That's what I heard last night -- the Inevitable Mitt agreeing with President Al O'Bama on every conceivable issue of American foreign and "security" policy. Not once did I hear the challenger say "That's completely wrong. My policy is as different from yours as, errr, white is different from black."
Perhaps because of my endorsement of Ron Paul, I was not asked to help prep Romney for this last debate. I didn't worry about it because I thought surely one of his puppet-masters ["handlers", surely. Ed.] would have coached him to put the Prez on the wrong foot immediately by clarifying what the lamestream press called Mitt's "gaffe" about it taking 14 days for Obama to admit that the 9/11 attack in Libya as an act of terrorism.
That was the point at which "Creepy" Crowley jumped in on Obama's side to make Romney look as if he was wrong. A forceful, word-by-word examination of what Obama said in the Rose Garden the next day would have shown that Romney was quite right. But did Mitt get that out? No.
Rather, Romney started off slow and cautious and then went backwards from there. He quickly and explicitly gave ground on so many issues -- "I agree with the President"; "What the President did was right" -- that he simply didn’t have any wiggle room by the time he got to the debate’s later stages. Romney was getting pummelled so he went into the clinch and held on for dear life.
Even though he decided to give it a miss during his mid-East "apology tour", Obama portrayed himself as Israel's greatest friend in the whole world. So what? Romney let us know that, if he were president, he would be even farther up Netanyahoo's arse. Specifically, he said that if Israel were attacked by Iran or any other anti-Semites, he'd say "We've got your back." And yes, that would include military intervention.
Obama gave the order to take out Osama bin Laden, and it was done even as he commanded. What could Romney say? That he would not have ordered bin Laden killed? All he could say was that he was sorry it wasn't done sooner.
And on and on it went. Romney and Obama agreed that American should have a strong military, with Mitt predictably saying that he was going to build up the military establishment which the Prez was letting run down. Unfortunately for the wannabe, the example he chose was the US Navy, which he said had fewer warships now than at any time since 1917.
Obama countered -- rather meanly, I thought -- that it's not a game of "Battleships" any more. What counts, he said -- rather meanly, I thought -- was not the number of ships you have, but the kind of ships. What a modern navy uses, he explained (as if to a schoolkid), is aircraft carriers and nuclear-powered submarines, not battleships. And, he went on -- rather meanly, I thought -- the army doesn't use horses or bayonets either. Thus ended the lesson.
Walt's verdict: Gotta give this one to Mr. O on points, but the decision wasn't close at all. Romney never laid a glove on him. So for the series, that's one for Romney, one for Obama, and one "no decision". Which leaves the contenders just where the polls say -- pretty much tied. Should be an interesting election.
Footnote: Why oh why did the Republicans not nominate Ron Paul, so Americans would have a clear choice? Congressman Paul was the only candidate with a new and different approach to foreign policy. I defy you to discern any practical difference between Romney and Obama when it comes to Iraq or Afghanistan or Israel or Iran. Ron Paul was the only one to advocate bringing US troops home immediately, and an end to American interference in the Middle East. It's not too late to write him in. Here's how you spell his name: R-O-N P-A-U-L. Come on people. You know he's right!
No comments:
Post a Comment