Their foreign policy statements are so strident that they make the Cold War seem like a piece of cake. Are they the Rough Riders of today? "Remember the Maine!"
Mitt Romney Foreign Policy Team: 17 of 24 Advisors Are Bush Neocons
In a must-read article this week in Foreign Policy, Rep. Adam Smith is smart to point out that of "Romney's 24 special advisors on foreign policy, 17 served in the Bush-Cheney administration."
Remember the cowboy?
Here is a link that might be useful: Mitt
Perhaps they want to get WWIII up and running so the public doesn't realize the real reasons our planet is dying so quickly... then it will look like war induced damage instead.
Or, maybe it's nothing more than another injection of bogeyman fear.
I agree. Sarah Palin announced on TV last night that she approved of Romney's rough, tough cowboy approach (can't remember her exact words--they were belligerent). Basically, she called President Obama a wimp and a wuss for not going instantly into outrage mode and warning the Muslims that we are out to get them for not respecting us the way we think we ought to be respected (again, can't remember her exact words, but she was VERY EMPHATIC).
That is whom Romney is trying to appeal to--the Sarah Palin/T-Party/religious rightwing types in the Republican Party. Maybe they could do a Stalin thing (or was that Krushev?)--you know, take off a shoe and pound it on the table for emphasis. Makes you look REALLY TOUGH. Didn't all Americans quiver in fear at that shoe-pounding Soviet, after all?
Yeah, that would really quiet down international relations--or are the Romneys of this world looking for an excuse to start another war?
From the NYT.
"President Obama's statement of outrage and his vow to bring the killers to justice received bipartisan support, including from politicians otherwise committed to partisan warfare, like the House speaker, John Boehner, and the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, who rarely misses a chance to attack Mr. Obama.
But not from Mitt Romney, who wants Americans to believe he can be president but showed an extraordinary lack of presidential character by using the murders of the Americans in Libya as an excuse not just to attack Mr. Obama, but to do so in a way that suggested either a dangerous ignorance of the facts or an equally dangerous willingness to twist them to his narrow partisan aims.
Mr. Romney could easily have held his fire during this crisis, if he could not summon the decency to support the United States government. Instead, he misrepresented the administration as "sympathizing" with the attackers. There was no truth in what he said. In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made the first official comment on the killings, a strong condemnation, before Mr. Romney released his statement. Even after having a night to reconsider his response, Mr. Romney merely doubled down on his false charges, as he is prone to do."
bad form. bad for everyone! Had he not let Grenell go he would have had a real foreign policy advisor who might have showed him what knife or fork to use at a time like this rather than the pack of clowns surrounding him.
This is getting eerie. It's like Jimmy Carter is back in the White House, Islamists are exposing his incompetence, and despite polls to the contrary, Americans are about to send their likeable but hapless president home in a landslide after a single term.
Americans are about to send their likeable but hapless president home in a landslide after a single term.
Nik I know you have to believe that for your sanity. But you might want to consider it will not happen as you wish.
Carter. Didn't I know it. This is which way the wind blows.
Actually Carter light. Boo !!
Yes & Regan knew how to behave!
You 2 are really are up nice colors your wearing!
Yes & Regan knew how to behave!
So President Obama should invade Grenada to follow his example of the proper action when Islamist militants attack and kill U.S. citizens abroad.
So nik and mrskjun, are you advocating for war? I know you dislike Obama and like Romney, but do you support a new war?
I didn't hear anyone mention war nina. Are you advocating that our embassies are free fire zones? That terrorists are free to kill any Americans they find there with no consequences?
At least Reagan was a moderate and seemed to have fairly good advisers.
These two, R&R, are so far to the right of anyone, that they are about to fall off the edge of the earth.
Here be monsters...
Love that map, mom, can you tell me the source?
I googled ancient maps with monsters - this is one of them. Our forefathers, and mothers, had some pretty wild ideas about what lay beyond the horizon.
Looks like things haven't changed much for some people.
Reagan started with a lie and the set-up of Carter.
Thanks, Mom. I appreciate the link. :)
I'd like a copy of that to frame, I love maps.
Wish I'd bought one similar to that a few years ago in a little shop in Zurich.
Yes, Reagan did start with a lie and did set up President Carter. But he was now our President.
The release of the hostages, about a minute after Reagan was sworn in as President was such blatant hooey, but you can't go wrong underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
I suspect it is treason to be conducting such negotiations as a private citizen, but NO ONE ever investigated.
Thanks Mom for the link. Demi, I bet you regret not picking up the maps. I hav two collection of my travels of Maps and Mask found off the beaten path of tourist zones added to my unique collection. I have large collections of both. It is fun. But that is another subject.
Yes, another subject but I love it.
I'd like to see your collection!
I have an old large raised relief topographical map of parts of Europe, mainly France, which I had triple framed. I find guests stopped in front of it, putting their hands over mountains and places they've visited or read about. It's a great conversation piece and fun to just stop and enjoy when walking past it--I always find something new.
Perhaps we should continue on conversations-- back to scary Ryan and Romney.
despite polls to the contrary, Americans are about to send their likeable but hapless president home in a landslide after a single term.
OK, so if the polls are not telling you that's what is going to happen, why do you think that?
So Demi-what do you propose that Obama should do?
The funniest thing I've read today is Ronald Reagan should have been found guilty of treason. LOL that takes the prize for sure.
How many private citizens have negotiated the release of prisoners? Let's see, there is Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter and many more. I'm not following this, are they all guilty of treason?
Hey labrea, check out the article written by Grenell in today's Daily Beast. I think you might be changing your tune about how wonderful he is.
I have an old large raised relief topographical map of parts of Europe,
That sounds beautiful. We should do a "Collection" post. Maybe after the election. It would be fun to see everyone;s treasure. Everybody has one even a human treasure, These type of topics were fun on other forums.
Ummmmm.... selling weapons to Iran during an embargo and then using the profits to fund drug dealers an insurgency expressly prohibited by congress? I guess that's not treason but certainly criminal. He should have died in jail.
"OK, so if the polls are not telling you that's what is going to happen, why do you think that?"
I said it is "like" Carter was back in the White House. I was referring to Carter's polls. He was ahead.
Despite those polls, Reagan kicked his butt. Obama's pattern of incompetence and being played for a fool by Islamists is similar to Carter's.
The polls say Obama is ahead of Romney. We won't know if Obama's polls are as off as Carters were until after the election.
I think the R&R team are mostly playing up to their base. It's a poor strategy. If you listen to what they say, there's been no real substance in their speeches...no real detail.
I'm more concentrated now on how many House and Senate seats Obama will carry this time around. I think it will be enough to keep the Senate but not nearly enough for the House.
Now that it will be his last term, he won't have to capitulate on everything though.
I'm not following this, are they all guilty of treason?
Clinton is. He lied about a BJ.
Oh I certainly would not think Grenell is anything less than a loyal flunky. Kick me harder & I'll stick my tongue in deeper kind of guy. He performed wonderfully no matter if Mitt drooled & recited the words of I am The Walrus he would dress it up as a Churchillian masterpeice it's what Grenell does best.
I think the R&R team are mostly playing up to their base. It's a poor strategy.
Yes, that is why I am not as worried as I was when they started. The base is small. It is not the majority.
The majority will not be easy led when R&R say Obama apologizes. Most of the American people can read and recognize when they see an apology.
What I have learned on HT. There are a few people that have never heard an apology . No one has ever apologized to them.
Oh I certainly would not think Grenell is anything less than a loyal flunky. Kick me harder & I'll stick my tongue in deeper kind of guy. He performed wonderfully no matter if Mitt drooled & recited the words of I am The Walrus he would dress it up as a Churchillian masterpeice it's what Grenell does best. lol! Perfect description!
If you are not scared yet, let's see if this does the trick - Romney's latest statement :
In an interview with ABC News Thursday evening, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney suggested that, after it was all said and done, the Obama administration concluded that his criticism of their handling of yesterday's embassy attacks was, indeed, valid.
"What I said was exactly the same conclusion the White House reached, which was that the statement was inappropriate. That�s why they backed away from it as well," Romney told George Stephanopoulos.
This is fairly impressive verbal gymnastics. Yes, the White House distanced itself from the initial statement put out by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that apologized for a crass anti-Muslim film that had been making the rounds on the Internet. And yes, Romney also criticized the issuance of that statement.
But Romney also accused the president of sympathizing with the rioters because of that initial statement, despite the fact that the embassy released it hours before the attacks took place. And while Romney may want to focus attention elsewhere, it was that specific attack on Obama that had Democrats, foreign policy experts, and a good chunk of Republicans criticizing his conduct. His statement didn't comport with the actual timeline of events.
Stephanopoulos asked Romney about it during the interview and he seemingly avoided the substance of the issue -- whether Obama does, in fact, sympathize with the rioters.
"Well, I think the statement was an inappropriate statement," he said. "I think it was not directly applicable and appropriate for the setting. I think it should have been taken down. And apparently the White House felt the same way."
The man thinks he can do no wrong. That's scary.
Polling science has come a long way since the 1980s.
How so, JZ?
Posted by fouquieria 10b (My Page) on Thu, Sep 13, 12 at 17:08
"I'm not following this, are they all guilty of treason?
Clinton is. He lied about a BJ."
That wasn't treason; just ordinary run of the mill lying. Actually it had to be more than just a BJ.
But that WAS funny, Ron.
Clinton didn't lie or commit perjury. He testified that he didn't have "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. Fact is, Kenny Starr's legal definition of sexual relations DID NOT include oral sex.....most likely because Kenny has never personally experienced it.
Was it really worth 60 million taxpayer dollars to find out that Kenny Starr has never had a BJ??
Starr was just horrible; no doubt about it. But I still say it was more than just a BJ, and President Clinton did admit to lying, in so many words.
Just sayin', as long as Ron brought it up.
Elvis: But I still say it was more than just a BJ
WHY do you say this? Did Monica say that? AND: what does it possibly matter?
noted that the gop leadership didn't side with romney , but the wing nuts sure did.
"Advisers to Mitt Romney on Thursday defended his sharp criticism of President Obama and said that the deadly protests sweeping the Middle East would not have happened if the Republican nominee were president.
"There's a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you'd be in a different situation," Richard Williamson, a top Romney foreign policy adviser, said in an interview. "For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we've had an American ambassador assassinated."
Williamson added, "In Egypt and Libya and Yemen, again demonstrations - the respect for America has gone down, there's not a sense of American resolve and we can't even protect sovereign American property." snip end quote.
So, again, it's all Obama's fault? Is that the thinking from Romney's crew of kooks?
For the first time 3,000 Americans were murdered on American Soil ever. Under a Republican President that was warned that we would be attacked. What was his point?
How have computers changed polling since 1980?
I believe that mechanization especially things like automatic dialer have increased the sampling base considerably. The larger the numbers the more valid the sampling.
Usage for information, sharing Fact Check for those that want facts
Lets see you might get a clear picture of understanding if you compare a automobile from 1980 to 2012.
Also, computer models that help with prediction.
Usage for information, sharing Fact Check for those that want facts
Lets see you might get a clear picture of understanding if you compare a automobile from 1980 to 2012"
JZ, Polling science is all about trying to accurately measure something. None of your examples illustrate a change in how pollsters get the numbers they measure today, as opposed to 1980. Computers can crunch out numbers faster than people, but the results don't change depending upon who or what does the calculating. In scientific polling, the focus is avoiding bias while asking the right questions of the right population of the right size in the right way. I'm guessing computers probably do help find better sampling populations. Interestingly, even with computers and demographic databases, we still have seen recent articles highlighting problems with the oversampling of Democrats. I agree we're in a new era, but I'm not sure the actual science of polling has changed all that much.
From my reading on the subject:
Good polls use random computer generated numbers, for example. Apparently, humans are not very good at generating random numbers.
The advent of the cellphone. It happens that cell phones are used by more affluent households instead of land lines, so that calculation has to enter into the way the poll is conducted and really the only way to do this is via computers.
The computer can detect patterns that humans would not be able to do because they cannot process the information as quickly or as comprehensively.
Have you ever heard of Nate Silver?
To be honest jerzee, I don't really pay attention to poll numbers. Everybody has an opinion who participates in a poll, and their answer is determined by the way the question is framed. Anyone can proudly support Obama over the R&R twins. The numbers can show that Obama has pulled out in front with honest and forthright polling numbers.
But all that matters is how many Obama supporters will get out and vote. History has shown that this is not the democrat's strong point, but it is the Republicans
(and former Republican who voted for Bush jr twice and is embarrassed so now they declare themselves to be Independents)
tend to be very good at.
I think we can only know who will win the minute the votes have been counted.
Personally, I consider the poll numbers to be a distraction from the topics which should be focused upon.
Like, R deux - who was part of the two man team of Akin and Ryan who defined what a real rape is and how abortion should be handled in this country. And would ruin Akin if he could, to just shut him UP about it.
I don't really care how fast he runs, though or how he lied over the time. It's funny and it's another point to land in his "character?" column, but I don't think it will matter to the "I'm an Independent!" voter, not one wit.
I am interested in the degree of Romney's willingness to reveal his tax records as did his father and everyone else before and after his father.
I'm interested in HOW he will STATE he will save the country from 'all the destruction' Obama has caused. And since Obama has us on the wrong road, what road will the R&R twins take us on. Describe the landscape we will find as we travel that road.
I am interested in his telling us his specific and vocalized RESOLUTIONS FOR CHANGE regarding defense, defense spending, war, how he will improve the lot of the poor, reform education, how he will handle further health care reform and the two biggies: exacting plans for Medicare and S.S.
How he will use his business expertise in resolving the financial matters of this country. With vocalized specifics.
What exactly is his plans to create job growth in this country.
And most certainly, his ability and willingness to greatly improve how he relates and works with world leaders.
Which, thus far, has been a crushing embarrassment to this country.
IMO the poll numbers end up being destructive distractions (in the big picture) to the voters.
Obama may be leading by, say 15 points in the poll right before the elections - which will make liberals feel just great - but if all those people don't bother to get out and vote, it's really meaningless and ended up being destructive because they didn't bother themselves to haul up and vote because they figured Obama had it in the bag.
I have no doubt that all Romney supporters will certainly get out and vote, no matter how good or bad the polling numbers are come election day. That is their very strong point one I won't take away from them. They do tend to exercise their right to vote much better than do conservatives.
I don't believe there are any people on that political fence that keeps getting mentioned. IMO, everyone has made up their minds, long ago.
I bbelieve the two parties are so vastly different and wide apart now that the fence everybody keeps talking about couldn't be located, not even by the world google map camera.
Everybody either supports R&R twins or Obama or they just dont care and have completely disengaged themselves from the process and nothing will lure them to the voting booth. They aren't following this, they won't listen to the debates, they change the channel with the election or the topics from each candidate team comes up - certainly doesn't listen to the commercials. They are going to the bathroom or popping the corn for whatever else they are watching at the time.
Of course, all just my opinion and I'd LOVE to be proved wrong, most sincerely I would.
When I was down to Obama's HQ last night , we were discussing why all ads were pulled in PA on both sides. They remarked it was because PA is still blue,but do not take anything for granted. Get people their photo ID, get people registered and get them to the polls like we are 10 points behind.
Oversampling of Democrats in polling....that's funny to the point of being ridiculous, particularly as you have also said "I'm guessing computers probably do help find better sampling populations".
So which is it, nikoleta? Oversampling or finding better sampling populations? if you are going to blindly copy and paste from breitbart, the examiner etc...AT LEAST TRY and avoid making yourself look foolish.
"Good polls use random computer generated numbers, for example. Apparently, humans are not very good at generating random numbers."
What numbers? Do you mean telephone numbers?
"It happens that cell phones are used by more affluent households instead of land lines..."
"The computer can detect patterns that humans would not be able to do because they cannot process the information as quickly or as comprehensively."
"Have you ever heard of Nate Silver?"
No, but thanks for the heads up. I read some of his stuff last night, and I think I like him! Thanks JZ!
I listened to Ryan's speech at the RNC. With radio, there's no visual distractions, and I'm more attuned to the actual manner of speaking. He had the annoying habit of softly laughing to himself after each barb he delivered. He should either back off the mic when indulging in his self-congratulations, or insist on a less sensitive mic. I came away with an even worse impression because of his delivery - he thinks he's really hot.
"The worst are filled with passionate intensity..."
Just like Romney smirking when he held his press conference on Libya. People died, and this jerk was smirking.
Romney smirks all the time...This time it was very offensive.
This may play into why someone would begin to worry about a candidate on a personal feeling side of things. It is part of poll taker questions of.....Would you like to have a beer with a candidate.
A speaker's mannerism play a big part in perception of a person.
I have mentioned before I have problems with people that wag their finger. It is not as some people do as they speak that will point or a certain way they move their hands/finger. It annoys me when Anne Romney has a way of wagging her finger at the camera and it comes across as she is wagging/shaking her finger at you the audience/viewer. It gives a negative impression vs of trying to state a point.
All public speaking key is delivery and body language. Things like this may sound trivial. If people say they do not like a certain person or a message it is not trivial. If you want your message received as positive, body language becomes key to getting your message across and accepted.
After the convention people were talking about Mrs Obama's fingernail polish. Mrs Obama's was the color polish that was selling out fast. Was it the color or was it the way the fingers were used during the speech? Personally I did not like either color. Anne's blood red color was disgusting and Mrs Obama's black color was equally disgusting to my eye.
That wasn't treason; just ordinary run of the mill lying.
Oh well. I just don't understand politics. One President gets impeached for just ordinary run of the mill lying and another President get's re-elected for four more years for lying about starting a war.
"Just like Romney smirking when he held his press conference on Libya. People died, and this jerk was smirking."
Romney should watch Obama for his tips on proper presidential conduct.
For example, right after Islamists murder your ambassador and his staff in a country where your official policy is to deny them Marine protection and armed security, even on 9/11, the really presidential thing to do is to hop a plane for a Las Vegas fundraiser.
As opposed to continuing to read from a children's book.
For example, right after Islamists murder your ambassador and his staff in a country where your official policy is to deny them Marine protection and armed security, even on 9/11, . . .
nik, you have GOT to start informing yourself by reading more than Breitbart.com. Go to what I posted on the Hilary thread you started.
Nik, you've got to stop getting your "news" from Breitbart.
nik: It's really an interesting subject and there is great information you can find by just doing a little research. Read the article I linked. I thought it was interesting and it has a great bibliography if you want to continue to read about polling science.
Here is a link that might be useful: The Good the Bad and the Ugly of Public Opinion Polls
Thats a good read, jerzeegirl.
I also like reading the 538 blog, particularly the comments.
Both are equally scary, in different ways. Mitt is a naif, whereas Ryan is overly confident. Both are Hawks, and that alone is scary enough.
The Death Wish Twins have a narrow world view.
Ideologies aside, does it occur to R&R that there are certain realities - situations that exist in real time and in real place - that will limit any president and foreign policy?
Romney is like a Power Point candidate... stand up there with a few bullet points, get annoyed with the whole thing and walk away thinking "there, that should hold them."
How many of you have been polled? I have not ever.
nik, you have GOT to start informing yourself by reading more than Breitbart.com. Go to what I posted on the Hilary thread you started.
OK, Dockside. I checked your links. Which one disputes the above? Feel free to post it here.
JZ Your link looks like it will be a great read! Thanks.
I wouldn't want to have a beer with Mitt Romney since I don't like to drink alone!
I won't want to have a non-alcoholic beer with Romney, or any kind of alcohol with Ryan. In turn, I'm sure they wouldn't want to hear me call them war mongers and un-Christian.
I've never been polled.
Ba dum tssshhh
"I wouldn't want to have a beer with Mitt Romney since I don't like to drink alone!"
Ba dum tsssshhhh.
(Posters fast on the draw today!)
I've been polled several times and have been selected for jury duty 3 times. I wish I could hide. Especially for this jury duty thing.