.
I was troubled by Romney’s criticism of Obama in connection
with recent events in North Africa –flag burnings and attacks on an embassy and
murder – in connection with the anniversary of 9-11. It was not that there is anything wrong with
criticizing the POTUS and, given Romney's position, this was a point of difference between the two. I know that what
I think of as his subtle foreign policy is viewed by many of Obama’s opponents
as “leading from behind”. In this
particular case I thought that Romney’s arguments were not unreasonable. However, it still felt unseemly to me and I
could not tell why.
I have been distressed lately that Charles
Krauthammer’s rhetoric seems to be becoming ever more strident.
So I was surprised when he was able to resolve the discomfort mentioned above. As he sees it Romney should attack Obama’s foreign policy in broad strokes – assuming that he disagrees with it. That would involve generic policy principles. These kinds of items should be left to his subordinates or as specific examples for the debates.
So I was surprised when he was able to resolve the discomfort mentioned above. As he sees it Romney should attack Obama’s foreign policy in broad strokes – assuming that he disagrees with it. That would involve generic policy principles. These kinds of items should be left to his subordinates or as specific examples for the debates.
I thought he was quite right.
.
Agreed, I too felt very uncomfortable with Romney’s comments. When one has no basic disagreement agreement with what is being said or done, but is still left with that uneasy feeling that “one of the pegs does not fit” is very unsettling.
ReplyDeleteI had that feeling with Romney’s remarks and the reaction of the press to his remarks.