U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 12, 2012 05:53 PM UTC

Mitt Romney - A Foreign Relations Loose Cannon

  • 23 Comments
  • by: Aristotle

(Admit it, you missed the Cold War! – promoted by Colorado Pols)

UPDATE 10:09am – Added paragraph (the second to last) about his Egypt blunder.

Back in March, Mitt Romney called Russia “America’s number one geopolitical foe.” It was quickly forgotten in America, but Russian president Vladimir Putin has a longer memory.

Putin Thanks Romney for Calling Russia No. 1 Foe

MOSCOW – Russian President Vladimir Putin said today that Mitt Romney’s characterization of Moscow as the United States’ “number one geopolitical foe” has actually helped Russia.

The Russian leader said Romney’s comments strengthened his resolve to oppose NATO’s plan for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, a system Russia believes will degrade its nuclear deterrent. The U.S. insists the system is aimed at Iran, not Russia.

“I’m grateful to him (Romney) for formulating his stance so clearly because he has once again proven the correctness of our approach to missile defense problems,” Putin told reporters, according to the Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

“The most important thing for us is that even if he doesn’t win now, he or a person with similar views may come to power in four years. We must take that into consideration while dealing with security issues for a long perspective,” he said… [Ari’s emphasis, except for headline.]

Between this and his London Olympics gaffe, Romney is amply demonstrating that he has zero understanding of the delicate nature of foreign relations. He is causing setbacks on multiple diplomatic fronts and he isn’t even president.

Add to this Romney’s widely reported condemnation of the statement issued by our embassy in Egypt, even though they occurred prior to the deadly attacks upon it and our embassy in Libya. Besides drawing widespread criticism from all over the media and blogosphere, one has to wonder what message this sends to our diplomatic corps. I personally doubt it’s one they would find encouraging.

America can’t afford to elect this man. What costly wars and showdowns will he get us into?

Comments

23 thoughts on “Mitt Romney – A Foreign Relations Loose Cannon

    1. I was told that “loose cannon” comes from an actual phenomenon. Back when warships were wooden sailing vessels, it was possible for them to come loose when on the high seas, rolling around the deck completely out of control, smashing everything to bits as the boat pitched on the waves. It was possible for the ship to be destroyed and sunk by a loose cannon.

      That imagery doesn’t go with even the flawed thinking process you describe. It goes with a person who is profoundly reckless. Consequences aren’t just absent; they’re inconceivable to the loose cannon. Exactly the way Mitt Romney strikes me.

  1. for uninformed attacks on the administration in the wake of the tragedy in Libya, ascribing criticism of the inflammatory anti-Muslim YouTube to the aftermath as if offered as an excuse for the violence when, in fact, those statements were made prior to the violence. All in all, the man would be a bigger foreign affairs disaster in the WH than GW, hard as that is to imagine. Romney’s ignorance even more profound.

    This crass and, again, fact free response to the shocking death of a US ambassador is beneath contempt.

    1. All the same people hooting and hollering about “socialism” and “wealth redistribution.” Like those are even credible concerns.

      It’s the way these people think. They’re paranoid.

    2. His foreign policy advisors read like a GW Bush fan club.

      While his campaign boasts a number of neocon stars, ranging from the intellectually deft Robert Kagan to the cantankerous John Bolton, he has also appointed Robert Zoellick, a bete noire of the neocons, to head his foreign-policy transition team.

      http://www.realclearpolitics.c…  

  2. When Obama ran for President, McCain’s foreign relations experience eclipsed the junior senator’s.

    However, President Bush’s foreign policies had turned Russia, Europe, Asia and South America’s opinions against the U.S. Obama represented a fresh start with his rhetoric of tolerance and diplomacy.

    So, even with McCain’s exponentially greater amount of insight and intelligence on foreign matters, voters and the world wanted Obama because McCain echoed much of what Bush had done over the last eight years and Obama wisely stuck with broad promises (end the war…listen to neighbors…develop trade not bombs…).

    The Republican party, and their mouthpieces Romney and Paul, don’t believe that after years of wars and nation building, the American people want to focus on building our nation instead.

    If Obama is weak on the economy, he levels the playing field with his foreign relations experience (and comes out ahead as long as Romney keeps parroting outdated Republican policy arguments).  

    1. if antipathy to Obama is so deep-rooted with the GOP that statements like that would even be considered?

      More likely, it’s just that the campaigns are going into overdrive and things have not gone well for Romney since the GOP convention (thanks, Clint Eastwood!). There’s probably a point where the competition simply overrides any expression of loyalty like that.

      But the GOP has been a disloyal opposition IMO, since the midterms at least. They’re well out of the habit of saying anything supporting the government because they can’t stand anything reflecting well on Obama. I can’t help but think that their reflexive response was rooted in that as much as their growing anxiety about how the campaign is going.

      1. has so saturated the mindset of the simple-minded right, they see him as the government and somehow believe that he is personally responsible for anything the govenment does they don’t like.

        They are like rabid animals who have lost the ability to see and react to the real world around them, reduced to wandering aimlessly, snarling and snapping at anything and everything that reaches through their limited senses. They are completely ruled by their disease.  

    2. THAT kind of measured, respectful response would have resonated very well with independent voters who are wondering – especially after the London Olympics kerfuffle (love that word) – how good a statesman Mitt Romney really is.

      But Romney pandered to the right, yet again. And this time it is going to cost him dearly. Most Americans don’t like people blatantly politicizing things like this.

  3. Romney’s remarks, paraphrased: “In America, we’ll say whatever the fuck we want to say. Deal with it.” Which I agree with, but it’s by far not the best response when responding to angry protesters. It’s a lot like telling an angry person, “I’m not touching you. I’m not touching you.” It’s true, but does absolutely nothing to diffuse the situation.

    He’s so busy condemning the protests, did he even stop to think that the killings may have had nothing to do with the protests? Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack – CNN

    1. it’s one of those helpful things that Republicans do least best . . . and, Willard is again showing himself to be the least least-best the Republicans have ever offered.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

70 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!