↓ Archives ↓

Category → Romney: No Foregin Policy Street Cred

Romney Inexperienced, Weak, and Dangerous on Foreign Policy, Tone-Deaf, Ryanesque, and Predatory on Domestic Policy!

By Bifford Caulfield -- It was interesting to watch Romney on the anniversary of Seal Team 6 taking out Osama Bin Laden.  He was obviously trying desperately to compete against the media feeding frenzy surrounding one of Barack Obama's  singular foreign policy triumphs. .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       . He raced to New York for a photo op handing out pizzas to first responders with Rudy Juliani -- while President Obama was in Afghanistan signing a document effectively ending the U.S. combat force involvement there over the course of the next two years and commemorating the  capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden, one of the initial stated purposes of the invasion before Bush lost track of and then interest in capturing Bin Laden.  He spoke plaintively while with the fire-fighters about the fact that many of them had had to take on second jobs and endure other hardships in the aftermath of 9-11 -- just to support their families.  Yet at other times and in other places he spoke of the pampered public employees and railed against how overpaid and under contributing they are.  Like he lived in the era before video tape. .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    . He continued his media counter-attack in the face of overwhelming public support of Obama taking Osama Bin Laden out by saying that Obama had not done anything "any" other President would not have done.  He then took an explicable  swipe at a former President, saying "Even Jimmy Carter probably would have done it", chortling at his cleverness after the remark.  I don't know what Romney or anyone else has to complain about Jimmy Carter -- in that he was probably one of the most considered, moral Presidents we have had.  There are obvious differences, though.  Jimmy Carter was not born rich, was not a predatory vulture capitalist,  risk arbitrageur, hedge fund operator, or tax dodger.  And Carter has actually "served" as President -- something Mitt as yet only aspires to.  Also, as far as I know Roselyn Carter never flaunted $1000 designer T-Shirts (whatever the hell that is, really) on national television, and never whined about what a struggle it is to be a rich man's wife and having to raise five boys with only a couple au peres and a staff of twenty to help out. .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               . To make matter worse, Romney was already on record stating that he wouldn't do anything hasty and invest billions of dollars attempting something as banal as trying to kill a single guy -- Osama Bin Laden.  He also said the would not violate the sovereign air and land space of another country in order to accomplish such a mission.  He sounded timid, a little naive, and skitterish about delving into big complicated, "foreign" things like planning special operations raids and stuff. .                                                                                                                                                      . To most of us, it becomes clearer day by day that Mitt Romney is just not Presidential timber.   And to the extent he is competent about certain things, he cannot be trusted with being placed in charge of them.  It would be unwise and dangerouse for the American people if he were to be placed in charge of the government on matters of finance, economics, and the 99%.  It is inevitable, I think, that when you were born into the 1%, had every advantage of the 1%, used the advantages to prey upon the vulnerable to enrich yourself, and then stashed the money off-shore to avoid paying taxes on the enormous amounts of money you made off the misfortunes and displacement of others, that on matters related to the plight of working people and the egregious results of the tremendous inequality or income and wealth in the United States you may just happen to feel that the wealthy are entitled to have what they have -- and entitled to influence  the rules of the road going forward such that advantage will still fall to the 1%.  It would be surprising if it were otherwise -- and Mitt Romney does not surprise us very much.