Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Romney's incoherent message last night (updated)

After all we've seen of Romney over the last few months, I suppose it shouldn't surprise us that the candidate who showed up to the debate last night was completely unrecognizable. And yet most of us are left with scratching our heads and asking "Who the hell was that guy?"

But the thing is...he didn't just shape-shift once again. He made no sense.

Overall, his argument was that President Obama has done an awful terrible job in handling foreign policy.
Yes, but let me — let me — let me come back — let’s come back — let’s come back and go back to what the president was speaking about, which is what’s happening in the world and — and — and the president’s statement that things are going so well.

Look, I — I look at what’s happening around the world and I see Iran four years closer to a bomb. I see the Middle East with a rising tide of violence, chaos, tumult. I see jihadists continuing to spread. Whether they’re rising or just about the same level hard to — hard to precisely measure, but it’s clear they’re there. They’re very, very strong.

I see Syria with 30,000 civilians dead, Assad still in power.
He said this kind of thing over and over again.

And yet - when it came time to discuss these issues specifically, he basically said he agreed with everything President Obama has done. Other than wanting to take our military back to 1917, his one big idea that distinguishes him from what the President is already doing would be to indict Ahmadinejad for "genocide incitation." What?????

Otherwise, when it comes to Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Al Qaeda and everything else, he agrees with what the President is doing.

How do you reconcile those two arguments...things are going so badly and I'd do more of the same?

I know that sometimes Bill Maher says stupid stuff. But last night he nailed it.
UPDATE: And of course, the Truth Team is ON IT!

2 comments:

  1. What I saw was two guys simultaneously running hard against George W. Bush and neoconservatism. Which means, I suppose, that Romney's camp learned some lesson from the failed VP debate and the "act of terror" moment.

    Only problem is: one guy has actually practiced what he preaches (for all the good and ill) for the last four years and the other is a complete fraud.

    Romney tried to prove his credibility as commander-in-chief by selling out his past public nonsense and ripping off the current one to his face. That's as weak and unprincipled as it gets. And I believe voters know the score.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh dear, Smartypants. Don't you see? Romney would do the same things, but with more leadership.

    The reason you know it would be leadership is because Romney's political affiliation has an R in, just like leadeRship does. But Obama's political affiliation is D, which is a letter not present in the word leadership. At all.

    Also: Syria is Iran's route to the sea? What is this, the 'make GWB look like Plato night'?

    ReplyDelete