« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy

(H/T to Mitt Romney’s indefatigable fluffer at NRO, Katrina Trinko, for the transcript.)

Today Mitt Romney delivered his views on foreign policy in a speech to the Corps of Cadets at The Citadel.

When dealing with Romney you’re never quite sure if he believes what he’s saying but if this is what he believes then it is an impressive statement on America’s place in the world. 

Obviously, as a southerner I have a soft spot for all the state military colleges though The Citadel pales in comparison to VMI. I’m not sure it is particularly wise for any GOP politician to lead off a speech at The Citadel with:

Since 1842, every tyrant, petty thug or great power that threatened America learned that if you wanted to take on America, you were taking on the Citadel.

A lot of folks are still very cognizant of the fact that 1842 came before 1861, but the risk of Romney being labeled a crypto-Confederate is pretty slim.

He starts by sketching out what the world will look like if Obama succeeds in his quest for another term in office in which to wage war on America:

Will Iran be a fully activated nuclear weapons state, threatening its neighbors, dominating the world’s oil supply with a stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz? In the hands of the ayatollahs, a nuclear Iran is nothing less than an existential threat to Israel. Iran’s suicidal fanatics could blackmail the world.

By 2015, will Israel be even more isolated by a hostile international community? Will those who seek Israel’s destruction feel emboldened by American ambivalence? Will Israel have been forced to fight yet another war to protect its citizens and its right to exist?

In Afghanistan, after the United States and NATO have withdrawn all forces, will the Taliban find a path back to power? After over a decade of American sacrifice in treasure and blood, will the country sink back into the medieval terrors of fundamentalist rule and the mullahs again open a sanctuary for terrorists?

Next door, Pakistan awaits the uncertain future, armed with more than 100 nuclear weapons. The danger of a failed Pakistan is difficult to overestimate, fraught with nightmare scenarios: Will a nuclear weapon be in the hands of Islamic Jihadists?

China has made it clear that it intends to be a military and economic superpower. Will her rulers lead their people to a new era of freedom and prosperity or will they go down a darker path, intimidating their neighbors, brushing aside an inferior American Navy in the Pacific, and building a global alliance of authoritarian states?

Russia is at a historic crossroads. Vladimir Putin has called the breakup of the Soviet empire the great tragedy of the 20th Century. Will he try to reverse that tragedy and bludgeon the countries of the former Soviet Union into submission, and intimidate Europe with the levers of its energy resources?

To our South, will the malign socialism of Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, in tight alliance with the malign socialism of Castro’s Cuba, undermine the prospects of democracy in a region thirsting for freedom and stability and prosperity?

Our border with Mexico remains an open sore. Will drug cartels dominate the regions adjoining the United States, with greater and greater violence spilling over into our country? Will we have failed to secure the border and to stem the tide of illegal immigrants? And will drug smugglers and terrorists increasingly make their way into our midst?

This would be a troubling and threatening world for America. But it is not unrealistic. These are only some of the very real dangers that America faces, if we continue with the feckless policies of the past three years.[emphasis mine]

This is as strong and indictment of the Obama Administration’s history of malfeasance and misfeasance in the management of US foreign policy as we have heard. It is hard to disagree with any of it. Many of these problems Obama has created. Those problems it inherited it made much worse.

He goes on from there to establish his theme as “An American Century.” At this point Ron Paul supporters should stop reading because you are going to have an aneurysm.

But I am here today to tell you that I am guided by one overwhelming conviction and passion: This century must be an American Century. In an American Century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world. In an American Century, America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world.

God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will. Without American leadership, without clarity of American purpose and resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous place, and liberty and prosperity would surely be among the first casualties.

Let me make this very clear. As President of the United States, I will devote myself to an American Century. And I will never, ever apologize for America.

Romney also gives a philosophical reason for our leadership that will inevitably have him labeled a “neo-con.” It is truly a reawakening of George Bush’s Freedom Agenda.

I believe we are an exceptional country with a unique destiny and role in the world. Not exceptional, as the President has derisively said, in the way that the British think Great Britain is exceptional or the Greeks think Greece is exceptional. In Barack Obama’s profoundly mistaken view, there is nothing unique about the United States.

But we are exceptional because we are a nation founded on a precious idea that was birthed in the American Revolution, and propounded by our greatest statesmen, in our fundamental documents. We are a people who threw off the yoke of tyranny and established a government, in Abraham Lincoln’s words, “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

We are a people who, in the language of our Declaration of Independence, hold certain truths to be self-evident: namely, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. It is our belief in the universality of these unalienable rights that leads us to our exceptional role on the world stage, that of a great champion of human dignity and human freedom.

He goes on to spell out in refreshing detail the threats facing the United States.

It is far too easy for a President to jump from crisis to crisis, dealing with one hot spot after another. But to do so is to be shaped by events rather than to shape events. To avoid this paralyzing seduction of action rather than progress, a President must have a broad vision of the world coupled with clarity of purpose.

When I look around the world, I see a handful of major forces that vie with America and free nations, to shape the world in an image of their choosing. These are not exclusively military threats. Rather, they are determined, powerful forces that may threaten freedom, prosperity, and America’s national interests.

First, Islamic fundamentalism with which we have been at war since Sept. 11, 2001.

Second, the struggle in the greater Middle East between those who yearn for freedom, and those who seek to crush it.

The dangerous and destabilizing ripple effects of failed and failing states, from which terrorists may find safe haven.

The anti-American visions of regimes in Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba—two of which are seeking nuclear weapons.

And these forces include rising nations with hidden and emerging aspirations, like China, determined to be a world superpower, and a resurgent Russia, led by a man who believes the Soviet Union was great, not evil.

I don’t know that anyone has spelled out islamic fundamentalism as a threat before. Hell, we’ve all known it since at least 9/11 but it has been couched in terms of “people who have hijacked the “religion of peace.”" It is long past the time when we recognized our enemy is not a few rogue terrorist but a substantial part of the islamic world… like nearly the entire Arabian Peninsula and Iran… and one hopes that will find its way into law in a Romney Administration.

Gone also is warm and fuzzy Russia ruled by a man whose eyes bared his soul and a “strategic competitor” in China. They are threats. Period.

Romney proposes to conduct US foreign policy under a set of principles, the emphasis is mine:

My strategy of American strength is guided by a set of core principles.

First, American foreign policy must be prosecuted with clarity and resolve. Our friends and allies must have no doubts about where we stand. And neither should our rivals. If the world knows we are resolute, our allies will be comforted and those who wish us harm will be far less tempted to test that resolve.

Second, America must promote open markets, representative government, and respect for human rights. The path from authoritarianism to freedom and representative government is not always a straight line or an easy evolution, but history teaches us that nations that share our values, will be reliable partners and stand with us in pursuit of common security and shared prosperity.

Third, the United States will apply the full spectrum of hard and soft power to influence events before they erupt into conflict. Resort to force is always the least desirable and costliest option. We must therefore employ all the tools of statecraft to shape the outcome of threatening situations before they demand military action. The United States should always retain military supremacy to deter would-be aggressors and to defend our allies and ourselves. If America is the undisputed leader of the world, it reduces our need to police a more chaotic world.

Fourth, the United States will exercise leadership in multilateral organizations and alliances. American leadership lends credibility and breeds faith in the ultimate success of any action, and attracts full participation from other nations. American leadership will also focus multilateral institutions like the United Nations on achieving the substantive goals of democracy and human rights enshrined in their charters. Too often, these bodies prize the act of negotiating over the outcome to be reached. And shamefully, they can become forums for the tantrums of tyrants and the airing of the world’s most ancient of prejudices: anti-Semitism. The United States must fight to return these bodies to their proper role. But know this: while America should work with other nations, we always reserve the right to act alone to protect our vital national interests.

He goes on to say that in his first 100 days he will essentially repudiate by actions everything Obama has done in four years. Part of this I don’t believe is possible, there is very little he can do in three months to even stop the abuse the Armed Forces have endured under the cretins who were responsible for its stewardship but it is a good start.

Among these actions will be to restore America’s national defense. I will reverse the hollowing of our Navy and announce an initiative to increase the shipbuilding rate from 9 per year to 15. I will begin reversing Obama-era cuts to national missile defense and prioritize the full deployment of a multilayered national ballistic missile defense system. I will order the formulation of a national cybersecurity strategy, to deter and defend against the growing threats of militarized cyber-attacks, cyber-terrorism, and cyber-espionage.

I will enhance our deterrent against the Iranian regime by ordering the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces, one in the Eastern Mediterranean and one in the Persian Gulf region. I will begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination. And I will again reiterate that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.

I will begin organizing all of our diplomatic and assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with the authority and accountability necessary to train all our soft power resources on ensuring that the Arab Spring does not fade into a long winter.

I will launch a campaign to advance economic opportunity in Latin America, and contrast the benefits of democracy, free trade, and free enterprise against the material and moral bankruptcy of the Venezuelan and Cuban model.

I will order a full review of our transition to the Afghan military to secure that nation’s sovereignty from the tyranny of the Taliban. I will speak with our generals in the field, and receive the best recommendation of our military commanders. The force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully is a decision I will make free from politics.

And I will bolster and repair our alliances. Our friends should never fear that we will not stand by them in an hour of need. I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I will count as dear our Special Relationship with the United Kingdom. And I will begin talks with Mexico, to strengthen our cooperation on our shared problems of drugs and security.

As always, the 800-lb gorilla, the elephant in the corner of the room, is whether Romney actually believes this or if he is pandering to gain votes. As far as I am concerned, if Mitt Romney will pursue these foreign policy objectives with vigor I would cheerfully give him my vote in November. And if it is a pander it is a damned fine one.

COMMENTS

  • NeoKong

    I’ll buy you lunch if Romney wrote that speech himself.
    I have never heard him speak like that ever.
    When did he get so hawky….?

    He overstated a few things too.
    China will always have to balance their desire to be a dominant military foe to the U.S. against the fact we owe them a trillion dollars, we are their # 1 trading partner and they have a really crappy navy.

    Russia is not going to reconstitute the U.S.S.R.
    There are a lot of Eastern Europeans who might not like that.

    Venezuela and Cuba….?
    Pfffttt….uh hoh please.
    What are they going to do ?Attack us with diesel subs and bi-planes….?
    Castro and Chavez are at death’s door.

    There are a few other thing I could pick apart but this will do for now.

    • streiff

      to write speeches.

      Also, read my last graf again.

      I don’t agree with some of your items. China is obviously trying to build a blue water navy and are obviously trying to establish the South China Sea as their own “mare nostrum” with exclusive rights to economic exploitation. Part of that will be bringing Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, etc into their sphere of influence. I don’t think we can say China is a threat too often and too loud.

      As Belarus, Moldavia, Georgia, and Ukraine are discovering, Russia still thinks it is an empire. Keeping those states free will be a major struggle as they don’t have the power to resist themselves.

      Venezuela should be slapped as a matter of principle but I agree on that point.

      • NeoKong

        He’s a pander bear.

        Pandering is the act of expressing one’s views in accordance with the likes of a group to which one is attempting to appeal. The term is most notably associated with politics. In pandering, the views one is verbally expressing are merely for the purpose of drawing support up to and including votes and do not necessarily reflect one’s personal values.

        Pandering is essentially a reaction of panic in elected officials who must either tailor their views to public opinion or risk losing their existing or potential seat[1].

        Just words…?

        Yes. you are quite correct that many politicians have their speeches written for them.
        Barack Obama for example.
        Does he actually believe the soaring words he uses to illustrate his vision or are they more like a costume he can wear or remove like a cheap suit….?

        Does Mitt Romney mean all that tough talk?
        Come on…we have had aircraft carrier battle groups parked off the coast of Iran for decades. They still supply and train terrorists that kill American soldiers.
        What’s he gonna’ do ?
        Bomb them…?
        Did he mention libya or Iraq ?

        As far as Afghanistan goes this article shows that Romney has held varying opinions on that subject.

        It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can – as soon as our generals think it’s okay,” Romney said. “One lesson we’ve learned in Afghanistan is that Americans cannot fight another nation’s war of independence.”

        Same article. Different paragragh.

        As recently as January of this year, Romney said U.S. troops should not leave Afghanistan, according to a Boston Globe
        report.

        If he was a Roman he would be called Flipfloppis Maximus.

        He can’t do a damn thing about Arab Spring countries except to bribe them.
        China does not even have an operational AC carrier. All they have is some retro-fitted bucket they bought from Russia and are still fitting.

        Mexico…?
        Mexico is in a nasty civil war fueled by America’s appetite for drugs.
        That problem is so complex on many levels that if any one President devoted his entire administration to it it would only be a start.
        That war is comparable in size to the war in Iraq.

        So my question was where did he get all this new found hawkiness….?
        Whose words is he wearing ?

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          Been trying make up for that since…smile

      • http://lukos.com Ed54

        The speechwriter’s job is to express policy, not formulate it. The broad philosophy and policy specifics were developed by his national security advisors. Those same advisors would form the core of his national security team in office, or would help select his cabinet nominees. Therefore there is a strong likelihood that this approach would become the core philosophy of his Presidency.

        • streiff

          I think everyone knows that. I know I do. I think you know I do. So I’m unsure why your comment is directed to me.

          • http://lukos.com Ed54

            re the topic of who wrote the speech. Not directed at you personally.

          • streiff

            at Reply To This, hence my confusion.

          • http://lukos.com Ed54

            that someone else wrote the speech, so I felt that was the logical place to put it. Was not meant as a personal reply to you.

        • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

          when he delivered his Faith in America speech back in December of 2007. So no one should assume he didn’t write his own speech here.

    • aesthete

      Not really surprised or disappointed, though. Romney’s list of things wrong with the world is typical; not sure why they should all be the American government’s concern, that they are all accurate, or why they were the result of Obama’s policies, though.

      To pick at some of the more egregious ones, I fail to see why the domestic politics of an inconsequential rump state in Central Asia should be of particular importance to the US government. (To a human rights-focused NGO, certainly, but it’s not as if Afghanistan has given them nothing to worry about on that front during the occupation.) Same with Venezuela and Cuba: their current governments are a tragedy for those who have to live under them, but besides perhaps Venezuela’s oil nationalization, not a threat to our interests in the region: the Panamanian, Costa Rican, Brazilian and Chilean governments have not been particularly impacted by the hilariously inept “Bolivarian Alliance”, and those countries are generally where US interests lie. I understate the importance of those problems to the US, but not by much.

      (I am also surprised to find out that America’s Pacific Navy is “inferior”, and that there is apparently the possibility that CCP leadership would ever “lead their people to a new era of freedom”.)

      “Let me make this very clear. As President of the United States, I will devote myself to an American Century. And I will never, ever apologize for America.”

      What does this even mean? Is anyone in the running for the Republican nomination *against* an American Century? Is anyone up there anxious to apologize for America? Is Rick Perry? What about Rick Santorum, or Cain? (Arguably Ron Paul is, but he is a non-factor.) Sorry Mitt, but this isn’t clear at all.

      I like that he doesn’t mince words when referencing the Religion of Peace. I don’t really care what he calls Russia and China, so long as he doesn’t do something stupid like engage in a trade war. The Arab Spring should not be assumed to be beneficial to the US; Romney (or at least, this version of Romney) seems rather naive on that count.

      “I will order a full review of our transition to the Afghan military to secure that nation?s sovereignty from the tyranny of the Taliban. I will speak with our generals in the field, and receive the best recommendation of our military commanders. The force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully is a decision I will make free from politics.”

      Again, what does this mean? Bonus question: what is “our mission” in Afghanistan, currently, and how will Romney ascertain its completion. Let me guess: “The Generals” will use their borg mind to communicate those things to Romney when the time is right.

      “Among these actions will be to restore America?s national defense. I will reverse the hollowing of our Navy and announce an initiative to increase the shipbuilding rate from 9 per year to 15.”

      What’s with the emphasis on our Navy? Why should the shipbuilding rate be increased nearly twofold? Maybe there’s a great reason, but I’m at a loss as to what it could be.

      • aesthete

        Reply to this is not my friend today.

      • NeoKong

        n/t

      • defenseconservative

        I shall reply to only one of your questions – the last one: why should be increase our shipbuilding rate?

        Here’s why:

        Currently, the US Navy has only 285 ships. This is the Navy’s smallest ship fleet since 1916, i.e. since before America’s entry to WW1. Even during the Clinton years, the Navy had more ships. Various experts are saying the Navy is too small. Successive CNOs and Administrations have concluded that it needs at least 313 ships to protect the country. The Hadley-Perry panel concluded that it needs 350 ships. The current CNO, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, says the Navy needs 400 ships.

        Yet, at the current shipbulding rate, we’re not going to achieve any of these figures, or even sustain the current force structure of the Navy. At the current rate, the USN’s ship fleet will shrink to the low 200s.

        So yes, we need to significantly increase our shipbuilding rate.

        • JSobieski

          We need to reprioritize our policies first. A topic you don’t want to address. Any time money is spent on anything, it is first important to determine what we are trying to accomplish. Only then you get to what we need to achieve the goal. That is what prudence dictates.

          This country needs to discuss the efficacy (or more particularly the lack thereof) of nation building.

          I think it is time to get back the emphasis on navy and air, while at the same time put less emphasis and resources on the ground.

        • aesthete

          it’s a restatement of facts that I already knew.

          See, just saying, “Navy fleet size is currently A and needs to be increased to B” is not an argument for fleet size to be B; it is an assertion lacking an argument. Saying that “experts” (oh, those guys!) agree with you tells me nothing. Indeed, saying “Navy fleet size has historically been C, and is at record lows at A” *still* says nothing. GIven the debt crisis that we have, you have to a) make a case that we need a fleet of size B, b) plan for how to fund it long-term, and c) discuss the alternatives. If you’re arguing that we need a ginormous fleet in order to contain China, then make that argument. So far, I’ve seen discontent that fleet size isn’t at the glorious Cold War levels, but no argument that it should be larger than it is — and I’ve been reading Heritage Institute’s papers on the subject for a while, now. I’m no expert, so maybe you can explain to us lowly mortals exactly why we’re so in need of a fleet double the size of the one we currently have. It seems like the one that we have has been maintaining sea-lanes and intercontinental trade while handling OIF/OEF operations quite well.

          • defenseconservative

            As well as to contain North Korea (by inspecting its ships and blockading it if push comes to shove), keep the SOH open, and protect the world’s sealanes, upon which our economy depends to a larger degree than the economy of any other country.

            Due to its small size, the Navy is under extreme stress, and to execute all of the missions the nation currently asks it to execute, it needs 400 ships, as testified under oath by Adm. Greenert.

    • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

      He’s been speaking like that for a long time.

      • aesthete

        Sorry for not getting back to you on Romney’s abortion record — what I wanted to way is working out to be quite lengthy, so I’m thinking that I’ll post it as a diary. Just wanted to let you know that I hadn’t forgotten or dismissed our conversation.

        • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

          No problem. I look forward to it!

    • circlegranch

      for his consistent pro-life stance (no flip-flops–ever). He roused the crowd of 3000 especially when he told them he’d signed a budget this summer that defunded Planned Parenthood in Texas. Newt got some good vibe from the crowd also and Santorum got a laugh when he said he doesn’t accept Cain’s 9-9-9 and instead promotes 0-0-0.

      • Scope

        you can now expect every speech, and every appearance by Perry to turn it into some kind of opportunity to again falsely smear Perry.

        I read an article, won’t link it, but posted by someone who is supposedly on our side, who claimed that Perry always goes one step forward, and then two steps back. The article made it appear that the pastor Jeffers who introduced him at VV today was of his doing. The pastor said in 2008, and again today to reporters that Mormonism is a cult. Apparently that lie was passed around on twitter as well.

        Problem is, Perry had nothing to do with who introduced him, that was done by the VV event planners.

        I am so freaking sick of these false attacks/smears I could puke. I would never have believed that this crap would be coming out of the VV Conference.

        RICK PERRY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PASTOR WHO INTRODUCED HIM.

        • Scope

          and within hours put out a statement saying Perry had nothing to do with his introducer.

          • Jim Tomasik

            ~

          • Scope

            what can be considered a gentleman’s handshake.

            GET OFF MY POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Jim Tomasik

            i was only kidding. please lighten up.

          • Scope

            Simply because you’ve had that same position in the past.

          • Scope

            I’ve been around these parts for probably close to 4 years, and I don’t remember seeing you here posting about much of anything conservative, bills coming up, positions taken by some good conservatives in DC, or anything that has been discussed daily out side of election season. I could be wrong, and perhaps you have been posting in an off election season, but, if you have your posts have been unremarkable to me at least, so much that I really don’t remember much that you may have said.

            You have made it your mission now to just run around here and poke your pointy sticks at many who still support Perry. If that is what it has taken for you to gain attention, just to be an agitator and inciter, you are probably in the wrong party. The Paulbots could use your services.

          • Jim Tomasik

            please go tell on me.

            I’m sorry I said anything to you.

            God bless you.
            Have a nice day.

          • Scope

            the other day with what I have called the “gentleman’s handshake.”

            What we agreed to was that you would post what you will for your candidate, and I would post as I will for mine. Let’s keep it at that. I don’t follow you around poking pointy sticks at your comments, as much as I disagree with you. I would appreciate if you take your pointy sticks to the shed, but that’s your choice, please just don’t keep poking my comments with what you know are inciteful comments.

  • renl57

    If you read Romney’s campaign stuff from 2008, you’ll find pretty much the same stuff.

    Foreign policy is one thing that Romney hasn’t flip-flopped on. He was using the politically incorrect terms “Islamic terrorism” and “jihadism” way back when.

    BTW: I regard the fact that we owe China $1.1 trillion as a bigger threat to us than their military. We would have lost the Cold War if we had owed $1.1 trillion to the U.S.S.R.

    • streiff

      we have their money, they have our paper. I don’t see how that gives them an advantage.

      Plus, as long as they run trade surpluses they have to park their cash someplace. The only other economy big enough to take that case is the EU and it isn’t looking all that good.

  • benko

    1. Fixing the economy/debt and hopefully
    2. repealing obamacare.

    If you don’t fix 1 there might not be any country much longer and the rest becomes irrelevant.

    I’m not sure what Romney really is for or will do but we can not have another spendthrift republican.

    • streiff

      I agree with your sentiments, though overstated. Worse casing it we follow the old Argentine method of repudiate your debt, issue new currency, and start borrowing again.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        Bravo on your report and I do trust Romney to be a strong foreign policy president and that his pro-life conversion was real. I think he would be competent and would do a lot to unleash business.

        I don’t trust what he believes re cutting spending and big govt but I do think that if forced to make specific pledges on same that he would keep his word due to his personal integrity and the lesson of Bush41 breaking the tax pledge.

        • florajo

          Mitt’s word has always been good until it was more convenient to break it. Is there even one single lasting conviction he’s held? One?

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            governor. But I could be wrong.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I appreciate your perspective. Romney is a man of conviction. The attacks against him are smears.

            I have written an open letter to RedState and would like to actually post it on this site. However, I just recently registered and don’t have diary privileges. Will you read over it and determine whether you might be interested in posting it on my behalf?

            You can find it here for how: http://intorightfield.com/romney-myths-red-state/

            Thank you,

            Ryan

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            thx again

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            will consider a posting over the next day or so. I don’t agree that most of the concerns about Mitt esp re what his support of RomneyCare means for a Romney presidency, as “smears” and think you should retract that allegation, except as to factual misrepresentations.

            I would also say that the provision of the Massachusetts constitution you cite does not compel one to support an individual mandate. Patients going to ERs get health care whether there be a mandate or not.

            thinking

            FTR, I was a strong Mitt supporter before Fred Thompson entered the 2008 race.

            more later

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I appreciate you considering it. I realize it would be ideal if I could post it myself, but I can’t.

            I ‘d like to address the concerns you have. First, I stand by the word “smear.” Disagreeing with him does not constitute a smear, but Romney is routinely smeared. Most people unwittingly repeat the smears, but they are also partly culpable for lacking the intellectual curiosity to research the claims themselves.

            One offender is Deroy Murdock. Look at what he calls Mitt’s “most disturbing” flip-flop. Then look at my response, as I expose the attack to be every bit as much a smear as the “phony soldiers” smear on Rush.

            Deroy: http://townhall.com/columnists/deroymurdock/2008/02/04/mitts_vietnam_flip-flop_his_most_disturbing_yet/page/full/

            Me: http://www.whyromney.com/#vietnam

            Another outright smear is the common claim that Mitt supported gay marriage. I expose that at whyromney as well.

            Enough of these smears add up and the resultant echo chamber is a false narrative that claims Mitt has changed on every issue. That is the smear of smears, propped up by all the other smears.

            I agree the MA constitution does not compel anyone to support a mandate, or to support any other law, but the clause I cited establishes the expectation that the state government can legitimately require residents to give in whatever fashion the elected representatives decide. Therefore, it does not infringe on the liberty of any resident. Such action on the state’s part is inherent in the compact, as illustrated in the example I gave of Samuel Adams.

            Take as long as you need to think about posting it, by all means. I should check in sometime before Saturday night.

            It’s really good to meet you, by the way.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            legitimate non-smears that conservatives make against Mitt based on his record. I did write a column addressing the cult issue today.

            see here

            http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/10/08/2223/

          • rightwingmom52

            But I’m starting to think RL may have an agenda. For several days he’s left the impression he couldn’t post a diary, & today posts a diary asking folks to like his FB page if you want him to have a diary. Just thought you might want to know.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            I address arguments. I don’t care who writes them and what is in their hearts.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I did not write a diary, and unfortunately RWM is confused on that matter. I do however have an agenda, and that is setting the record straight regarding Mitt.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I did not post a diary and I certainly did not ask people here to like my facebook page. I asked people to click “like” on my diary request.

            After the discussion we recently had, where I stressed the importance of honesty, I would not have expected you to start going after me with false claims.

          • rightwingmom52

            which is here.

            You may not have intended for it to be a diary, but that’s how it posted. Semantics on liking the FB page. Yes, technically, you asked folks to “like” the diary request on your FB page, and that is what I intended to convey. I’ll have an additional comment at your diary.

            I’m neither confused nor dishonest nor did I make any false claims.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            That’s not a diary, that’s a diary request. I can’t post diaries.

            Whenever someone makes a diary request, the website creates a page like that one.

            Why are you calling it a diary? And did you personally witness it bumping someone else’s diary? Or did you intend to say “comment” instead of diary?

            And, no, it has nothing to do with my facebook page. It has to do with other people liking my diary request on THEIR facebook page.

          • gekster

            Just some friendly advice.

            Write your diary.
            Then reqest it to be posted.
            If they are screening diaries
            (because of the huge influx of spam i figure)
            how can they approve something sight unseen.

            I apologize for misunderstanding the situation.
            I forgot about the change.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            But I can’t include it in the diary request. I can only hit a button that says, “request diary”

            If you’d like to read it, you’ll find a url to it in the signature at the bottom of this comment.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            So please disregard the responses I made before noticing it! And don’t worry, it’s an honest mistake that anyone could have made.

          • gekster

            The diary:
            ______________________________________________________________
            ryanlarsen diary request

            Posted by Ryan Larsen (Profile)

            Saturday, October 1st at 11:40AM EDT

            7 Comments
            ______________________________________________________________

            first Comment:
            7 Comments Leave a comment
            My Diary Request
            Ryan Larsen Saturday, October 8th at 2:55AM EDT (link)
            Everyone who wants me to have a diary, click the facebook ?like? button on this page.

            ?To be great is to be misunderstood? ? Ralph Waldo Emerson

            My Open Letter To RedState: http://intorightfield.com/romney-myths-red-state/
            _______________________________________________________________

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            “Many legitimate non-smears that conservatives make against Mitt based on his record.”

            Please give me an example of a certifiable non-smear :)

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            conservatism, your agenda is properly advanced here, imho…but I am only a “Mere Diarist”….inside joke

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            But if it is an inside joke, I guess that’s to be expected.

            In any event, do you have an example of “legitimate non-smears that conservatives make against Mitt based on his record.?

            I have found that even when Mitt makes a mistake of some sort, critics still find a way to turn it into a smear, taking it out of context or otherwise distorting it, making it appear worse than it actually is. But you seem to think there are many legitimate attacks on Mitt. So I’d like an example :)

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Diarist” by The Powers that Be here after many years of having certain publishing privileges which many here will remember. You are new to me.

            And btw, you can email me at mikedevinelaw@yahoo.com if you want to continue the discussion and receive links re Smith and Young calling traditional Christianity a cult.

            Also, Rev Jeffress walks back cult statement to “theological cult” in order to distinguish Mormons from the violent wackos and Hugh Hewitt weighs in on the danger of Leftist attacks on theology. Great read:

            http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/43aff2dd-c629-442c-a19e-f58b00fcfc00

            Now, to your question, I can make non-smear criticism of Mitt Romney. Can’t you? Or do you consider him the reincarnation of Christ or Ronald Reagan?

            RomneyCare
            Man-made global warming respect
            etc

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Thanks for the email address, you’ll probably hear from me in a day or two :)

            The problem with just saying, “Romneycare” or “man made global warming” is that you are relying on implication rather than specifying what you think is wrong.

            The word “Romneycare” does not constitute an attack and therefore is not a smear. But saying something like, “after the passage of Romneycare, health care costs in MA became the highest in the nation” would be a smear because it falsely implies that MA did not already have the highest costs in the nation. Or those who say, “Mitt Romney doesn’t want to repeal Obamacare but is trying to hide that fact by talking about waivers” are repeating a smear because Romney has called many times for repeal and explained it in detail. Most of them probably don’t know it’s a smear, but it is.

            Same thing with global warming. People falsely accuse him of supporting cap and trade, which he has never done. All he said is that he believes man is contributing “some” to warming. I challenge anyone who criticizes him on that to explain how and why they disagree with that statement.

            From WhyRomney:

            Romney does not dispute temperature readings which show a warming trend, however Romney does not blame this all on man and does not believe drastic measures are necessary or practical. Mitt Romney rejects “cap and trade” and all other actions which would hurt the economy. Instead, he favors other solutions such as expanding use of natural gas and nuclear power.

            Romney does acknowledge that man is responsible for “some” warming, but is quick to state that we don’t know how much. Romney’s position is entirely accurate. Even if we set aside the question of greenhouse gases, the mere act of burning fossil fuels generates heat which otherwise would not be released. This is a relatively tiny amount of heat, but enough to have “some” effect. Similarly, man’s corresponding carbon emissions have “some” effect on warming, through the greenhouse effect. No one disputes that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas – not Glenn Beck, not Rush Limbaugh, not Mitt Romney. The dispute over global warming is not about whether man contributes to warming, but whether the amplification effect of that warming surpasses the earth’s moderating forces. For instance, the warming caused by man’s carbon emissions enables the atmosphere to hold slightly more water. Since water also acts as a greenhouse gas, this in turn creates slightly more warming which then allows even more water to be held in the atmosphere, which creates more warming and more water, in a repeating cycle. This is the amplifying effect which global warming enthusiasts, from Al Gore to Al Franken, believe is getting out of control. But climate is extremely complex and has many moderating factors which we don’t even understand.

            No one knows how much the earth will moderate the amplification cycle. And that goes both ways. The climate scientists don’t know, the global warming enthusiasts don’t know, and the climate change skeptics don’t know. So, how can anyone criticize Mitt Romney’s observation that man is contributing “some” to global warming?

            Until Romney’s critics can answer “how much?” they have no grounds for criticizing him.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I went ahead and sent off a quick email. If you don’t find it in your inbox, check the junk folder.

            I’m probably about done for the night, but I’ll check in tomorrow. Have a great evening!

          • florajo

            The key phrase is “lasting conviction” not “campaign pledge.” Mitt may have kept his liberal pledges while governor, but they differ from his current game. That’s why I question his lasting convictions–his political arc through the years.

            He could be a changed man, but I don’t know how to confirm that.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            nt

        • Xasteius

          I still don’t trust the guy further than I can move the world without a lever. If Mitt gets the nomination, I’m putting all my energy into getting conservative candidates into Congress (I’ll do that anyway whomever gets the nod, but doubly with Mittens).

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            I do think he took several conservative actions, esp on the life issue, as governor after his epiphany. And he has held many conservative views over the years esp on Judeo-Christian values, free enterprise and foreign policy.

            But I don’t trust his inclinations on big govt which is why I want him to be severely cross examined and challenged to make specific promises on that issue, eg cap and trade, repeal of ObamaCare, dept of education etc

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    just saying….smile

    I have to defend my home state school that is also a member of the Southern Conference in which my undergrad school Wofford College also competes.

    Again, sorry for the un-pleasantries circ 1861ad…

    FTR my great grandfather was a Jacksonian and delegate to the state convention on secession where he voted against it. But then joined the army to defend the homeland.

  • septembergurl

    Redstate swoons.

    A few observations: Now that Romney has laid out his program, as Huntsman will next week, all the Republican contenders are going to have to come up with more comprehensive world views. So it won’t be just Santorum and Paul going at it in the debates, which is good. Unlike 2008, they will be defining themselves against the current incumbent.

    The part of Romney’s speech which is new (I just had time for a quick read being at work) is the emphasis on the Navy and the South China Sea. I see the hand of John Lehman ( just announced as part of Romney’s advisory group on defense — he was with McCain in 2008) — in the promise to build up the number of ships. Lehman is best known of course as Reagan’s Navy Secretary who pushed for the 600-ship navy as part of Reagan’s defense buildup in 1980.

    Predictions: No Republican will resist the temptation to state that he/she will never apologize for American foreign policy.

    Perry needs to work on this as well as his comprehensive jobs/economy plan. So far we know he supports Israel. I can’t wait for Herb Cain’s plan. You can believe it will be summed up in a snappy, marketable slogan. Huntsman’s plan will be the best. The rest don’t matter, though I will enjoy hearing Gingrich on the topic.

    It’s a real irony that Obama has reaped all the benefits of Bush’s policies in the War on Terror, since he ran opposing them. It’s striking how terrible every other aspect of Obama’s foreign policy is. Is there anywhere in the world where we are better off/stronger than in 2008?

    • aesthete

      (To answer your concluding rhetorical question)

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    if he wanted to. Consider:

    1. Romney is an organization man, and he has been preparing for this campaign for 4 years.

    2. He has assembled a team of 22 foreign policy and national security advisors. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-taps-foreign-policy-national-security-advisers/2011/10/06/gIQAnDHzPL_story.html

    3. This speech represents their collective strategic outlook.

    4. That outlook was formed over 22 long careers and is not going to change in the short term.

    5. The same people will form the leadership of our foreign policy and national security agencies (DoD, CIA, DoS, FBI) if Romney wins.

    Therefore, it is extremely likely that this policy would become the basis for Romney’s national security strategy as President, regardless of his personal predilections.

    • streiff

      It really minimizes Romney’s demonstrated ability to hold any belief at any time. So I’m not sold.

      Having said that I am a believer in the use of American power, hard and soft, and I like what I read in this speech.

      • http://lukos.com Ed54

        won’t change his beliefs. It is that the beliefs of the team of people he brings with him won’t change. And Romney, as a supreme organization man and technocrat, is going to believe whatever his staff tells him he should believe. In this instance, that is not a bad thing.

      • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

        I respectfully disagree with your claim that Romney has demonstrated an “ability to hold any belief at any time.” His refusal to accept the title of “pro-choice” while running for Senate in ’94 and Governor in ’02 in liberal Massachusetts, demonstrated a willingness to suffer politically for his anti-abortion principles. Of course, he also refused the title “pro-life.” Would you like to discuss it further?

        • californiagold

          If so, that was a good one.

          Call me crazy, but where I come from if a politician campaigns on the position of supporting a woman’s right to choose, that person is pro-choice. Would you like a youtube link where Governor Romney held such a position ? Or should we wait for the campaign commercials ?

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I’m not joking. I’m familiar with his position. And I understand why you would assume that he was pro-choice, but he never was. Even when it would have helped him politically to say he was. Romney’s refusal to be called pro-choice was the number one attack Kennedy used against him.

            As for youtube videos, the “Real Romney” video cuts off most of the question the moderator asked which Romney was responding to.

            The moderator asked, “Mr. Romney, you personally oppose abortion and as a church leader have advised women not to have an abortion. Given that, how could you in good conscience support a law that enables women to have an abortion, and even lets the Government pay for it? If abortion is morally wrong, aren’t you responsible for discouraging it?”

            If abortion had been illegal, those women may not have come to Romney. He may never have had a chance to help them. Just like he didn’t have a chance to help his close relative who died of an illegal abortion, which caused him to struggle with the issue in the first place.

            The dishonesty, the lack of conviction, is on the part of the people who edited the video to take the question out. That’s standard operating procedure for Romney’s critics. They take their playbook from Michael Moore and Al Franken.

          • streiff

            that makes me hate Romney. Not because of Romney but because of his supporters.

            The fact is that Romney has held every possible position on abortion. From John McCain’s famous “Romney Book”

            If you want to see the video clip of Romney’s abortion flip flop, it is in this video.

            ? Months after his ?conversion,? Romney stated his commitment to upholding Massachusetts? abortion laws and appointed pro-choice judge to state district court.

            ? In October 2005, Romney signed bill expanding family planning services, including abortion counseling and morning-after pill.

            ? In December 2005, Romney ?abruptly ordered his administration to reverse course ? and require Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception medication to rape victims.?

            ? Romney health insurance plan expanded access to abortion, required Planned Parenthood representative on state panel.

            ? Romney endorsed legalization of abortion pill RU-486 access during his 1994 Senate race and backed federal funding of abortion, saying ?I think it?s important that people see me not as a pro-life candidate.?

            ? In 1994 and 2002, Romney confirmed his support for Roe v. Wade decision and forcefully positioned himself as pro-choice in 1994 Senate race, saying ?you will not see me wavering on that.?

            ? Romney has refused to comment on bill pending in South Carolina legislature requiring that abortion doctors offer pregnant women option of viewing ultrasound.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            incident regarding stem cell embryos. Bravo that he did.

  • expanding_man

    Massive increase in defense spending is what Romney is clearly proposing. If we had all the money in the world to spend on our interests around the world maybe his ideas would make sense. However, we are broke as it stands right now. Fact is we cannot afford the massive military spending that we have today. The Tea Party seems to me to largely be a response to the massive overspending of our government. The real truth is that our government has to drastically reduce what it spends. Only the Tea Party gets this. Everyone else ignores the problem, including most politicians from both parties. Most establishment politicians will pay lip service to cutting spending but ignore the issue because voters don’t like it. That’s not leadership.

    • rbdwiggins

      that our government has to drastically increase defense spending to around 5% of GDP while simultaneously reducing overall spending to about 18% of GDP.

      We can’t afford to do otherwise, and likewise, the rest of the free world, along with those who are oppressed but seek Liberty, can’t afford for us to do otherwise.

      • aesthete

        Why is 5% the magical number? Why not 4, or 3%? What will this be spent on? Why? Is expressing the military budget as a % of GDP, and having a target % for spending, a good thing for military readiness or from a budgeting standpoint? (GDP can oscillate quite a bit from year to year, after all.) The fact is that these percentages are no less arbitrary and meaningless than having hard income caps defining the “rich” (i.e., yearly income > $250K).

        Moving on, maintaining a 5% GDP military while keeping spending < 18% is a small thing mathematically, but is just about impossible politically. How does one convince Democrats or even some Republicans to jump onboard with spending cuts in other places if we're not cutting, and even increasing, military spending? Bush-era foreign policy wasn't and isn't exactly beloved by the American people, and telling them that their SS and Medicaid benefits are being cut to increase spending on unpopular wars is political suicide, perhaps moreso than doing so to maintain the Bush tax cuts. If you want to get serious on spending, you're going to have to sacrifice: that's just the way it is in a two-party system where a small minority can gum up the works.

        Lastly, whatever the level of our military spending, we will never be able to guarantee worldwide freedom and democracy — never. We could spend 50% of our GDP on the military for 10 years, and we wouldn't come close to transforming sub-Saharan Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East and Central Asia into democratic havens. Heck, it's an open question just how democratic and open Iraq is today, and it's absolutely certain that Afghanistan is nowhere close to meeting the standard. As things stand today, child soldiers, rape squads, ethnic and religious slaughters, insurgencies,civil wars, despotic governments and all manner of horrific practices exist today all around the world. They existed (and were in some cases perpetrated!) by the Reagan, Bush I and II, Truman, Obama, and Clinton administrations, and will continue to exist long after we are dead. In many cases, they date back to before the founding of our country.

        So, what say you to the Democratic Republic of Congo, a beleaguered country which surely will not be the beneficiary of America's 5% military budget? Seems to me that "those who are oppressed but seek Liberty" in the DRC can't afford for the US to spend less than 6% to help a brother out. If you say yes to them, then what about Libya? How about the Sudan? What about the Central Asian Ridiculousnamestans? On it goes, and so do the printing presses if we're to guarantee the freedoms of those people! The concept that the US should guarantee the freedoms of every person in the world is of course ludicrous, but it is the rational endpoint of your open-ended and idealistic rationale for a 5% budget.

        • rbdwiggins

          5% of GDP is the historical average. It’s not an arbitrary number.

          That level of spending produced, and is needed to maintain, the world’s only remaining superpower.

          The Why? is simple: The primary responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the common defense, and economic security depends on a strong national defense.

          Instead, we’re likely to get a futile attempt to balance the federal budget with massive defense cuts. We do so at our own peril.

          There is no guaranteed Liberty. It is our moral obligation as a Judeo-Christian nation and our responsibility as the world’s only remaining superpower to defend that gift from God.

          • aesthete

            It is certainly within the bounds of reason to say that ~5% or more of GDP was needed during those times — though knowing what we now know about the weaknesses of the USSR, it can also be reasonably argued that we might have over-invested and misstepped in certain areas, as well. However, it is still bizarre to characterize military spending in that way: saying that we averaged 5% during the Cold War tells us very little. Pointing out specific items that we spent on — missile defense, a military presence near the Iron Curtain, a nuclear stockpile, aiding anti-Communist guerrillas, etc — and why we are spending money on them, tells me much more about whether those expenditures are reasonable or not. Can you really say that the list of expenditures that comprise the US budget in 2009 is in any way comparable in value to that of the Cold War? Is the marginal product of defense spending at 5% really and truly equal or greater than the marginal product of same during the Cold War? As far as I and the voters can tell, the marginal product of increased military spending for the past 8 years has been nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can you say that either venture, regardless of the altruism or goodwill behind them, has been a triumph for either our security or the stability of the region? What has been our bang for increased buck over the last couple of years?

            I’m not a pacifist, but neither am I someone who cares to see people and resources expended on ventures that are of little apparent value to Americans. For all the rhetoric of freedom, all that we have to show for our efforts are, on the one hand, a Sharia state which democratically elected — with a large majority — a political party which explicitly models itself after, and is sympathetic to, the Iranian theocracy. This party was elected to power more than once, and with large majorities, repeatedly. Thank goodness, Iraq is on a better track now — but for how long? Is the tenuous sharia state in Iraq sustainable — and even if it is, is it desireable? Nevermind discussion of Afghanistan’s social and political institutions, where a Christian pastor has been condemned to death, women are treated like chattel, little boys being sodomized is a cultural touchstone rather than an abomination — never mind all of that. Let’s just think about the fact that 10 years after invading the country, the Afghan government has little authority outside of Kabul, and wherever the US Army has chosen to park some boots — in some ways, the Taliban has more functional control and leverage over social institutions in the country than the Afghan client state! Do you see how these examples do not speak well of the marginal impact of the defense dollar?

            The foreign threats we face are less powerful today than they have been at any point in our history — should we not take our potential threats into account when authorizing a military budget? I think that it is unhelpful both from a military readiness perspective *and* from a simple budgetary perspective to base military expenditures on GDP. I don’t believe that we should dedicate any fixed percentage of GDP to the military: just as it would be silly to attempt a quota for prisoners in the US, so too it makes little sense to impose one for the military. (During WWII, the military needed much more than 5%, for example.) That said, I don’t see how one justifies 5% of GDP based on the threats that we face today — at least, not if we are simply providing for our own common defense and the maintenance of existing interests, rather than paying for cockamamie schemes doomed to failure, or for the protection of half the planet.

          • weyland

            Of all the defining achievements of this Great Nation, one closest to my heart was winning the space race.

            And yet nowadays, maintaining our defense expenditures to fight an enemy who is no longer there has meant that other arms of the government — in particular, NASA — have been bled dry. We are engaged in wars against guerilla insurgents; why do we need stealth aircraft for this, when we cannot even afford to put astronauts into orbit, or to complete the James Webb Space Telescope (the successor to Hubble).

          • californiagold

            Looking at some of the establishment foreign policy advisors Romney has brought into his campaign, it will be business as usual if he is elected. The wars will continue in the middle east, while the US borders will continue to remain unprotected from illegal immigration. Maybe if we are lucky, Romney will bring back Robert Gates as secretary of defense, which would make Gates the first secretary of defense to work for three different presidents in a row.

          • rbdwiggins

            5% of GDP may not be enough. Our military is already undersized.

            Nation building is a State Department endeavor. Its success, or lack thereof, is self-explanatory.

          • aesthete

            Please describe, if you don’t mind, the threat as you see it, and how it presents a threat to the US such that we should be spending more than was spent on the Cold War to eliminate it. (It would be right decent of you to also state exactly what this > 5% of the budget should be spent on — something less general than “better training” or “better equipment”.) From where I stand, the lack of introspection, and the unwillingness to make cost/benefit analyses which is extant among many “hawks” in the Republican party is in part responsible for the election of Obama and the Dems in ’06 and ’08. Even well-educated and informed people such as yourself fall into this trap — please prove me wrong by making an argument for spending more on the military — please. I’m not being flippant or otherwise joking — I would sincerely like to see a good, specific argument for specific objectives and policies against a specific enemy with specific goals and targets in mind. Right now, we’re having a hard enough time as is even identifying the specific enemy — radical, or rather orthodox, Islam — by name.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            China is a trading partner and strategic ally. Russia is a rump of their former self. All the muslim countries put together could not threaten us in any way militarily.

            You war hawks keep beating the drum for a bigger armed services and yet the only wars we have had in the last thirty years are the ones we have started.

            We will continue to face a threat form terrorism no matter how much we spend on the military.

            It is time to tell people like you the same thing we tell the left wing.
            NO!

      • JSobieski

        Commit some huge some of money on the assumption that it will make a difference. If you want to promote western values, I would suggest that we (1) change our approach to military intervention and (2) focus our military spending accordingly.

        Nation building in the middle east is a recipe for costly failure. 84% of Egyptians think Muslim converts to Christianity should be executed. Even in places like Turkey, that number is in the 40% neighborhood. Bringing elections to those places is self defeating.

        Instead of spending hundreds of billions on military equipment in such places, we would be far better off hiring some good directors to create short video vignettes about western style government, individual liberties, freedom, etc.

        Propaganda is so much more effective than missiles. Another lesson from the Reagan years is to supply/support local factions (i.e. Contras) without sending troops.

        I am no peacenik by the way. I think we need to reprioritize our spending to focus more on the hi tech stuff (drones, stealth vehicles, having enough naval vessels, etc) then having a lot of boots on the ground. Better to have 5,000 special forces guys than an additional 100,000 conventional servie personnel. Special forces, hi-tech, no more nation building, beefed up propaganda—-that is a recipe for a strong defense.

        • rbdwiggins

          “This is the kind of logic that lefties use to promote green energy.”

          No, it’s the kind of logic conservatives use in defense of Liberty.

          May I direct you to read the House Armed Services Committee Assessment of Impacts on Budget Cuts.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            a real conservative would agree with Jso. To think that we need some monstrously large, bloated, wasteful military and keep intervening all around the globe and pissing people off is going to somehow make us more safe is idiotic.

          • rbdwiggins

            See my response to JSob below.

            My conservative bona fides are undeniable and beyond refute.

            Your libertarian leanings are clearly transparent, as evidenced by your choice of words:

            “To think that we need some monstrously large, bloated, wasteful military and keep intervening all around the globe and pissing people off is going to somehow make us more safe is idiotic.”

            That’s a response I would expect from a Paultard.

            You don’t get to decide who is conservative and who is not.

          • JSobieski

            I do wish someone with your viewpoint would address both the point on nation building in societies with moral beliefs incompatible with republican government and the point that we are not at all engaged in the battle of ideas.

            I should also point out that the defense “cuts” you decry are but reductions in the rate of increase. The lie that is baseline budgeting applies to all items on the budget.

            I appreciate the value of liberty just as much as you do. However, just as in other areas such as education, energy, healthcare, etc. there are many more factors that are important to effectiveness than merely the input of money.

          • rbdwiggins

            The proposed cuts to defense spending are real, and if you use baseline budgeting with the associated yearly increases, we don’t get back to current spending levels until 2014. If sequestration occurs, it will be much worse. We won?t reach current spending levels until 2019.

            Military readiness, force structure and modernization will be sacrificed. Military families and their support groups will suffer.

            Looking at just one example in the report, the Marine Corps, we find:

            The United States would no longer have the capability to fulfill combatant commander requirements to conduct an opposed amphibious landing with 2 Marine Expeditionary Brigades (MEB).

            Non-combatant evacuations (NEO), humanitarian and disaster assistance missions would likely occur only in a permissive security environment.

            Loss of Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU) afloat ? the peacetime forward deployed force.

            Reductions to end strength would require a significant re-evaluation of the Marine Corps? missions:

            * Falling below an end strength of 186,800 Marines reduces combat effectiveness of Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs) and increases duration of deployments, while sacrificing training and time at home.

            * Due to challenges the United States faced in mounting a response to the Korean crisis, the Marine Corps has not fallen below 170,621 since 1960.

            In order to meet the 2.0 MEB requirement for amphibious assault, the Marine Corps requirement for amphibious ships is 38. The current inventory is 29. Current funding will result in the decommissioning of at least 6 amphibious ships, reducing inventory to 23. Additional cuts could scrap an equivalent number of vessels, resulting in an inventory of 17 ? less than half the Marine Corps requirement. Furthermore, a battle force inventory of only 17 is insufficient to support deployment of MEUs to Persian Gulf, Pacific, and Mediterranean using peacetime rotational models.

            Other key modernization programs for the Marine Corps would be deferred . In particular, without fighter aircraft with short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) capability, the United States cannot forward base strike aircraft on amphibious shipping, or on austere airfields, increasing our reliance on aircraft carriers (whose numbers will also fall) and major air bases.

            The estimated Marine end strength based on current funding is 173,000. The current force size is 202,000. That’s a real reduction of 29,000, and it’s only one element of our Armed Forces.

            That said, let’s evaluate how that scenario squares with this quote:

            We can not play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent.” Ronald Reagan

            Not so much.

          • JSobieski

            Not mentioning nation building is precisely the point. We need to address policy before deciding what spending is appropriate. We are spending moey foolishly and are quite quick to intervene militarily in ways that make no sense. How many Sharia states do we want to create? There is a smarter way to protect the US and its interests. Let’s grab the low hanging fruit first before declaring a 5% minimum threshold. Our foreign policy is based on a lot of naive assumptions.

          • JSobieski

            the idea that we need 5% in our current context is a leap for which the burden is on you to prove. The USSR had capabilities in the 1980′s that China still doesn’t have today. Moreover, the US and China are linked together in ways that the US and USSR were not. China is not our enemy so much as they are our rival at this point. Same for Russia.

            In terms of the Jihadist threat, we seem to be spending a lot of money that furthers the interest of those folks. The first rule of thumb is do no harm. No creating Libyas, Egypts, and other likely Sharia states in the future would actually involve a saving (not a cost) to the US.

            Prudent planning is to determine the right policies first, identify the capabilities that are most valuable to our policies, and then determine what needs to be spent.

          • rbdwiggins

            It’s called – Certainty.

            An abbreviated list: 5% would enable an increase in force structure and end strength, fund weapon systems modernization and missile defense, expand stealth technologies, assure multiple response capabilities in multiple theaters if required*, equally important, lessen the burden on military personnel and their families by reducing length of deployment through a faster rotation schedule, and by peace through strength, assure our allies and deter our enemies.

            * President Obama’s policies have all but made this scenario unavoidable, and our military is already undersized and overstretched.

          • JSobieski

            We have exchanged numerous comments on this topic, and I have yet to see you engage on the topics of nation building and propaganda (i.e. the lack of a Radio Free Europe in the Middle East).

            Seems to me that there should be a discussion as to how the military is being used as part of the discussion of what the military needs.

            How we use power also impacts the ability of our capabilities to serve as deterence and reassurance. I can see however that you do not wish to discuss those topics. I guess I can agree with you that if we want to continue the same kind of activities in the next 10 years that we have been conducting in the past 10 years, we do need to increase defense spending. However, I think such a policy would be a travesty.

  • williamjameson

    If only we could trust his economic positions.

    • californiagold

      n/t

  • septembergurl

    flip on Foreign Policy, here we have Mitt in 2007

    “China and we together will have a great deal of positive influence for stability if we’re able to work that relationship properly,” he says in the Pittsburgh appearance.

    Not so much with the battleships and carriers, and China going down a dark path, then, more the kumbaya.

    Funny how salient China is all of a sudden, no? Too bad we don’t have a candidate who has actually lived and worked in China for years, speaks flawless Mandarin, understands the culture, which is a closed one…we sure don’t want that guy!