That, though, was just the appetizer: An American Abroad

[AzariLoveIran]

.


"We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he (Romney) feels that the special relationship is special," the adviser told the British daily Telegraph. "The White House didn't fully appreciate the shared history we have."

.

Biden reacted strongly by calling the comments "disturbing" and saying the assertion was "beneath a presidential campaign." Obama adviser David Axelrod said that the comment on shared heritage was "stunningly offensive."

.

.

Not long after his arrival in London, Romney joined Brian Williams from the US broadcaster NBC for an exclusive interview. It was a wide-ranging talk, touching on topics as diverse as the shooting in Colorado (the candidate said America did not need new gun-control laws) and his wife's horse Rafalca, which will be competing in dressage at the Olympics ("I will not be watching the event," Romney said).

And then Williams lobbed what should have been a softball question about whether London was well-prepared for the Olympics. Romney could have said how wonderful it was to be in such a great city full of wonderful people and rich history. Instead, he said: "There are a few things that were disconcernting, the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging."

As if that weren't enough, Romney also seemed to take aim at the British people. "Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment? That is something which we only find out once the Games actually begin."

Not surprisingly, the British press jumped on the comments. As did British leaders. During a rally to celebrate the end of the torch relay in Hyde Park, London Mayor Boris Johnson said to the gathered crowd: "There's this guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know whether we are ready."

'Mr. Leader' and MI6

And Prime Minister Cameron also chided the Republican candidate. "We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world," he said. "Of course it's easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere."

Chagrined, Romney quickly did something that Americans have become used to from him: He flip-flopped. In comments to the press afterward, he conceded that it is "impossible for absolutely no mistakes to occur." And added that, once competition starts, "those are all overshadowed by the extraordinary demonstrations of courage, character and determination by the athletes."

Still, Romney wasn't quite done making headlines. It was, after all, a long day full of meetings with a variety of people, including Labour party head Ed Miliband, who Romney addressed as "Mr. Leader."

And then there was another appointment. "I can only say that I appreciated the insights and perspectives of the leaders of the government here and opposition here as well as the head of MI6 as we discussed Syria and the hope for a more peaceful future for that country," he said at a news conference.

Oops. The meeting with MI6 head Sir John Sawers was supposed to remain secret. That, at least, had been the agreement beforehand.

.

.

[Enki]

Yeah, Syria is Iran's access to the sea.


God, it's incredible to believe that there are people who actually believe this guy is Presidential material.

[AzariLoveIran]

.

Yeah, Syria is Iran's access to the sea.


God, it's incredible to believe that there are people who actually believe this guy is Presidential material.

.

.. that was a good one, Tinker


look, this guy looks to me just a "filler" .. sort of "Place holder"

the big guns know Obama gonna win, so, they don't bother

but, for Joe to have a shine of democracy, choice, and not, One Candidate election .. they have a pro-forma candidate

otherwise, you can bet, Romney thinks Iran is in South America and Syria a continent


.

[Nastarana]

Willard Romney is simply, as a man, not fit to hold high office. IMHO, anyone who votes for him is demonstrating their contempt for their country and its' government.

[Hans Bulvai]

Syria, is Iran's access to North Africa and the rest; through the sea...
I'm just saying..

[Ibrahim]

Syria, is Iran's access to North Africa and the rest; through the sea...
I'm just saying..

*looks as map*

*looks at post*

*looks at map again*

*looks back at post*

[Hans Bulvai]

Syria, is Iran's access to North Africa and the rest; through the sea...
I'm just saying..

*looks as map*

*looks at post*

*looks at map again*

*looks back at post*

Looking at the map one can see Iraq, an Iranian satelite now, then Syria then body of water. No?
Some even call it the Shia (Iranian) crescent.
How do you think Iran supplies Assad with weapons? Turkey??

[monster_gardener]

Syria, is Iran's access to North Africa and the rest; through the sea...
I'm just saying..

*looks as map*

*looks at post*

*looks at map again*

*looks back at post*

Thank you Very Much for your Posts, Azari, Hans, Ibrahim and all.........

I'm not sure if this is what Romney meant but..........

IMVHO Assad's Syria could be considered an access to the Mediterranean Sea for Iran.......

Not subject to permission from Egypt to use the Suez Canal

Closer than going by the less than loved British in Gibraltar.........

AIUI Useful for supplying Hezbollah as a tool against Israel..........

Despite any lines on a map border delineating Iraq...

[monster_gardener]

Syria, is Iran's access to North Africa and the rest; through the sea...
I'm just saying..

*looks as map*

*looks at post*

*looks at map again*

*looks back at post*

Looking at the map one can see Iraq, an Iranian satelite now, then Syria then body of water. No?
Some even call it the Shia (Iranian) crescent.
How do you think Iran supplies Assad with weapons? Turkey??

Thank you Very Much for your post, Hans.

That's largely how I understand it too..... though for enough cash, I suspect the Kurds will let arms go their way too.

[Hans Bulvai]

Syria, is Iran's access to North Africa and the rest; through the sea...
I'm just saying..

*looks as map*

*looks at post*

*looks at map again*

*looks back at post*

Looking at the map one can see Iraq, an Iranian satelite now, then Syria then body of water. No?
Some even call it the Shia (Iranian) crescent.
How do you think Iran supplies Assad with weapons? Turkey??

Thank you Very Much for your post, Hans.

That's largely how I understand it too..... though for enough cash, I suspect the Kurds will let arms go their way too.

You are right. The kurds have no shame.
Saladin is turning in his grave!

Under his personal leadership, his forces defeated the Crusaders at the Battle of Hattin, leading the way to his re-capture of Palestine, which had been seized from the Fatimid Egyptians by the Crusaders 88 years earlier. Though the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem would continue to exist for a period, its defeat at Hattin marked a turning point in its conflict with the Muslims and Arabs. As such, Saladin is a prominent figure in Kurdish, Arab, and Muslim culture. Saladin was a strict adherent of Sunni Islam.[5] His noble and chivalrous behavior was noted by Christian chroniclers, especially in the accounts of the Siege of Kerak, and despite being the nemesis of the Crusaders, he won the respect of many of them, including Richard the Lionheart; rather than becoming a hated figure in Europe, he became a celebrated example of the principles of chivalry.[6]

[Ibrahim]

Syria, is Iran's access to North Africa and the rest; through the sea...
I'm just saying..

*looks as map*

*looks at post*

*looks at map again*

*looks back at post*

Looking at the map one can see Iraq, an Iranian satelite now, then Syria then body of water. No?
Some even call it the Shia (Iranian) crescent.
How do you think Iran supplies Assad with weapons? Turkey??

Which of those countries is in North Africa?

Also, many Iraqis would dispute that it's an "Iranian satellite."

Also, Syria is not Shia, but majority Sunni. That's 0-2 on the Shia crescent.

Also, weapons can be put on ships and they can sail wherever they like (such as around the Arabian peninsula or through the Suez canal).

[Hans Bulvai]

Syria, is Iran's access to North Africa and the rest; through the sea...
I'm just saying..

*looks as map*

*looks at post*

*looks at map again*

*looks back at post*

Looking at the map one can see Iraq, an Iranian satelite now, then Syria then body of water. No?
Some even call it the Shia (Iranian) crescent.
How do you think Iran supplies Assad with weapons? Turkey??

Which of those countries is in North Africa?

None. But through them on to North Africa.

Also, many Iraqis would dispute that it's an "Iranian satellite."

What Iraqis do you speak off? The many millions now displaced through out the world? Every fifth car in Jordan has actual Jordanian plates. Syria alone was home to over a million Iraqis. Sorry amigo. Only foolish Iraqis would dispute this fact. I know of none. Baghdad's official second language is Farsi. Iraq's new dictator is an Iranian sock puppet. The 'revolutionary' Sega boy Muqtada spends more time in Iran than Iraq, etc..etc.. Iraq is very much an Iranian client state.

Also, Syria is not Shia, but majority Sunni. That's 0-2 on the Shia crescent.

True, but they don't matter until they actually take control from the Shia Alawites that have been in control for the last 40 years. Iran is hard at play in making sure their proxy war with Al-Saud will leave no Sunni standing in Syria. Every Shia in Lebanon and Iraq including Mr. Nasrallah himself have made it clear who they support; and for only one reason.

That's back to 2-0 on the Shia crescent.

Also, weapons can be put on ships and they can sail wherever they like (such as around the Arabian peninsula or through the Suez canal).

Really? You mean were the US has half of its war ships stationed? IF that was the case, then Russia would have picked Iran to keep its warships rather than Tartous in Syria; which by the way is also used to funnel weapons to Iran via Syria and Iraq.

But since we are at it, what happened to Mr. Erdogan's tough talk to the Syrian regime? Rumor has it that Russia told him to keep his mouth shut and not play any dangerous games. A few weeks ago, many thought that Turkey was about to go in and clean house. What happened?

[Ammianus]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwes ... -heritage/

By that definition the implications of Romney’s adviser could be “we are white, Obama isn’t”. But if this was dog-whistle racism, then Obama’s 2008 campaign was a blaring Klaxon horn of race. Forget the “post-racial candidate” (© the entire mainstream US and European media), Obama was in reality the “multi-racial” candidate, one who signified the end of white demographic dominance. That’s post-racial in the sense that the majority are becoming a minority, but it would be absurd to pretend that race was not a huge factor in the election of this not-very-experienced junior senator – illustrated by the fact that 96 per cent of African-Americans voted for him.

Obama’s underlining foreign policy narrative was that, being half-Kenyan and with an emotional attachment to people of colour, he would be able to form a better rapport with Africans, Arabs and the rest of the non-white world. But if that’s the argument, then logically Mitt Romney, who’s not just white but the whitest man in the world, will have the same appeal to Europeans. If non-whites are so basic and ethnocentric that it takes one of their own to make them see America kindly, isn’t it the same for everyone? And the fact is that, in his foreign policy, Obama has had a very cool attitude to Britain, which tends to suggest that the changing demographics of the US will influence its foreign-policy direction.

America’s vast contradictions and hypocrisies concerning race still rest on the idea that some groups are supposed to be post-racial, while others are encouraged to celebrate their identity, and to fight for the interests of their group. For example, lots of self-appointed Hispanic leaders want America to be more Hispanic, to have more of their countrymen. No one in the media accuses them of racism or chauvinism, and instead presents people wishing to maintain the status quo as hatemongers. Yet why is it necessarily more wrong for Anglo-Americans to want the country to be more full of people like them? Some people advancing the interests of their group are racists; some people advancing the interests of their group are anti-racists.
And why is it acceptable for every ethnicity in America to take pride in its roots, apart from the ethnic group that founded the 13 colonies, bequeathed it their language and laws, and established the political philosophy and liberal institutions? Even if actual English blood accounts for less than 10 per cent of American DNA, the Anglo political identity of America is deep. As David Hackett Fischer pointed out in Albion’s Seed, the cultural influence of the initial founders of a society can vastly outweigh their genetic input.

Among the many English-Americans were almost all of America’s founding fathers, including its greatest, Thomas Jefferson, who used the Anglo-Saxons as a political model, and often (like many Whigs and proto-Whigs before) saw the conflict within the British world as one between latter-day Normans (Tories) and Saxons (Whigs). Jefferson even traced the English (and so American) tradition of representative government back not just to the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemot but to the forest councils of the Saxons on the continent (one of the many popular pseudo-historical ideas that sprung out of the Teutomania that followed the rediscovery of Tacitus in the 16th century). He was so obsessed with the idea that he even learned some Old English.

It is only in recent times, many years after the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act made America a truly diverse society, that making such a statement has stopped being a bland statement of historical fact and become a virtual hate crime. The perverse thing about the white liberal view on race is that it stems from an underlying belief that whites are morally superior beings because they, alone, can and should think beyond such primitive attachments. But as “Anglo-Saxons” become a minority in the US, their voting patterns increasingly resemble those of minorities, who traditionally vote in blocs. In which case maybe this "gaffe" won't hurt Romney that much, after all.

[Typhoon]

Good article.

Makes sense as Romney is probably most popular among

[Ibrahim]

Syria, is Iran's access to North Africa and the rest; through the sea...
I'm just saying..

*looks as map*

*looks at post*

*looks at map again*

*looks back at post*

Looking at the map one can see Iraq, an Iranian satelite now, then Syria then body of water. No?
Some even call it the Shia (Iranian) crescent.
How do you think Iran supplies Assad with weapons? Turkey??

Which of those countries is in North Africa?

None. But through them on to North Africa.

So does the ocean. Which seems like the best way to move hardware?

Also, many Iraqis would dispute that it's an "Iranian satellite."

What Iraqis do you speak off?

All the ones not in SCIRI or various Shia militia. AKA most of them.

The many millions now displaced through out the world? Every fifth car in Jordan has actual Jordanian plates. Syria alone was home to over a million Iraqis. Sorry amigo. Only foolish Iraqis would dispute this fact. I know of none. Baghdad's official second language is Farsi. Iraq's new dictator is an Iranian sock puppet. The 'revolutionary' Sega boy Muqtada spends more time in Iran than Iraq, etc..etc.. Iraq is very much an Iranian client state.

Perhaps you need to explain your definition of "client state." You are making a number of unsubstantiated claims here about one country effectively controlling another. Also, using al-Sadr, the single most famous example of a Shia cleric in Iran's pocket, does not effectively prove anything about the Iraqi population as a whole. Iraqis by and large loath Iran, and Captain Obvious just told me they fought a bitter war not too long ago.

Also, Syria is not Shia, but majority Sunni. That's 0-2 on the Shia crescent.

True, but they don't matter until they actually take control from the Shia Alawites that have been in control for the last 40 years.

Not clear what your assertion is here. That the replacement of the Assad regime will usher in an Iran-backed Shia government? There is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim. Why, in your view, would a successful revolutionary government suddenly back Iran?

Iran is hard at play in making sure their proxy war with Al-Saud will leave no Sunni standing in Syria.

Absurd in the extreme. You are claiming that the Iranians plan to somehow disappear between two thirds and three quarters of the entire Syrian population. Moreover, they will do this to stick it to Saudi Arabia somehow.

Every Shia in Lebanon and Iraq including Mr. Nasrallah himself have made it clear who they support; and for only one reason.

Clearly false. Hezbollah relies on large amounts of support for Iran, but it is incorrect to claim that they speak for all Shia in Lebanon, or that Lebanese Shia are united or agree on anything.

That's back to 2-0 on the Shia crescent.

Only if your counterarguments were correct, which they are not.

Also, weapons can be put on ships and they can sail wherever they like (such as around the Arabian peninsula or through the Suez canal).

Really? You mean were the US has half of its war ships stationed? IF that was the case, then Russia would have picked Iran to keep its warships rather than Tartous in Syria; which by the way is also used to funnel weapons to Iran via Syria and Iraq.

Do you have any idea how international shipping really works, or how many ships or containers are searched or interdicted? Clearly you do not. Those American and Russian warships don't count for a thing. Freight moves every day from everywhere to everywhere and only a tiny fraction of it is ever inspected.

Yet in your world it is somehow easier to move a load of RPG-7s across three countries and two war zones than it is to pack them on a freighter.






This part is unrelated to your incorrect statements above, but anyway:

But since we are at it, what happened to Mr. Erdogan's tough talk to the Syrian regime? Rumor has it that Russia told him to keep his mouth shut and not play any dangerous games. A few weeks ago, many thought that Turkey was about to go in and clean house. What happened?

Apparently you don't read the papers because the Turkish government is actively agitating for intervention right up to this week's lead-up to the Aleppo battle, not to mention that the headquarters of the FSA have been and continue to be hosted in Turkey, as well as provided with logistical support. Not to mention Turkish supplied and protected refugee camps on the Turkey/Syria border for Syrians displaced by the fighting or fleeing regime artillery and rocket attacks on urban areas.

And that's just the official in-plain-sight stuff. That leaves the question of who is providing communications support to the FSA operating in Syria, as well as ammunition resupplies.

[cincinnatus]

RE: "And then Williams lobbed what should have been a softball question about whether London was well-prepared for the Olympics. Romney could have said how wonderful it was to be in such a great city full of wonderful people and rich history. Instead, he said: "There are a few things that were disconcernting, the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging."

You know, in light of some of the negative reporting about half-empty stadiums after-the-fact, not too mention reports before the start regarding security lapses and concerns, it seems Robot's biggest "gaff" was not lying his ass off or at best, sidestepping the question. This quote basically says you're not allowed to give critique, only empty praise and platitudes. If that is what is "presidential," then we deserve what we get.

[monster_gardener]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwes ... -heritage/

By that definition the implications of Romney’s adviser could be “we are white, Obama isn’t”. But if this was dog-whistle racism, then Obama’s 2008 campaign was a blaring Klaxon horn of race. Forget the “post-racial candidate” (© the entire mainstream US and European media), Obama was in reality the “multi-racial” candidate, one who signified the end of white demographic dominance. That’s post-racial in the sense that the majority are becoming a minority, but it would be absurd to pretend that race was not a huge factor in the election of this not-very-experienced junior senator – illustrated by the fact that 96 per cent of African-Americans voted for him.

Obama’s underlining foreign policy narrative was that, being half-Kenyan and with an emotional attachment to people of colour, he would be able to form a better rapport with Africans, Arabs and the rest of the non-white world. But if that’s the argument, then logically Mitt Romney, who’s not just white but the whitest man in the world, will have the same appeal to Europeans. If non-whites are so basic and ethnocentric that it takes one of their own to make them see America kindly, isn’t it the same for everyone? And the fact is that, in his foreign policy, Obama has had a very cool attitude to Britain, which tends to suggest that the changing demographics of the US will influence its foreign-policy direction.

America’s vast contradictions and hypocrisies concerning race still rest on the idea that some groups are supposed to be post-racial, while others are encouraged to celebrate their identity, and to fight for the interests of their group. For example, lots of self-appointed Hispanic leaders want America to be more Hispanic, to have more of their countrymen. No one in the media accuses them of racism or chauvinism, and instead presents people wishing to maintain the status quo as hatemongers. Yet why is it necessarily more wrong for Anglo-Americans to want the country to be more full of people like them? Some people advancing the interests of their group are racists; some people advancing the interests of their group are anti-racists.
And why is it acceptable for every ethnicity in America to take pride in its roots, apart from the ethnic group that founded the 13 colonies, bequeathed it their language and laws, and established the political philosophy and liberal institutions? Even if actual English blood accounts for less than 10 per cent of American DNA, the Anglo political identity of America is deep. As David Hackett Fischer pointed out in Albion’s Seed, the cultural influence of the initial founders of a society can vastly outweigh their genetic input.

Among the many English-Americans were almost all of America’s founding fathers, including its greatest, Thomas Jefferson, who used the Anglo-Saxons as a political model, and often (like many Whigs and proto-Whigs before) saw the conflict within the British world as one between latter-day Normans (Tories) and Saxons (Whigs). Jefferson even traced the English (and so American) tradition of representative government back not just to the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemot but to the forest councils of the Saxons on the continent (one of the many popular pseudo-historical ideas that sprung out of the Teutomania that followed the rediscovery of Tacitus in the 16th century). He was so obsessed with the idea that he even learned some Old English.

It is only in recent times, many years after the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act made America a truly diverse society, that making such a statement has stopped being a bland statement of historical fact and become a virtual hate crime. The perverse thing about the white liberal view on race is that it stems from an underlying belief that whites are morally superior beings because they, alone, can and should think beyond such primitive attachments. But as “Anglo-Saxons” become a minority in the US, their voting patterns increasingly resemble those of minorities, who traditionally vote in blocs. In which case maybe this "gaffe" won't hurt Romney that much, after all.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Ammanius.

2 books mentioned in the comments that sound interesting.........

Amazon comments are interesting too.......

http://www.amazon.com/Captives-Linda-Co ... 0712665285

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1CXIH0VHQ ... IH0VHQ6BAK

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2E8AANZES ... AANZESO1YU


http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgo ... 0814742963

http://www.amazon.com/review/R76389GRXY ... 389GRXYBKX

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2HODC5DXY ... DC5DXY1PTI

[Ibrahim]

RE: "And then Williams lobbed what should have been a softball question about whether London was well-prepared for the Olympics. Romney could have said how wonderful it was to be in such a great city full of wonderful people and rich history. Instead, he said: "There are a few things that were disconcernting, the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging."

You know, in light of some of the negative reporting about half-empty stadiums after-the-fact, not too mention reports before the start regarding security lapses and concerns, it seems Robot's biggest "gaff" was not lying his ass off or at best, sidestepping the question. This quote basically says you're not allowed to give critique, only empty praise and platitudes. If that is what is "presidential," then we deserve what we get.

If he was such a brave truthsayer then he shouldn't have backpedaled on his statements as soon as is drew local ire.

[cincinnatus]

RE: "And then Williams lobbed what should have been a softball question about whether London was well-prepared for the Olympics. Romney could have said how wonderful it was to be in such a great city full of wonderful people and rich history. Instead, he said: "There are a few things that were disconcernting, the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging."

You know, in light of some of the negative reporting about half-empty stadiums after-the-fact, not too mention reports before the start regarding security lapses and concerns, it seems Robot's biggest "gaff" was not lying his ass off or at best, sidestepping the question. This quote basically says you're not allowed to give critique, only empty praise and platitudes. If that is what is "presidential," then we deserve what we get.

If he was such a brave truthsayer then he shouldn't have backpedaled on his statements as soon as is drew local ire.

True (love the sarcasm BTW...always enjoy the totally unbiased retorts). Still, I don't see how friends can't critique is a good thing. Reminds me of the French doing their best to warn the U.S. about going into Iraq and got "freedom fries" in return (much less substantive scale though in the London comments).

Overall, he does appear to have the public speech equivalent of a tin ear. The substantive comment he made that he needs to be asked about is the "Anglo-Saxon heritage" line in regards to President Obama. It doesn't take a hyper-leftist to step back from that comment and ask if he realizes how bad that sounds in terms of U.S. racial segregation history (especially the early days of the Klan and their mantras). His Israel trip leads to the obvious question of 1. if his administration would continue to champion some form of a peace process, and 2. how could his admin do it after declaring on camera that he wouldn't be an honest broker? Not too mention that if it is America's duty to "come to the defense of Israel," if he'd mind enlisting his strapping sons to show us how it's done.

[Ibrahim]

RE: "And then Williams lobbed what should have been a softball question about whether London was well-prepared for the Olympics. Romney could have said how wonderful it was to be in such a great city full of wonderful people and rich history. Instead, he said: "There are a few things that were disconcernting, the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging."

You know, in light of some of the negative reporting about half-empty stadiums after-the-fact, not too mention reports before the start regarding security lapses and concerns, it seems Robot's biggest "gaff" was not lying his ass off or at best, sidestepping the question. This quote basically says you're not allowed to give critique, only empty praise and platitudes. If that is what is "presidential," then we deserve what we get.

If he was such a brave truthsayer then he shouldn't have backpedaled on his statements as soon as is drew local ire.

True (love the sarcasm BTW...always enjoy the totally unbiased retorts). Still, I don't see how friends can't critique is a good thing. Reminds me of the French doing their best to warn the U.S. about going into Iraq and got "freedom fries" in return (much less substantive scale though in the London comments).

Romney wasn't there representing America though. If Panetta wanted to give them security advice that would be another matter. Romney was just opining on news stories as a former Olympic organizer. And the London mayor handed him his ass on the subject.

I guess the upside for the GOP is that if some terrorist does something during the games Romney will appear prescient to the American audience.

Overall, he does appear to have the public speech equivalent of a tin ear. The substantive comment he made that he needs to be asked about is the "Anglo-Saxon heritage" line in regards to President Obama. It doesn't take a hyper-leftist to step back from that comment and ask if he realizes how bad that sounds in terms of U.S. racial segregation history (especially the early days of the Klan and their mantras).

The Anglo-Saxon comment wasn't intentional dog-whistle for the base (like his Israel speech), I think it was actually something he was raised with. Mormonism as an institutionalized religion didn't accept that black people had souls until, what, 1972? He probably grew up around some interesting ideas about racial heritage. Even if he doesn't share them they are bound to influence what he thinks of as normal terminology. Though this one will still work out in his favor, so doesn't count at a "gaffe." Many Americans want to hear that kind of thing, to whit Birtherism etc.

His Israel trip leads to the obvious question of 1. if his administration would continue to champion some form of a peace process, and 2. how could his admin do it after declaring on camera that he wouldn't be an honest broker? Not too mention that if it is America's duty to "come to the defense of Israel," if he'd mind enlisting his strapping sons to show us how it's done.

Technically speaking Romney's stated positions on Israel are the most radical by any US President in history. If you think anything he said on the whole trip can or should be taken seriously, this is the one speech that really matters.

Personally I think it's evidence that his foreign and defense policy is a complete joke. Combined with his statements about increasing military capability and simultaneously cutting taxes, and overtly lying about the defense policies and on-the-record expenditures of the Obama administration, I don't think anybody can take this man seriously on the subject. At all.

Sadly for the Democrats the people who should love Obama's trigger-happy and relatively inexpensive foreign policy are the same people who would never vote for a Democrat or a black man with a "foreign" name on principle.

[Enki]

RE: "And then Williams lobbed what should have been a softball question about whether London was well-prepared for the Olympics. Romney could have said how wonderful it was to be in such a great city full of wonderful people and rich history. Instead, he said: "There are a few things that were disconcernting, the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging."

You know, in light of some of the negative reporting about half-empty stadiums after-the-fact, not too mention reports before the start regarding security lapses and concerns, it seems Robot's biggest "gaff" was not lying his ass off or at best, sidestepping the question. This quote basically says you're not allowed to give critique, only empty praise and platitudes. If that is what is "presidential," then we deserve what we get.

Being Presidential is about being able to be a proper diplomat. I know for some reasons Americans think this is not being plain spoken and is some kind of dishonesty. It's not. At any given time there are a hundred million things one could comment upon. We triage what we actually say all the time. So when someone chooses to say something rude about a country that serves nothing and no one, we should judge them on what they said. He could have been plain spoken and honest and said different things. He chose to insult the host country while he was trying to talk about how great our relationship is with them.

It just shows he's not a skillful diplomat.

[Enki]

Romney is very much narrowing who can possibly vote for him with these comments. He is firing up the base without getting much appeal beyond the base. Sorry folks, but there aren't enough base to come out to vote for him and for him to win. Do you know what other base he is firing up with his comments? The Democratic party base who will vote out of horror that this imbecile who would say things like these out loud and in public could possibly ever inhabit the office.

[Parodite]

Could there be an instinctive undercurrent in the GOP that this election should better not be won? Given the state of terrible affairs one is inhereting at home and abroad... There is no victory to bring home the coming years.

[Enki]

Could there be an instinctive undercurrent in the GOP that this election should better not be won? Given the state of terrible affairs one is inhereting at home and abroad... There is no victory to bring home the coming years.

I think so. I think they have given up on this election for the President. If they win the White House, they probably lose the House.

[Typhoon]

. . . Not too mention that if it is America's duty to "come to the defense of Israel," if he'd mind enlisting his strapping sons to show us how it's done.

Bingo.

Also, if Romney is claiming that he will cut taxes while increasing military spending including involving the US in a war with Iran, then he is being disingenuous at best.

The price tag on some new US military equipment is gob-smacking jaw-dropping .

F-22 fighter: $US 400 million per plane

San Antonio Class Amphibious Transport Dock [US Marine floating camp]: $US 1.5 billion per ship