« | »

AP: No GOP Match Obama On Foreign Policy

From the dependably laughable Associated Press:

A foreign policy void in GOP 2012 field

By Charles Babington, Associated Press
May 5, 2011

WASHINGTON – The daring nighttime raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan draws a sharp contrast between President Barack Obama and a field of potential Republican challengers who have comparatively scant foreign policy experience.

This is probably the single most preposterous sentence we have ever read in many years of reading preposterous sentences from the Associated Press.

That field includes at least six current or former governors, and three current or former House members. The Senate, an incubator for international affairs expertise, doesn’t have a single member running for president, although one former senator has taken steps toward a run.

The stunning news of bin Laden’s death has temporarily focused attention on foreign policy over domestic issues, and highlighted the lack of international experience in the prospective GOP field compared with the president, a Democrat who has spent more than two years overseeing two wars and, more recently, military action in Libya.

Er, exactly what experience did Mr. Obama have in foreign policy – in anything – before he was elected President? Mr. Obama’s real life work experience was limited to being a (failed) community organizer and a law school lecturer specializing in race and gender grievances.

And apart from ordering the killing of Bin Laden, about which he had no choice whatsoever, where are his foreign policy triumphs? Name one. (And he seems to be working hard to botch his Bin Laden ‘success.’)

None of the Republicans weighing candidacies is a foreign policy heavyweight, and all are working to boost their credentials by traveling to distant lands and weighing in on overseas matters.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, seen within the GOP as a credible voice on fiscal issues, bluntly acknowledged earlier this week to reporters that he was "probably not" ready to debate Obama on foreign policy. He was saying publically about himself what other Republicans say privately about the entire field

Then Mr. Daniels is a buffoon. Mr. Obama knows as much about foreign policy as he does about fiscal issues. And he has had about as much success, which is to say none, in both realms.

Foreign policy plays a big role in every presidential election, even if domestic issues usually dominate.

Funny, but when a Democrat is running against a Republican with foreign policy credentials, the news media assure us that ‘all politics is local,’ and that people ‘vote their pocketbook.’ But now that Mr. Obama’s has such low approval rating in his handling of the economy, they have to change their tune.

Americans typically say they want a president with a solid international resume, but they don’t always vote that way.

With few exceptions, governors have little or no meaningful foreign policy experience. Yet since 1976, three governors (Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton) have defeated incumbent presidents. And Texas Gov. George W. Bush defeated a vice president. Obama himself had thin foreign policy credentials when he defeated Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam war hero who was heavily involved in national security matters for years.

"Thin"? How about zero "foreign policy credentials."

As Hillary Clinton was kind enough to point out during the campaign, as the hair of a Senate committee on Afghanistan, Mr. Obama was too busy running for the Presidency to hold even one hearing.

(Of course her campaign ad to this effect has been sent down the memory hole.)

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, May 5th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

15 Responses to “AP: No GOP Match Obama On Foreign Policy”

  1. River0 says:

    This is just what the Moscow newspaper Pravda (translation: truth) used to write in the old days of the Soviet Union. Obummer has been incredibly inept, incompetent, and even malicious in his foreign policy. This article is despicable. and beneath contempt. Other world powers have our Sophomore-in-Chief nailed as the man-child he is.

  2. Chrispbass says:

    What? International policy experience is a *requirement* for Presidency?!???

  3. Chase says:

    I would suggest that Obama’s interest in foreign policy probably is quantifiable in that of keeping a list of places he has visited, courtesy the US taxpayer, foreigners to whom he has apologized, without our consent or a mandate to do so, and places he has sent his wife and daughters on vacation.

    As for qualitative experience? He failed in securing the Olympics, his return to Indonesia was blah, and his visit to India cost a whole bunch. All for what? After his “gift” of video DVDs to the Brits, he didn’t even get an invite to the royal wedding. Oh, he did get a book and a hug from Hugo…..

  4. Right of the People says:

    They’ve got to do whatever they can to keep the tiny bit of momentum Barry O gained from his “huge” foreign relations bump he got from snuffing Osama going.

    “With few exceptions, governors have little or no meaningful foreign policy experience.”

    Isn’t it amazing the one governor that does have “meaningful foreign policy experience” because of its unique geographical location is the governor of Alaska and we know how the mavens in the Lame Stream Media treated the last governor of Alaska, don’t we?

    These vultures have to do anything they can to build the O’ster up no matter what lies and half-truths they have to tell to do it.

  5. Chase says:

    Governors typically go on, or are part of organzing groups who, travel to foreign countries to promote or talk about jobs. Seems to me that this is much more in line with our foreign policy needs in this day when missiles and sea navigation and yes, even global warming, are not such big things.

  6. proreason says:

    “This is probably the single most preposterous sentence we have ever read in many years of reading preposterous sentences from the Associated Press.”

    This is why the language has to constantly evolve. Maybe we need a word like Ubermegapreposterousiveness.

  7. tranquil.night says:

    It’s not like we enjoy watching Mittoast and Mitchtoast put themselves in this bubble of their own limitations and then fall on their teeth when something outside of that bubble comes along with which they aren’t ready to deal. They’re fine candidates by old standards, but we’ve expressed our concerns they’re not ready to face-off against Obama out of worry for these very type of unnecessary mistakes. Maybe the establishment hacks can finally acknowledge that the grassroots has some insight into what are winning qualifications since both of their candidates have radioactively melted down in the past week. I know, fat chance.

    By the way, Sarah Palin has been critically and substantively challenging little Lenin’s foreign policies doctrine and decisions for months, especially in continuing to demand clarity on Libya when the rest of the MBM continues to have it (and her) on blackout.

    Also she just dropped her McCain assigned team of foreign policy advisors (the NeoCon label was being floated around) in favor for a sharp Hoover fellow and student of Reagan, Peter Schweizer. That came in tandem with the release of her 5 point doctrine on the use of American force abroad: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/03/palin-outlines-doctrine-for-use-of-force-picks-new-foreign-policy-adviser/

    So there’s definitely a “match” out there who’s leading from the front versus the Ex Post Facto Ditherer in Chief. Clearly Bolton can be tossed in there too, and I think we really need to start watching and encouraging the Cain campaign. He mopped the floor with some of the Nice Guy’s in the last debate and gave a Northeastern audience a 76% majority sense that he’d totally stolen the show. But aw hell, these ain’t ‘serious’ candidates.

    You the People decide.

  8. Right of the People says:

    We need someone who is willing to step up and sling as much mud and fecal material back at the dems as they’ll be flinging at us and even moreso. It’s time to take the kid gloves off and get serious about this because you know the dimacraps are going to do everything in their power to hold on the White House.

    If Sarah fits the bill, great! If not then maybe some unknown coming out of nowhere who isn’t afraid to get his or her hands dirty. It’s time to go for the win and play by the liberal’s rules. In other words, none.

    • tranquil.night says:

      I like Sarah’s no announce plan. She’s isn’t constrained by campaign metrics, and it keeps the media unable to committ to any PDS coverage, giving a genuine chance for some of the others to make headlines. I never thought I’d agree with this position, but she might really be more effective as the Tea Party’s policy voice and dare I say ‘organizer’ than diving back into that muck. Which isn’t to say she won’t go for it if an articulate and strong Conservative doesn’t emerge in top tier. But we’re looking for someone to carry that mantle, yes. Herman Cain should be at the debate tonight, we’ll see if he owns the moment because there’s a lot of us out here who’d love to see Mr. Cain, Col. West, and Mr. Obama have a conversation. Hello world, we know you won’t listen to us clingers in fly-over. Our friends have a couple words, if you will.

    • Not so fast says:

      NO ONE is going to want to run as a politician in 2012! Sarah Palin playing it like an outsider is brilliant. It gives her freedom to come and go and lets the others become a target. In this Leninist State Media environment it makes perfect sense. Also keep Obama Bin Laden guessing on who to dig up the dirt on. Herman Cain is also good and if he does well maybe VP material. Who would make a better attack point for Obama than Herman Cain? Can’t call HIM racist. Sarah can then just stick to talking about policies and Cain can remind everyone what a disaster this Administration is. Shaping up rather nicely!

  9. Melly says:

    The more Obama spikes the football and reveals what they found in OBL’s hideaway, the more I realize how inconsequential it was to get OBL. We are conducting a war against terror – not a specific country, or army but a disparate group of radicals who are self directing themselves. Bush 43 was right so many years ago when he expressed his lack of concern over the whereabouts of OBL. Radical Islam is bigger that OBL.

  10. proreason says:

    What should we now call little lenin? His recent heroics dictate that we have new names to exhalt his magnificance.

    – the Hero of Abbottabad
    – the Avenging Angel of Abbottablad
    – America’s Leonidas
    – Bad Ass Barry
    – Hulk Hussein
    – Obamy the Terrible
    – Barack “I made the Decision” Obama
    – “Spike”
    – “Braveheart”

    All ideas welcome

    • Melly says:

      Sweet Mutha F**kin O
      Gansta enough?

    • Petronius says:

      The true revolutionary has no name. He has no past, no private interests, no affairs, no lovers, no attachments, connections, tenderness, sentiments, or ties that cannot be quickly cast off and abandoned without a moment’s hesitation. His entire being is devoured by one purpose, one thought, one passion –– the revolution.

      To pick a new nickname for such a marvelous being is no easy thing. A few suggestions :

      – Herobama
      – Gutsycall
      – Triumphator (the triumphant, a Roman general who has received a triumph)
      – Triumphator et semper invictus (triumphant and always invincible)
      – Imperator (emperor, commander in chief, ruler)
      – Divinity
      – le Dieudonné (the Gift of God, after Louis XIV the Sun King)
      – Protector of the People
      – the Dude
      – the Rock
      – the Hammer of Thor
      – Babe
      – the Sultan of Swat
      – the Conqueror
      – the Warmonger
      – Stonewall
      – el Magnifico
      – the Achilles of Abbottabad

    • tranquil.night says:


« Front Page | To Top
« | »