Thursday, July 26, 2012

Romney Blasts Obama’s Foreign Policy

President-pending Mitt Romney spoke at the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Nevada this week, and he gave a rather devastating critique of Obama’s foreign policy. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar.

Romney began by laying out his standard for what our foreign policy should be, and he did this by ripping into Obama. Consider this the “Romney Doctrine”:
Has the American economy recovered?

Has our ability to shape world events been enhanced, or diminished?

Have we gained greater confidence among our allies, and greater respect from our adversaries?

And, perhaps most importantly, has the most severe security threat facing America and our friends, a nuclear-armed Iran, become more or less likely?
Bingo! That’s perfect foreign policy! That is exactly the test any President should apply to all foreign policy decision. Not coincidentally, this test also proves to be a devastating takedown of Obama’s failures because Obama cannot answer yes to any of these points.

Romney then got specific. He noted that Obama’s policies have strangled the recovery, which weakens America’s ability to project its power. He claimed Obama exposed the military to unjustifiable cuts which threaten the military. He attacked Obama for mishandling national secrets, which endangers our policies and our people. And he pointed out that Obama has “given trust where it is not earned, insult where it is not deserved, and apology where it is not due.” All true.

When our economy is weak, we stop being the shining beacon to the rest of the world. Our enemies see us as in decline and decide the opportunity to strike is at hand. Countries like China have used Obama’s term to bury us in debt, to push for the elimination of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, to become much more aggressive in Asia, to build up and modernize their military, to hoard resources, and to begin the unchecked economic colonization of Africa.

Our military has been stretched to the limit since 2001 and not only has Obama done little to help them, he used their budget as a bargaining chip. To get a budget deal, which the Democrats now refuse to perform, he proposed ripping a trillion dollars in cuts from the military. I don’t believe the military budget is inviolate, but that is obscene. Moreover, he’s politicized the military at all turns, from don’t ask don’t tell, to using the military as a campaign prop, to ignoring abuses by our frenemies like Karzai in Afghanistan while punishing and neglecting the Americans who risk their lives to prop up these failed policies. There is even a report out today that the Army stopped an investigation into a corrupt and horrific hospital in Afghanistan (the Dawood National Military Hospital) in 2010 because the report would have been issued too close to the election for Obama’s comfort.

This administration has been horrible about protecting secrets as well, which is ironic as they ruthlessly go after whistleblowers. They fed classified information to Hollywood so they could make films that are mere propaganda for Obama’s campaign. And now they’ve been leaking classified documents to the New York Times, e.g. documents about US cyber attacks against Iran and “kill lists” Obama has authorized. Even the Democrats admit these leaks are coming from the White House. Said Sen. Diane Feinstein, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Monday, “I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks.” Democrat Pat Caddell has actually accused Obama National Security Adviser Tom Donilon of being the primary leaker.

Frankly, this has all been done to make Obama look tougher. And of this, Romney told the VFW: “[the administration] betrays our national interest [and] compromises our men and women in the field.” Again, all true.

Finally, Obama has been harsh to our friends and weak to our enemies. As Romney put it, he “abandoned our friends in Poland and the Czech Republic” and he kowtowed to Russia and China. And Romney said this about Israel:
The people of Israel deserve better than what they have received from the leader of the free world. And the chorus of accusations, threats, and insults at the United Nations should never again include the voice of the President of the United States.
And don’t forget, Obama tried to support a coup in Honduras against our friends in favor of a Chavez-like dictator wannabe. He’s been rude to Britain and India. He flooded Mexico with illegal guns. He stopped a needed Canadian pipeline. He’s been useless on the Euro crisis and useless in the Middle East. Heck, he didn’t even placate the world’s sensibilities by closing Gitmo. And he lost control over environmental issues to the BRICS and he managed to make pirating super profitable.

Obama’s record is a disaster. He’s made everything worse and achieved nothing. Is the US better off than it was four years ago? Hardly. But let’s let Romney sum this all up:
This is very simple: if you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your President. You have that President today.
Damn straight!

99 comments:

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: True, all too true.

I have to laugh (sardonically, of course) at the Democrats' suggestion that Romney shouldn't be president because he has no foreign policy experience. Oh, in comparison to all that foreign policy experience the insufferable Obama had when he ran? I have come to believe that the impossible has happened. Obama came into office with no foreign policy experience, and he will leave office with even less.

If I granted Obama foreign policy experience, and denied Romney any foreign policy experience, the choice would still be clear. An "experienced" president who doesn't much like his own country isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. A candidate with no foreign policy experience who loves his country and will do what is necessary to preserve, protect and defend his nation already has the most important qualification--genuine patriotism. Everything beyond that is, as the saying goes, mere surplusage.

LL said...

Character counts. And on that score, Obama doesn't even get the needle off zero.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

Romney forgot one thing. Obama ate dog.

tryanmax said...

The value of conservatism lies in the fact that its follower doesn't need specific experience in all areas. The principles of conservatism (as opposed to the ever-changing rote of progressivism) are applicable to all things. And despite how much of the opposite has been said about Romney, he has convinced me that his instincts are "severely" conservative.

Neville Chamberlain said...

I don't understand the problem here.

DUQ said...

That's a really good take on foreign policy by Romney. He sounds like a businessman who has diagnosed how to do it and he's found the right formula. This gives me a lot of faith.

DUQ said...

Joel, For all we know, he's still eating it.

T-Rav said...

For what it's worth, Rasmussen's new poll has Romney continuing to lead Obama, by a 48-44 margin. Hopefully speeches like this will continue to expand that lead.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Very well said. Romney the "amateur" has much better tools to handle the job that Obama "the pro." What Romney said here gives me confidence that he knows exactly what our foreign policy should be about and that he will analyze each issue the right way. That's better than any specific promises on any specific issue.

Obama on the other hand has proven already that he uses the wrong analysis when he even bothers to think about it. I can confidently say that swapping Romney for Obama would be a dramatic improvement without even knowing how Romney would handle any specific issue.

AndrewPrice said...

LL, Isn't that the truth! Why would any of our friends trust him? Why would any of our enemies fear him? Why would anyone else respect him?

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That's pretty much disqualifying in my book.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Very true! Conservatism is a philosophy about how to make decisions and in this case, I think Romney's formula for making decisions is excellent. We won't know how he implements it until we see him in action, but at least we know that he has the right goals in mind, and that's more than half the battle.

Obama, on the other hand, seems to have no formula at all because he is a progressive. For him, everything is an issues by issue decision with no overriding principles involved.

AndrewPrice said...

Neville, Don't worry, there's no problem. Just keep your head in the sand and all your problems will go away.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, That's how I saw it too. I think this speech shows us exactly how he makes decisions. He acts like a businessman. He looks at an area where he may need to make a decision, he looks at the goals he is trying to achieve, he sets those goals as his test for analyzing any ideas that come along (i.e. "will doing this make my goal more or less likely") and then he uses that formula to make his decision.

We won't know for a while yet what inputs he will use in his decisions, but the process he uses is a good sign and what he sees as the goals to be achieved are excellent. So like you, this gives me a lot of faith.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I haven't checked the White House menu, but I doubt it. Of course, who knows where he goes at night when he's got the munchies?

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Superb post, Andrew!

WTG Mitt! He has definitely put some thought into foreign policy.

And what can Obama say? He can't run on his foreign policies or his economic policy (BTW, good job by Mitt tying the Obama foreign olicy to his economic foreign policy because they are related).

In fact, if Obama even mentions foreign policy
9he would be wise not to) all Mitt has to do is play all the times Obama trashed America on foreign soil, particularly in Muslim countries.

Oh, and Obama has gotta be the most classless President we have ever had. He has no shame.
His "joke" about eating dog and how bad hockey moms taste is just one example.

I'm sure he thinks he's edgy but in reality he has lowered the bar on human dignity and nobility.
I though Clinton was bad (and he was) but Obama makes Clinton look downright respectable by comparison.

BevfromNYC said...

Two things that are really amazingly stupid - Obama camp is criticizing Romney for his upcoming international trip. I recall that Obama made a similar trip which he made a big deal about while giving one of his grand "Roman Pillar" speeches in Berlin...Yea, see-the-world-LOVES-him kind of speech that made everyone want to vote for him.

And criticizing Romney for his "lack of foreign policy experience". Now THAT's a hoot! I seem to remember that lack of experience was not an issue because Obama "would hit the ground running". In my opinion, Obama just hit the ground, period...

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

DUQ: Hmm...haven't seen Bo for awhile, come to mention it.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Did you see the NBC poll where Obama was slightly ahead? They overweighted Democrats by +11% to create a slight lead for Obama. In 2008, a Democratic high-water mark, the Democrats only went +6%. And in 2010, the Democrats were negative.

I don't think foreign policy speeches will have much effect on the public at large because the public doesn't care about foreign policy. But there is a steady drumbeat of competence coming from Romney which is exposing Obama's incompetence all around. I think that will help bit by bit.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I did see that. No, I think it totally makes sense that the Democrats will get more votes this year than they did in '08. /

Foreign policy isn't as big a draw as the economy, I'll give you that. But I think people do care about things like selling out our allies and kowtowing to perceived enemies like China. Not a whole lot, but to some degree. At the very least, a speech like this certainly shouldn't hurt Romney, regardless of how much it helps him.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Obama's foreign policy has also been disasterous with the Arab Spring thing.
Yeah, let's support the Muslim Brotherhood. THEY'RE FREAKING TERRORISTS YOU IDJIT!

And who, pray tell has taken the place of Ghadaffi in Libya?
FREAKIN' TERRORISTS!

Hey, I'm not saying the former leaders of those countries weren't bad, however, as we have seen, it can get far worse, and it has.

I am 100% confident that Romney would fire anyone that suggests supporting terrorists (even if they are democratically elected).

Carter made Iran a zillion times worse, and Obama has done the same thing with Egypt and Libya.
They are now terrorist states. At least their prior leaders were afraid of us.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, That's a great way to describe Obama -- he's careless. A lot of his policies seem to be things he came up with but didn't bother thinking through. His jokes are the same way, it's like he just speaks without thinking about whether or not he should speak. And much of what he says ends up being inappropriate and oddly condescending. It's like he doesn't even realize that he's offending people and doesn't really care if he is.

I think Obama will avoid mentioning foreign policy. There is nothing he has done which will win him votes, and the danger is that Romney can respond by mocking his entire record. So I suspect Obama will just avoid the issue.

I agree 100% about the mixing of the domestic economic issues with foreign policy. They really are strongly related.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Those are stunningly hypocritical criticisms! How in the world can they criticize Romney for doing the same thing Obama did? Oh that's right, because they're hypocritical idiots.

And you're right, Obama hit the ground with a thud and never got up. His foreign policy has been on unmitigated disaster from day one and has never recovered. Even if you're a leftist, his foreign policy has been entirely unsatisfying. Basically, he didn't do what he promised nor did he do what's right, he ended up ceding leadership to also-rans like Brazil, he got pushed around by our biggest enemies, he made our friends nervous, and he spent the rest of his time touring expensive hotels.

That's not exactly quality foreign policy.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, LOL! I hadn't thought of that! He is MIA isn't he?

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Oh yeah, I can absolutely see the Democrats having 5% higher turn out this time than they did at their best year ever. LOL! And no doubt, Republicans won't turn out because we're clearly demoralized by Obama's soaring oratory.

On foreign policy, a speech like this absolutely won't hurt. And I think it will indeed help. It will solidify conservatives who are upset about Obama doing things like bowing to Saudi kings. It will comfort people who worry that Romney lacks experience. And it should just generally continue to establish a solid comparison against Obama who has clearly failed... unsafe at any speed.

So it will absolutely help. It's just not the kind of thing which tends to light the public on fire. But it will help.

Jen said...

This administration is such a JOKE! I just shake my head, and can't understand how anyone could fall for this crap, but sadly, they still do.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I'm not sold on the idea yet that Egypt is headed in the wrong direction. They are still going through growing pains and until we reach a more definitive point, I don't think we can say anything for sure.

I am encouraged that the Muslim Brotherhood had renounced violence several years back, and that they've been the respectable opposition in Jordan. I also know that running a country generally wipes out Messianic zeal because you end up wasting your energy on making sure the garbage gets picked up and that the people are fed. This has happened to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank already, and I think it will tame anything in Egypt too.

That said, I do think Obama failed by not trying to shape events over there. I think a stronger involvement by the US would have resulted in a smoother transition and a stronger guarantee of a free society. But that didn't happen and now all we can do is wait and watch.

But we'll see how it goes from here.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, I think Obama continues to get support for two reasons. First, some people just don't pay attention and they trust that those in power will do the right thing. Secondly, most of his supporters are simply mindless partisans who don't care if he's any good or if his policies work, they simply want the country to stay on the left.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, T-Rav, Just to point out how disingenuous the +11% sample of Democrats was, Gallup is reporting that Democrat enthusiasm is -12% against Republicans' and Rasmussen scores Dem enthusiasm as tying the record low.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Excellent connection there! i know you can't do this, but factor out 23% from Obama 48 Romney 43.

T-Rav said...

Old joke from the early days of BH: "In Obama's defense, he wasn't actually bowing to the Saudi king. What happened was, there was a teleprompter on the floor with the word "Hello" on it, and he was bending down to read it."

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, LOL! Very nice. I still like the political cartoon with Obama reading from the teleprompter so he knows how to pee. :)

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I'm afraid you lost me.

tryanmax said...

Oh wait, I get it now. You're saying to shift the numbers 23%. Yeah, I wish it were that simple. But you have to figure in the dead and illegal vote.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, This isn't statistically valid, but consider this....

NBC used +11% to get Obama 48/Romney 43. Now factor that back out to 0, and then factor in -12% for the Democratic lack of enthusiasm.

That's basically -23%.... or Obama 37% Romney 55% with 8% undecided.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Andrew: I would like to be wrong! Unfortanetly, based on reports coming out of Egypt, I don't think I am.

Attacks on Christians have increased, as have attacks on the more secular and peaceful Muslims, Egypt is allowing arms to move freely to the Palestinians, I mean Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood, who denounced violence, is calling for the destruction of Israel.

The MB, like Hezbollah and Hamas will always say some good thiings publicly, but that's not their agenda.

Incidently, Hamas has only been rewarded by the Obama administration and they haven't changed their ways.

StanH said...

Barry is a failure! Foreign policy being one.

Note: I haven’t been around for a couple weeks. My wife decided we need a screened in porch, a Hell of a lot of work. The good news, it’s beautiful, and it’s done. Hallelujah!!!

AndrewPrice said...

Right, it's not that simple, but it gives you a sense of what an honest pollster might tell you.

I would actually suspect we're really looking at Obama 46% Romney 54%.

T-Rav said...

I tried to run through the details of that D+11 poll (by the way, Andrew and tryanmax, that's not exactly how it works), but the numbers are so badly skewed there is literally no way to do it. The most I can say is that Democrats are overcounted by about a third and independents by nearly half, so who knows. My guess is that if this was keyed to a partisan breakdown even resembling the turnout in 2010, it would be showing a dead heat, if not a one or two point advantage for Romney.

Individualist said...

"but... but....

Big O took out Bin Ladin"

Really Snippy

... To quote the Obamasaih himself the guy who paved the roads the Seals used to travel to the military transport planes did that.....

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, We'll have to see. I'm honestly not sure which way things will go yet. The violence people talk about isn't "official" policy, it seems to be random groups. I'm not sure there are any free flowing arms either because the military hasn't wanted that and they've been pretty tight with the border. In fact, Hamas has been blasting the Egyptians because of it.

At this point, I just don't see anything which tells me that their government has committed to becoming a terrorist state or ruling by fear and discrimination. But we'll see. They seem to be slowly heading toward the path of Turkey. But it's too early to tell and things are just too confused.

On Hamas, my understanding is that Hamas is actually in a lot of trouble because they haven't been able to get their economy moving. That's why they're trying to create a unity government with Fatah because they need cover.

T-Rav said...

To clarify, a number like D+11 doesn't register enthusiasm, it means that there's an eleven-point difference between the percentage of voters who ID as Democrats and the percentage of voters who ID as Republicans. According to this poll, 46% of respondents said they were Democrat or leaned Democrat, while 35% said they were Republican or leaned Republican, hence D+11. The national exit poll in '08 showed a D+7, while its counterpart in 2010 showed an outright tie, so make of that what you will.

Reformed Ostrich said...

Um.....

That head in the sand thing .....

It doesn't work!

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, Congrats on the new porch! :)

Well said, Obama is a failure in all areas. The end!

tryanmax said...

I'm sure that the true numbers are more like a dead heat, but it's fun to play around. I didn't pay very close attention in statistics class, but there are ways to correct for oversampling. Someone with the right know-how (and the data, of course) could fix NBC's numbers.

I would lay dollars to donuts that Romney is actually sitting above the half-mark and Obama below.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I know that's not how it works, but I'm just pointing out how different the results would be if they skewed their samples according to expected enthusiasm. I expect turnout very similar to 2010 only with more blacks. The results should give Romney a 2-5% win in purple states, solid wins in red states, and narrow losses in all but the bluest of blue states.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, So you're saying the SEALS didn't do that? It was some unknown Pakistani work crew? And here I thought Obama himself forged the bullet and pulled the trigger.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Right. The NBC poll was skewed toward Democratic supporters by +11%.

What tryanmax and I were talking about was IF you take the current enthusiasm numbers of +12% for the Republicans, and you adjust the NBC sample to go from +11%D to +12% R, that is what you would end up with -- a Romney 55%/37% poll.

But you can't really do that with any accuracy. All you can really say is that if the enthusiasm numbers are true, then Romney has a significant lead.

AndrewPrice said...

Ostrich, Are you sure? It seems like it might work. Maybe the problem is that so far no one has really tried it or the right person never put their head in the sand? Or business and the Republicans have corrupted the sand?

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, The problem with polls is the sample. How do you decide who is going to turn out? If you use 2008, it's a dead heat. If you use 2010, Romney pulls ahead significantly. If it's worse than 2010, then Romney blows him away. Right now, we don't know, but the evidence is that it will be about the same as 2010 only slightly more pro-Obama.

Reformed Ostrich said...

Andrew

I listened to all of that from the other Ostriches and no matter how many times I tried it, it just seemed to not work.

I mean I was blind and never saw it coming when it hit me. I got tired of getting knocked to the ground and I came across Brietbart.com and got a new perspective.

Now all the other Ostriches think I am in with the people knocking over all the birds with their heads in the groud because I don't get caught when it comes. I try to explain but they just tell me I hate other birds with different color feathers and tell me I am akin to some dead bird in Germany that did bad things.

Still I don't get knocked down so it is worth it.

Tennessee Jed said...

not only am I a fan of fans in this hot humid summer air, but count me a fan of the Romney doctrine.

rlaWTX said...

LOL!!!
"Ostrich, Are you sure? It seems like it might work. Maybe the problem is that so far no one has really tried it or the right person never put their head in the sand? Or business and the Republicans have corrupted the sand? "

go, Romney!!!!

Individualist said...

Andrew

If we take Obama literally (and we must since he runs a dictatorial state and can't be challenged) then we must assume that absolutely all new ideas are solely attributable to men who pave roads.

I know, who knew! But there it is, the One has spoken. I guess that is why it takes several years to pave a major roadway. these guys are too busy inventoing everything else that we need.

good for the Road Pavers....

AndrewPrice said...

Dear Ostrich, Welcome to a better world! :)

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Ditto. I think the Romney Doctrine is truly solid. It gives me tremendous confidence that he is ready to make the right decisions on whatever may come up.

Tennessee Jed said...

unfortunately, polling has become a favorite campaign tool. The old stream media, in particular, loves this tool since it allows them to manufacture feaúx news that not only makes them appear relevant, but let's them think they continue to be opinion shapers. If you are hurting the way the incumbent appears to be, he desperately needs a bogus poll (either push poll or flawed sample) to keep from further dis-heartening his base.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, :) Perhaps you've seen that kind of logic used before? ;)

I agree, Go Romney!

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, You are correct. We would be nothing if not for paving crews. And it's a good thing those daring paving crews raced out across the American West before anyone tried to settle there and build homes and businesses!

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I agree. Polling has evolved from informing the public to being a tool used to try to influence the public. And the MSM loves them for that very reason. If they can convince enough people that everyone around them really does favor something, then maybe people will start changing their minds.

T-Rav said...

Andrew: Right. I was merely pointing out that those numbers mean two different things, so you can't really compare them straight-up.

Anyway, I would agree that the turnout model this year is likely somewhere between that of '08 and '10, only (hopefully) rather closer to the latter. Even if it resembles the breakdown in '08, though, Obama's got a fight on his hands, because even in that exaggerated poll he still can't break 50%.

T-Rav said...

Any ostrich who doesn't put their head in the sand is a bigot and a neocon. That is all.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I agree, even in 2008 terms, he's got problems because he's not as popular with independents or cross-over Republicans as he was. But I don't think it will be at all close to 2008. I think we're looking at very similar to 2010 only with black turnout being like it was in 2008. The problem with black turnout, however, is that they are concentrated in big liberal states or a few southern states where they don't matter.

It's hard to predict anything with clarity, but I am leaning toward a solid Romney win.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Leave the Ostrich alone, you know he's already getting enough of that from his former Ostrich friends!

T-Rav said...

Gallup has a new enthusiasm poll out, showing the 12-point gap between Dems and Reps. Democratic enthusiasm, in fact, is at its lowest point since at least '04 (and I would guess it hasn't been this low since the '80s). That said, they had a double-digit lead over the GOP in that respect in the '04 election, and Bush still won that round. So DON'T SETTLE.

AndrewPrice said...

"Don't settle"! LOL! Don't worry about that! I think we're all in this to the very end.

And honestly, I think Romney will do much better than Bush did against Kerry. Everything tells me that.

tryanmax said...

I think the real question is whether Obama would eat an ostrich. Thoughts?

AndrewPrice said...

I doubt he could catch one.

That said, I understand a lot of people eat Ostrich now. It's supposed to taste pretty good and be very lean... which means it won't taste good.

Joel Farnham said...

Obama would eat an ostrich if it tasted like dog.

AndrewPrice said...

Come on Joel, the man eats one little dog and ruins one country and you're going to hold this against him the rest of his life? ;)

Anthony said...

Andrew said:

Obama tried to support a coup in Honduras against our friends in favor of a Chavez-like dictator wannabe. He’s been rude to Britain and India. He flooded Mexico with illegal guns.
-----------
Its worth bearing in mind that the 2009 Honduran coup (an extra-constitutional move which was backed by the Supreme Court, the legislature, the military and at the time, a majority of voters) was against Zelaya (who months before that formed an alliance with Chavez) not for him.

Its also worth bearing in mind that the middlemen in the drug business have always been well armed and well supplied. Those guys are comfortable crashing planes in the jungles of Central America because the cost of planes is nothing compared to the profits they see from drugs.

But I agree with your larger points that A) Obama leaks too much in the context of international politics and B) the enthusiasm gap (caused mostly by domestic politics) dooms him.

CrispyRice said...

Another piece giving me more and more reason to like Romney. Thanks, Andrew!

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I disagree about Honduras being a coup. I wrote about that here: LINK

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Crispy, I think the evidence keeps building that Romney's much better than people realize.

LawHawkRFD said...

Anthony: Following Andrew's lead, I also did a couple of articles on Honduras and Zelaya: Moonbats and Tegucigalpa.

Anthony said...

Andrew,

The army didn't arrest Zelaya and hold him for trial, they woke him up in the middle of the night, escorted him out of the country and then produced a (by all accounts fake) resignation letter.

I agree with you and Lawhawk's point that Zelaya is the one who precipitated the constitutonal crisis and frankly, Zelaya losing power was good for everyone not named Zelaya or Chavez (as I noted, pretty much everyone supported the move).

Koshcat said...

Romney said all that? Mitt Romney? The guy from Massachusetts?

I'm...speechless.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, Yep. He keeps right on saying conservative things all the time. I'm telling you, he's impressing me a heck of a lot!

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, No, they didn't hold him for trial. Here's what I said in the article:

The Supreme Court immediately ruled this illegal and ordered the General reinstated. Zelaya refused. Choosing instead to gather his supporters, lead a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots were stored, and tell his supporters to distribute them.

The following morning, Zelaya was arrested by the army, on the orders of the Supreme Court, and sent into exile in Costa Rica. In accordance with the constitution, Roberto Micheletti (right) was then named the acting president.


There was no trial, but there was a court ruling and their constitution didn't require a trial.

AndrewPrice said...

And Anthony, my main point at the time was that this does not fit the definition of a coup. It was a constitutional crisis at most, but Obama jumped in to protect the leftist rather than their constitution.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I agree. The important thing to remember is that our Constitution and governmental form is similar to, but not the same as Honduras's. As I mentioned in my article, Obama and his thugs can't get our own Constitution right--how could we expect them to get Honduras's law right?

As for it being a "coup," it was no more of a coup than John Marshall declaring a law of Congress unconstitutional. It was a case of first instance in an essentially un-tried new form of government.

When Marshall saw a "wrong" being perpetrated, he established the all-new concept of judicial review, which we have come to accept as binding precedent. Likewise, when Zelaya began to gather a mob to undo the Supreme Court ruling, the duly and properly elected government arrested and deported him without precedent, but not in violation of any newly-established legal or constitutional restriction. Had this been a less benign and less democratic government (say, like Venezuela), Zelaya would never have gotten out of Honduras alive.

The allegedly faked resignation letter is entirely irrelevant. He couldn't resign an office he had been excluded from in any event.

Joel Farnham said...

Well, Andrew, Romney made a booboo. He said to Brian Williams last night, "It is disconcerting about the security and having to bring in the military to the Olympics." Krauthammer, Allahpundit from Hot Air, and the British Press are more than a little upset about it.

Romney has walked it back slightly. Over at Right Scoop, he seems to think of it as a nothing. If you read the comments at Hot Air, you would think that Romney lost the election.

Strangely enough, Piers Morgan doesn't think it is anything. He thinks it is funny that the British Press skirts are ruffled because Romney told the truth. I don't think it matters unless there is a successful terrorist attack on the Olympics.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I've seen that the Brits are upset at him, but he's speaking the truth. For one thing, their preparations have been documented as being horribly underwhelming, especially their security. For another, I honestly don't recall anyone else calling in the military to guard the Olympics? This is an odd thing to see.

As for HotAir and Allahpundit, they went off the deep end a long time ago and they seem determined to hate Romney and find fault. Oh well. But they better watch it because things like this will slowly make them lose their audience. You just can't keep savaging your side's candidate unfairly and expect not to start losing people. And often, the people you lose are the ones who made a place interesting.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I agree. I don't see it as a coup at all, I see it as a constitutional crisis that got out of hand. I think calling it a coup sounded sexy and gave visions of evil military guys ousting civilian governments when none of that is really true.

But in any event, Obama picked the wrong side and then got humiliated by a tiny country that is essentially dependent on us. That's a horrible way to start his new era of diplomacy in South America.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

From what I've read, many of the British people are upset about the security at the Olympics, although perhaps for different reasons.

It sure looks like a clusterfrack to me the way it's been handled.
Romney did speak the truth.

I quit reading Krauthammer a few years ago because he has lost a lot of his former objectivity and reasoning skills.

As for Hot Air, I very rarely go there these days for the reasons Andrew gave above, and because there are fewer commenters that have anything to contribute other than whining and mostly undeserved criticism of many conservatives, including Romney.

Plus, they really irked me when they went after Cain and basically helped the left.
Conservatives should know by now not to take the word of lefty reporters without solid evidence.
Unnamed sources and lefty "victims" that only provide hearsay isn't solid evidence.

Andrew and LawHawk: I concur about Honduras. They got a rotten deal from Obama, and it's something I would like to see more conservatives bring up before the election.

Poland also got a rotten deal. Here's two countries that actually value liberty and Obama attacks them rather than supporting them.
And rewards terrorist regimes like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood instead.*

*Not just my opinion. One only needs to look up what President Morsi and and Hamas leadership has said and done to reach the conclusion they are bad news.

Joel Farnham said...

Ben,

I suspect that Allahpundit has lost all objectivity where Romney is concerned. Some new commenters like Erika Johnsen and Dustin Siggens are very good, but they are being drowned out now by Allahpundit. (I don't count Mary Katherine Ham. She is okay, but she has worked for TownHall and a few others, but now is coming to Hot Air? What happened at those gigs?) Erick Erickson from Red State and Allahpundit have made up their minds to be as snarky as they can about Romney and yet still be considered conservative. Maybe it is because "their guy" isn't going to win the Republican nomination.

On Krauthammer, I actually thought he came around when he backed Romney on the tax returns. Now, all I can see is that he is just an old man in a wheelchair with very little to contribute.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I honestly haven't followed the Olympics that much. With each passing year, they seem to mean less and less to me. I can't quite explain it, but it's true.

I soured on Krauthammer a long time ago and I'm not sure why. I think it's because he's a neocon who often espouses liberal ideas and I've just never found him to be all that persuasive.

On Hot Air, I've kind of lost interest in a lot of places I used to visit. It just seems that in the past couple years so many conservative sites on the web have become so relentlessly negative and have really contributed nothing intellectually that I've simply stopped caring.

Yeah, the Cain thing pushed me over the edge with a lot of them too. It really amazed me how quickly they bought into liberal talking points just because they wanted to.

The way Poland has been treated annoys me particularly. Of everyone in Europe, Poland was most primed to be our greatest friend and we've treated them like an unwanted relative.

Honduras was a disaster for Obama and pretty much led to his abandoning his "new way" in South America.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Hi Joel!
Thanks! It's good to hear Hot Air is getting different reporters. I may check them out.

I was also surprised to see MKH at HA. Not sure what happened to her Townhall gig. Maybe she got a better offer?

It's kind of sad about Krauthammer. I won't say he's wrong on every issue but he really seems to have lost what he used to have more of: good analysis and objective thinking.

Perhaps he has been around pundits to long?

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I get that sense from a lot of conservative blogs at the moment. They've decided they aren't going to like Romney and they're going to prove that they are right no matter how much spin and snark they need to give.

I honestly wonder if some of them wouldn't be happiest if he lost?

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I don't think Krauthammer is always wrong by any stretch, but I always get the feeling he gives "establishment" opinion almost all the time, and that includes a lot of liberalism.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Hi Andrew!

I concur, Krauthammer has become more neocon. However, don't recall neocons being so critical of conservative candidates as they have been of Romney.

Then again, Romney is the most conservative candidate we have had since Reagan.

You know, I never thought I would say that but Romney has been very impressive.
The more I listen to him the more conservative I think he really is.

I know he didn't used to be as conservative as he is now but neither was President Reagan.
If Romney wins and I think he will, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Romney may turn out to be Reaganishly conservative. :^)

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I agree completely. The more I've paid attention, the more it's struck me that Romney might actually be the most conservative candidate we've had since Reagan. I KNOW he wasn't always, but he's demonstrated a level of conservatism at the instinct level which is just impossible to fake. And on issue after issue, he's taken genuinely conservative positions rather than conservative-sounding positions that really aren't.

I think the establishment hates and fears him because he's not part of the Washington Set. So he's dangerous because he represents some new faction they don't want in town.

And the conservative Washington establishment, I think, is nervous about backing him because they're scared the Tea Party will turn on them if they declare him a conservative and he turns out to be a moderate. So it makes sense for them to keep up this, "oh, he's no conservative" line because it's the only way they can't lose. If he wins and is great, they take credit for pushing him right. If he loses, they blame him being a moderate. If he wins and becomes a moderate, then they warned us. I think this is much more strategic than people realize.

Joel Farnham said...

Ben,

You better hurry. Allahpundit has at least seven today compared to two or three of the others.

Andrew,

I don't follow as many blogs as you do. Hot Air seemed to be getting behind Romney until Allahpundit came back from vacation. Now, he doesn't go after Romney like I have seen some writers do. He just intimates that Romney has absolutely no class and style. When someone complained he gave a snarky answer that shut the guy up.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, The number of blogs I follow has been going way down. The biggest reason is just time, as in "don't have enough of it." But also, a lot of them have been losing me with their relentless negativity. Some of the places haven't done anything except attack and whine for over a year now. How about mixing in some positive thinking and constructive ideas once in a while folks?

Joel Farnham said...

"How about mixing in some positive thinking and constructive ideas once in a while folks?" I thought you might like an answer to your question.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That's the same thing I loved about Cain, he was very positive and he always spoke about America's potential.

Anthony said...

-----

You say that Obama failed in many areas especially in foreign policy. How do you view the Arab Spring and the way in which the U.S. responded to the uprisings in those Arab states?

"Clearly we're disappointed in seeing Tunisia and Morocco elect Islamist governments. We're very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world."


"The Arab Spring is not appropriately named. It has become a development of more concern and it occurred in part because of the reluctance on the part of various dictators to provide more freedom to their citizens. President [George W.] Bush urged [deposed Egyptian President] Hosni Mubarak to move toward a more democratic posture, but President Obama abandoned the freedom agenda and we are seeing today a whirlwind of tumult in the Middle East in part because these nations did not embrace the reforms that could have changed the course of their history, in a more peaceful manner."

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5207

--------------
Interesting interview, but I think Romney is kidding himself if he believes that the transition from autocracy to democracy would be painless if managed properly. Egypt was never going to become the US overnight (heck, the US didn't become the US overnight).

As I've pointed out before, dictators in the Muslim world have played a very dangerous game. When dealing with their people they encouraged Islamic radicalism (represssing all other forms of civil society) and blamed their people's problems on Israel and the US.

But when they faced us they explained to us that their people hate us so much that they are our only ally in the country.

Our two choices were/are to continue to play the game of dictators or to release the prisoners of their dictators from their cages. Releasing the prisoners is risky in the short term but it should result in clearer if not better relations down the line.

The Islamic parties will be wrapped up in the task of governing and as the behaviour of the PLO and Hamas indicates, Islamists in presidential palaces make very different calculations than Islamics in caves.

Anthony said...

The text is from a recent interview Romney gave.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I agree to a degree. I think Romney is right that the problem in the Middle East is that we have protected dictators and not pushed them to become democratic. That has allowed them to create this problem we now face and to blame us for it. I disagree that this problem is singularly Obama's, however. This has been a failure of US policy since the 1950s.

Where I think Obama has gone wrong is in not getting involved more directly. I think American money and American influence could have stood as a backstop in Egypt to make the transition smoother and shape it to be more friendly toward us. That said, however, it's impossible to say with any specificity how things would have changed.

One thing that doesn't trouble me as much as it bothers others is the fact these are Islamic governments. As you say and as I've said before, The Islamic parties will be wrapped up in the task of governing and as the behaviour of the PLO and Hamas indicates, Islamists in presidential palaces make very different calculations than Islamics in caves.

Governing tends to suck the revolutionary zeal out of people and makes them more responsible. There are some exceptions, but I think that is the future in Egypt. I'm also not worried about the MB because they've proven they can be responsible. I think the bigger danger is that more radical Islamic groups become more popular and push the MB in that direction.

Post a Comment