Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Is Romney Really Worse Than Sarah Palin?

A few days ago, when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney took off for London in what was supposed to be an easy, softball, build your foreign policy credibility trip, he began making a series of gaffes from insulting the readiness of London to host the Olympics, and shrugging off his wife's dressage horse event in order to look less elitist, to forgetting the opposition party leader's name.

The British press tore him to shreds, not only because they felt the had to protect their own, but also because for a trip that was supposed to be easy-peasy, Mitt was blowing it in epic proportions. But one particular statement caught my eye. Worse than Sarah Palin. I mean, I get it, but really? Actually worse that Palin?

It's true that the more we see and hear Mitt, the more we realize he's got his own little brand of word salad going on, but at least he tries to speak in a fashion that's grammatically correct whether what he's saying makes sense or not. But worse than know-nothing Sarah Palin? ...Then he went to Israel.

Adding to the already loud din of criticism of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney after he said Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, China today said Mr. Romney’s “hawkish remarks” could spark conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. 
“Romney's remarks totally neglect historical facts and are actually irresponsible if he just meant to appeal to voters at home,” wrote Xinhua, China’s official state news service. “[A]ny words that favor any party to the conflict regardless of history and reality are irresponsible and unfair for Palestinians who are in a less powerful position in the peace talks. They may even result in a much worse situation in this region by intensifying the differences between the two sides.” 
China also took issue with Mr. Romney’s claim that he would move the US embassy to Jerusalem, something American officials have long avoided doing because the move would imply Israeli sovereignty of the long contested city.
Not only is he stupid, but he's dangerous. For the sake of scoring some political points not with the Jewish population here at home, but with the Evangelical right, Mitt Romney has gone against what every president since Harry Truman has understood; that Jerusalem was deemed an international city to protect religious rights for all in the region, unsettled since the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, and negotiation is the only way to settle it.  Hell, even St. Ronnie agreed with that!*

But why should Romney care about such nuance when he can indirectly point a finger at President Obama in an attempt to categorize him as not friendly towards Israel? Who cares about looking like a fool to the rest of the world when you're trying to win an election at home by any means necessary for Pete's sake?!

Romney also touted Israel's healthcare system. A universal healthcare system. You know, sort of like Medicare for all, but with an individual mandate. The same mandate that was good enough for Romneycare in Massachusetts but according to Mitt, is an abomination in Obamacare. The sound you hear is my head slamming into my keyboard repeatedly.

So in short, yeah, Mitt Romney is worse than Sarah Palin. You can excuse Palin for being plucked out of the middle of nowhere, being completely unvetted and not ready for prime time. Exposing her idiocy was an unintended consequence of being thrown onto the national stage. But Mitt Romney has been running for President for over eight years and has apparently learned or attempted to learn nothing. What's his excuse?

(* H/T Zandar)

(Cross-posted on ABLC)

No comments: