Mitt Romney Failed ‘The 3:00 A.M. Phone Call’ Test–Not Fit To Be Commander-In-Chief
It has been a devastating day for the Mitt Romney campaign. There seems to be a real crisis atmosphere just below the surface among Romney staffers concerning the slumping poll numbers in key states, and the inability for the larger themes of the anti-Obama message to take hold.
Following a political convention speech that failed to mention Afghanistan, comes a most perplexing and troubling political blunder that has everyone noticing Mitt Romney does not have the bona fides to be sitting in the Oval Office.
President Obama is making it very clear that there needs to be a reasonable and sound person making the decisions for the nation, not a shoot-from-the-hip guy with nice hair but no substance or moral guiding principles.
Mitt Romney has his cash stashed in off-shore accounts, and seems unable to buy any common sense about the way to conduct a campaign that many Republicans keeps claiming should be an easy election to win.
Might it be that President Obama is a much stronger leader, with a deeper connection among the electorate than GOPers ever dreamed? Or did the GOP start believing their own press releases months ago, and just thought 2012 was ‘their year’?
Mitt Romney is proving with his clumsy efforts the wilderness years for the Republicans are not over.
What should gall everyone–including conservatives–is how Mitt Romney tried to undermine the President of the United States at a time of crisis on the other side of the globe–that very well will impact our foreign policy.
How can anyone think Romney has what it takes to sit in the Oval Office as Commander-In-Chief?
In response to Mitt Romney’s criticism of the Obama administration for its handling of recent violence in Egypt and Libya, President Obama told CBS News on Wednesday that Romney “seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later.”
“There’s a broader lesson to be learned here,” Mr. Obama told “60 Minutes” correspondent Steve Kroft. “And I think — you know, Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later. And as president, one of the things I’ve learned is you can’t do that. That, you know, it’s important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts. And that you’ve thought through the ramifications before you make ‘em.”
Asked if Romney’s attacks were irresponsible, the president replied, “I’ll let the American people judge that.”
There is no doubt this attack was well calculated, but that does not mean state sponsorship of it is the root cause. Inside information does not have to mean the government was involved.
There is a great deal of difference between the flash-point crisis moments when politicians should hold thier tongues (as was the case this week), and the policy/military disputes that are engaged in over wars. All the way back to G. Washington when the continental congress wanted a quick attack on Boston there have public differences with how matters are handled. (Washington bided his time.)
I have never been critical of the drone program, as long as we make every attempt to not strike civilians. I supported those aims of Bush that made sense, port deal, his immigration reform ideas to name two.
I’m sure you heard this aw well, but NPR reported this morning that in addition to the murder of our embassador, there was also a mortar attack on a SECRET safe house where other Americans were waiting to evacuate. according to the NPR report, experts say that the accuracy of the rounds indicated the the building was targeted by people who knew a great deal about what they were doing. Not quite the random mob do crazed fanatics typical of the Muslim world.
NPR also has numerous records of John Kerry and other presidential candidates criticizing Bush and his policies while American troops were in action in Iraq and Afganistan.
Are you not the least bit upset that an American Embassador was killed? Is it not the responsibility of the host government to ensure the security of the embassy–which is considered U.S. sovreign territory?
How is it that you’re more pissed at Romney for his comments and me for my anger than you are at the animals who disgraced our diplomatic missions and killed our peaceful embassador?
What I mean by “national Suicide” is that it should be our policy that governments who knowingly tolerate these elements–and I find it very hard to imagine they were “unaware”–will be held responsible and will face the most severe consequences. I don’t think it is the least bit depreved to be enraged that such severe hostilities were taken against our country in Egypt–to whom we provide billions and billions of aid, and in another country whose citizens we supported in their attempt to get rid of a dictator. Where is your outrage? Where is your national pride? There was a reason why these attacks came on 9/11. Right? How successful is Obama’s foreign policy and “outreach” to the muslim world?
I’m happy for Obama’s drone program, and I could suggest a few places where he would do well to expand it right now. The difference between us is that if Bush were doing the same thing, you’d be posting about how it was illegal and unethical.
Yeah, I’m very mad. But still I understand that countries and terrorist warlords are two different things. The only way to deter the latter is to demonstrate without question that we will not tolerate them and that we will not tolerate states who do. We need to send the message in direct and brutal terms that they can understand. I’m worried they will say:”See, we killed the American Embassador and they did little or nothing. They are weak.”
Seriously, are you as out of touch as appear? Or just angry that your Republican nominee is imploding on the national stage?
Your comment is akin to that of the words from Mitt Romney, and we know where that headed.
But that is like conservatives, is it not?
Just spout what you are told by talk radio and FAUX News.
You know there was no apology made. The president did not make one, nor did the state department. Nor has Obama in the past made such a statement. The Cairo speech was not an apology, but one of the smartest ways to measure the tone of the start of President Obama’s first term. But why let facts get in the way.
I know that conservatives like to start wars, and the damage to our most treasured resource is not one that is thought about. In fact, tomorrow I will be posting about Mitt Romney running from the draft during the Vietnam War. But that should not shock you—that is the style of the neo-cons—which Romney linked himself to in 2007.
Your comment about national suicide is one of the most depraved that I have heard today, and I have been listening a great deal for news and analysis on the radio as I have been going through the day. I cannot image what goes through the thought process of someone that thinks as you do, as it runs counter to the logic one has to possess if engaged to view the real needs of the nation…and the world.
Can you image a president who thought as you do?! There is no crying out for another war in this nation, in case you have missed the news for the last four years.
Fear not—after today you not need not get airfare to Washington for a Romney inauguration.
While you can slam Democrats for being ‘weak’, it was President Obama who has used drones far more effectively than Bush and killed far more terrorists in the process. No one thinks Obama is weak on foreign policy, other than those who are desperate to use the most base of phony arguments to elect a Mormon bishop to the White House.
You claim to be a teacher and yet your comment here about “national suicide” over the death of an ambassador allows anyone reading to know your thought process is filled with holes and lapses the size of a room that could hold all the varying positions your presidential candidate has taken on every issue under the sun. There is nothing to suggest the Libyan government is involved. So why would you even write the words “national suicide”?
Your linking of the government to the death of the four people would be akin to me trying to link all heterosexuals to the man who killed his family in a house fire in southern Wisconsin. It would be just as absurd as what you are trying to do here.
And you wonder why the themes of the Romney campaign are stuck in neutral?
Why is Obama in Las Vegas–a city he insisted companies shun–on a fundraising trip? Perhaps he would better spend his time teaching the Muslim street that to kill an American Embassador amounts to national suicide. Civis Romanus Sum!
Romney, like the electorate–at least those of us who still believe America should not be a sissy nation–are likewise shocked that our President would appologize to foriegn radicals because an American not connected with the government dared to exercise his First Amendment rights. We are likewise shocked that they–the Lybians whom we just helped liberate–would attack us on 9/11.
The leftist President preached that not all muslims are radicals and that not all radicals are violent, and the same was true of the Nazis. Our President’s string of appologies teach the would-be powers that we are weak. Perhaps this is because he fails to realize that the Muslim world is more like the anceint world, and less like the world of the modern west. They are incapable of tolerance and unable to co-exist.