E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Steven Senne / AP
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney addresses an audience during a campaign stop in Metairie, La., Friday, March 23, 2012.
Mitt Romney has made a point of carefully picking the instances in which he challenges President Barack Obama's management of foreign policy, reflecting the delicacy the Republican faces in taking on a commander in chief whose foreign policy marks are relatively high.
Romney has shown an eagerness to challenge Obama on a number of points of his national security strategy, but has emphasized his criticism of the president in particular areas where his differences are strongest.
The freshest example came this week, when the former governor seized on Obama’s comments to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, in which Obama suggested greater “flexibility” on negotiations regarding missile defense after the election.
Romney was quick to call the moment “alarming and troubling,” a sentiment in which he was eventually joined by the Republican National Committee and rival presidential candidate Rick Santorum.
“President Obama's conversation with Dmitry Medvedev raises questions not only about his policy toward Russia, but his entire foreign policy,” he wrote Wednesday for the magazine Foreign Policy in part of a sustained attack on the administration.
But Romney has used discretion in the sharpness and severity of his criticism. He’s offered boilerplate opposition to the president’s handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the popular uprisings in Libya and Syria. But on those issues, he hasn’t provided a substantively different solution.
Romney’s shown a willingness, though, to go after Obama more aggressively on his handling of Israel, Iran and Russia -- criticism tied to an overall Republican narrative that the Democratic president has weakened the standing of the U.S. on the international stage.
Romney’s recent focus on Russia helps the former governor an opportunity to contend a centerpiece of Obama’s platform in 2008, promising greater engagement on the international stage, argued Brian Hook, a foreign policy adviser to Tim Pawlenty’s erstwhile presidential campaign.
“When you look at how uncooperative at how Russia has been, I'm just kind of baffled by the warm treatment we've given them. I think it's a campaign issue,” he said. “Russia and Iran are the two countries that were the centerpiece of engagement, but he doesn't have anything to show for it.”
Elections rarely turn on issues of foreign policy; a combined 10 percent of Americans said that national security, terrorism or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the top national priority, according to the March NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. The 2012 campaign is expected to hinge instead on the issues of jobs and the economy, and Romney has duly made those issues the centerpiece of his campaign.
But Romney also doesn’t have the advantage that John McCain had in the 2008 election, in which he was running to replace a lame-duck president; the winner of the election would have never previously occupied the Oval Office. In challenging Obama, Romney is forced to balance his strategy against too sharply attacking a sitting commander in chief, who could face a national security crisis at any point during the campaign.
That task is made more difficult by the fact that Obama has traditionally enjoyed higher approval ratings for his handling of foreign policy. The president also has a major feather in his cap from having ordered the successful mission to kill Osama bin Laden. (Still, a New York Times/CBS News poll this week found support for the war in Afghanistan at an all-time low following the massacre of civilians allegedly by a U.S. servicemember. Obama’s numbers on handling of foreign policy were almost evenly split in that same survey.).
But Romney’s criticism of the drawdown of the wars hasn’t extended far beyond saying he would have differed by heeding the wishes of commanders on the ground. And even a number of Republicans acknowledge significant popular fatigue for the two wars, even within the GOP.
Moreover, Romney’s tempered criticism is partly in deference to a sitting president, according to a member of Romney’s 24-person foreign policy advisory team, who asked to be quoted anonymously in order to speak more candidly on the matter.
“He has laid out a lot of foreign policy views, but when it comes to wars or people actually fighting, the first obligation comes to supporting your commander in chief,” the adviser said. “A presidential candidate has to be pretty circumspect, and I think he has been.”
That limits Romney’s options for drawing sharper contrasts with Obama on foreign policy. The ex-governor has focused more specifically on Obama’s effort to “reset” relations with Russia, and was one of the first prominent Republican voices to oppose the New START treaty.
“It helps Romney paint a broader picture of Obama as someone who's driven by politics,” said Marc Thiessen, a former Bush administration adviser on national security issues, of Romney’s criticism of Obama’s exchange with Medvedev. “It's not the silver bullet that's going to win the election for Romney, but it is part of a broader picture he should be painting of Obama.”
Romney has also focused his criticism on the president’s handling of Israel, accusing Obama of having “thrown Israel under the bus” for calling for Israel and Palestinians to return to pre-1967 borders as the negotiating basis for their peace process.
Democrats haven’t taken these attacks lightly, either. They are quick to dispute the idea that Obama has lost support with Jewish voters due to his stance toward Israel, and the DNC launched a counterattack against Romney’s comments Monday on CNN in which he called Russia the “number one geopolitical foe” of the United States.
"Governor Romney’s statement sounds like a rehash of Cold War fears," former NATO Commander Gen. Wes Clark said in a statement circulated by the Democratic National Committee. "Given the many challenges we face at home and abroad, the American people deserve a full and complete explanation from Governor Romney. Good policy does not come from bumper sticker slogans."
And even while the election seems -- as of now -- to center around issues of the economy, a major foreign policy incident could reshape the narrative of the general election, a contest which seems likely to feature a battle between Romney and Obama.
“I don't think this election is going to be decided on national security, but it's an important issue to be debated by the candidates,” Thiessen said. “They're not running for treasury secretary; they're running for commander in chief.”
Leave a Comment:
How can ETCH-A-SKETCH, you know the "self-proclaimed" business man, challenge our President on foreign policy when he can't even challenge him on anything else of importance! The Bull Crap he slings doesn't address the 99% American People's real problems; like corrupt OIL CORPORATES unconstitutionality because it is effecting ALL OTHER PRODUCTS, causing MAJOR INFLATION & creating unnecessary GREAT HARDSHIP on the American People! If he wanted to be elected BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, and not the CORPORATES, he would have been hammering away at the OIL CORPORATES MONOPOLY!!
What a waste! AND HE WANTS TO BE OUR LEADER!! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Romney has no foreign policy creds! Simple as that.
Well, it has to be hard on any conservative pulling the lever on Romney. He's a wanna-be Obama.
Romney's game plan is, wait, it isn't his plan but, Ryan's Medikill Budget bill. His health insurance plan is to get rid of Planned Parenthood and Obamacare. Was you expecting an alternative? Sorry, Romney has no alternatives.
I think the American people will stick with the name brand Obama instead of the generic version of Romney.
Besides, generics might be cheaper but wind up costing more money to get the job done.
Right now, everyone sees the extreme right Romney. By november, they'll see the extreme middle Romney.
Does it bother conservatives that they will be electing a liberal one way or another?
The GOP seems to limit foreign policy to multiple wars with simultaneous tax cuts. It's very successful. They've turned blowing sh** up in the desert into our "thing".
"What do you do?"
"We blow sh** up in the desert."
Not that Democrats are innocent, but let's face it, at least they're more weary of the blowing up sh** part, and not for the tax breaks.
(Pssst, that was sarcasm, about it being successful.)
Obama has been the best Republican president since Eisenhower.
.
Having been a govenor of a state you deal with foreign affairs. Smaller scale than a president, but a heck of a lot more than the lame duck way Obama got in with absolutely no experience at all. Still now for the last three years it's been on the job training!
There is actually very little difference between Romney and Obama they are 2 vials of the same poison.
@96ws6: Yes there is a difference between Romney and Obama.
Check out "Romney vows deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare".
See: www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-marans/gop-social-security-medicare_b_1280257.html
Remember that come election time!
It is really going to be nice to have a President of all the people. Not a president who is divisive and just wants to tax the crap out of everyone who is successful so he can buy votes from everyone he gives handouts to.
Marlen - Your huffington post talking points are a joke. Go get some new material. The American people are going to remember a lot come election time. They are going to remember the very big mistake they made last time they voted for a President. OBAMA - One Big Ass Mistake America.
What's wrong JH, does the truth hurt? Oh and by the way, 9/11 happened while Bush was President and the death of Osama Bin Laden happened while Obama was President.
Nuff said..
Can't wait for Election Day when all this animosity, bickering, whining and finger pointing ends here! In the meantime, try and have a nice "Hate Free" day and.............and God Bless America while you are at it!
YUP - nuff said (sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut)
You know what I would like to see again? The picture of our President when he and all his progressive/liberals friends were in the situation room watching Osama being murdered and the lights were bright behind him. He looked so much like Alfred E. Newman in that shot. I'll bet they had that picture destroyed because he looked so goofy. Maybe a "freedom of information request" would make them show it again. That picture alone makes him look like the clown he is. It is priceless.
Murdered? No, the ~3000 people his plots killed on 9/11 were murdered.
I call Osama's death poetic justice.
PEOPLE --- PEOPLE --- PEOPLE ----
This is the type of story that the Media has to put out because they have ran out of Actual News. Don't fall for this. Come one, look at the title. "Romney delicate in challenging" what is MSNBC trying to say. He is a too good of a guy and can't get angrier. Could it be that there is somethings that Obama has done that has been good. Of course he has. I am not a fan of Obama, but its just isn't there for him to say anything else. Come on people. Again, here my call to not fall for this dudu..
Thanks!
Why does MSN run a headline that is untrue?
Romney was covered in the BBC yesterday. He is already beating an angry drum regarding Russia. Medvedev screamed back at Romney as acting like HOLLYWOOD, it's the 1970's and Romney really doesn't believe what he says. Romney just wants to be elected and will say anything.
Check BBC read Medvedev blasts Romney for "Number one for" remark.
I am not dying to live in russia, but why start out this way?
Ruken
I am glad tha Osama is dead. Please don't get me wrong. But our soldiers were sent to his house to kill him. He deserved to be killed. Murder might seem too harsh for you but we do have words in our language that describe actions and murder means to put an end to something or to unlawfully kill someone. He was a wanted man but he was not sentenced to death that I know of. He should have been though. The job was handled very well.
Looking at Romney's Platform, his foreign policy strategy is the SAME as Obama's--Israel, Iran, Russia, China--the exact SAME!
Romney should measure what he says lest people call him a hypocrite...again
TR Rose
You need to learn about the president and his policies, he said he would make sure that oil prices increased, so we don't use it. It is that policy along with the over regulations that have the price of gas on the rise. Obama is the reason for inflation with his over spending, it will only get worse when he has nothing too lose our country is going down hill because of Obama; no one else. What do you mean oil companies are unconstitutional? What is unconstitutional is Obama's health care law. So if you don't like unconstitutional why not be more objective to Obama's policies, it is simple either you don't really believe that are you head is in your a**. If Obama wanted to do something to lower prices all he would have to do is approval the Keystone Pipeline, I know you probable already think he did but the part that is being built now didn't need his approval. This pipeline would put more gas on the world market and thus lower the price of gas, it would also give every state it crosses money as well as our government with every barrel of oil refined. As far as Romney goes he is the same person as Obama except one thing he has run businesses and Obama hasn't. What did you mean by "self-proclaimed" business man. He is a business man unlike the current wreckof a president. Romney will not get my vote because like i said the are one and the same.
Vote the current IDIOT OUT
Ron Paul 2012
I have to wonder just how many more jobs Romney wants to move from this country..since Bain was in the business to do just that with Romney's help. Romney may have created jobs..problem is, there were not in this country.
@JH-479998
"Murdered Osama"?
Why is it that if Bush orders bombs dropped, it's 'eliminating terrorists' (even if a few pesky civilians get eliminated as well), but when Obama orders the Seals to take out Osama, it's 'murder'. Oh, because anything Obama does is evil, right? Pitiful...
Give a link to the speech where Obama said he would raise the price of oil please.
Despite reduced petroleum consumption in the U.S., the price is still rising. That right there should tell you that the President can't control the price of a globally traded and used commodity. Maybe the Middle East issues and the fact that China and India have become huge petroleum consumers, is the reason the cost of petroleum based products are rising.
You have no idea how the price of oil is influenced.
I really have to wonder where you get your information from. It is so far off base, it is borderline humorous.
Why would we need to build a pipeline through the U.S. to save on fuel costs. Canada is our neighbor after all. Canada is prepared to built it using a different route to their western coast. They want a path to a port for export. What the pipeline will do is, raise the price of fuel in the Midwest. Whomever told you that we will see relief at the pump is outright lying to you. This oil is not for us. It is to be traded on the global market. If it wasn't, Canada would use its existing ones to process fuel to truck into the U.S.
The keystone pipeline isn't going to be used to bring in fuel like you erroneously believe. It's to deliver tar sands oil to a refinery in Texas. Then we get shafted with all the contaminated product left behind after the refining process, while other nations benefit from the finished product.
For me, I couldn't care less about the pipeline being built, but the path it takes is most vital. Keep it away from the nations biggest Aquifer and biggest water supply for our nations bread basket. You want it now and most others want it done as safe as possible. Not rammed through congress and built over the largest potable water supply we have.
No, Governors do not deal with foreign affairs, and by constitution States are prohibited from doing so.
Hey Mittens, get a clue.
It's the economy stupid! 90% of America is hurting, get with the program.
Every president begins on the job training the day they take the oath of office. There is no job that prepares you to step in and be a master of your new domain. The conservative myth that some folks are better qualified by their previous jobs doesn't hold up well when you consider Dick Cheney. Here we have a Congressional Leader, Presidential Chief of Staff, wartime Secretary of Defense, CEO of a major energy corporation... and an unmitigated disaster by any measure in the role of co-president. He was so bad, that his approval ratings when he left office were lower than those of Bush himself, or of Congress. He was so bad that he was not invited to speak at the Republican National Convention in 2008 and will not at the next one either. He was so bad none but the most extreme neocons (his daughter and one or two other chickenhawks) want to be associated with him. I will take a smart guy with good judgment, excellent learning skills and a commitment to excellence any time over a "well qualified" troglodyte.
In regards to foreign policy, it's the same old neocon agenda there...
Bush2=Obama=Romney, Santorum or even Gingrich
The only candidate that wins at foreign policy, hands down is Ron Paul.
"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, [energy prices] would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was... [t]hey will pass that money on to consumers." --Barack Obama, 1 November 2008
So he didn't mention oil , but oil is included in energy.
There is going to be a reckoning with these republicanCrimeCartelSoldiers; MittTaxPittanceRommel for one. He was just paid $45,000,000 EZ Money, evaded taxes to the tune of paying 13%, $4,500,000, while WE American TaxPayers payed his TaxBill balance of $8,000,000. Come Election Time Remember what he said: Heavy deleting of medicare And No SocialSecurity. The RepublicanCrimeCartelCriminals are going to take YOUR SocialSecurityMoney and stuff it in their pockets and trust funds for their "Little Darlings" While Your Sick Son or Daughter May die from NO Medical Care that these Monsters have Swallowed Up for their priviliged little ones.
When MittTaxPittanceRommel was asked about HIS SON going into the Army to fight for America in Afghan, Reply?: "My son is fulfilling HIS patriotic duty by helping me be elected" Think I am Kidding? Google It!! In other words: Elect me and my cronies and I will steal everything You Have and PUT YOUR YOUNG Sons into a new War with Iran which I HAVE STARTED! Any of you still want to vote for these republicanCrimeCartelSociopathicCriminals? And! AND!!! how much are we paying at the gas pump??? Supported By MittTaxPittance,TheVomitorium,THEGangrene self Entitled Creature of Pleasure,THE BONER, Paul PusRyan, M!tch Th'B!tchmcConMan and ALL the republicans in the government. Face it Brother and Sister American: Survival is either theRepublicanCrimeCartelEliteClanofCriminals or Our Country America and our YOUNG Sons and Daughters. Checkout the validity of this post and google it........
Yes Ron Paul has some sensible views on foreign policy, but he's a nutjob on Financial matters. Return to the Gold Standard? Really? BTW Obama is really nothing more than a Pro-Choice Republican; but he is the best candidate available to the country.
Romney is the Republican Kerry. Think about it...
What this country needs is another Republican president, a great communicator like Ronnie Reagan. Someone who can sell weapons to Iran and invade Grenada. Oh, been there done that. How about maybe Barbados this time? I mean where would this country be without this great land of ours? Dubya tried but he just couldn't measure up to his greatness, the Great Communicator. He just wasn't terribly bright, not senile.
Phantom -
He didn't evade taxes he paid capital gains tax on that money, you should probably learn what the differences are between income taxes and capital gains taxes. You know who did evade taxes Tim Geithner Obama's appointment to Secretary of Treasury. I wounder why that is. Let me ask do you pay more taxes than are required by law. I didn't think so, don't expect someone to pay more than the owe just because you think it is a good idea. Also since he did owe the tax your claim that tax paying Americans foot the bill is an outrageous lie. The "theRepublicanCrimeCartelEliteClanofCriminals" would work better if it said theDemCrimeCartelEliteClanofCriminals since they are the ones that have more convictions, just look in Obama's administration on how many actual tax cheats there are and the are all Dem. What about the Dem the safe school czar Kevin Jennings that is in North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) that is great for our kids right. This is an organization that believes men should be able to have sex with young boys. They are a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors. Yea Obama, and Dem a like for putting this man around our kids. Enough said about the trash Obama has put in his administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
Osama being murdered? Sounds like you have a great deal of sympathy for the man responsible for the murder of over 3,000 Americans. Easy to see where your loyalty lays. By the way, want to see a goofy picture? How about Bush's face when he was told the United States was under attack! Now that was classic, talk about a deer caught in the headlights. He even reacted like a deer caught in the headlights. Then he spent the rest of the day hiding in US airspace. Thank God we had brave Republicans to protect us.
And here we have all the Obama worshipers , supporter of the pro Muslim agenda, with his only foreign policy other that weak our country , since his first days with the nomination of Imam Rauf (promoter of building a Mosque close to ground zero), the support to radical Muslims in Arab Spring, to recently evidence in an "open conversation" the intention to show Russian leaders weakness promising to reduce our Nuclear stockpile to our enemies.Obama=Carter one termn President,
God forbid this Mormon Moron gets elected POTUS, He will be more than willing to get us into another WAR while none of his 5 adult male sons will serve in the military. Mormons do not have to serve in the military they would just love to start wars and send our sons and daughters to fight and die
Romney needs to focus on Mr. Obama's FAILED domestic policies. I would list them, but the Liberals would collapse my post saying it was SPAMMING (happened before).
Yep, those Obama Bucks are running out. Wait a minute....where is that video clip of those folks going to get their Obama Bucks in NYC ?
That is almost as good as the little 'ol lady in Florida who said during the fall of 2008 if Mr. Obama gets elected: "I won't have to pay my mortgage, my 'lectric, and my gas bill" (sorry, the video has been scrubbed from the Internet probably by Mr. Obama's campaign headquarter in Cheeeecago).
sez me u whacko.....Yep, Whacko, I made it back and my son is now on the front line. So what have you done for your country lately ?
At least he is not a follower of Rev. Wrhite.
He is also a failure in energy policie , responsable for the increase of gas price, and very soon the increase to energy with the EPA regulation that the green czar Van Jones is pushing behind doors.
Ido, I did my time and now I got 2 kids in. Thank God Obama is getting us out of there. Did Shrub and Cheney put in any time in the military? I think not 5 deferments for Cheney and Bush was to COKED up , and from what my sons are saying the vast Majority of the men and women that they serve with, They wont be voting Teapublican any time in the near future. That Party is a joke
Ol Doc-
He was at a school reading too kindergartners,what would you have him do start screaming? It is funny you Libs will over look all the cheats and the child molester that Obama has put in office but you want to point fingers at someone else clean up Obama's shi* before you say some else did something wrong. Obama has been the wost president. You Libs will say Bush spent $4.5 trillion in 8 years but now that Obama has spent $5 trillion in just 3.5 years I don't hear comments about Bush's spending any more I wonder why that is. It is always do as I say with you Libs, you will say you don't like something (like bush's spending) than look the other way when Obama does the same thing. By doing this all you Libs look as bad as anyone else that flip flops on the issues.
Bill
You are right Obama's Safe School Czar a pedofile Kevin Jennins , member of the Man-Boy love organization.
Now that's funny. Immediately after my response to one of your right-wing brethren opining over the "murder" of Osama bin Laden. Since you folks consider Obama's action against the head of al-Qaeda to be murder...just who supports the "pro Muslim agenda"?
"When they show you who they are...believe them!"
This demonstrates that a vote for the Republicans is a vote to return to cowboy-politics.
No Bill. He should have acted like the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces (read; Supreme Commander)...stopped reading and excused himself, calmly and with dignity (I know calm and dignity are foreign concepts to to the right, but stay with me here). His responsibility was to the safety and security of the American People... including those kids. In other words...put the book down...step away from the book...no one needs to get hurt! He didn't have to go running thru the room screaming, but he also didn't need to sit there like someone had just asked him for his order in Mandarin. Even George must understand the simple words "the United States is under attack". Consider no one really knew the extent of the attack. For all George knew, there could have been multiple re-entry warheads inbound. Once those words are spoken, he's no longer President...he is the Commander in Chief!
"When they show you who they are...believe them!"
You know, I may not agree with a bunch of Obama's policies, but I do think he was better than the alternative 3 years ago in the last election.
Looking at the current field of Republican candidates, I may have to say the same thing over again come November.
Now, calling Obama an idiot, stupid and clueless, that kinda makes me wonder about your intelligence. You do realize this guy was top of his class at Harvard, right? Calling his experience as a community organizer also cracks me up. Again, you do realize he was a community organizer before and during his time earning his law degree, you know, after he earned his degree at Columbia University. So how many stupid idiots could accomplish that kind of education?
Now, he does lack political experience, I'll give you that. He only had 9 years serving as a politician before becoming President. But, when you think about it, I remember the Tea Partiers and others yelling and screaming that they wanted someone more like them, not a career politician. Well, you got him, stop complaining.
Now, Romney is also an educated man, he earned a degree at Brigham Young University, and then an MBA from Harvard University. He was successful as Governor of Massachusetts while molding the model for Obama's "Obamacare". He was also a successful businessman, ley's give him that one too.
OK, both smart guys, right? One may be a little more compasionate than the other, but that's the same all around with most people.
I do have one question which concerns me a bit. Romney is a spiritual man, he follows the beliefs of Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church. Joseph Smith taught of life on the moon, the moon being inhabited by men and women of larger statute than here on earth. These super humans also live to be a thousand years old. Should we start a conversation about the Planet Kalob?
So these are our choices for the next President? Obama or Romney. Both are basically the same, one will have 4 years experience as President, while the other believes in Kalob and super humans on the moon.
Al Doc
The weatherboarding and the harsh interrogating methods from Bush lead to the killing of Osama, Obama had no choice to order to kill him because under his policies he should be granted with Miranda rights, provide a lawyer and taken to a civil court , with disastrous consequences to his chance of reelection. However he order to honor Osama with a proper Muslim burial.
4 years campaigning for President with no accomplishment
That's not his name. His name is Kevin Jennings. You must have read a typo in The Family Research Council (FRC) propaganda you read. Would you like to show proof that Mr. Jennings is a member of the Man-Boy love orgainization? I didn't think so. Just another right-wing attack against a homosexual man.
"When they show you who they are...believe them!"
Even though you intentionally tried to insult me with the "Al" Doc, and your rantings are nonsensical, I'll respond anyway.
"When they show you who they are...believe them!"
In case you haven't noticed, we already have a president who is not divisive. In fact, he tried to bring people together, offering generous compromises in negotiations, modifying his plans to take a more moderate approach to our nation's problems, and encouraging Americans to tell their lawmakers to get things done. Unfortunately, its people like you who distort the truth just to make this guy look bad. Tell me; how is Obama buying votes with taxpayer money???? Can't be unemployment insurance because those happened because of the Republican Recession. Can't be welfare because I see no major expansion of welfare. Obamacare expands Medicaid to those in poverty who are uninsured, and while it may pose problems for some states we could have negotiated the details instead of going against the whole thing, which was technically a compromise and centered around a Republican concept, the individual mandate. And personally, I think it is admirable that the President told the American people that we need tax increases. Face it, Republicans, we need tax increases, and the wealthy need to pay their fair share; they ain't paying it now.
Oh and JH, I agree that the American people will remember the mistake they made last election. They will take to the polls knowing that they gave the GOP a chance to work with the Democrats to improve the nation, and that the GOP blew it completely. Not only did they refuse countless Democratic compromises, but they even blasted moderates in both parties and have advanced positions that are far away, both from the perspective of the we the people and from reality itself. We the people will remember how instead of talking about jobs and the economy, the Republicans bitched about the deficits that they incurred, the credit downgrade that they caused, and the economic shake after the downgrade that was caused by their downgrade. Remember, we have choices for the future of America. One is of a party that encompasses ideas that are far from realistic; a future in which the wealthy control more and more of the wealth in America and control the government with that power, while our economy struggles because of a weakened middle class and reckless industries, and in which the middle class is a shriveled shell, with people just barely scraping by.
The other future is a much different future, fraught with some uncertainty, yet gives the average American a fighting chance. This vision gives equal opportunity to all Americans; a debt that is under control and a budget balanced by fair factors; a middle class that has breathing space and the chance to grow again; an economy that is thriving and supported by a firm yet fair regulatory skeleton; a foreign policy that is practical; and a country that is more competitive in the world. This may sound like a campaign speech for Obama, but its basically the truth. Quite frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone who believes in rationality could support the GOP. They may have been more pragmatic 60 years ago, but the GOP of your father is dead. No longer do Americans have a rational choice among parties; now they have only one rational option. Whether they want to believe it or not is within their power; but it is the truth. I would rather accept a tax increase now than throw away the future of America and leave my kids to pick up the damn pieces. I pray that people think about this when they go into that voting booth in November...
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
To: BillMe 1488: Well, YOUR Lovin' senator craig sure fits the Bill doesn't it in the Minn. airport Bathrooms, and what about your republican senator who fled down to florida after going after the YOUNG and UnderAge Male Senate Pages bill? hmmmmm.... something does not smell right about you or your testimony defending your fellow republicanCrimeCartelPedophileBuddies. As far as taxes bill? Well, your phallicCrimeCartel Idol MitTaxPittanceRommel and his republican cronies twisted the tax bill bill tailored so We TaxPayers Pay these Crook's Tax bills ; So Whether it is Cap gains or income we "little people ended up PAYING YOUR DREAMBOAT'S Taxes" Fit THAT in YOUR Bill bill.
Do you republicans REALLY think this gravyTrain you guys setup on the backs of Decent Americans is gonna last forever? Typical republican short vision.
Oh and bill, IF and when there is A New American Revolution, I have the feeling that you and your conniving republican Pals will be shown the Saddam Hussein Way OUT bill. After Your Long drop, then The Short Drop, like Saddam.
Exactly.
Anyone who isn't concerned about Romney being Mormon does not know enough about LDS beliefs.
Oh Freshieee
I hope everyone reads your post. Boehner had the congress in an uproar so when the Obama Care was passed, Dear Boehner came to the table in a complete madness so hard he had no tears and slapped the table and yelled, "Oh hell he will' has worked so hard with his buddy Canter to keep the whole nation in an uproar. I rather think that Boehner know's Canter is after his job.
Keep up the good word's pal.
He never said that, he said that the higher oil prices might not be such a bad thing in the long run because it would spur innovation in newer energy technologies.
get your facts straight instead of spouting nonsense you read in an e-mail
Romneys Father was Born in Mexico that makes Romney a first Generation MEXICAN, I believe he was born in Mexico and I want to see his Birth Certificate
Romneys Grandfather had 4 WIVES and he was teaching Mittens his and the Mormon lifestyle
Mittens is wrong for America
He is in a Jimmy Jones type of Cult
Thanks mate.
@sez me: First off, Mormons are not exempt from military service. That is a complete and utterly ridiculous lie.
Second, Yes Romney's father was born in Mexico TO AMERICAN parents. His father was a legal and natural born US citizen who also ran for president, which of course he could not do if he was Mexican.
Yes, Romney's grandfather was a polygamist. Ironically so was Obamas. Bet ya didn't know that did ya. That's right, Obama's paternal grandfather in Africa had 4 wives and was considered by most of his village to be completely insane. Obama went to stay with them for a while as a young man and so it could be argued that he was also indoctrinated into a polygamist culture. Personally I think both claims are utterly stupid.
Romney was born in Michigan. There is no doubt or question about this. Both his parents were also American and in fact served as CEO of general motors and 3 terms as Governor of Michigan. I think if he were a Mexican citizen it would have come out back in the 60's
Your arguments are stupid and completely without marret or even logic. I find the term "whacko" in your name to be self incriminating.
Rhino
PPPPFFFTTTTTTT
The overwhelmingly Mormons do not join the Military, ask Romneys 5 adult sons if they are going to join, and Mormonism is a CULT
Technically speaking, Bush spent approximately $5.8 trillion, and that is only deficit spending. In actuality, Bush spent somewhere around $10 trillion over 8 years; not increases in debt, but the total amount gathered after expected surpluses from 2000 to 2009 ($4-5 trillion) are subtracted and then added to the increase in the debt. You can subtract the costs of the 2001 recession and the loss of revenue in 2009, but either way the total change in the fiscal balance was -$9 trillion.
@sez me: Ah yes the ever salient argument of ppppffftttt. You must be a Road Scholar. Perhaps even a member of Mensa.
By the way, If you want to find out if Mormons serve in the military then you should ask them. I did. I asked my 3 uncles, 1 a retired Navy Officer and 2 Green Berets, I would have asked my Grand Father but he died fighting in WWII. I can ask my son who has just joined the Marines. Or I could ask my father-in-law who was in the air force (he's still a pilot) Or I could ask any of about 10 of my neighbors who all live in about a 3 block radius from me who are still active duty in the military including one who just completed his sniper training and will be headed back to Afghanistan for his 3rd tour of duty.
I've got news for you "Whacko" Mormons are some of the most patriotic and dedicated Americans you will ever find. Do you know how many Mormons are currently working behind enemy lines doing counter intelligence because after serving a mission abroad for 2 years they come back with language skills that allow them to pick up perfect and properly accented Arabic or Farsi?
The crap you are spewing is beyond stupid. If you were here in front of me right now I would smack you upside the head with my grandfathers purple heart.
Maybe Mormons are a cult but you are an ignorant fool!
Ol Doc,
As is working to the left.
as far a Jennings and NAMBLA here are just a couple articals to support my claim. Just because you are unaware of an issue, does not mean that the issue is false. I like how you take right out of the Lib handbook if you can't argue an intelligent point attack there character.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/nambla-gate-the-strange-case-of-kevin-jennings-part-one/
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2009/10/obama-appointee-lauded-nambla-figure/9800
Freshieee - Where do you find those numbers? I call BS. Obama has already added $5 trillion to our debt, so what you are saying is that it is double that right? The CBO says it will cost double for health care and they now say it will add to our debt.
bill, show me the CBO estimate that says that cutting taxes will increase federal income...
and wtf does nambla have to do with anything? another effing right-wing strawman attempt to deflect from the topic
but facts have never been your friend, have they bill?
LOL, talk about the pot calling the kettle black, hypocrite much? because that is exactly what you are doing with your comments, you don't have an intelligent argument, so you start coming up with irrelevant BS like nambla (btw, it's "their", not "there")
if Bush had put forth a tax to support wartime spending like nearly every president previously in history had instead of stupidly cutting taxes to 'support" wartime spending, you might actually have a point. but you don't, and Obama has been forced to spend a huge amount just to attempt to dig the economy out of the immense hole that Bush dug for it.
you also have all of the republican tax "plans" that would cut tax rates and eliminate the home mortgage deduction, throwing even more middle-class Americans out into the street while enriching the banks and wall street.
I would be all for real cuts in spending of a full 20% if we could simply eliminate the idiotic Bush tax cuts. I do want a balanced budget (which we very nearly did have under clinton).
also note comment 1.50, obama never said "he was going to do all he can to raise gas prices", never. but you love to lie just like the radio ,and tv reich-wing talk show hosts love to lie and spew half-truths.
Willard "Mitt" Romney wants to be President because.....? Other than the Citizens United Credo completion of the final phase of deconstructing our civilzed society and satisfying the EGO I cannot cite a single credible answer or inference. What is Romney's experience in Public Policy? What does he read? He was a half term Governor and left because...he wanted to be President of the United States of America! But Why? Barak Obama was reading Public Policy and studying the great Masters of Historical Democracy and Christian Thought when he was 18 years of age. His sister used to call him "the Monk" because he read all of the time in his dorm room. How many of you can quote with complete and full understanding, the writings of Sir Thomas Merton (currently being decided for Sainthood.) at the age of 20? At 50 I just began reading his writings. Pope John Paul II studied Sir Thomas Merton while a Seminarian. Pre-Law students must be well versed in Public Policy Making. What did "Mitt" study? I personally do not want a trigger happy President. Wars are more costly than ever before in our History. They cost in more ruined lives for all involved not just our own warriors. How many Afghanis and Iraqi war survivors have we had to compensate in lost limb, lives, reconstruction and overall societal reconstruction efforts? More than it costs to maintain our own Political Structure. Just look at the condition of your State Highway system. Had to call the police lately? what is their response time? See any Highway Patrol Officers on those State Highways during your commute when people are driving erratically or there is life threatening debris in the road that's been there for a few hours...probably not. Its called DEREGULATION and LESS GOVERNMENT having nothing to do with Republican Ideology but disguised as Politicians concerned with their own self propagating wealth, EGO. Wake up and look at what you are being asked to do to salvage what's left of your government.
@Whitefeather: Thanks for the laugh. A few comments for you.
1. When Obama was 18, and acting all saint like because he was reading in his room (he was also snorting cocaine in his room) Romney was serving as an actual missionary for his church and preaching the Gospel to others. He did so for free and at his own expense for the next 2 1/2 years.
2. Obama I'm sure did very well in School. A law degree from Harvard is no small thing. Do you know what is a bigger thing? Getting both your Law Degree and your Harvard business degree at the same time. That is what Romney did. The program was later deemed so difficult that they don't even offer it anymore. Yet Romney still managed to graduate from both Harvard school of Business and Law in the top 5% of his class. Keep in mind, he was also married and the father of three children at the time.
3. As to the wars. Yes Obama has drawn down troops in Iraq, but we are still in Afghanistan and then he went and invaded Syria, which personally I think was the right move but still, Obama is obviously not above starting wars of his own.
4. As to your fear that our Government is shrinking away, I'm sorry, what are smoking? Our Government is the biggest it has ever been. We are currently 17 Trillion in debt just trying to run this damn thing. Government needs to be cut because we don't need government anywhere near that size. Romney will cut it, as he did in Mass. He will reign in spending and spend the funds we have wisely, just like he did in Mass. and in the saving of the SLC Olympics. He will right the ship and gett us all going in the right direction because that is what he does.
Obama is a Constitutional lawyer who does not understand our constitution. Romney is a Business man who is very good at business. He is a father and a husband who is very good at both of those pursuites. I would give Obama high marks on that as well. Romney is a man who can reach across the istle and work with democrats to get things done. He can balance budgets, cut spending and reign in the size of government just like he did in Mass. Obama has not even managed to pass a budget in the last three years, much less balance one.
As a person, I really like Obama. As a leader, that I want to follow in to the breach of an uncertain future, I want to follow the man who has a clear vision of where we are going and how exactly we are going to get there. Romney is that leader. If that is not a strong enough selling point for you, Romney has already promised that he will serve our country for free. It's not about making money for Romney. He has plenty of money. It's about serving others and giving back to the great country that made his success possible. It's about making sure that our Grand kids will have the same kinds of opportunities in this country that our grand parents had.
That is why Mitt is running.
wow, when did this happen? I didn't read or hear a thing about a single American soldier or plane in Syria.
had a few planes in Libya, no actual ground troops though, unless you count some CIA and a handful of special forces trainers as an "invasion"
Rhino40
Wow, you have a lot of accusations. Any proof? Thought so.
Seems the valedictorian candidate has no people skills. A definition I've heard of people like Romney is "educated idiot".
I don't think their running on their grades though.
If you're following Romney based on his plan, I must question your integrity. The only plan he has supported is the Ryan plan. No other plan has he given worth mentioning. You might bring up his 59 point plan.
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-06/politics/30128209_1_jobs-plan-mitt-romney-capital-gains#ixzz1r8ggqQe8
I'm not seeing much help for the common man but, wow! What a huge break for the wealthy! That might explain why he gets all the top wage earner's votes, eh?
Sadly for Romney, there are more common people than 2%ers.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
Quick, sum up the GOP foreign policy (1) Start another war somewhere to solve the employment problems in people's mind (2) Give Israel anything that they want and bomb the reactors (3) Bomb Iraq./Iran again (4) Keep the Afgan war going as long as possible (4) Build 3 or 4 more carrier groups.... same old... same old... been there, done that!
The GOP wants to go back to the same policies that crashed the global economy. It seems the rich were better off then.
Romney himself has been pretty much silent on foreign issues.
I guess he is sticking with what he knows... tax write-offs for the rich, privitizing Medicare to make business more money, he likes firing people, and he is positively sure corporations are people too.
I have an excellent idea: how 'bout we round them up (Romney, Santorum, Medvedev and Putin) and through them in the middle of Siberia to duke it out? Go have a little "foreign policy retreat", cuz it seems so bewilderingly complicated for you - whereas the rest of us are getting so tired of watching these pathetic idiots babbling about the same old, same old:
1. Putin says (and Medvedev supports him) that Russian protests against rigged elections (which he calls "honest and democratic") are staged and funded by Obama and Hilary;
2. Romney say (and Santorum says) that Obama is making the US of A weaker by being sensical and reasonable.
3. Which, I must point out, is not like the other guy before him, GWB, who was exactly the opposite, with a psychopathic VP telling him whom to fear, whom to bomb - that, according to Romney and Santorum, was the "right way" to wage foreign policy because that was what made ole USA "strong and respected" around the World.
4. And I say - if you let a psychopathic murderer from of a max-security mental institution out on the street - he'll get the same attitude as America was getting b/w 2001 and 2009 (i.e. until Obama took over): only normal people like me do not call it "respect", we call it a "psychopathic maniac on the loose".
No, thank you, I do not like that vision. I am pretty happy with the cool-headed reasonable president we have now. Lets keep it that way.
Obama/Biden 2012 in case I did not make myself clear
It's easy to say what you think your foreign policy would be until you actually get the job.
Its easy to throw rocks from the sidelines.
which is about the only thing Republicans are good at.
being a Northerner Democrat living with the Southern Republican's. Hate is becoming a feeling in the area. Not surprising tho, they are all Fox watcher's.
All you hear out of the GOP on foreign policy is to recruit more young men and women and go kill the world. Oh except for israel. To them they can't be wrong in how they're handling Palestine because as Newt said in a debate these people are a made of group. So this is what the debate is going to be about isn't it how many wars are we going to start and how many wars are we going to go back into huh???!!!!
Are YOU People aware of the fact that the RepublicanCrimeCartelSoldiers like MittTaxPittanceRommel, Paul PUS Ryan, THEVomitorium, THEGangrene, self entitled Creature of Pleasure and Debauchery, M!th Th'B!tchMcConMan, THE BONER , and ALL the Republican and Democrat turn coat cats, voted for We American Tax Payers to Pay for Israel's UniversalHealthCareSystem, which is Amoungst THE Best In The WORLD! FullMedical-Entire Body, Full Psychiatric - The Mind AND! AND!! FULL DENTAL!! AND ALL/FULL MEDS gratis You and ME!!
This would be funny IF It wasn't Tragic. We Americans Don't Have AnAmerican Universal HealthCare System, but have to pay the BLOODSUCKING Insurance Company's "premiums", A national Disgrace so that these republican insurance brokers of America can get their EEEZZZZ Money. AndAsk MittTaxPittanceRommel about HIS EEZZ Money on which WE Taxpayers Payed his $8,000,000Tax Bill, while Decent HardWorking Americans Worry about putting food on the family table and a roof over their heads!!!! Come November, Let US Flush this Politico Sewage.
Phantom,
It is so refreshing to read good post's that are hitting the nail right on. So many sound so ditty as mine does too.
Gee it awful nice of Mr. Romney to have a foreign policy plan that brings jobs back to the USA oops got confused let me shake up my etch-a-sketch ok now I got it right lets start a new war this time lets pick on a country where we only have to keep are troops engaged for another 100 years.....
thats mc cain who wanted the 100 year war in iraq
ok "not a troll" lets go back to 2000 thru 2008 and see where that gets us. Oh that's right the worst recession in 80 years!Open your eyes to the lies the right has been feeding you...
Yes,Troll, McCain has backed the military on us staying in Afghanistan longer and he wanted us to stay longer in Iraq... and the military has a point - to do a full counterinsurgency program and do it right would take a looong time.
Romney has said he would go by what ever the generals on the ground say he should do - that was Bush's plan too.
And the generals goal is to get a decisive win in their column. You could stay forever in these countries and never make them into a Jeffersonian democracy with a self sustaining economy.
We've always been screwed up on conquering nations. Usually, the winner of the war takes over.
We just fix it back up and give the nation back.
So, standardly, we conquered Japan so that's American soil. We conquered Germany, with help, that should be divided up with Americans owning soil there. Iraq should be divided up, but no, we got no benefit out of that one either.
Is it just me or does it seem like we go to war for no reason?
Seriously, what's the good of conquering a place if we aren't going to keep it?
Seems like all we get is a military base out of the deals.
Boss
As Romney like's to fire, he will be the kind that will want a war to go on as McCain does.
ROMNEY WILL DEFINATELY BE PRESIDENT just look at the price of gas, obama care being ended by the supreme court, a very weak economy everything is going the gop's way at the right time, looks like hanity is correct, the gop wins the senate adds to the house and has a president with a huge mandate come november. The ryan budget will become law and balanced budgets with low corporate taxes for the future because there will be no obama care or medicare to pay for, you go out and buy your own insurance in the private market with your voucher
ah, the GOP utopia will come at last...its been, what, all of 6 years since they had years and years to implement their utopia last time when they controlled everything? Did they forget to do it then? lol.
The past 3 decades have shown that, so far, the GOP adds deficits just like the dems do. The "party of fiscal responsibility" has been anything but.
Ah, in case you didn't know, the POTUS (either GOP or DEM) doesn't control the price of gas. It's traded on specualtion, and than the industry is given susbsidies to keep the price artificially low, so we don't riot and demand alternatives.
Also, anyone who understands SCOTUS knows that you can't really make assumptions based off of oral arguments. They're kind of similar to the Justices playing "devil's advocate" if you will, so they can make sure they understand all the nuances. Even if they do overturn it, the political ramifications probably won't even be existent. Especially if what the GOP says is true, and it is killing the economy, well than we'll see a bounce after they overturn it, which will help Obama.
Third, at some point in time, they stop being gaffes and become a full illustration of who Romney is.
Fourth, Sarah can I please go blow &^%$ up in the desert? Please,Please,Please,Please,Please
Ninja,
Okay, but please be home by dinner. And try not to hit the Saudies or Israelies, we need them.
Not a troll,
How will that voucher be funded if there is no Medicare to pay for? The answer, of course, is that we'll still pay taxes to pay for the vouchers, but more of of it will go to the insurance companies and not to the health care providers. You only have to look at the data. Over 97% of Medicare payments go to doctors and hospitals and pharmacies. The number for private insurance is about 66%. The difference is what these companies pay their executives, shareholders, advertisers and their Death Panels, the ones that help their profitability by denying coverage. By the way, what happens when the insurance companies (as they do every year) raise their premiums? Do you think the voucher amounts will keep up?
It is absolutely baffling to me how many people are so opposed to programs that undoubtedly benefit them, and support efforts to help the very entities that are exploiting them. Of course, we have so many people voluntarily paying for and consuming a product (tobacco) that will undoubtedly kill them. Maybe I should not give them too much credit for having common sense....
You guys totally craked me up, Sarah and Ninja :) Still laughing!
It also reminded me of a little video that was going around in 2003, right about when we luanched the Iraq 2.0 war: I tried to find that video on the internet, but couldn't, so I have to re-tell you what it was like:
imaging you are looking at GWB and Tony Blair conversing. Bush tall, Blair small. then Blair starts jumping up and down like a little begging dog, and the narration goes: "Can we go to war, Mr. President? Can we got war, Mr. President? Please please please... Can we go to war Mr. President?"...
Funny huh? Then - like now - all we could do was to shake our heads and wonder: If millions of people turning up on the streets from New York to Sydney to Paris to Addis-Ababa protesting against the stoopid Iraq 2.0 war could not stop em - what will????
(Well, I know what would put a good stop to this kinda foreign policy, but not something I can put in writing or utter out loud. Nothing else will work with them)
Sarah you are 100% correct
"Ah, in case you didn't know, the POTUS (either GOP or DEM) doesn't control the price of gas."
But their policy does have an effect on it, if one would talk about opening up more drilling and not threaten to tax more the price would go down, if one was to say we aren't drilling in the gulf now or ever again the price would go up.
@not a troll - please save me some of the stuff you've been smoking. Must be pretty good because it's made you very delusional. Like Sarah said, eventually Mitt will have to lay his cards on the table and the people will see he's nothing but a stuttering fool who can't finish a sentence without either lying or changing his position. Not gonna cut it.
NOPE, not true. It goes on the world market where the price is still controlled by OPEC. China will buy more keeping demand high. This theory of the more we drill, the cheaper it becomes is the oil companies deceptively pulling the wool over your eyes. We do not need to wreck the environment so a few already filthy rich people can get even richer (and filthier). Wake up, man.
Bless you Sarah - you had me rolling in the aisle -between you and Ninja.
Coupons won't save medicare... when you are disbanding medicare.
This bill has no chance of passing in the Senate. It has the same odds as Romney winning the election.
I seen where Obama is into the double digits over Romney already. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/28/polls-obama-leads-romney-by-double-digits-nationally/
Wait till the general when Romney must debate Obama.
Tom-Plymouth writes in response to Sarah's statement "Ah, in case you didn't know, the POTUS (either GOP or DEM) doesn't control the price of gas."--
"But their policy does have an effect on it, if one would talk about opening up more drilling and not threaten to tax more the price would go down, if one was to say we aren't drilling in the gulf now or ever again the price would go up." Tommie Baby, I guess you haven't heard--DOMESTIC DRILLING HASN'T AND DOESN'T AFFECT GAS PRICES. If you don't believe me, believe the experts:
March 22, 2012 12:37 pm ET by Jocelyn Fong
In a pretty impressive act of journalism, the Associated Press recently conducted a "statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production." The result: "No statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump." It's neat to see math cut through the talking points and get straight to the truth of the matter -- which is that expanding drilling is a fundamentally ineffectual response to gas price spikes.
Given that changes in U.S. oil production don't move gasoline prices, it should be clear that U.S. government policies related to drilling are of even smaller consequence. Indeed, 92 percent of economists surveyed by the Chicago Booth School of Business agreed this week that "changes in U.S. gasoline prices over the past 10 years have predominantly been due to market factors rather than U.S. federal economic or energy policies."
Still not convinced? How about another 20 economists and analysts from across the political spectrum who will tell you the same thing:
Even Fox's John Stossel acknowledged recently that U.S. energy policy "doesn't make that much of a difference" on gas prices, contrary to what others at Fox News are claiming.
There's simply no excuse for political reporters to tolerate, let alone advance claims that more U.S. oil production will meaningfully address our gas price woes. (Here's a taste, from the past week alone, of the type of he-said/she-said reporting that is just not cutting it: CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today.) This is crucially important because once we understand that the U.S. is incapable of holding down the price of gasoline, we can start looking seriously at the options we do have to make ourselves less vulnerable to these inevitable price spikes.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203220011
FACT CHECK: More US drilling didn't drop gas price
In this March 19, 2012, photo, a motorist pumps gas at a Mount Lebanon, Pa., mini-mart. A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar) (Gene J. Puskar)
WASHINGTON — It's the political cure-all for high gas prices: Drill here, drill now. But more U.S. drilling has not changed how deeply the gas pump drills into your wallet, math and history show.
A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.
If more domestic oil drilling worked as politicians say, you'd now be paying about $2 a gallon for gasoline. Instead, you're paying the highest prices ever for March.
Political rhetoric about the blame over gas prices and the power to change them — whether Republican claims now or Democrats' charges four years ago — is not supported by cold, hard figures. And that's especially true about oil drilling in the U.S. More oil production in the United States does not mean consistently lower prices at the pump.
Sometimes prices increase as American drilling ramps up. That's what has happened in the past three years. Since February 2009, U.S. oil production has increased 15 percent when seasonally adjusted. Prices in those three years went from $2.07 per gallon to $3.58. It was a case of drilling more and paying much more.
U.S. oil production is back to the same level it was in March 2003, when gas cost $2.10 per gallon when adjusted for inflation. But that's not what prices are now.
That's because oil is a global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny influence on supply. Factors far beyond the control of a nation or a president dictate the price of gasoline.
When you put the inflation-adjusted price of gas on the same chart as U.S. oil production since 1976, the numbers sometimes go in the same direction, sometimes in opposite directions. If drilling for more oil meant lower prices, the lines on the chart would consistently go in opposite directions. A basic statistical measure of correlation found no link between the two, and outside statistical experts confirmed those calculations.
"Drill, baby, drill has nothing to do with it," said Judith Dwarkin, chief energy economist at ITG investment research. Two other energy economists said the same thing and experts in the field have been making that observation for decades.
The statistics directly contradict the title of GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's 2008 book "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less," as well as the campaign-trail claims from the GOP presidential candidates.
Earlier this month, GOP front-runner Mitt Romney said of his solution to higher gas prices: "I can cut through the baloney ... and just tell him, 'Mr. President, open up drilling in the Gulf, open up drilling in ANWR (the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). Open up drilling in continental shelf, drill in North Dakota, drill in Oklahoma and Texas.'"
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said on the Senate floor last week, "With oil prices above $100 a barrel and gasoline soaring toward $4 a gallon, greater production is not a political opportunity, it is a legislative imperative."
Supporters of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline say it would bring 25 million barrels of oil to the United States a month. That's the same increase in U.S. production that occurred between February and November last year. Monthly gas prices went up a dime a gallon in that time.
The late 1980s and 1990s show exactly how domestic drilling is not related to gas prices.
Seasonally adjusted U.S. oil production dropped steadily from February 1986 until three years ago. But starting in March 1986, inflation-adjusted gas prices fell below the $2-a-gallon mark and stayed there for most of the rest of the 1980s and 1990s. Production between 1986 and 1999 dropped by nearly one-third. If the drill-now theory were correct, prices should have soared. Instead they went down by nearly a dollar.
The AP analysis used Energy Department figures for regular unleaded gas prices adjusted for inflation to 2012 dollars, oil production and oil demand. The figures go back to January 1976, the earliest the Energy Department keeps figures on unleaded gas prices. University of South Carolina statistics professor John Grego, New York University statistics professor Edward Melnick and David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor, looked at the analysis, ran their own calculations, including several complicated formulas, and came to the same conclusion.
When U.S. production goes up, the price of gas "is certainly not going down," Melnick said. "The data does not suggest that whatsoever."
The calculations "help make the point that U.S. production and demand have little to do with the price of gasoline in the U.S., and lend support to the notion that there is not a great deal we in the U.S., acting alone, can do to affect the price of gasoline," Peterson wrote in an email. He pointed out that Energy Department figures show that gas prices in the U.S. seem to rise and fall similarly to gas prices in Europe, showing that it has little to do with American drilling.
And that's the key. It's a world market, economists say.
Unlike natural gas or electricity, the United States alone does not have the power to change the supply-and-demand equation in the world oil market, said Christopher Knittel, a professor of energy economics at MIT. American oil production is about 11 percent of the world's output, so even if the U.S. were to increase its oil production by 50 percent — that is more than drilling in the Arctic, increased public-lands and offshore drilling, and the Canadian pipeline would provide — it would at most cut gas prices by 10 percent.
"There are not many markets where the United States can't impose its will on market outcomes," Knittel said. "This is one we can't, and it's hard for the average American to understand that and it's easy for politicians to feed off that."
If drilling activity rises around the globe for a sustained period of time, gasoline prices can fall as that new supply eventually finds its way to market, but the U.S. can't do it alone, oil analysts say.
Politicians — especially those in the party that's not occupying the White House — have long harped on high gas prices when expedient. Then-Sen. Barack Obama said in 2008, when he was running for president, that "here in Ohio, you're paying nearly $3.70 a gallon for gas, 2-1/2 times what it cost when George Bush took office."
But Obama, who has seen gas prices go up 73 percent since he took office, was singing a different tune last week in his weekly radio address: "The truth is: The price of gas depends on a lot of factors that are often beyond our control. Unrest in the Middle East can tighten global oil supply. Growing nations like China or India adding cars to the road increases demand. But one thing we should control is fraud and manipulation that can cause prices to spike even further."
The political party of the president doesn't seem to matter to the price at the pump either. Since 1976, the average monthly gas price, adjusted for inflation, during Democratic presidencies has been $2.25; under Republicans it's been $2.34. Obama had the steepest monthly average at $3.05 and Bill Clinton the cheapest at $1.68.
When Bush and running mate Dick Cheney campaigned in 2000, they argued that as oil executives they could get oil prices down, with Bush saying, "I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply."
Yet it was during the last few months of Bush's term in 2008 that gas prices hit their highest: $4.27 when adjusted for inflation.
___
Associated Press writers Dina Cappiello and Matthew Daly in Washington and Jonathan Fahey in New York contributed to this report.
___
Online:
U.S. Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/
© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
So, Tom, stop repeating the mantra of idiots like Sarah Palin and other Republicans servile to Big Oil--"Drill, baby, drill" was always a fiction to appeal to dumb voters.
Really Tom? Is that what the Koch brothers are putting out now? More oil production in the US means more oil on the world market going to the highest bidder (probably the Chinese or Indians). It means more profit for the brokers. It means nothing at the pump. Do you really buy off on that FOX News crap?
Yep OL_Doc,
I have said it on here many times I DON'T WATCH FOX NEWS and I don't give a crap about what the Koch brothers say or do. I am not a mindless sheep like most the followers of either side are on here.
If you don't believe that Policy can effect the price of GAS you are un-helpable.
I would bet my house and life savings, that if the President came out and said the following the price of gas would go down.
"Hello Citizens after much thought I am throwing away the cap and trade idea, I am taking away most of the EPA power unless they go though congress, at the same time I am opening anwar and the gulf to drilling(or more drilling), all this nonsense about taking away the tax breaks for oil companies that most other companies have is off the table. It isn't that I don't want cleaner, safer and energy that is better for the environment I do and will continue to push for those things, but we need a plan and stability in our energy sector and at the same time I am opening up up or reserves for a short time until we get all of this up and running"
Remember if the President says this and the prices don't go down, come looking for Tom in Plymouth because my house and life savings are yours.
Wow, way to make sure the president is a one-term one, huh Tom - Plymouth
Romney is simply not qualified to be the President of the United States. Even he knows it.
why ? he was governor thats way more experience than obama ever had
And he was pitiful. MA was 47th in job creation while Romney was governor.
I always think when I hear this 47th ranking the following. If I was Gov of a State and my unemployment rate was very low-say like 4.5%, would I expect to be one of the high ranking States in job creation? No, most of my State population would be employed and did not need new jobs, they already had jobs. I would expect to be low in that ranking. Interesting how stats can be used to make a point or try to make one look bad when in reality it might have been a great thing that Mitt's State was doing so well it didn't need very much job creation?
"not a troll"...romney want to be president to be president and add a trophy to his trophy case and not the job that being president entails. He has no clue how to run a country.....none
Romney is perhaps one of the most qualified Presidential candidates we've had in quite some time. Executive experience as a Governor in the public sector. Executive experience as a CEO of a large company in the private sector. Experience working with representatives from countries all over the world by virtue of his Olympic committee exploits. And, he has been specifically preparing for the position of President over the past four years.
Or, of course, we could go with someone that gave a good speech, again.
I lived thru the Romney years in Mass -- and he was horrible! Certainly NOT a conservative govenor as he claims and you could never nail him down as to his stance, because it constantly changed.
He has no foreign policy experience and his quick comments to sling mud at President Obama are frightening. He called Russia our number one enemy and threat, and it was the Russian President who informed Romeny that he "needed to check his watch." This wasn't the 1970's and we aren't in a cold war. Even John Boehner came to the defense of Obama by saying publicly that a candidate should not criticize the President on foreign policy when he is out of the country attending a meetting with world leaders. Romney has mentioned he believes our troops should remain longer in Afghanistan, that we should be at war with Iran, and take tougher stances with North Korea, China, and Russia. A world with Romney as President is very frightening indeed. Maybe he thinks he can just fire them.
jc
No more speech reading idiots please.
One is enough
Beth, I am not a Romney fan at all, and I won't vote for him.
Isn't this 100% true.
He has no foreign policy experience and his quick comments to sling mud at President Bush are frightening.
Beth -you are so right. Romney only knows how to deliver directives and fire people if they are not followed. Of course there are some world leaders I would like to fire, but we can't do that.
Romney works statistics and his staff has said - statistics show Americans like a president who "stands tough against the world". So he makes this "tough guy" statements like we are stuck in a cold war era forever.
Romney seems qualified, but we ought to look more on his ideas than his qualifications. Fiscal policy: Cut taxes for the rich while have people who make less than $30k pay more; cut spending for Planned Parenthood and other domestic programs, privatize Medicare, cut our way out of SS, and increase defense spending. Economic policy: Cut taxes, cut regulations, let the economy run its way. Foreign Policy: "Tougher sanctions on Iran," back Israel, possible attack; tougher lines on Russia; More defense spending. Not very good. Obama is MUCH better than Romney; his budget won't increase the debt as much as Romney's plan; his economic policy is feasible; and his foreign policy is practical and more open-minded. Simply put: Romney is a dud, and Obama's the only reasonable option on the table.
Obama Biden 2012
Freshieee,
I can't imagine how you can think President Obama's trillion dollar a year deficit approach won't increase the debt as much as Governor Romney's plan. The whole thrust of Romney's plan is to cut, cap and balance the budget and get spending under control. Not only has the President failed to reduce the deficit or the debt, he can't even propose a budget that begins to address the real problems we have. If all you care about is partisan politics, President Obama is doing fine, but by any objective measure, he is failing miserably. We cannot continue to spend our great-grandchildren's money.
And I'm the wizard of OZ.............
if the gop is so wrong on foreign policy why do most all military families vote republican and support them
why are members of the military experts on foreign policy just because they know how to shoot a gun or repair a tank or file paperwork in the pentagon?
The Enlisted military put there money where their mouth is. The candidate that gets 3X more donations from enlisted military than ALL OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES COMBINED and more than all the republicans and the president combined is Ron Paul, the one who wants to stop the wars. Our men & women on the ground are not afraid to defend our country, that's what many of them signed up for, they are tired of being sent to die for nothing. (or what some cowardly dork that sits behind a desk calls "strategic interests")
Speaking as Vet myself I'd have to say that the military tends to vote Republican more is because the Republican party puts more money into the military than the Democrats do.
People tend to vote with their wallets and they will side with the person that they think will get them the most cash.
Romney only knows how to take peoples money. Not how to give them any.
not a troll - you have the right to your own opinion not your own facts. As in saying "all" That is totally false. I am a vet and I would never vote republican.
Iowa, that is a myth that republiCONS give more money to the military. It was democrats who authored, and passed the New GI Bill. It was democrats who increased funding for the V.A., it was dems who started the Wounded Warrior project. It was democrats that gave the military its largest pay raise in history.
Have you ever served?
Republicans gave us bigger raises than Democrats. They spend more on our military complex and provoked more nations into wars. Job stability with bigger raises is the reason.
It certainly wasn't because of the strong support system we had when we came back home. The Republicans turned a blind eye to us once we were unable to kill for them anymore.
It wasn't until Obama was elected that run down VA facilities began seeing repairs being done. It was quite insulting to go to a VA hospital for physical therapy and see a leaky roof and outdated equipment.
After losing half my right leg for this nation, I feel I shouldn't have to sit next to a 5 gallon bucket because the ceiling leaks while I wait to be seen.
If you're not a troll like your name implies, then you must be quite ignorant.
You're right rad. However, all these programs helped the troops out of war. Or do you expect our wounded to be treated in third world conditions while struggling to reintroduce themselves to society.
The increases the Democrats wanted, were to help troops get on with their lives. The spending the Republicans want are to start wars. Understand that difference.
Republicans love WAR! And,....they don't want to pay for it
Have you had a son or daughter, a friend killed in a war....if not....shut the fu-k up!
They want you to serve but wouldn't serve themselfs.....Ask rommey.....he's got 5 sons...monies have kept them out of war.
What about BUSH....daddy kept him out of war while almost 4000 americans were killed fighting his war for daddy
You are an IDIOT
@ NYMike - Brilliant post! My father said almost the exact same things when I asked him about his support of the Democratic party over the GOP, being a Viet Nam vet himself. Glad to see some vets that really "get it"!
And all, don't forget how Romney was a PRO Viet Nam war protester, then got out of service himself by doing a Mormon mission while living in a mansion in France. The song Fortunate Son comes to mind with regards to Romney...and most of the other pro war hawks in the GOP.
Something or someone is relatively high, but I don't think it's our President's current foreign policy marks.
sorry you want to deny reality, but in general people are relatively satisfied with his work. Of course, the haters aren't and want to extend their biased opinions to everyone else..but that doesn't make it so. :)
I would suspect the majority of people on this forum are satisfied, but that may not be representative of people in general. My reality involves concerns about an increasing presence of the USA as the world's social worker while allowing trade inequities and state sponsored terrorism to proliferate.
Remember that perception does play a role in reality and that there are those who may not share your particular views. That they deny your version of reality does not make them necessarily unrealistic.
He brings up a valid point. Whenever countries that even hate us ask for help, they ask us first.
But whenever we even talk to China about the fact that our import-export ratio from them is a little high, they throw a tizzy.
well, recovering, i'm not talking about the people here, i'm talking about general polls (which is what hte article refers to). they show that people are "relatively" satisifed with his foreign policy.
Pretty much everything Romney says is "alarming and troubling"
I bet he's careful in criticizing the President because we all know the GOP=Neo-Liberal foreign policy all day! Why can't we ever choose a REAL change? RP2012 Ready for that Obamney2012?
what happened to ron Paul? Its like he disapeared, you dont even hear about him anymore, did he finally just drop out?
Paul hasn't officially dropped out. The fact that he hasn't won even one state primary and trails third or fourth in every state has made him irrelevant. Possibly more so than Gingrich.
Not true,
The media has been spoon feeding you lies so that you beleive he has no chance. In Iowa the votes for 8 counties (all beleived to be strong for Ron Paul) were "lost" and were never counted. In Maine Washington, waldo and henderson all strong Ron Paul counties were not included in the "straw pole" or "beauty contest" vote. Truth is when the TRUE delegate count comes in he will have won Maine, Minnesota, probably Iowa and possibly Nevada. He won in the Virgin Islands (popular vote) and STILL no news (or the GOP for that matter) will call him the winner. If you look anywhere it will say something like still in process for the virgin islands yet they can call a winner in every other contest with 10% or less of the vote in. Don't get me wrong I am not saying he can win...the establisment won't let it happen they are barley even trying to cover up the fraud any more.
Take a look at the video in this link and remember...anytime you see this happen to someone running for office take note because they only do this to people that are for the people and not the establishment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRtRTRJRDbo
He wont drop out.... wait for the RNC and see what happens is what he is going to do. And in all actuality the majority of the delegates have not been awarded yet, even though Faux news and the likes are already allocating them out as if it was a done deal...I don't think he really has aspirations of winning as much as he wants to have a strong voice at the RNC. And with his loyal following you can bet he will have to be heard, as the GOP can not win the election without the support of the Paulites. Take that to the bank brother, that is pure fact! Like it (or them) or not... RP has a genuine following of supporters that truly believe in their cause, and they are a mixed bag of Americans from all walks of life.
The only person running for President longer than Romnuts won't give up. It's not the Texas way. He'll stick around and jabber until he dies.
Again with the price of gas and a highly questionable prediction on the Supreme Court's decision thrown in just for luck and an improving economy.
Where's the downside facts you're so desperately trying to hang on the administration?
not a troll... Are you really a ghost writing Jean Dixon?
no, just saying things are strating to line up but it could all change , still along time before november
Mitt said he hasn't talked with the military leadership in Afghanistan but Obama's policy is wrong.After 10 yrs you'd think he has some idea of what to do,different from Obama's present policies..
Maybe he'd plant tree from Michigan...
if you read the article he says he will do as the commanders say, Obama is ending these wars way too early because he doesnt listen to anybody but libs like hiliary who know nothing we need time to set up our permanant military bases so we can have a good supply of troops in these countries for many years to come
Why is this even necessary? So companies like Haliburton will be happy?
lol, vague statements like "we'll do what the military says" are easy to say when you are a candidate. What will he do in reality? no one knows. Just blindly doing "what the military wants" is a stupid strategy..sometimes they are right, sometimes not.
The problem with continuing in Afghanistan is we don't have a clearly defined goal. In the past we always had the goal of killing Bin Ladin, but that has been done for some time now.
We only stay in Afghanistan because we live with a delusion that we can do nation building and make them more like us and they will be grateful for it. News flash. They don't want to be anything like us and our attempts at nation building are only making them angrier. We are seen as invaders trying to push our ideals on them, not liberators.
The war on terror left Afghanistan long ago. That's how terrorists operate. They strike then move before you find their base of operations. Last known location was Yemen.
Firs of all, it is the Generals that do as the President says and not the reverse. Obama didn't end Iraq, Bush did when he signed the SOFA. And permanently basing soldiers in Afghanistan will do nothing but lead the deaths of more of them.
Using your logic, we should just take over the planet and get it over with.
howdy-doody romney has neither the intelligence, the perspective, or experience to do anything other than steal money from people, firing people en masse, and not giving a damn about poor people.
howdy-doody has been constantly "retooling" his image, flip-flopping on every single policiy position he has taken on anything, and is a brazen liar, and an elitist who does not have the remotest clue of the needs of average citizens.
romney lies to everyone, all the time!!!!
As for his mouthing off of foreign policiy positions, keep in mind who he takes his instructons from: WARMONGERING big-oil scumbags like bush-senior, warmonger john mccain, and of course, kkkarl rover.
romney truly is an individual who is 100% self-serving, and is one of the upper 1%, to his black-hearted core.
Following whatever military leaders in the field say is dangerous. If we could only ask Lincoln. Th military has been trained to fight and kill people. That is what they do and nation building/gaining trust of people is a skill they are trying to develop. Romney's efforts to appeal to the neo-conservatives by saying his first foreign trip upon election will be to Israel and his irresponsible approach to Iran foreshadow a confrontational policy in world affairs. This is only bolstered by the suggestion that John Bolton could be his S/State! Good Grief!
I prefer to let the military leaders fight the wars. But I also strongly believe that you have to provide them with clear goals that you want to achieve to end the war. I find most military leaders will take the most direct path to complete those goals. This isn't Hollywood, our military leaders are not warmongering monsters. They would rather that they not lose any troops in combat and that the fighting come to an end as quickly as possible.
Yeah and if Romney was to take the White House, he'd do pretty much the same. War after war after war. So damn senseless.
Why is MSN reporting Romney as delicate?
Yesterday the BBC reported interview with russian leader, Romney called Russia the greatest threat to the US. "Smacked of Hollywood".
He's already making a mess. Why stir the pot?
Seems to me Romney is exercising extremely good wisdom in this case. This is the kind of leader we need.
ROMNEY/RUBIO 2012 & 2016
If you read the article you will see Romney is a joke.
backfire,,,, That's odd, Rubio laughed at that idea this morning & said he enjoys his current job
You should be more careful of whom you get your political information from,,,,, they have been disrespecting you by not telling you the truth
I'll take the BBC over clear channel anyday.
Of course. The BBC is an external entity that maintain objectivity because it doesn't have much, if any, stake in the winner of the elections in the United States.
Vote for Willard. Maybe he will let you live in his California beach house after the election. What a tool
Hey, backfire,
"Extremely good wisdom?" When has wisdom ever been bad or extremely bad? Nonsensical blathering. . . .
Romney: give us your take on the military budget.
What...WHAT....Touch the defense budget? Can't do that(unless we need to increase it of course)
Soldiers sacrifice their lives fighting for their country. It is hard to put a price on that.
It is true that the military is notoriously inefficient in how they spend their money. It could be run much leaner and meaner if we would take the time to revise the spending policies that the military is forced to operate under.
I would not cut the military budget until there was comprehensive reform on how the money is spent first.
Obama's foreign policy hasn't been as bad as I thought. I expected him to do something drastic instead of something reasonable. I think he is a very poor negotiator with other countries, but other than that, he hasn't been too bad. It is about the only bright spot on his resume.
He also led this nation from "Bust to Recovery"... How would Romney negotiate with Pakistan? He wouldn't ---- We need Pakistan as our troops leave Afghanistan
Republicans don't have anyone with Obama's record of successes
How is Obama's negotiation with Pakistan different from Bush or Clinton or Bush Sr.? What makes you think that Romney would be worse at negotiating with Pakistan? I wouldn't say Obama led, the nation from Bust to recovery, I would say it is more accurate to say that America went from Bust to Recovery inspite of Obama's policies.
MSN deletes my link to the story on the BBC regarding Romney and his calling Russia the greatest threat to the US.
The world is laughing at Romney.
This was reported yesterday.
Google BBC Romney. Read the truth.
Looks like Clear Channel is getting a peice of MSN?
if by "delete' you mean when you clicked on "post comment" your link disappeared, that happens all the time for links, has nothing to do with the content of the link. In general, msnbc doesn't make it easy to post links..but if you do it right you can fool the checker...
Rmoney wants to bring back the Cold War?
Apparently, he's already antagonized the Russians and he hasn't even won the nomination yet.
Romney's Foreign Policy experience: Zip, Zilch, Nada.
The Cold War & Financial Industry Tax Payer Bail Outs
His Family Health Care plan for the nation is --- "If you haven't had insurance, You Die"
Progress is building an elevator for your car
The car elevator story cracks me up.
The best thing that I can say about Obama's handling of foreign policy is, at least he hasn't tried to grope any foreign leaders. Those Germans can be some pretty uptight people.
so you don't like his policy of focusing on al quada (afghanistan, pakistan, yemen, etc) that has resulted in them being disrupted as an effective organization and forced into desperate measures? How odd, I would think most americans would really approve of that.
I think miss my point. I would rather make friends than enemies.
Groping the German chancellor was one of Bush's dumbest moves ever.