Let's break down what we saw there:
Ok, first of all, if you're running for President, you should be more up on foreign policy than I am. We're not talking about some obscure foreign policy question about applying the Mahanian theory to Pyongyang. We're talking about the fucking War with Libya, and whether or not he agreed with the President's stance. Poll 10 random people off the street, and 9 of them will have a more coherent answer than that. And he's stalling like it's a spelling bee and he's asking to use it in a sentence and the etymological origin.
Hold on... There are some things that you may not understand. The first gaffe was the fact that Herman's campaign put him in a room with an editorial board of a Wisconsin newspaper. Never has that been done before with a candidate running for President. He was hammered question after question across topics that were all over the place. Could he have been better prepared for a question like this? Absolutely... But, he shouldn't have been there in the first place. By the way, is this the only gaffe coming out of a 45 minute meeting? Is this the only thing you can hang your had on???
"A different one"?!?!? what the fuck is he talking about? A different "glib, scripted response" as Kaos puts it? "Oh, I thought of an answer, but it was in case you asked me about Italy's economy..."
Oh come on... Granted, Obama didn't get us into two wars like that evil Bush did, but he's sent troops troops to several areas of the world and has plans to do so in the near future. Yay! He's bringing the troops home from Iraq!!! But, while he gleefully announced the end of Iraq operations, he forgot to mention that he'll also be increasing troop deployments throughout the Persian Gulf region. In other words, we'll still be in the same neighborhood with a sizeable military presence. And, what are we doing in Uganda? While I appreciate the successes of our operations in Pakistan along with the assassination of an American citizen, shouldn't we at least try to play nice with their government? By the way, we're still in Kosovo too. And, why did we team up with the UN in Libya and do nothing in Egypt? Yeah... There are different ones, many different ones in fact. Those are just a handful.
So in other words "I know that it is my party's stance that I have to be completely contrarian to everything Obama does, so I would have done something different, I assure you. Specifically...well...I agree Qadaffi is bad...and...yeah, I might have done the exact same thing...but I would have assessed it, which I'm sure he did...but I just would have done it differently. We would have ended up at the same place, but he did it wrong, and I would have done it right."
Not a perfect response... I'll give you that, but his answer was essentially correct. We teamed up with the UN without understanding the opposition or defining a clear purpose for our intervention. That sets a horrible precedent. Oh, we were supposed to protect the protesters... By protecting the protesters from Quaddafi's military, didn't we essentially enable them to kill Quaddafi, his son and many others? There were a series of events that could have been handled differently, whether you're willing to agree with that or not. Personally, I don't believe that it was our place to get involved. If we had maintained a centrist position with the uprisings in Egypt, we should have maintained a centrist position with Libya's uprisings. The O'bama administration has not provided us with a clear explanation of why we got involved.
Ok...
Then it's all more fail from there about how he "would have assessed the situation" as if the President just threw a dart at a map and was like "Let's bomb that shit."
More rambling... Well like I said before, he shouldn't have been there in the first place. I believe the goal was an olive branch to the media, but the media will always take advantage of any opportunity. They cannot and should not be trusted. His core response was correct, whether you like it or not. He should have been better prepared to articulate his responses, but when you jump into a room with an editorial board, they're going to get you.
This is why "regular guys you want to have a beer with" is not criteria for President.
The criteria being...?
Do you guys really think this guy will out-debate Obama? Until Republicans drop this infatuation with "regular Joe's" (aka dumbasses who are unqualified for the office of President of the United States, aka Sarah Palin, Rick Perry), they will continue to lose popular elections.
I don't believe your measure of a person's ability to serve as President aligns with most sane and reasonable people. The President is supposed to be a "regular Joe". That's why we did away with monarchies.
Sadly, Jon Huntsman and to a larger degree Gary Johnson, have never once been considered legitimate candidates, while dispshits continue to shuffle in and out of the frontrunner position.
Like I said, your measure of a person's qualifications don't align with many...
Of those that are even hovering near the top of the polls, Romney is the only candidate with a snowball's chance in hell of winning over the general population.
That's kind of a nonsensical assessment. I don't think that anyone has a chance of
winning over the general population. Not even the exaulted one was able to accomplish that.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Well, don't be a dipshit then... Sharing facts is one thing, but your colored commentary deserves criticism.
59 Replies
8901 Views