Mitt Romney On Foreign Policy


Mitt gets all up in Obama’s grill with “Hope is not a strategy“:

I know the President hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity. …

I believe that if America does not lead, others will—others who do not share our interests and our values—and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us. America’s security and the cause of freedom cannot afford four more years like the last four years. I am running for President because I believe the leader of the free world has a duty, to our citizens, and to our friends everywhere, to use America’s great influence—wisely, with solemnity and without false pride, but also firmly and actively—to shape events in ways that secure our interests, further our values, prevent conflict, and make the world better—not perfect, but better.


Don’t take my word for it, watch it yourself and decide.

(Transcript of prepared remarks here.)


This entry was posted in Foreign Policy, Mitt Romney and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Mitt Romney On Foreign Policy

  1. angienc says:

    Best line:

    “I will implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with Putin”

    Transmit that, Medvedev.

    • Constance says:

      I agree. That open mike moment with Obama and Medvedev was disgusting and should frighten all Americans away fro Obama.

    • swanspirit says:

      I read that Putin said about Romney , ” at least he is direct ” . That speaks volumes to me . Even Putin can’t stand Obama’s double talk , and probably doesn’t trust him either .

  2. carol haka says:

    29 DAYS. 👿

  3. votermom says:

    His speech is also what he’s saying in his book. Consistent.

  4. myiq2xu says:

    Via Legal Insurrection:

    Last Friday, the Commission on Presidential Debates released a statement in reaction to the general panning of Jim Lehrer’s debate performance:

    The format for the first and fourth presidential debates calls for six 15-minute segments on topics selected and announced in advance by the moderators. After the moderator asks a question, the candidates each have two minutes to answer. After their answers, the moderator’s job is to facilitate a conversation on the topic for the balance of the 15 minutes before moving to the next topic. The Commission on Presidential Debates’ goal in selecting this format was to have a serious discussion of the major domestic and foreign policy issues with minimal interference by the moderator or timing signals. Jim Lehrer implemented the format exactly as it was designed by the CPD and announced in July.

    • DeniseVB says:

      No wonder I enjoyed it as I kept thinking this is a Real Debate !

    • swanspirit says:

      How many people are going to seriously weary of being blamed for something Obama did wrong ? Hey Candy Crowley , you had better watch it , you will be responsible for Obam’s performance at the next debate because it is the moderators fault isn’t it ?
      Candy had better put a disclaimer out there : NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LACK OF COMPETENCE ON THE PART OF BARACK OBAMA . DURING THE DEBATE .
      .

  5. DandyTiger says:

    I like tinkering around with the make your own electoral map at the RCP site. If Romney wins FL, NC, and VA as I think he will, then also wins IA and MO as well, also likely, then if he wins CO which is very possible, then he can win without winning OH. He just has to also win NH and NV. A challenge, but doable. I keep hearing there is no path without OH, but their clearly is. The MSM wouldn’t be lying to me would they? 🙂

    • yttik says:

      You really don’t need Ohio to win, but I think Romney’s going to win it anyway.

    • DandyTiger says:

      Looking at Rasmussen’s site on the election, within the margin of error, all of the toss up states are actually tied. That’s NV, CO, IA, MO, WI, OH, NH, VA, NC, FL.

      Rasmussen’s weighted sampling approach is controversial, but I think getting closer than others. And they have a good record on using that. But you still have to keep in mind that they’re not sampling at 2010 levels, so we could still be skewed. And keep in mind we have really odd historic non replies to polling. And I think we have that for obvious reasons: we’ve been told for 4+ years that the only reason there is to be against Obama is because of racism. So may people are quiet.

      If we take those things into account, and then add 3+ points to Romney, we could have all of those toss up states going to Romney. I’m not sure it brings any other states into play under that scenario, but you never know.

  6. 49erDweet says:

    Second best line: “……..if America does not lead, others will..” is such simple logic any fool should “get it”, but apparently is too complicated for current WH staff.

  7. foxyladi14 says:

    I do think that was a fine speech by President Romney. 🙂

    • gxm17 says:

      LOL! I tend to agree with everyone else. Very presidential. Too bad we have to wait till January when he’s sworn in. I’m like, let’s get this show on the road people. We’re already four (make that twelve) years behind!

  8. mcnorman says:

    Somehow, I don’t think Mitt would allow his speechwriter to plagiarize anyone unlike teh won.

    I agree gxm17. It’s too bad we have to wait until January. On the other hand, the house has to be fumigated.

  9. wmcb says:

    I agree with Mitt. I would love to live in a world where there is no “superpower”, or no nations jockeying for that position as big dog on the porch. I wish with all my heart we lived in that world.

    But we don’t. We just DON’T. Sorry, that’s not reality. There WILL be a “big dog on the porch”, the only real question is who it is going to be. If there is a leadership vacuum, Russia or China or others are going to step in and grab that position.

    And if there has to be a big dog, then I say that America, for all her faults, has done a better, kinder, fairer job of it than any superpower in history. I’d rather that postion be filled by us than anyone else – because it WILL be filled. To think otherwise is naive and stupid.

Comments are closed.