Romney Foreign Policy

Every time Obama decides to do something other than talk with a former SoS, that's another chance turned down. And we have plenty of evidence that Obama chooses to do all sorts of things besides talk with former SoSs.

Sometimes he plays golf. Sometimes he campaigns for office. Sometimes he gives press conferences or tries to broker budget deals. Sometimes he even attends PDBs. We have evidence of this. "Intellectually curious" or not, he doesn't spend all of every day with anybody and everybody who has an opinion about Israel-Palestine relations.

And neither does Romney.

You have no idea if Romney didn't want to delve into it because he was about to do his twice-monthly exercise. Or because he'd already heard and considered the SoS's prospect, or because he was already fully occupied that day and simply didn't have time for an ad-hoc mideast briefing at the time the call came in.

You don't know. You don't know, and you have no way of knowing. But even so, you're convinced that he made the wrong decision.

This would be quite a good response if all we know was that Romney had been approached with a prospect by a former SoS, and had blown her or him off. But we know more than that--we know that Romney considered this episode to be worth an anecdote.

And in that anecdote, he gives no reason why he blew the SoS off, leading a reasonable audience to conclude it was lack of interest. Either he is purposely omitting details in an attempt to make himself look worse, or he just wasn't interested.

It is reasonable to suppose that if he had a different or better reason, he would have shared it. And conversely, since he didn't share it, it is reasonable suppose he didn't have one.
 
Look, if there was any chance of peace then there would be a problem with building settlements on the West Bank. If you say that there is no chance of peace then that problem goes away.

It's very simple.
 
Yes, I know that's an oxymoron.

From the same tapes as the 47% comment:



Why not, Mitt?

Not enough potential profit there for you?

I recently listened to this famous address and I noticed this bit as well and found it rather odd.

However, what I really found odd is this little bit of data is about the most concrete thing that he has actually said about what a Romney foreign policy would look like.
 
It looks to me like Romney's approach would be to streamline foreign policy. Simplifying complex issues facilitates faster decision making, and dispensing with the tedious process of gathering and evaluating detailed information makes it easier to respond quickly to rapidly developing situations. Romney has quite clearly demonstrated his strengths in this area.
 
It looks to me like Romney's approach would be to streamline foreign policy. Simplifying complex issues facilitates faster decision making, and dispensing with the tedious process of gathering and evaluating detailed information makes it easier to respond quickly to rapidly developing situations. Romney has quite clearly demonstrated his strengths in this area.

Is the hilited bit irony?
 
Is the hilited bit irony?
Yes, if you do it like this:

It looks to me like Romney's approach would be to streamline foreign policy. Simplifying complex issues facilitates faster decision making, and dispensing with the tedious process of gathering and evaluating detailed information makes it easier to respond quickly to rapidly developing situations. Romney has quite clearly demonstrated his strengths in this area.
 
This would be quite a good response if all we know was that Romney had been approached with a prospect by a former SoS, and had blown her or him off. But we know more than that--we know that Romney considered this episode to be worth an anecdote.

And in that anecdote, he gives no reason why he blew the SoS off, leading a reasonable audience to conclude it was lack of interest. Either he is purposely omitting details in an attempt to make himself look worse, or he just wasn't interested.

It is reasonable to suppose that if he had a different or better reason, he would have shared it. And conversely, since he didn't share it, it is reasonable suppose he didn't have one.
That's a pretty sophisticated analysis to apply to a simple anecdote. It's like, equal parts kremlinology and mystery novel detective. I feel like we should all be gathered in the parlor, smoking pipes and sipping sherry. We'd pore over gazetteers of central Asia, while you revealed to us who really murdered the Soviet minister.

Seriously, though, I was addressing the slightly narrower claim that declining to engage in a lengthy ad-hoc discussion with a former SoS about mideast policy is an automatic fail and a clear sign of moronism.

If we're going to speculate more broadly (and apparently we are) about what the anecdote means, and what conclusions we can reasonably draw from it... well, then the sky's the limit. For all we know, there never was a phone call from a former SoS. The whole thing could be a simple fiction crafted to make a simple point.

And I think that we are getting a pretty good idea of what that point is: The situation between Israel and Palestine is what it is. It's not really a solvable problem--at least not by any US president--but it's not really a major problem either. So the Romney administration isn't planning to waste a lot of time and effort going through the motions of a bogus "peace process". There's no presidential legacy to be made there, and "former SoS with the prospect of a settlement" doesn't clear the bar for getting serious attention on the subject.

But I can hear it now: This former secretary of state is different! This plan is so crazy it just might work! This president (Romney!) could totally pull this off, if only he were wise enough to listen! Together, these two could square the circle, find the Northwest Passage, cure cancer, and bring peace to the Middle East! In our time! And he pissed it all away, because when the magic phone call came in, he "didn't want to delve into it"!
 
Am I the only one who thinks Romney just made the whole "call from former secretary" up?

Well the options would be:
Condi Rice
Colin Powell
Madeleine Albright
James Baker
George Schultz
Henry Kissinger

I wouldn't doubt if he talked to Baker or Kissinger.
 
theprestige;8628994Earlier this year said:
100th round of golf since taking office. [/b]Of those, how many took the place of delving into thorny foreign policy issues and formulating better opinions by talking to as many people as possible?

This is deeply silly. In four years, that's 25 times per year, or 2 times per month. Wow, twice a month he spends a couple of hours exercising. Again, deeply silly.
Obama will have to play a lot more golf than that to match the vacation time taken by either GW Bush or Reagan. Besides, golf is more than just exercise. It is an outdoor business meeting. Anybody who doesn't know that has never really played golf.
 
Last edited:
Obama will have to play a lot more golf than that to match the vacation time taken by either GW Bush or Reagan. Besides, golf is more than just exercise. It is an outdoor business meeting. Anybody who doesn't know that has never really played golf.

And Bush and Reagan got a lot of work done while "on vacation". Especially in this modern era, I'd be surprised if a President couldn't do the job from any one of: The White House, Camp David, an alternate residence or summer home, Air Force One. And the recent historical record seems to bear that out.

I have no problem with Obama conducting business on the links, if indeed he does. But in the context of this discussion, unless Obama is regularly inviting former Secretaries of state to join him for a round so they can discuss the prospects of an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, it's deeply silly to complain that Romney doesn't spend as much time as he could on the issue.
 
That's a pretty sophisticated analysis to apply to a simple anecdote. It's like, equal parts kremlinology and mystery novel detective.

No, it's pretty much just derived from paying attention to how people use the language, and then applying those observations to someone else using the language.

If you weren't bent on defending Romney, it would be obvious to you too.

Seriously, though, I was addressing the slightly narrower claim that declining to engage in a lengthy ad-hoc discussion with a former SoS about mideast policy is an automatic fail and a clear sign of moronism.

Fair enough. But I was addressing your paragraph starting, "You have no idea if Romney didn't want to delve into it because . . ." and I was only pointing out that, if we make the assumption that someone telling a story about himself is not going to distort the story and omit details in order to make himself look worse, then, yes, we do have at least some idea.

If we're going to speculate more broadly (and apparently we are) about what the anecdote means, and what conclusions we can reasonably draw from it... well, then the sky's the limit. For all we know, there never was a phone call from a former SoS. The whole thing could be a simple fiction crafted to make a simple point.

You're right, it was unfair of us to assume Romney wasn't simply lying.

And I think that we are getting a pretty good idea of what that point is: The situation between Israel and Palestine is what it is. It's not really a solvable problem--at least not by any US president--but it's not really a major problem either. So the Romney administration isn't planning to waste a lot of time and effort going through the motions of a bogus "peace process". There's no presidential legacy to be made there, and "former SoS with the prospect of a settlement" doesn't clear the bar for getting serious attention on the subject.

What an amazing set of assertions!

But I can hear it now: This former secretary of state is different! This plan is so crazy it just might work! This president (Romney!) could totally pull this off, if only he were wise enough to listen! Together, these two could square the circle, find the Northwest Passage, cure cancer, and bring peace to the Middle East! In our time! And he pissed it all away, because when the magic phone call came in, he "didn't want to delve into it"!

Is this related to that kremlinology you were referring to earlier? I think I'm a little lost.
 

Back
Top Bottom