction. Okay, done. Now what are the benefits of this change, and when will be start seeing them?”
AMEN BRO!
April 21st, 2009 at 12:53 pm
#46, “When will we start seeing [the benefits of change]“?
Read my post, #31
April 21st, 2009 at 12:56 pm
The reason to move on from (or at least not fall into lazy comparisons to) Reagan, and Kennedy, and FDR, is not because they did a bad job. It is because the situation has changed, and so is the nature of the threats we face. We are no longer in the Cold War. What worked back then “Tear down this wall” does not necessarily apply to this situation.
In the Cold War, our adversary was clearly the Soviet Union. The world today is much different. Ortega and Chavez are not adversaries so much as whiny little children, with spitballs who sometimes try to disrupt class. We should treat them as such, which is completely different than the way we should have treated Kruschev, or Gorbechav, or Stalin or Hitler.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Obama’s first 100 days have convinced me that even Slick Willard Romney is worth a second look.
However, I find this piece somewhat lacking inasmuch as it doesn’t offer any new ideas. Rather, in this article Romney simply parrots traditional, 8+ year old talking points of the conservative approach to foreign policy; an approach which I support but one which a majority of American voters have rejected. I want to win in 2012 and I will support a candidate who I think can win. Unless Romney can offer some new ideas and not simply pander to the 30% of the electorate that is the solid GOP base, I won’t be able to support him.
Maybe Willard wasn’t trying to offer anything ground-breaking here but rather attempting to further establish his latest stance on a major issue. That’s fine. But I will want to see more from him as we get closer to 2010 when the nomination battle begins in earnest.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:18 pm
#47
“Before you all go ripping Obama for not getting results, I would urge you to see how his new approach fares.”
This is totally irrelevant suggestion when you are prescribing it to Evil and Designing men who WE ALL KNOW are only looking for weakness in the US President. They are not looking for humility Emtee, they are looking for feebleness. The only way, as Achmadinijad put it, for the President to make any useful(in their eyes) diplomacy is for the US policy to change.
Obama can wash their feet and rather than humble themselves in return, they would be greatly gratified to see the leader of the free world serve them. They want a US leader who they can be easily deceived. One who is grossly ignorant of their designs. Why? Because then they can continue with their agenda. As for Iran, their agenda is Allah sanctioned. And we all know what that is, especially after hearing of the rant that Achmadinijad displayed this past week.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:29 pm
To follow up on my post in #48, I recommend this video (and his book Daydream Believers too):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNjHSJ4HEgI
April 21st, 2009 at 1:33 pm
38. I get your point, but I mentioned Palin and Huck because this site is about 2012, and beating Obama. It’s vital to get leaders who can make a credible case against Obama on foreign policy and on domestic issues.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:39 pm
#49
“in this article Romney simply parrots traditional, 8+ year old talking points of the conservative approach to foreign policy; an approach which I support but one which a majority of American voters have rejected. I want to win in 2012 and I will support a candidate who I think can win. Unless Romney can offer some new ideas and not simply pander to the 30% of the electorate that is the solid GOP base, I won’t be able to support him.”
Read the article again Colorado guy. Don’t let your disdain for Mitt keep you from seeing the things you mentioned you didn’t.
The purpose of this article was to simply denounce Obama’s actions -which are enough for one topic- and to expressed utter contempt for Obama’s ignorance at dealing with national security. I would rather Mitt lay out his plan at a later time, instead of include it in this article. Many people would not read over an article that long.
Now, Mitt did criticize Obama for “no seizure of North Korean funds, no severance of banking access, no blockade.”
That is inadvertantly stating that things are things that Mitt would have in mind.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:42 pm
“That is inadvertantly stating that things are things that Mitt would have in mind.”
meant to say “that these are things Mitt would have in mind.”
April 21st, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Martha,
Obama’s lead against Romney in this poll from last year, at a time when Romney wasn’t being attacked by anyone, was larger than his eventual victory against McCain. The poll results suggest that Romney wasn’t very credible as a challenger to Obama in July of last year, so I think bashing Palin as an uncredible challenger isn’t an argument that can also be applied to Romney.
Obama Leads Bush by Twenty, But Clinton Does Better Against McCain
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/obama_leads_bush_by_twenty_but_clinton_does_better_against_mccain
“The poll results also show that Obama would have an easier go of it against two of McCain’s chief rivals for the Republican nomination. The presumptive Democratic nominee leads former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney by eight points 49% to 41% and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee 50% to 39%.”
April 21st, 2009 at 1:47 pm
All I said in my initial post was that I would like to see some ideas from Mitt. He’s clearly a very sharp guy and I’d love to hear more from him than attacks on Obama. If his sole purpose here was to do only that, he did a fine job. But as we get closer to primary season I hope we hear some real ideas from him and not the same old, same old.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I for one am encouraged that Colorado Guy is even willing to take a look at Romney. If Romney is starting to get second looks from people like CO guy then Romney is making strides where he needs to.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Bingo, Tommy Boy. Although Mr. Romney has pulled up his socks since the poll was taken. The fact was that Mr. Romney could not beat either Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Romney’s Critique of the Obama Foreign Policy
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/romneys-critique-of-the-obama.html#more
In truth, the striking thing about Romney’s critique is not the content of it (former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders have said the same) but the fact that the former Massachusetts governor chose to sound off on a foreign policy matter.
In a recent interview with the Fix, Romney said he was picking his spots in terms of offering his ideas on the national scene; “I really don’t feel the need to speak out on every issue that is being considered in the nation,” he said at the time.
To date, Romney had largely kept that pledge — making his voice heard on economic matters but staying silent on international issues. This op-ed breaks with that trend and is a recognition by Romney that if he wants to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2012 he needs to fight Obama on all fronts — foreign and domestic.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Mitt Romney hops to settle case out of court
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/2009_04_21_Pol_aims_for_payback_from_Mitt_Romney_on_mob/
“Mitt Romney apparently is not eager to add “federal witness” in a mob-related trial to his resume.
The ex-governor and Republican presidential nominee runner-up’s lawyers spent three hours in mediation with lawyers for a former state Civil Service Commission chairman who is suing him for wrongful termination over a long-ago real estate deal with the Mafia. The two parties are trying to settle the case out of court – and out of the public eye.”
April 21st, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Colorado Guy – good to see you giving Mitt more of chance. I’m very confident at the right time and right place Mitt will come out with guns blazing against this imposter.
IMHO guys, he’s not being used by these guys, he’s one of them!
April 21st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Emtee 31: I appreciate the fact that I’ll have little choice but to take the wait-and-see approach while hoping for the best. I’m merely expressing my doubts and skepticism that a foreign policy approach without any discernible benchmarks can at some unidentified future date be proclaimed a success.
It appears to me that Obama has chosen general rejection of a foreign policy based on the idea that we can work better with other nations that are more open and democratic in nature, and that peace and security are more readily achievable with such nations as a default posture in the relationship.
In its place, and despite American potential to lead thanks to our size and power, we’re now taking the cynical, Machiavellian option that smaller nations generally apply. This is based on the proposition that countries “have interests, but not friends.”
In the past, we have found it much easier to work with other more democratically inclined nations in long-term relationships that are stable and mutually beneficial with regard to trade and security. It was in our best interest to maintain generally positive relationships with them: Referring to them as friends was another way of saying that having good relations with them was in our historical and future long-term interests.
In its place we are adopting a foreign policy based on the idea that we will respond to those who oppose us the most aggressively by promising to have a sit-down and chin-wag with them, rather than “offending” their sensibilities by opposing them or ignoring them. It remains to be seen how far we are now willing to go in conciliation: Shall we offer them pay-offs? Or does advance capitulation suffice?
Our traditional friends, in contrast, do not approach us aggressively, and we won’t be paying much attention to them. When our friends’ interests collide with those of the adversaries who are noisiest and most aggressive in opposing us, we’ll give priority to the interests of our adversaries.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:09 pm
“If the case goes to trial, Romney, 62, will be called to testify about statements Monahan alleges the former governor made in August 2003, demanding Monahan’s resignation because the then-governor’s staff feared how a $180,000 loan Monahan borrowed from one-time New England Mafia underboss Gennaro Angiulo 23 years earlier to buy a downtown bar would reflect on Romney’s political image, according to Monahan’s suit.
“Bill, I don’t want to do this, and I don’t agree with them, but my senior staff is unanimous that I have to ask for your resignation,” Monahan alleges Romney told him in a phone call from the road.”
Tommy Boy, why in the world did you post this? There is nothing here either positive or negative. He asked for the resignation for a senior staff member after finding out that this guy had received a large loan 23 years earlier from the mafia. So what?????
April 21st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
OJ,
You hear about this? I stumbled across this excerpt in the blogosphere:
“There will be a special presentation on the May 14th NRA Foundation Banquet. There will be a custom AR-15 produced in honor of Gov. Sarah Palin…It is special made by Templar Consulting llc. , it is a .50 Beowulf with some special blingblings. It has custom engraving on it, the Big Dipper on the magazine well, and outline of Alaska on the stock, and a moose, the NRA logo and an inscription, “In Honor of Governor Sarah Palin” on the upper receiver. “Gov. Palin stood up and announced she was a supporter of the Second Amendment, ” says Reynolds. “I was really excited about that. I feel like the NRA has done a lot for my rights. And I feel the Governor has, too. I just wanted to do something to give back. And since the Governor lives in Alaska, I thought .50 Beowulf was appropriate.”
Apparently, it’s from the American Rifleman magazine.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
The 2008 trio back together?
http://www.nraam.org/events/forum.asp
“Confirmed speakers for this unique, members-only event include Governors Haley Barbour, Jan Brewer and Mitt Romney, Senator John McCain, former Navy SEAL and best selling author Marcus Luttrell, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, and commentator Michael Reagan. Invited speakers who are not confirmed include Governor Mike Huckabee, and publisher Steve Forbes.”
April 21st, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Illinois,
We post everything, whether it’s good or bad for any of our potential 2012 candidates.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Thanks Tommy Boy, I did not here about this. That’s our Sarah!
April 21st, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Tommy Boy, The polls showing Romney or Palin or anyone against Obama are 100% meaningless at this point.
Palin’s having troubles as gov right now every which way from Sunday. She is not in good graces with the party, either. (I know you don’t think that’s important, but in my view it is.) She has family issues that won’t go away.
Even if she were an effective gov, she could never compete with Romney when it comes to many important categories including policy, articulation, knowledge and credibility. Bless her heart, she just doesn’t have the key factors we’ll be looking for in 2012. She is a strong voice for gun rights and abortion, however.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I didn’t here about that OJ. Then again I didn’t hear about it either. I did read about it here at r42012 though and I’m happy we can get information here and occasionally watch and hear the clips here. If you have trouble hearing see here where nice people can help you hear. If that confuses you see here.
April 21st, 2009 at 3:04 pm
“She is not in good graces with the party, either.” That is news to me. She seems to be like by most Republicans that I know. At a party I hosted the other day, one of my Republican guest is leaning towards Mr. Romney , only because he he feels Mr. Romney can better survive the media, but he does like Mrs. Palin better. If all those who like Mrs. Palin the best join her camp and do not get side-tracked by the media, she’ll do OK in the primary.
April 21st, 2009 at 3:15 pm
“OK in the primary.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. And what does “OK” in the primary mean in the general? Be honest, now…
April 21st, 2009 at 3:25 pm
One thought as I read this:
Why, oh why, couldn’t this man be President instead?
This is yet another example of what makes me a Mitt man through and through.
April 21st, 2009 at 4:05 pm
69. There’s a lot of grumbling with party insiders and leaders about Palin. She ditched the House retreat in favor of the Alfalfa Dinner, and actually lied to them saying she had Alaska business. Her antics are getting a little embarrassing for the GOP. She lost her AG pick, she messed up the senate nominations, and she failed to lead on any policies in the legislature. A lot of people are starting to publicly say Palin is not ready for POTUS.
Yes, Ohio, I know many republicans like Palin. But surely even you must admit that things are not going well for Palin in Alaska right now. We were told she was a great executive, but it sure doesn’t look like it right now.
April 21st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Well done Mitt. Obama teed it up for him but Romney crushed it down the fairway. I like it so much, I wish Mike had written it!
April 21st, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Obama has demonstrated around the world his milk toast wimpiness, don’t blame me, I was only 3 months old. He refuses to defend the courage of past presidents. He weakens the image of American strength.
Krauthammer makes a similar argument:
The most telling moment, however, was when Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua, delivered a 53-minute excoriating attack on the United States. And Obama’s response was “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was three months old.”
Does the narcissism of this man know no bounds? This is not about him. It is about his country. This is something that occurred under John Kennedy — the Bay of Pigs is what he is referring to. And what he is saying is that it’s OK that he attacked John Kennedy, as long as it wasn’t me.
Doesn’t it occur to him that he ought to defend his country even if stuff happened before him? It doesn’t all start with him.”
And with all of these attacks on the U.S., he said almost nothing except I don’t want to engage in stale arguments. It’s not a stale argument to say in one simple sentence that American policy in Cuba since Eisenhower and Kennedy has been to try to rid these people of a communist dictatorship that imposed itself by force 50 years ago.
Go Charles! Go Mitt!
April 21st, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“And what does “OK” in the primary mean in the general? Be honest, now…” With 3 and a half years to go, it is hard to say, but I suspect that Mrs. Palin would do as good as any other Republican. As long as things are OK in AK, Americans may well be hungering for Mrs. Palin.
April 21st, 2009 at 6:11 pm
#72,
But Martha, Palin can give a real barn-burner of a speech every now and again. Doesn’t that make up for her less-than-stellar executive leadership skills?
In all seriousness you Palinites, if Sarah Palin is having this much difficulty contending with a legislature that is overwhelmingly her own party and dealing with the local Alaskan press; just how well do you think she will do with a Congress controlled by the opposition and having to contend with the National press?
If she is having this hard of time while residing at 716 Calhoun Av., Juneau, Alaska; why do you think she will magically do better by changing her address to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington D.C.?
When I look at Governor Sarah Palin, I see fairly mediocre, run-of-the-mill leadership skills. The more I look, the more pedestrian she appears. I really see nothing that sets her apart except for the fact that she can give a good speech. That simply isn’t good enough.
When the last cheer of Inauguration Day has died away, the new President has to lead the nation. He has to govern. He has to direct, control, and manage the vast sprawling organization that is the Federal Government. If Sarah Palin is having this much difficulty with Alaskan affairs, it does not build confidence she could handle National ones.
Give me a strong executive type like Romney, Giuliani, Jindal, and a host of others any day. I may not agree with all their policies. I may not entirely trust them. But at least I can sleep soundly at night knowing that a competent leader is at the helm. I am not convinced Palin is one.
Compare her to Jindal. Six months ago, I viewed Palin and Jindal pretty much equally — young rising GOP stars with a lot of potential. Since that time, Jindal’s star has continued to rise while Palin’s star seems to have stalled, and even began setting. Where Palin faces a Republican legislature in a traditionally Republican state, Jindal faces a Democratic legislature in a traditionally Democratic state. Yet Palin has been making a series of mistakes while Jindal has limited his to next to none.
Palin has difficulty performing with the wind to her back, and Jindal continues to perform well while facing a head-wind.
Why should I support Palin for President again?
April 21st, 2009 at 6:26 pm
MarK, Jindal’s SOTU Respoinse could be argued to be a mistake. It certainly went down poorly. However, Palin’s priorities are puzzling. Her continued attack of Levi Johnston was just weird.
Interesting that Mitt chooses to comment on foreign policy issues. Thus far he’s been focused on economic issues. I guess he wants to ensure there’s no gap for a foreign policy expert come 2012 (although who could fill that role?)
April 21st, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I agree that Mitt hasn’t changed his foreign policy stance since the election, and in that sense this Op-Ed doesn’t proffer anything new, but I find it encouraging in that it, along with other clues, suggests that he will actually run in 2012. That’s been my biggest worry all along….that he might not. Frankly, we don’t have anybody else with the gravitas and resume, to say nothing of the testosterone and resources, to take back the white house in 2012. Also, it’s essential that we fight back during these dark days. It’s a question of whether it’s always darkest just before the dawn, or whether it’s, in this case, darkest just before it goes pitch black. Mitt’s lighting a candle instead of cursing the darkness. Go toward the light.
April 21st, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Jaype, we need a candidate in 2012 that can lead on all 3 wings of conservatism. If you think we need to fill a gap on foreign policy, then you might find a guy who is weak on social and fiscal issues. The best candidate has strength in all three. Maybe not equal strength on all issues, but fairly balanced good solid vision and ability on all three. Mitt can handle it.
McCain was that foreign policy guy but had little else to offer. Consequently the party was divided. Lets try to unify the party by finding a guy like Mitt who so far seems like the only one who can do that. The others’ appeal seems to be lopsided to one side of conservatism and without balance.
April 21st, 2009 at 7:55 pm
“Jindal’s star has continued to rise.” That is optimistic to say the least.
April 21st, 2009 at 8:04 pm
JayPe,
Yes, Jindal’s SOTU response certainly fell flat. However, occasional clunker speeches don’t bother me. They all make them, even the best of them. Now if they were to do them continually, that would be a problem.
I am far more interested in how they perform in day-to-day governing. There Jindal really shines compared to Palin.
My basic point remains. Six months ago I pretty much viewed Jindal and Palin as equal in stature and potential. Since then, I cannot help but notice that Jindal impresses more than disappoints, and Palin disappoints more than impresses. Yet Jindal serves in a blue state, and Palin serves in a red state. That doesn’t speak very highly of Sarah Palin’s skills and abilities to Governor, does it? When you consider that, why should we entrust the Oval Office to her?
A barn-burner speech now and then simply does not make up for all the difficulties Palin is having at governing. Sorry.
April 21st, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Let me put it another way. You are the Manager of struggling Major League franchise. Your once great team has had two straight horrible losing seasons. You are in desperate need of a good hitter to anchor your lineup.
In your farm system you have two promising candidates. One is working in a farm league where the pitching isn’t that tough. She was brought up just last year, but the team still lost. Badly. She did excite the hometown fans, however. The second player works in a farm league known for its tough pitching. He has charisma too, but not as much as the first player.
The first player, the pretty one who has been facing weak pitching, has an average batting average. She is weak on fielding, as well. She tends to commit a whole lot of errors. The second, the one facing far more aggressive pitching, has a better batting average, and he is better at fielding the ball than the other. He makes fewer errors.
Which one do you bring up to your struggling team? The hometown crowd-pleaser who struggles to produce against weaker opposition, or the one who produces against tougher opposition?
April 21st, 2009 at 8:42 pm
MarK,
You are entitled to your opinion but calling Louisiana a blue state is highly misleading. Are you making that assertion because there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in the state? If so, why do you not also take into consideration that conservatives made up a greater composition of the electorate in Lousiana than in Alaska in 2008. 42% of electorate in LA was conservative, 39% in Alaska if you go look at an exit poll. Both are red states.
April 21st, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Tommy Boy,
You haven’t really responded to Palin’s flubs of late. What do you make of them?
April 21st, 2009 at 8:51 pm
In other words, some Democrats in Lousiana are extremely conservative, probably to the right of many non-Southern Republicans if you go by the numbers.
Keep in mind too that just because someone calls something an error doesn’t make it an error. Whether something is an error is all subjective. I appreciate the baseball analogy though.
I would also dispute that Jindal’s star has continued to rise…anything other than Washington politicians or consultants providing support for such an assertion? Any scientific poll?
April 21st, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Martha,
List out the “alleged” flubs and perhaps then, I can respond. I cannot decipher what in your opinion is a flub…we’re not close enough yet, hahaha.
April 21st, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Tommy Boy, isn’t the LA legislature democrat controlled, while Alaska is republican controlled?
Do you think Palin made any errors with her AG nomination, the senate nominations, or on her legislative proposals? I think it’s pretty clear she’s struggling.
April 21st, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Tommy Boy, you and I read the same news about Palin. I guess it’s a half-empty, half-full thing, but it’s pretty hard to find anyone putting a good spin on Palin’s leadership these days. She picked a very controversial figure for AG. The senate seat nominations were a debacle all the way around, and most people say she was awol on legislative matters. What’s the spin for all these obvious errors?
April 21st, 2009 at 9:10 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Senate
The Democrats represent the majority in the “bi-partisan coalition” that makes up the majority of the State Senate. Palin’s allies are the four Republicans in the Senate minority. Read the wiki article….
April 21st, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Let’s see here….
1) State Senate: So the end result was a more conservative democrat than the person the dems wanted to her to appoint at the beginning. Palin: “[Egan's] pro-business and understands the need for responsible development in order to create jobs in Southeast.” This guy is also someone with whom she’s cordial: Egan said that not only does he have a good relationship with Gov. Palin, but also first gentleman Todd Palin. Egan said he accompanies his mother to a governor’s mansion function for former first ladies, and spent the time swapping snow machine stories with the governor’s husband. “It’s always been very cordial,” Egan said.
And even the Juneau Empire conceded that the Democrats acted unlawfully when they rejected her initial appointments. “We also can’t ignore how Senate Democrats’ secret, unannounced meetings are equally counterproductive to this whole process. At least twice, Democratic senators have violated the state’s open meetings law with no consequences beyond a gubernatorial tongue-lashing. All these factors expose the dire need for a more clearly defined process for filling such vacancies.”
The Department of Law provided an opinion in support of her position regarding the Democrats’
illegal action with respect to the Senate appointment:
“The opinion finds that, regardless of past practice, the law requires confirmation of vacancy appointments by a vote in open session. “While we recognize that there is a tradition for confirming such appointments in private, we have never agreed with this procedure and have doubts as to its constitutionality.”
I would provide links but I suspect you don’t think I’m making up these quotes.
April 21st, 2009 at 9:21 pm
So what if there wasn’t much legislation passed?
“Voters who believe lawmakers govern best when they govern least should be pleased, said Senate Majority Leader Johnny Ellis, D-Anchorage.
“I don’t think the vast majority of Alaska voters are going to be disappointed with our performance this year, if we get the basics done,” Ellis said. “This is a back-to-basics session with operating, capital and stimulus money.”
Palin’s view can be found here:
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/news.php?id=1779
April 21st, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Tommy,
The Louisiana Senate is 23/16 Democrat to Republican. The Louisiana House is 53/50/2 Democrat to Republican with two independents.
The Alaskan Senate is 11/9 Republican to Democrat. The Alaskan House is 23/17 Republican to Democrat.
So why is Palin struggling so much while Jindal isn’t? And why would you think Palin would do better advancing her agenda fighting a Congress dominated by Democrats when she struggles so much with a Legislature controlled by her own party?
April 21st, 2009 at 9:44 pm
MarK,
You are asserting that Jindal ins’t “struggling.” How do you come to this conclusion? How do you come to the conclusion that Palin is “struggling?” Because someone said so?
Did you read the wiki article I cited about the AK State Senate? 6 of the Republicans joined the Democrats to form a coalition, so the context is a little different from the 11/9 R/D split that you cite.
April 21st, 2009 at 9:59 pm
92. It’s not that there was little legislation passed, but that Palin was not engaged, not even for her own proposals.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:22 pm
I think we are seeing Romney take the opportunity to present both the message and the messenger. Opposite Obama’s apology and appeasement, there is Romney’s “Restoring America” (economically, politically, morally)
This peace is laying groundwork with middle America. He is already speaking to those who are realizing they don’t want a smaller America in the world and a bigger America in Washington.
Make no mistake. Mitt is calling Barack out. This was a bow shot.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:00 am
Not only that Tommy, many of the Democrats in LA are southern Democrats and have voted with the GOP for years on some issues. Mr. Jindal is a nice guy and a good Conservative. However, it seems a little insulting to claim that he is doing as good or even a better job than Mrs. Palin. Mr. Jindal is certainly working hard and he is not doing a bad job, but to say he is operating free of struggles seems odd to me especially when he has been known to get into silly contests with his own local party officials. At least when Mrs. Palin choses side in internal party affairs, she chooses a winner.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
There is a difference between someone who struggles but ultimately succeeds; and someone who struggles and loses, or at best runs their opponent to a draw.
Are you Palinites saying that if Jindal and Palin swapped jobs, that Palin would be enjoying the same successes that Jindal is currently having, and that Jindal would be enduring the same struggles with the same outcomes as Palin is currently experiencing?
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:11 am
Despite the fact that the answer may be hypothetical and it is apples to oranges, I for one say a definite yes at this point in the game.
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:38 am
You honestly think that, OHIO?
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Yes I do, I could always change my mind in few years if things start to unfold differently, but as of today, I hold that opinion rather strongly.