Multiple-Choice Mitt isn’t giving the president any credit for the downfall of Moammar Gaddafi. This is in spite of the fact that Romney lost a friend on Pam Am Flight 103, and despite him having criticized Obama for doing too little (and also too much) to take Gaddafi down. There hasn’t been any substance to any of the five positions Romney has taken on the war in Libya. I think this is pretty accurate:
Writing in the American Conservative magazine, Daniel Larison observed at the time ”Romney seems unable to stake out a foreign policy position until after the Republican consensus has formed, and he then adapts himself to whatever that consensus happens to be…This does save him from the acrobatics required to maintain an anti-Obama position when Obama switches from restraint to starting a war, but it is just another reminder that Romney doesn’t hold foreign policy positions so much as he mimics those who do….For someone who is so fond of mocking Obama’s leadership or lack thereof, it is revealing that when Romney has to stake out a position one way or the other on a controversial question he is unable to show any leadership at all.”
I have some major concerns about Obama’s foreign policy and his record on civil liberties. But I at least can articulate what I think without waiting to hear what progressives are going to say.
Daniel Larison is who I want leading the Republican Party on policy.
Which is probably why he doesn’t.
If Mittens is indeed the GOP nominee, I can’t wait to see how this plays out in the general election. One thing I do know, the corporate media will ignore it.
I was unhappy with Obama miring us in another likely quagmire, but events seems to show that he met the situation with near-perfect balance. The contrast between him and Bush on international conflict is extreme.
He’s done it again Booman.
Seriously, how is it that this dude is considered an uber-flip flopper?
RT @PeterHambyCNN: Romney asked if Obama deserves some credit for Gadhafi killing. “Yes, yes, absolutely,” he says.
http://twitter.com/#!/samsteinhp/status/127134566711427072
Rick & Mitt are entering such a dangerous pathway by destroying each other piece by piece. Did you see the picture of the horrified woman onlooker in the Vegas crowd? She’s not alone and they’re headed down a path that will make their, vague though it is, respectability irretrievable.
History hasn’t seen this in any party here and I can’t even imagine the anger that will errupt when the TParty AND the rare sane ones all realize they don’t have a horse in the race.
Hey Booman,
OT, but do you think this “revelation” about Marco Rubio lying about his parents fleeing Cuba due to Fidel Castro is as big a deal as some think it is?
Isn’t this just like Hilary and her Bosnia story? I think he could be excused for being off by a few months, but 2 1/2 years off??? No way. That’s outright lying isn’t it?
I would love to hear from any actualy Floridians about it?
welp that was fast, nevermind, I see his hometown paper seem to be defending him against WashPo.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2011/10/did-the-washington-post-embellish-marco-rubios-
embellishments.html
It is lying, and not really because of months compared to 2 1/2 years. The real point, to burnish his RWNJ cred was that his family was running away from Castro. And this clearly was not the case, since Castro was still a few years away from coming to power.
Mitt needs to settle on a single, simple position on Libya, like John McCain’s: We should have used heavier, less precise air strikes.
Seriously, that’s what this “full extent of our air power” stuff is about: he wanted to use AC-130s. AC-130s fire gatling guns and 105 mm howitzers out of a side door. No GPS targeting, no days and days of observation followed by firing a single shot, laser-guided missile at a target. No, John McCain thinks we should have been using artillery and heavy-duty automatic weapons fire against the Gadhaffi forces dug in in occupied cities.