General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums'A staggering shift' on the politics of foreign policy
By Steve Benen
If you watched the third and final night of the Democratic convention, it was hard to miss the emphasis on foreign policy, national security, military policy, and international affairs. These issues represented more than a fifth of President Obama's address, and speaker after speaker emphasized Democratic credibility on the subject.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), in particular, seemed to be having a terrific time going after Mitt Romney's foreign policy ignorance, inexperience, and general confusion.
But in the bigger picture, the Democratic message, especially when compared to what Americans heard in Tampa, reinforced what Fred Kaplan called "a staggering shift": it's Democrats who've become "the dominant foreign-policy party."
The conventions these past two weeks -- and particularly the final speeches Thursday night -- have cemented the fact that the Democratic party is now the party of national-security policy; not just a wise or thoughtful foreign and military policy, but any kind of thinking whatsoever about matters beyond the water's edge. [...]
It was the Democrats who talked Thursday night of their president's "backbone" and "courage," of the clear message he sent -- as Vice President Joe Biden put it when talking about the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound -- that "if you attack innocent Americans, we will follow you to the ends of the world." By contrast, Biden recalled, Republican challenger Mitt Romney once said that it wasn't worth "moving heaven and earth, and spending billions of dollars, just to catch one person."
More extraordinary still, it was the Democrats who saluted, mourned, and celebrated the "fallen angels" and "wounded warriors" of the U.S. military. Romney observed no such ritual.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/07/13729999-a-staggering-shift-on-the-politics-of-foreign-policy
Republicans have never been about national security, but war profiteering. Mitt wouldn't go after bin Laden, but he'd start a war with Iran.
Response to ProSense (Original post)
politicasista This message was self-deleted by its author.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)was kick Mitt's ass and put up a strong defense of President Obama.
The important point is that Republicans have been exposed as weak on national security.
They're spin on the issue is no longer marketable. They're frauds.
Response to ProSense (Reply #2)
politicasista This message was self-deleted by its author.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"and DU and others berate him for it"
I've seen posts stating "where was this Kerry," mostly approving of the speech.
Is there a reason you feel the need to do this?
Response to ProSense (Reply #4)
politicasista This message was self-deleted by its author.
Blaukraut
(5,693 posts)They just wondered where this Kerry was in '04. While some of us were already familiar with this Kerry back in '04, I can also understand the surprise of others who didn't have the privilege of meeting him and getting to hear him speak in other venues.
politicasista
(14,128 posts)And a lot of people didn't get to see/meet him, but they are now. Peace.
calimary
(81,220 posts)maybe when Biden brought this up: "republican challenger Mitt Romney once said that it wasn't worth 'moving heaven and earth, and spending billions of dollars, just to catch one person.'"
I would have LOVED for Biden to say something like - "there he goes again, making policy decisions through some cost-benefit analysis. And he calls himself a good businessman? How good was THAT call? How good a cost-benefit analysis did he wind up doing on THAT one?"
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,994 posts)cr8tvlde
(1,185 posts)I love the Big Dawg, too. She deserves her own nickname...a really positive one...after all she had to go through. Style and class and intelligence personified.