Is Romney a neocon? -

Is Romney a neocon?


Mitt Romney has so far avoided laying out a detailed foreign policy. Part of his challenge is that his disagreements with Obama on some of the biggest issues are more tone than substance. And part of his challenge is that he’d rather talk about the weak economy than tangle on national security with the guy who got Osama and annihilates  suspected terrorists with a drones instead of locking them up in Guantanamo. But Romney has seized on the killings of U.S. diplomats in Libya a an opportunity to label Obama a squish. One of his campaign advisors has gone so far as to tell the Washington Post that the embassy killings would not have happened under Romney:

“There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation,” Richard Williamson, a top Romney foreign policy adviser, said in an interview. “For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we’ve had an American ambassador assassinated.”

So what is Romney’s foreign policy? A lot of people are hearing echoes of George W. Bush in Romney’s bluster. The Washington Post had this take:

“…That fogginess about Romney’s worldview was partly a function of the emphasis on economics so far, but also on the costs of talking globally when a sizable portion of the Republican base, including Ron Paul isolationists and fiscal conservatives, does not want anything to with the world outside America’s borders. That leaves George H.W. Bush-era realists, who advocate a modest foreign policy focused on U.S. interests, and George W. Bush-era neoconservative interventionists as the two available ideological schools to which Romney can subscribe.

His reaction this week made it clear that when it comes to Republican foreign policy, the neocons are still the only game in town…”

And in an interview, Romney’s foreign policy director, Alex Wong, tried as hard as he can to avoid using the n-word:

…So then does he dispute the classisfication of neoconservative?

“What I’m saying is,” said Wong, “Governor Romney’s embrace of American values and interests and his call for American leadership…”

So does he feel comfortable being called a neoconservative?

“What I am saying is,” said Wong, “that Governor Romney has used, has said, that his philosophy is peace through strength.”

Does he have a problem with the term neoconservative?

“Governor Romney has indicated that he has a philosophy,” said Wong, “peace through strength.”

So he does have a problem with the term neoconservative.

“Governor Romney,” said Wong, “has throughout this campaign talked about American values and interests and called for American leadership abroad.”

Does he embrace the concepts of neoconservatism, just not the title?

“I think I have given you a lot here,” said Wong. “I have described Governor Romney’s philosophy and the way he’s discussed it and how he makes his decisions.”

Filed under:

Is Romney a neocon?

  1. Wednesday night’s news…

    The Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) Wednesday evening newscasts devoted more
    than 9 minutes (9 minutes, 28 seconds) to the flap over Mitt Romney’s
    statement criticizing the administration’s handling of the Libyan crisis
    but spent just 25 seconds on questions regarding Barack Obama’s
    Middle-East policy, a greater than 20-to-1 disparity.

    Way to keep your eye on the ball Luiza.

    Your industry literally can’t go out of business soon enough.

    • Nice copy & paste, where do you get your info? Fox News?

      The MSM has covered Romney’s foreign policy statements so much because they are stunningly crazy & easily confirmed as bullshit! Obama has been nothing but calm, rational, & intelligent & his foreign policy reflects that. (fact)

      Romney is just a sock puppet for the far right, including the old Bush gang of neocon warmongers. (fact)

      You are comparing apples to oranges & are calling for fake balance in news reporting.

    • One the other hand, it’s ROMNEY that’s focusing the discussion on issues of rhetoric, tone and nuance rather than issues of substance. ROMNEY made this about a criticism of Obama’s so-called “apologies” and the notion that Obama’s foreign policy is somehow about “appeasement”. In concentrating their coverage on rhetoric and nuance the media is actually concentrating their coverage on the spin that the ROMNEY CAMPAIGN is putting out.

      If Romney wants to focus on the notion that more hard-line rhetoric about American exceptionalism and the general awesomeness of pluralistic democratic societies, and absolute silence in terms of criticizing religious intolerance and bigotry would have somehow been more effective in dealing with Middle East protests against supposed American exceptionalism and religious bigotry, he’s free to do so. However, he’s criticizing the WRONG THINGS imho, not just from the standpoint of logic, but from the standpoint of what’s best for Romney politically. The more times Romney says that Obama’s first reaction to the violence was apology and appeasement (neither true imho, but let’s put that debate aside for a moment) the more I focus on the notion that Romney’s first reaction to the violence was to criticize the President of the United States.

      To my mind, to the extent that the media is focused on rhetoric and tone, as opposed to concrete issues and policy, it’s because they’re following Mitt Romney’s lead. It should perhaps tell the Romney campaign something that the President seems happy to oblige. If I thought that the President was going to take what’s going on today in the Middle East lying down, I might think that painting him the way that the Romney campaign is was a smart strategy. However, I’m not convinced that the guy who refused to close Gitmo, sent a SEAL team in to Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden, and killed more terrorists with drones in his first 3.5 years in office than George W. Bush did in 8 is going to necessarily hold back a lot. From my point of view Obama speaks pretty softly, but also swings his big stick around. The argument about tone and rhetoric no doubt plays well to Romney’s base, but to my mind it plays mostly to a crowd that wouldn’t vote for Obama if Jesus came back and told them to. I’d imagine that the Obama campaign is more than happy to focus on foreign affairs for while, and that should worry the Romney campaign more than it seems to.

      • LKO…

        Do you have even the slightest f**king idea what is going on? I’ll give you a hint…unless you read Drudge, the answer is no.

        Do you know that there is mounting evidence that there was credible information as much as a week in advance about the Cairo and Libya embassy attacks? Puts the Embassy’s twitter timeline, and Romney’s response to it, in a whole new light doesn’t it?

        Do you know that the American DOJ and the LA Times have pretty much for all intents and purposes drawn a map to the filmmaker’s house?

        Do you know that the government, while claiming to defend freedom of speech, is now pressuring Youtube to pull down the movie trailer that we just established has nothing to do with the protests that were planned a week in advance?

        We have a president who skips intelligence briefings a day after a terrorist attack, isn’t sure whether Egypt is still an ally and has to be corrected on the topic by Jimmy Carter of all people, thoughtlessly compared his campaign volunteers to murdered embassy staff, ignored a June IED attack and had up to a week’s notice of this attack while doing nothing, and continues to alienate his strongest ally in the region while he continues to campaign with the likes of Jay-Z, Beyonce, and David Letterman, while this crisis boils over…

        And we’re spending 95% of the news cycle talking about the appropriateness of Romney’s reaction???

        • So Drudge is your resource? Please.

        • Drudge is a Log Cabin Republican. Anything on that site is waaaay biased for the rightwing.

          For example there are no ‘daily intelligence briefings’….the president is kept informed throughout the day.

          Stop reading crap.

        • And why is that happening?

          It’s partly because MITT ROMNEY is focusing on tone, and messaging, and rhetoric, and not substantive issues.

          That, and likely because Republicans are a little nervous about all the new information that’s been coming out recently about a number of warnings of an imminent attack on the U.S. that the Bush administration had before 9/11 that are only leaking now.

        • Should I have to read Drudge to hear about such things? Shouldn’t, I don’t know, a certain Presidential campaign be highlighting them more rather than focusing so much on supposedly inappropriate rhetoric and tone?

          Do you have a link to the story about the Libya warnings? The Cairo story is interesting, but it seems to me as though the Cairo incident has more of the character of a protest that got violently out of hand, whereas the LIBYA attack seems more like a coordinated terrorist attack, perhaps even using the protests partially as a means of “cover” as it were.

        • “Do you have even the slightest f**king idea what is going on? I’ll give you a hint…unless you read Drudge, the answer is no.”

          Suddenly, so much becomes clear…

  2. Mitt’s no neocon; he’s an autonomoun.

    Max speed is 1.2 TeraFlops, just slightly faster than your average i5 processor. He can flop faster than the shoe drops, and he’s more liable to retract than Dan Quayle.