Mitt's VMI foreign policy address

[TonyR]

The reviews are in!

Mitt Romney has delivered a lot of dishonest speeches in recent months, but Monday’s address on foreign policy may be the most mendacious yet.

It was expected that he would distort President Obama into a caricature of Jimmy Carter. But it was astonishing to watch Romney spin a daydream of himself as some latter-day George Marshall, bringing peace, prosperity, and hope to a chaotic world—this from a man who couldn’t drop in on the London Olympics without alienating our closest ally and turning himself into a transcontinental laughingstock.

To the extent that Romney recited valid criticisms of Obama’s policies, he offered no alternatives. To the extent he spelled out specific steps he would take to deal with one problem or another, he merely recited actions that Obama has already taken.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ered_yet_.html

This was not a speech he had to make — a speech distracting from the ground Romney had recently made up by refocusing his attention on the plight of America’s middle class. And if he had to make a foreign-policy speech, it did not have to cater to the neoconservatives and pork hawks already on his team. Nothing in this speech appeals to a war-weary and economically troubled people. It’s politically damaging. But he gave this speech anyway, and the only reasonable explanation is either that Mitt really believes — zealously — what he says, or else he’s entirely compliant to the ideological demands of right-wing Wilsonians. I suspect the latter is the case, and that portends a Romney presidency that would repeat all the errors of his Republican predecessor.

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...bigger-budgets

[TonyR]

In response to Romney saying this: "the president has not signed one new free-trade agreement in the past four years." ...

Over the last few years, trade has been a bright spot in the U.S. economy.

Since hitting a low of $124 billion in March 2009, the volume of monthly exports has risen rapidly—to a record $185 billion in June, a 49 percent increase. The U.S., the largest exporter in the world, has seen annual exports rise from $1.578 trillion in 2009 to $2.103 trillion in 2011. Through the first seven months of 2012, they’re up 5.5 percent over the first seven months of 2011. Imports have risen, too, from $1.96 trillion in 2009 to $2.663 trillion in 2011—a 36 percent increase. Through the first seven months of 2012, imports are up another 4.8 percent. Put another way, the volume of trade in which the U.S. engages has exploded in recent years—up 18 percent in 2010, up 14 percent in 2011, and up about 5 percent so far this year. The rise in trade has been good news for American exporters, but also for the large segments of the U.S. economy that thrive on trade—ports, railroads, truckers, delivery services, and the companies that insure, finance, and process trade.

The free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama, are marginal contributors to this growth. But they are new free trade deals nonetheless. The Obama administration has had plenty of failings and shortcomings. But they do not include being hostile to trade.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...st+Articles%29

[Requiem]

Romney attacking but not offering an alternative!? WHAT.

Thanks for the links.

[Smiling Assassin27]

I agree that he didn't have to make this speech, but I understand why he did. His first objective was to sound/appear presidential--he did that. Second objective was to poke a finger in Obama's eye with regard to foreign policy--basically a b**** and moan operation, which he did. Third objective was to be as vague and non-committal as possible, not daring to propose anything more than platitudes, patriotism, and promises of toughness--check. He didn't LOSE anything from that speech, but didn't really move the needle, either. Squishes like Romney and Obama excel at this.