Thursday, September 13, 2012

Romney Attack Proves He's Not Ready to Lead

Gov. Mitt Romney
If Mitt Romney loses the November election, yesterday may have been the statement that sealed the deal.  

On Tuesday, a couple of flashpoints in the Middle East exploded into violence when the U.S. Embassies in Libya and in Egypt came under attack by extremists angered by an internet video produced in the United States.  In Libya, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three members of his staff were tragically killed when a building they were taking cover in came under attack.  It was a real moment.  The first time that a U.S. Ambassador was killed in the line of duty since 1979.

When Mitt Romney's campaign released a statement, they decided to light up the President on foreign policy by using a set of fact that simply weren't true.  The statement also politicized the death of a United States diplomat.  

Let's think about this for a second, an American Ambassador and members of his staff are dead, and Mitt Romney uses the deaths to advance his political agenda. Yep, that just happened.

I almost hesitate to politically analyze this, but I guess I have to.  What the heck was the Romney camp thinking?  At times like this, you want your guy to look professional.  You want him to step to the microphone and make a statement that does no harm and only soothes the soul of a country.  If I were writing Romney's statement, it would have looked like this.

Ann and I are deeply saddened by the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his staff members.  They died in service of our great nation, and their sacrifice is an example of the dangers our diplomats and their staffs face each day across the globe.   I stand with President Obama in strongly condemning these attacks.  

Instead, Romney accused the President of sympathizing with the attackers. It’s a new low for political discourse.

What is done on foreign policy is fair game in the race for the White House, but you certainly don’t use the death of a U.S. Ambassador as a chance to attack the President. That’s absolutely wrong.

I have to wonder who in Romney's campaign thought that this type of response was appropriate.  There's no doubt that this strategy will appeal to the Richard Mourdock wing of the party, but it’s sure to turn independents off and anger Democrats even more.

Romney's camp thought they found an opening, but it ended up being just another embarrassing gaffe on the foreign policy front.  The more I think about it, the more I believe a President Romney would be an absolute disaster for our country's foreign interests.  He doesn't even understand how basic things work.  No wonder he's losing.


Jeff Cox said...

You're making a big leap here.

Two embassies were attacked, in what was apparently a pre-arranged distraction to attack Ambassador Chris Stevens. Steven and members of his staff were killed (and Stevens himself was apparently raped).

And Obama's first instinct is to apologize?

Are you sure you're going after the right guy here?

Jon Easter said...

First of all, you're citing an unconfirmed report that no news organization has been independently able to verify on the status of Stevens.

As far as Obama, he did not apologize.

Romney is not ready to lead.

Jeff Cox said...

Obama's State Department blamed US for the violence, Jon. That's Carteresque. His oath said he was to protect and defend the US Constitution not allow it to be subservient to Shar'ia law.

Obama's response to the riots was a disgrace that shows he is not interested in protecting the United states.

Jon Easter said...

I did not see where the Oath of Office had been changed to mention Sharia Law.

Jeff Cox said...

Then ask Eric Holder's DOJ. At a press conference they repeatedly refused to rule out criminalization of criticism of Islam.