Mitt Romney is on tour. This morning he arrives in London, where he’ll watch the Olympic opening ceremony on Friday before moving on to Poland and Israel.
Romney’s international travels have drawn attention to his foreign policy, or rather, what's unknown about his foreign policy. So far, he has been quick to criticize Obama's handling of Iran. But now he's coming under pressure to define his own doctrine. What do these travels say about what a Romney doctrine could look like?
Speaking to this is David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times.
Defining Normal After a Diagnosis of Schizophrenia, The Mayor of Oklahoma City, A New Kind of Commencement Speech
Defining Normal After a Diagnosis of Schizophrenia
The DSM and Mental Health in America
Devastating Tornado in Oklahoma City, What James Rosen Case Says About Freedom of the Press, Syrian Conflict Deepens
Why We Stay When We Know We Should Leave
The show is a co-production of WNYC Radio and Public Radio International, in collaboration with New York Times Radio and WGBH Boston.
Major funding provided by:
Comments [6]
The candidates are not going to discuss any issues this election. They each have different ideas about how things should be run, but neither one is going to go in depth about what they are going to do.
This election is the difference between Burger King and McDonald's. It is the difference between Coke and Pepsi.
So far as I can tell there's no reason for either Democrats or Republicans to get their panties all in a bunch. Neither Candidate is saying anything.
OK, I listened again to this nonsense.
The main discussion centered on what would Romney do.
He most certainly wouldn't:
- give this idiotic speech in Cairo
- he wouldn't babble about our brothers in Teheran
- he wouldn't receive the Nobel prize (the most comical?) from the land of Knut Hamsun
etc.
This guy from the NYT doesn't know of course that history matters.. Luckily, I was raised differently and know that the entire history of Obama matters.
Obama never went to Israel as President yet not much hand wringing over that like with Romney's European itinerary.
Someone should remind the world class journalists at the NY Times that Obama spoke at the Victory Column and not the Brandenburg Gate in 2008.
The fact is that we have an incompetent president in very dangerous times and he has CONTRIBUTED to the instability of the world. Obama's zombies probably believe that a smile, looking in the eyes, and making "nice" speeches with a lot of "mir" and "druzhba" in it is sufficient for world peace, but the reality is different.
I, a Social Democrat (the only one in this country), am beginning to miss George W. Bush and it means only one thing - Obama is horrible.
Mike is correct.
And can add something. This clip from Romney's speech was actually good.
Obama is incompetent - possibly one of the most incompetent presidents in foreign affairs we've had.
Poland and Western Europe. Unlike Western Europe, Poland experienced the consequences of "internationalism" and has a sensitivity to "we are all brothers" nonsense. Obama's Egypt's speech, Obama's Iranian speech etc, the fact that some of his top advisers are "internationalists" (Samantha Powers, for example) makes him absolutely unacceptable to people who heard similar speeches before (wasn't Stalin an internationalist?) and ... paid for them.
We're kidding, right? The guy you've got explaining Mitt Romney's foreign policy is a NY Times correspondent. You guys Do make Fox look "fair and balanced."
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.