Associated Press
Romney with one of his top foreign policy advisers, John Bolton.
When it comes to presidential candidates and foreign affairs, there are basically two kinds of candidates: those who point to their vast experience (Biden, Kerry, H.W. Bush) and those who point to their vision and instincts (Obama).
Then there's Mitt Romney, who doesn't quite fit into either camp.
During his first presidential campaign, Romney struggled badly on foreign policy and international affairs, arguing, for example, that it was "entirely possible" that Saddam Hussein hid weapons of mass destruction in Syria prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion.
But the inexperienced former one-term governor has had four years to read, get up to speed, and shape a coherent vision. How's that going? Not at all well.
But don't worry, Romney has a plan.
Mitt Romney's campaign is considering a major foreign policy offensive at the end of the month that would take him to five countries over three continents and mark his first move away from a campaign message devoted almost singularly to criticizing President Barack Obama's handling of the economy, sources tell POLITICO.
The tentative plan being discussed internally would have Romney begin his roll-out with a news-making address at the VFW convention later this month in Reno, Nev. The presumptive GOP nominee then is slated to travel to London for the start of the Olympics and to give a speech in Great Britain on U.S. foreign policy.
Romney next would fly to Israel for a series of meetings and appearances with key Israeli and Palestinian officials. Then, under the plan being considered, he would return to Europe for a stop in Germany and a public address in Poland, a steadfast American ally during the Bush years and a country that shares Romney's wariness toward Russia. Romney officials had considered a stop in Afghanistan on the journey, but that's now unlikely.
So, the candidate whose foreign policy experience has been limited to missionary work in France and stashing cash in the Cayman Islands hopes to gain some credibility by heading abroad.
At the surface, there's nothing especially wrong with this idea, but there is a problem lurking below the surface: what is it, exactly, Mitt Romney is going to say about foreign policy that will be coherent and sound? Or more to the point, how will the candidate choose between the arguments presented by his advisors, most of whom disagree with one another?
About a month ago, the New York Times reported that many members of Team Romney disagree with one another -- and at times, even the candidate -- about foreign policy, and occasionally, Romney's own advisors have no idea what he's trying to say. Last week, Reuters had a similar article, reporting that Romney's foreign policy advisors are constantly at odds.
The same day, the NYT added that the diplomatic crisis surrounding Chen Guangcheng was seen as an opportunity for the Romney campaign, but they couldn't get their act together, and couldn't even agree on what the candidate's position should be.
Fred Kaplan took stock of what we've learned thus far and concluded that Romney is a "foreign policy lightweight" whose ideas "range from vague to ill-informed to downright dangerous."
Is Romney an extremist? Or, in keeping with the GOP approach to politics in general these days, has he simply calculated that it's best not to agree with Obama on anything? Either way, one thing is clear: He is not a serious man.
Observers can certainly pick their favorite evidence of Romney's foreign policy ineptitude -- my personal favorite was his profound ignorance during the New START debate -- but the point is the Republican candidate seems wholly unprepared to lead on the global stage.
In fact, it's not even clear if he cares about the subject at all. Inexperience need not be a disqualifier, if voters are given reason to believe there's a sensible vision and sound judgment that undergirds a coherent set of positions. But Romney hasn't even met this low threshold, preferring instead to pull together veterans of the Bush/Cheney administration -- some of whom have no credibility whatsoever -- who've been left to argue amongst themselves and leak to the press about their frustrations.
I realize foreign policy probably won't shape the 2012 race over the next four months, but for a guy who's supposed to embody "competence," Romney doesn't appear to know what he's doing.
Leave a Comment:
I sincerely hope Mitt chats up as many foreign dignitaries as he can. The response to his ignorance will be quite a kick.
Perhaps he could get lessons from GW on holding hands with sheiks or from GHW on how to toss your cookies during dinner. Then he can exit stage right while the door is on the left.
Not to mention kings and queens.
Mitt Romney's Foreign Policy with John Bolton has Secretary of State and John McCain as Secretary of Defense:
Day 1 - Outsource U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to China.
Day 2 - Declare War on Iran.
Day 3 - Declare Victory.
Day 4 - Declare Financial and Moral Bankruptcy.
Day 5 - Declare Bain Capital to be the Administrator of the Bankrupt USA.
Day 6 - In a fit of power euphoria, launches every nuclear weapon and vaporizes the planet.
Day 7 - Gods breathe a sigh of relief and vow to never screw around with creation again.
Let's see, he goes to Reno to address the professional potato-peelers, warehouse janitors and company clerks of the VFW (sorry, veterans from the pointed end of the spear never spend much time around the "professional veterans" organizations, they're mostly all the guys who "never had the chance" to get out on the pointed end, not that they wanted to go), where he congratulates them on being willing to support his idea of privatizing veterans' care. Then he goes to Israel and Seig-Heils with Nitwityahoo and the rest of the Israeli Nazis and congratulates them on working to bring about Armageddon and the Second Coming, then he goes to Poland and congratulates them on making abortion and family planning illegal in Poland (fact), then he goes to Germany and congratulates Merkel on making money while destroying the European economy like a good vulture capitalist.
See? Unlike that lousy Obama and all his apology tours, Willard will go around on a congratulations tour.
Dragging John Bolton along with him? And that war criminal adviser whose name I forget? I think he should go visit all the C Street's favorite dictators. They'd probably embrace him in Uganda for his stand against the gays...
Maybe he can take Brad Pitt's mother with him, so she can testify to what a "good family man who doesn't believe in killin' babies or lettin' homosexuals propagate" he is. (I respect Brad a whole lot more now, knowing what he came out of with Mommie Dearest)
The best response to Memory Isn't There Today (MITT) is for BHO2 to give a speech in front of a picture of Romney's Cayman Islands bank about new measures to crack down on money laundering, in order to catch drug lords and other shadowy types.
For sure, Mittster and his foreign policy team are dangerous nitwits. But I'd bet that fewer than 10% of voters will make their choices on foreign policy grounds.
Just when our international standing was going up a bit, here comes Mitt the Mendacious, the World Tour.
Mika (Morning Joe) Brezinski had more foreign policy chops, and met more foreign leaders as a TEENAGER than Mitt will ever have. She also speaks French.
-That said, it is only because she had President Carter's foreign policy advisor for a daddy. And poor Mitt just had a millionaire governor.
Is'nt this exactly what Sarah Palin did? Two peas in a pod.
Romney has a great many problems, but his main one is obvious and perhaps insurmountable. It's not his flip-flopping or his Mormonism or his Bain Capital past or his tenure as governor.
Obama is essentially a Reagan Democrat. He governs like a Republican while he talks like a Democrat. His coziness with banking interests is very rightish. He's disappointed many leftists by not keeping a strong stand against torture. Sure he's for gay marriage NOW, but Dick Cheney was for gay marriage years ago. His environmental policies and his healthcare policies were Republican policies up to the point that a Democrat endorsed them.
The Republican Party has had a lot of success in the platform "If the Dems are fer it, we're ag'in it!" But now that the Dems have essentially adopted the Right's older platforms, there's not much else to do but veer so far right you're embracing the dismantling the New Deal, endorsing separate-but-equal as Constitutional, referring to cops firefighters teachers and seniors as freeloaders while whining that bankers are getting a bum rap. And hoping that the economy and foreign affairs remain fusterclucked enough that your wingnuttery seems a viable alternative. That's not a way to run a Star Trek fanfic book club let alone a country, but it's all they got and they currently have the financial means and media setup to make all too possible.
Obama has been into repair mode since he took office. He's tried to do what all presidents have done, get Congress to implement his policies. He's hit a brick wall. But I think his actions haven't, as you suggest, moved the country farther right, but rather has highlighted the extremism of the GOP right now.
I think you are basically quite wrong about Obama as a Reagan Democrat. The country has moved so far past the idea of what good governance consists of that even Reagan, who did a lot of extremely dastardly things, would not have dreamed them up. Obama is trying valiantly, I believe, to reverse thirty + years of the instituting of economic inequality and destruction of the middle class that Reagan inaugurated (and that many of us at the time could see happening though we were often pooh-poohed).
But even the NYT pronounced, the day after the SCOTUS ruling on health care, that Obama IS a "transformational president" -- which Reagan was, too: but Obama is going in the OPPOSITE direction.
I want to see Mitt try out his "I will never apologize for America" routine. And maybe some reporter will ask him to list his greatest threats to America list, after Russia and China.
two kinds of candidates: those who point to their vast experience (Biden, Kerry, H.W. Bush) and those who point to their vision and instincts (Obama).
I do not remember anything of substance back in 2008 regarding his foreign policy experience or "vision" other than his speech in Germany during the campaign...kind of what Romney is doing now. No difference to me. I still marvel how one of the two powerful parties in this country thought that a junior Senator who was relatively unknown until the 2008 campaign was the most qualified and experienced person to put on the ballot for one of the most powerful and important positions on the planet. There are countless seasoned Democrats in Congress and as Governors that had/have tons of more experience. I would rather have someone with vast experience over vision. Granted, now Obama has some experience, but the position of POTUS should never be a position you learn on-the-job which is what Obama mostly did and what Romney would do if elected.
@Skip Hoffman - I'm sorry you don't recall 2008 candidate Obama speaking eloquently many times of his vision for how he would handle the two major ongoing conflicts, Iraq and Afghanistan, and whether he would pursue bin Laden. And not for nothing, you don't get the full-throated support of a Republican stalwart like Colin Powell if you happen to be a Democrat who lacks experience *and*a compelling vision for foreign policy. The primary difference between candidates Obama and Romney on this topic is that 2008 candidate Obama created and initiated a blueprint for what he wanted to achieve in foreign policy. Romney's "vision" consists of having Bush, Jr's foreign policy advisors in place. We know from history that's a disaster waiting to happen.
From the wayback machine - WaPo: Barack Obama on the Issues
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/issues/candidates/barack-obama/
Fair enough June. He may have had a vision, but I would still prefer experience over that. I live in Illinois and did know of Obama, but most Americans can not honestly say they had any knowledge of our future POTUS before his campaign. I have no real problem with his Presidency - it is a tough, and usually thankless job - but I just did not understand how someone with less than 4 years as a U.S. Senator (the last year almost constantly campaigning), a little state Senator exerience was the best candidate from the party that has numerous experienced and seasoned folks (many with a lot of both domestic and foreign experience).
I hear you, Skip - to my mind, though, that's where the strength of then-Senator Obama's vision came in. He convinced us with his passion and vision that it was time to give someone new a chance. That's what filled the gap. Romney has shown us he so lacks in passion and vision he sometimes can't remember what he said last week, and therefore doesn't know where he stands on an issue today! That's why I feel so strongly that then-candidate Obama was in an entirely different league than now-candidate Romney.
It is awfully scary when the candidate or VP calls Russia Soviet Union and Uzbecky-becky stan stan or when Putin rears his head. But this presidential candidate, Senator Obama demonstrated knowledge and showed a grasp on current foreign affairs, which give more confidence in judgement.
He also showed a desire to end the unpopular war in Iraq, while his opponent joked about bombing Iran. Many people were not against Afghanistan because bin Laden was not yet brought to justice.
We know there is the desire to attack hanging over heads of those who are supporting Romney. I think there is no loud public call to attack Iran and any further expansion of occupation.
There is an excellent chance if Romney were to be elected, he would be putty in hands of those same neocons that surrounded President Bush. Don't forget, Bush had no mandate to attack Iraq, yet he found a way to convince Congress to OK it anyway.
No thanks, I am impressed with President Obama and hope to hear of the exit of combat troops from Afghanistan ASAP, not send more to some more countries.
And bin Laden is no longer alive, unlike when Bush left office.
You used credibility and Rmoney in the same sentence. I don't know if that is grammatically correct, ever. I love the photo of the two dangerous clowns smiling.
I'm just curious... Would an endorsement from Hollande help or hurt Mitt?
Neither. Americans don't even know who Hollande is. Hell, 40% of them didn't even know the Supreme Court ruled on the ACA.
I don't think we need to bother about Foreign Policy, ever again.
The Lexington Institute is the pay to say mouthpiece of the military contractors and today they wrote that the use of private contractors is the sign of an army in decline:
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/the-sun-has-finally-set-on-the-british-army-and-we-are-next
Since the use of these contractors has been the firm policy of the Cheney and Obama administrations, we simply will not matter anymore in world affairs.
All these comments that said their no different between the two... Is the same logic that elected GWB, which resulted in 9/11, invasion of Iraq, bombing in India, Bali, Spain, the spreading of Al Quiad, axis of evil which lead to a nuclear arm with N. Korea, Iran, Iraq.... Which N. Korea threaten his neighbors and shooting off nuclear war missiles and daring Bush admin. to do something, Iran double down on there nuclear programs (China and Russia set on the sideline and did nothing)...
Bolton at the UN making ridiculous, scary threats (which made our allies distant themselves from us.... Russia, Europe, South America, Mid-East and the only one was England (Tony Blair) and the people got rid of him asap and he's a disgrace.... Bush/Cheney are wanted for war crimes as soon as they step in to these foreign countries....
Yea, you might not like all of PBO foreign policies, which is a fair statement, but this President accomplished a lot to bring us back on a normal footing in the world.... And this is not a quick fix, (like a child with a toy, which get old after a few weeks...)
There are plenty of differences between these two candidates and people better learn what each candidate vision are about.......
"Inexperience need not be a disqualifier,..."
What GWB 2.0 redux? I think not! I think that over 5k dead American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's displaced, killed, maimed over lies should be enough for the American people!
Someone should also buy a correct globe and give it to Mittens with the names/faces of the leaders of each nation on "flags" so that he can commit them to memory!
GOTP so wrong for America! Obama 2012!
Well you kind of knew Afghanistan would get scratched, didn't you. After all, it was Mitt Romney who protested IN FAVOR of the draft knowing he had a religious deferment to go to France and proselytize.
Yet another Republicans panty-waisted chickenhawk.
I personally wish him luck on his tour and would have preferred for more countries. He would definitely learn the world is a more complex place than Massachusetts, Bain and the Cayman Islands. We don't hear much from his campaign about his foreign positions other than his standard 'Obama has it wrong and I'll fix it.' He would likely be doing better without using a parrot for a campaign manager.
Unless you are being sarcastic, then:
1) This assumes he doesn't think he really knows it all already.
2) He can learn much of substance by short fly-ins to a few countries.
3) He is willing to do any homework before he goes.
My expectation is that none of the above are true.
'Second verse -- same as the first." Romney did the exact same thing in 2006, fiest holding a 'fact-finding tour' to China, Japan, and South Korea, then a trip to Gitmo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
It did not go well then, Romney showed his own ignorance too well.
What else has he got to show?
He has to look abroad-it's the only place he's going to get it.
Personally I believe foreign policy is incredibly important. To say that foreign policy will not be an issue in this election is probably correct, but it should be a priority in every election. After all America is a world leader.
Romney does not seem to be cognizant muchless interested in foreign policy. He sells himself as some sort of brilliant businessman, but even businessmen -- both small & large -- are acutely aware that their companies' are intricately linked to the global economy and their success basically rises or falls on America's ability to be competitive in the world markets regardless whether they do business overseas.
The POTUS also has to maneuver on the world stage in ways that require more than just a cursory knowledge of current events, he/she must be able to put those events in historical context and then apply that to real world geopolitical events. Foreign leaders would eat Romney alive. He is still calling Russia the USSR for heaven sakes! He seems to think we are still fighting the Cold War.
Let's not even get started on Romney's dishonesty in relation to foreign policy. It sends shivers down my spine to imagine the amount of serious damage he could do to America on every level possible.
It is frightening to think just how incredibly unqualified & terrifyingly unprepared Romney is to lead this country. Moreover it is reasonable to surmise that America would no longer be a world leader if god forbid Romney gets his hands on the levers of power.