Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Washington Dems Roll Out Red C... | Yoga for Blank »

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Romney Weighs In

posted by on July 26 at 12:08 PM

On the Clinton-Obama argument:

Weighing in today during the first of a series of “Ask Mitt Anything” forums in Iowa, Mr. Romney declared Mrs. Clinton’s answer to be the right one. Diverging from his usual stump speech, he spent the first 10 minutes of his remarks attacking the Democratic presidential hopefuls and singling out Mr. Obama for excoriation.

Mr. Romney told his audience of about a hundred people that Mr. Obama “told us his agenda for the people he’d be visiting his first year: Ahmadinejad, Chavez; he’d be going to Syria, meeting with the president of Syria,” referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, and Hugo Chavez, the leader of Venezuela.

“It’s absolutely extraordinary that somebody can be so out of touch with the nature of our world,” Mr. Romney said.

RSS icon Comments


Yeah, Hillary and Bill(Kosovo) and George (Iraq) . We must BOMB them to make them free!!! Talking is for wimps!

But if it keeps the Military Industrial Complex happy.....

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | July 26, 2007 12:12 PM

“It’s absolutely extraordinary that somebody can be so out of touch with the nature of our world,” Mr. Romney said.

This is coming from a Mormon? Wow, Republicans really are incapable of understanding irony.

Posted by Original Andrew | July 26, 2007 12:15 PM

Mitt Romney hates black people.

Posted by Joh | July 26, 2007 12:16 PM

Romney's just pissed that he has a 0% chance at taking the office. This is just his way of handling it.

Posted by Mr. Poe | July 26, 2007 12:27 PM

Mitt Romney can keep his opinions in his fancy underwear. The fucko. Us paying any heed to what he thinks of the democratic debates is the same as us paying attention to Osama Bin Laden's opinion about American political decisions. His core beliefs (assuming he even has any) are largely antithetical to ours, so it's kind of David Duke offering an opinion about the merits of Malcolm X vs. MLK. Asinine.

Posted by christopher | July 26, 2007 12:28 PM

Obama said that he if President of the USA would agree to meet with Castro and the pres of NK "without preconditions."

That was a mistake.

While Romney's rhetoric is overstated, basically he is right and Hillary is right.

This does not that talks should not start at lower levels without preconditions, of course.

Posted by u nPC | July 26, 2007 12:57 PM

The Amerrogance continues, if Romney has his way...

Posted by andy niable | July 26, 2007 1:04 PM

I believe that this will prove to be a defining moment for the Democrats, and Obama will emerge victorious. The idea that talking to our "enemies" will somehow provide an opportunity for propaganda is ridiculous. Direct dialogue actually has the exact opposite effect. Even criminals like Kissinger and Reagan understood this, and used it to great political effect.

We are not punishing the leaders of these countries by ignoring them, we are rewarding them- by allowing them to frame the argument, while we remain mute (and clumsily, impulsively, aggressively) violent.

Posted by demolator | July 26, 2007 1:12 PM

Well, it's obvious now that Romney would rather face HRC in a general election than Obama.....

Posted by Willis | July 26, 2007 1:19 PM

Well, with the arms build-up Chavez has been doing, it really is time someone spoke to him about it... Bush seems more than happy grump at Putin over the guns, but not speak directly with Chavez about what's up and why so many guns.

Posted by Phenics | July 26, 2007 1:19 PM

Willis is right. Polls show that while Hillary is the leading candidate for Democrats when you compare her vs. the Republican candidates she does not have as much of an edge as Obama does against them.

Posted by Stats | July 26, 2007 1:22 PM

It's pretty clear to me that the Republicans don't want to face Edwards or Obama.

Posted by Dianna | July 26, 2007 1:27 PM

Uh, right.

You people do realize that even the Evil Dr. Bush's government is talking to all of these governments, all the time? We are holding meetings with Iran as I type this, talking about what to do with Iraq.

The level of idiocy that has piped up over this topic is very instructive. Once again, we see that no one in this country is interested in understanding facts or issues, only emotion.

So, which candidate's marketing response is jingling your bell?

Posted by fnarf | July 26, 2007 1:33 PM

Politics of fear. If we paint the rest of the world as scary enough, they'll vote for us. It's all so very last election.

Posted by kissame | July 26, 2007 1:38 PM

Why didn't anyone ask him why he hates America so much, and hates our values of Truth, Justice, and the American Middle Class way of life like other Red Bushie comrades do?

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 26, 2007 1:42 PM

He damn well better talk to Chaves. We get a huge proportion of our oil from Venezuela, and they're becoming more influential in OPEC. If he decides he wants to be paid in euros, we're fucked.

Posted by Gitai | July 26, 2007 1:46 PM

@16 - yeah, but Canada's number one.

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 26, 2007 2:30 PM

@17 Maybe so, but given the lack of excess capacity in the OPEC nations, any shortage hits our economy fast and hard. If Hugo decides to embargo the US, look at $10/gallon gas. If he decides he'll only accept euros or yen, look for it to go to $11/gallon, and look for the dollar to become that much weaker.

Posted by Gitai | July 26, 2007 3:00 PM

Gitai, you do realize gasoline is a fungible good, don't you? Unless your car has a tank that says "Venezuelan Gasoline Only", the only way that Chavez can hurt you is by not selling *anyone* his gas. OPEC did this in the 70s, but have been too afraid of us calling their bushshit since to do it again. And Chavez sure as shit won't stop selling gas on the international market; his economy would collapse.

Posted by Big Sven | July 26, 2007 3:30 PM

@13 - Fnarf, were you not recently spouting some of that 'idiocy' fairly recently? I don't know how to link to past comments, but I quote, "Yes, yes, Trey, Bush bad, America damaged, I understand all that. You're not getting it. Clinton's answer signaled a return to diplomacy. Obama's answer signaled a return to getting walked all over. That's not diplomacy." Sounds like Clinton's was jingling your bell.
Maybe this link will work?

Posted by Jude Fawley | July 26, 2007 5:50 PM

STOP! Not only is he batshit crazy, but he doesn't know that Ahmadinejad is the Pres. of Iran? And he is accusing Obama of being out of touch? Am I reading that wrong?

Posted by sb | July 26, 2007 9:04 PM

kzjdgx jusq jlkygxvwt jgqdkinbl nklf fkpcauerh njbeptqk

Posted by haztyxrps hdfv | August 9, 2007 2:53 AM

bzmiuen xvabho wiftxuh vkiuqf biymzk glanuyv lzqno

Posted by xrwymopsk hsmvqjrk | August 9, 2007 2:54 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).