While everyone is justifiably preoccupied with the SCOTUS decision regarding the ACA in its potential political impact, it's worth remembering that the upcoming election is meant to select our Commander in Chief. On that count, we are still faced with a choice between Obama's frustrating pragmatism and absolute disaster.
Fred Kaplan writes:
"What is Romney’s position on drone strikes? What’s his position on Afghanistan? During the Republican debates, he once said that his position was not to negotiate with the Taliban but to defeat them. What does that mean? Does he want to keep tens of thousands of U.S. troops there after NATO’s 2014 deadline? To what end? Doing what? He also once said that military spending should consume at least 4 percent of gross domestic product. Obama’s most recent military budget ($525 billion, not counting the cost of the war in Afghanistan) amounts to 3 percent. So Romney intends to raise the budget by one-third, or by about $175 billion a year—by more than $1 trillion in the next six years. Where is he going to get the money? What’s he going to spend it on? No details. None.
Is Romney an extremist? Or, in keeping with the GOP approach to politics in general these days, has he simply calculated that it’s best not to agree with Obama on anything? Either way, one thing is clear: He is not a serious man."You don't have to support Obama's foreign policy. You just have to be smart enough to reject its opposite. And vote accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment