l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Daniel Halper
October 8, 2012 5:37 PM
The weakest response to Mitt Romney's foreign policy address, which he
delivered earlier today at the Virginia Military Institute, comes from
Virginia-based trade publication Politico.
In a piece titled, "Experts pan Romney foreign policy speech," writer Josh
Gerstein notes, "Mitt Romney’s foreign policy speech Monday was filled with
tough talk and slams of President Barack Obama’s leadership — but little
of the clarity Romney has vowed to bring to the Oval Office."
Analysts reviewing what the Republican nominee said in what his campaign
billed as a major foreign policy address weren’t impressed. The speech,
they say, was much like Romney’s previous swings at laying out a foreign
policy: couched in broad ideology and big ambitions and lacking the
specifics for how he’d bring any of them about.
The "analysts" turn out to be an Obama campaign surrogate (like Madeleine
Albright) and two liberal foreign policy establishment types (such as, James
Lindsay and Steve Rosen).
In other words, the headline should've read, "Liberals pan Romney foreign
policy speech," and not included the ambiguous word "experts" in place of
the word "liberals." But who would've clicked on a boring story like that?
Too predictable, uninteresting.
Put another way, the only way these "experts" commenting on the speech might
have been newsworthy is if they spoke out in praise of Romney, not against
him.
Nor surprisingly, within 13 minutes of being published, the Obama campaign
was pushing the Politico story to reporters, via an email by spokesman Ben
LaBolt.
Coming in a close second is CNN. The Ted Turner-owned cable channel writes:
Just hours after Mitt Romney delivered what was billed as a major
foreign policy address by his campaign, what caught our eye today was not
what we saw, but what we didn’t in terms of reaction from conservative
thought leaders.
As of late this afternoon, Red State, The Weekly Standard and National
Review did not have a fresh take on Romney’s speech from the Virginia
Military Institute where he accused President Obama of leading “from behind
” in terms of the Middle East. The speech was an effort by the Romney
campaign to call into question Obama’s record on foreign policy at a time
when polls shows that voters have confidence in the president on this
subject.
This line of critique is without substance -- and wrong. Consider this, this
, this, this, this, this, and this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329728/if-america-doesnt-l
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329731/romney-reagan-obama
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner#webbriefing
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romneys-foreign-policy-addr
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romneys-foreign-policy-addr
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/comparing-romney-and-obama-
http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/08/vmi-speech-10082012-mitt-rom
And of course there's this:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/romneys-new-freedom-agenda-dra
So maybe it's true CNN "didn't" see "reaction from conservative thought
leaders," but it's hard to blame conservatives for CNN not reading their
work. |
|
