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:
....and with my last post, a deafening silence!
The GOP thinly veils its disgust with a Black President, but we all know they are seeking to replace Obama with a Radical, kill women's rights, kill Medicare, Kill Health Care for Poor and uninsurible Americans!
Replace Obama with a radical are you kidding?? In2008 Obama's only experience was wrting books on the Tax Payers dime. Yet now you still think he is doing a great job?
No- actually I think from the sounds of it you must be kidding yourself. Are you one of those out of a coma and into the bubble folk from Fox and Friends?
You see Obama has three exceptional years experience at this point in time, which other than Romney's business dealings policies with our foes over seas, none of them running in the GOP camp has any policy to actually present to anyone other than tax the poor and feed the rich.
Romney - The liberals' favorite GOP Candidate. Don't vote for Romney:1) Romney created RomneyCare which ObamaCare is based on. Romney said he would repeal ObamaCare. Why would he if he supports RomneyCare, he is not telling the truth.2) Most decisions Romney made as Govenor was liberal, not conservative. So, what make you think he will be conservative all of a sudden?3) Romney lost to McCain by a landslide last GOP Primary, and McCain lost to Obama by a landslide. So, how is Romney going to win this time?4) When Obama wishes Romney well in the election and name calls and villianizes the other candidates, beware!5) Have you noticed the mass press and critics have shredded apart every GOP candidate except Romney? That is because they know Romney fits their agenda.Please, if you love the USA, vote for any GOP but Romney.
the only thing foreign the Romney knows about is where he hides his money and, lets go to war.
Yeah. He probably didn't make any contacts whatsoever when he was running the Olympic games. I'm sure he made it a point to only deal with people in the U.S. /s
xx
The Russians are a threat in so far as they are enabling Iran. They want us not to have a missile defense system in Europe, when Iranian missiles can reach Europe. If the Russians wanted to work with us to ensure peace they would encourage the Iranians to give up their nuclear and missile programs and fully open both up to NATO inspectors.
If the Russians want to act like friends and not enemies they need to help us on this matter. Otherwise they are allowing an ally to threaten world peace. This was the same role they played in 70's and 80's.
all they want is for poor people to starve, old people to get sick and die, little children to go hungry, dogs and cats to be run over by cars: How's that? I'm trying out for for democratic party membership.
Can you name the loser who only knows how to use a teleprompter but not a microphone? Is this the genius who is in charge of America's defense and wheels and deals away our missile defense to get the favor of a foreign country who wants to control the world! Talk about a real rookie who is so inexperienced in every facet of leadership. How about the change you wanted, did you get the real change? The kisser of rings and the selling out of our country to only seek his personal goals.
you mean the US? we are the ones who are running around telling the rest of the world how they need to run their own affairs. we are the ones with military bases all over the globe, not anyone else
I got the change I wanted.
I wanted change in the White House, I got it. I wanted a president that thought our number one most wanted enemy needed caught instead of throwing him in the "he is not a concern" pile.
I was happy with anyone better than the last idiot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBZIcrhU1XQ
I am sure the fact that Romney knows nothing about foreign policy (or the world) has nothing to do with his reluctance to open his mouth. Everyone could see how petrified he was to take on Newt Gingrich the blowhard in the debates.
As opposed to the astonishing wealth of experience that Senator Obama had when he became President. /s
Well, guess Obama will have 4 years of experience over top of any other candidate, huh?
True. However, it's about the same as a professional baseball player with a .100 batting average. Just because he has experience it doesn't mean he has the ability. But, that's what is to be expected when you try to develop executive skills through "on the job training" in the most powerful position on earth.
As long as you don't support another one wanting to get 4 years of on the job experience, right?
That's why I support Romney. He is the only candidate on the Republican side that has executive branch experience. He knows what it means to work with a legislature as the head of the executive branch of government. Santorum, Gingrich and Paul have no more experience than Presidient Obama did.
JC-1439099
Government is not a corporation. They are two entirely different entities.
You can argue that it has money coming in and money going out. However, that would be the only closest comparison you could possibly establish.
You can say his governorship is the experience he needs. However, his record is fair at best as a governor. His state ranked 47th.
Otherwise, you are promoting a CEO mentality to tackle the problem of other countries and going to war with them.
As a CEO, he would most likely choose not to start a war as he would attacking another country. It would all depend on the benefit in profits. That profiteering mentality would be the false reasoning for making such a decision.
Secondly, you advocate putting a chicken hawk in charge of the hen house. Romney is a 1%er. If you believe he has the good of the country in mind, you need to re-evaluate. Even today, you can see by the votes who is wanting him to rein. Why is that?
Wealthy voters deliver for Mitt Romney
Lastly, diplomacy. He has no people skills. Romney's ilk is the reason the term "fascist pigs" has been branded on America.
I'm not sure where you want the country to head to. But if an African like country is your preference, you've chosen well.
Romney's experience as Governor is what is most relevant, although his experience in business and with the Olympics are also obviously a good indication of his ability as an executive.
Picking out a single statistic (the 47th ranking for job creation) does not define the entirety of his tenure as Governor, not is it a particularly valid statistic in the first place. Comparing state job creation figures is rather useless overall. In what alternate reality would Rhode Island ever compete with California? How about Hawaii and Texas? Maine and Florida? The more important statistic would be the fact that unemployment in the state dropped from 5.6% to 4.6% during his term.
To label Governor Romney as a 1%er and suggest that is a reason not to believe he would do a good job is patently absurd. President Obama is a 1%er. President Clinton is a 1%er. President Kennedy was a very wealthy 1%er. In fact, most Presidents are 1%ers. Don't you think that it would be more appropriate to discuss a candidates positions and policies rather than attempt to instill unwarranted fear in people?
No people skills? Really? You can determine that from what the media feeds you? I have heard that he is a very warm and caring man. The type of man that would shut down his company and get the people in his company scouring New York City for information about the daughter of an employee that went missing.
An African-like country eh? Really? More fear-mongering? Is that really all you can do?
Well, let's take a look at his proposed policies then since charactor means nothing.
He proposes getting rid of Planned Parenthood. No, he didn't say he would stop funding it. He said, "We'll get rid of that." So, since I can't use his charactor flaws, I will have to use his exact words instead. This would mean 30 million women would go without cancer screenings.
Romney claims that corporations are people too. Since I can't use any of his charactor flaws, I will use his exact words. Now, he is proposing the same ole trickle down economics that has failed for the passed 30 years. Look it up, it doesn't work. The only thing that happens is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Romney claims Russia is our number one foe. Ok, how is this comment not flawed? Since we have to take him for his word and not on "media bias", we can only assume he feels threatened by Russia and will start a world war three if neccessary.
Romney supports the Ryan plan. He thinks it is simply 'Marvelous'. He wants to give my dad a coupon for his healthcare. When healthcare costs go up, do you get a better coupon? NO. Who does this bill help, exactly? Businesses and insurance companies. Well, since the bill guts medicare as we know it, where does all that money go? That's right, more tax breaks for the rich.
The best thing he has said was that he was against the Blunt bill. Kudos to him for being against employer regulated heathcare. What's that? You say his staffer clarified that and he is for the Blunt bill? Are you sure he is for it? I never heard him say that, it was what a staffer said. But, since I can't speak of his charactor flaws, let's go with what he said.
You say that Romney is a 1%er like the rest of the presidents? Ok, Romney can fart and get paid 20 million dollars a year. His idea of not much money is 350,000 in speak fees. Mitt is in the top 0.0025%, not 1%.
Since those are a few of his own words, don't claim it is what the media says. It is what Romney says it is.
"A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244."
That is exactly what happened in Africa.
Income Inequality and the Growth of Africa’s Financial Sector
If I warn you that you are in peril from a threat you are unaware of, it isn't fearmongering. Sadly, many meet their peril and the fearmongering they thought existed becomes a real fact.
There are Three Types of Republicans:
1) Millionaires: (Look at Mitt Romney, he have his money Over-Sea)
2) Suckers: ( Look at November 2,2010 ! How the GOP told the people there will be "jobs")
3) "Lier" ( Look at Romney how he lie to people & pay off people also)
the 2012 are going to be like G.W.Bush lie there they to get in and how come we go to other Country and have a war with them.
1) When the Republicans will not let the Black have a say!
2) and what about the "tea-party ! back then there was not thet much people in the usa !
3) why don't Ed talke about that ?
4) if I miss spell, I'm sorry see I has a Heart Attack and now I live with a half of a heart
"God Bess the Womens & Mens who have "Alzheimer"
Thank you for your time,
June A.Fischer Son,
marqus
Susie Elizabeth Littler & Ralph D.Littler Truckee, California 96161
I"m the Son of June Ann Fischer of Cathedral City, California 92234-3674 who has "Alzheimer" & 75 years old
my Three Sisters gave "illegally Dugs" to their Mother and Ralph D.Littler & Michael J.Wiegenstein this what they
did (Rape & Molester) their Mother in-law ! Why ? for the (Fischer Trust) over $ 2 million and they got away with it
Top it off Susie (aka Sue, Susan) *(aka fischer) work at the (Truckee post Office) Roxanne Marie Vetter (aka Fischer, Laub) Incline Village, NV. Gwendo;n Ann & Michael J.Wiegenstein Paln Springs, California 92262-0126
help kill their Mother, also Ralph & Michael are "Child Molester"
June A.Fischer passway Saturday night August 28, at 8:30 pm
God Bless the Womens & Mens who have "Alzheimer" Thank you for your time, June A.Fischer Son, Marqus
April 8,2012
better watch it june, such postings are legally considerd libel, and you can very well be sued for such comments
we have seen this before and it was not funny then and not funny now.