Updated R-nomination Thread

[volinbham]

Meh, it doesn't bother me. He's just channeling the hawks trying to make it seem like Obama is weak on foreign policy and goes around the world apologizing to everyone.

Its a common refrain, used by every GOP candidate about every Dem since the 1960s. Anyone who would be influenced by such a statement is already going to vote for Romney, anyway.

Honestly, I think Obama probably relishes the notion of Romney coming after him as somehow too soft. Will stick that claim right up Romney's arse by repeating surge in Afghanistan and I got UBL and pissed off Pakistan in the process. Profitable issue for Obama, imo.

Romney needs to stick to domestic economy, spending, deficits,

I think it's less military strength and more a feeling that Obama doesn't embrace the notion of American Exceptionalism (which is fine). Him being soft is a different issue - it's his apology tour of the world he made after election that I think Romney is hitting him on most. The "our system is no better than your system" mantra. That may be true but I (and many I believe) feel that our system is better and that our system is being watered down. That's what Romney is appealing to. Add to it the "fundamentally transform America" talk and it's a clear point of difference between the two. I happen to see it the way Romney does but acknowledge that many don't.

 

[lawgator1]

...and then they expand military efforts/go to war. Hence my worry.

I am less inclined to pin that problem on one party or president.

The "you are weak" argument is ALWAYS made against the Dem because it has some sticking power with the hawks within the GOP. Always has, always will. That it irks the Ron Paul types, whatever, I don't think Romney cares. He'll repeat the claim just because he thinks it buys him some credibility with the Cheney-Rove wing of the party.

After that, in terms of being in office, I can't think of an administration that has not either a) gotten itself into a quagmire of sorts; b) been baited into a place we shouldn't be; or c) overplayed our hand once we got there.

Or some combination of all three.

 

[lawgator1]

I think it's less military strength and more a feeling that Obama doesn't embrace the notion of American Exceptionalism (which is fine). Him being soft is a different issue - it's his apology tour of the world he made after election that I think Romney is hitting him on most. The "our system is no better than your system" mantra. That may be true but I (and many I believe) feel that our system is better and that our system is being watered down. That's what Romney is appealing to. Add to it the "fundamentally transform America" talk and it's a clear point of difference between the two. I happen to see it the way Romney does but acknowledge that many don't.

Fair enough and he might get some traction with it. I just think that the folks who will buy into that are already on Ream Romney, anyway, whereas when Romney does play that card Obama has some decent stuff with which to retort.

Iran is a situation with which most Americans are at least somewhat familiar, but have almost no depth of actual knowledge. Romney might be able to exploit something there better than Iraq or Afghanistan.

But he has to be careful. There is a real hesitation right now for anything that folks thinks risks yet another ten year misadventure over there.

 

[n_huffhines]

I am less inclined to pin that problem on one party or president.

The "you are weak" argument is ALWAYS made against the Dem because it has some sticking power with the hawks within the GOP. Always has, always will. That it irks the Ron Paul types, whatever, I don't think Romney cares. He'll repeat the claim just because he thinks it buys him some credibility with the Cheney-Rove wing of the party.

After that, in terms of being in office, I can't think of an administration that has not either a) gotten itself into a quagmire of sorts; b) been baited into a place we shouldn't be; or c) overplayed our hand once we got there.

Or some combination of all three.

Yeah, they all did it is the point. When R's say D's are apologists for American foreign policy then follow it up with war and expansive military tactics, I tend to associate the statement with the action.

 

[volinbham]

Fair enough and he might get some traction with it. I just think that the folks who will buy into that are already on Ream Romney, anyway, whereas when Romney does play that card Obama has some decent stuff with which to retort.

Iran is a situation with which most Americans are at least somewhat familiar, but have almost no depth of actual knowledge. Romney might be able to exploit something there better than Iraq or Afghanistan.

But he has to be careful. There is a real hesitation right now for anything that folks thinks risks yet another ten year misadventure over there.

Agree. Santorum is highly risking the general (where he doesn't have a chance anyway) by being so hawkish.

I think the fine line is talking about maintaining capabilities but not making people think you are reading to go to war.

The safe zone is pointing out that Obama hasn't had any success in holding back Iran. The hard answer is saying what you would do that is more effective but doesn't involve troops on the ground.