Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[sacase]

Why can't an ambassador condemn an inflammatory movie? Condemnation is not censorship. Politicians on both sides spend all day criticizing the media. That is an exercise of the First Amendment, not a violation of the First Amendment.

Because the Ambassador is the voice of the President, she is not speaking with her own voice but that of the President of the United States. Like I said it baffels me that a career FSO with Ambassador experience would say this. Obviosuly the Obama Administration feels the same way as it distanced itself from that statement. There is a way to distance the US from the the movie without calling the movie an abuse of free speech. Free speech is being able to say things even if others don't like them. I don't agree with the movie, it doesn't even register on my radar, but I fully support the film makers right to free speech just like I support that cartoonist who drew Mohammed's right to free speech. I don't want to limit free speech because some group of nut jobs might get angry and make death threats or cause riots because they were offended

[No Excuses]

I did not have much of an issue with Romney's statement, When I read what he said, it pretty much expressed how I felt when I saw the US Embassy Cairo statement, I thought to myself, what they hell are they thinking, you can't say something like that. That is the kind of statement that gets attention and definitly should be vetted through the President because the State Department represents the Presidents' views on things. I have no problem with him tying it to Obama, because Romney is right, when an US Ambassador speaks, he or she is speaking with the voice of the President. I am actually suprised that the Ambassador made this statement as she is a career foreign service officer with previous experience as an Ambassador. In the transcript I read, Romney clearly states that his comments were about the US Embassy Cairo statement, not the attack in Libiya as it had not happened yet. Romney is right, we should not backtrack from our ideals and principles. If the US Embassy had to release a statement, it should have been something along the lines of "While this film is inflamitory it in no way represents the views of the United States Government. However we value our constitutional right of free speech even for speech which we do not like and agree with." We should never pull back from our values and principles because it may offend someone. One of the things that comes with leadership is that you take responsibility for the actions of your subordinates...

The tweet from the Cairo Embassy condemned the message of the movie. Just like people condemn a whole lot of things they don't agree with.

Condemning the actions and thoughts of an asshat bigot does not go against American "values and principles".

[DjTj]

Because the Ambassador is the voice of the President, she is not speaking with her own voice but that of the President of the United States. Like I said it baffels me that a career FSO with Ambassador experience would say this. Obviosuly the Obama Administration feels the same way as it distanced itself from that statement. There is a way to distance the US from the the movie without calling the movie an abuse of free speech. Free speech is being able to say things even if others don't like them. I don't agree with the movie, it doesn't even register on my radar, but I fully support the film makers right to free speech just like I support that cartoonist who drew Mohammed's right to free speech. I don't want to limit free speech because some group of nut jobs might get angry and make death threats or cause riots because they were offended

Whre did anyone call the movie an abuse of free speech?

I think the Cairo statement was inartfully worded, but while different in tone, Obama's official statement was not that different in content:

While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and...azi#transcript

I don't see any statement anywhere saying that the filmmaker should not have the right to speak.

[Predicto]

I don't want to limit free speech because some group of nut jobs might get angry and make death threats or cause riots because they were offended

First point out how someone - anyone - called for the limitation of free speech.

[sacase]

Whre did anyone call the movie an abuse of free speech?

I think the Cairo statement was inartfully worded, but while different in tone, Obama's official statement was not that different in content: http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and...azi#transcript

I don't see any statement anywhere saying that the filmmaker should not have the right to speak.

Here you go...

http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr091112.html

U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement
September 11, 2012
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

I agree there is a way to distance the Government from the movie, and this was not the best way.

[Buford]

First point out how someone - anyone - called for the limitation of free speech.

Save your breath. If ANYTHING comes from this, it'll be Romney's Lehman Moment.

[DjTj]

Here you go...

http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr091112.html

I agree there is a way to distance the Government from the movie, and this was not the best way.

As I said, I don't think their statement was particularly well written (and it probably would have been ignored like all of their other tweets if a diplomat hadn't been killed in Libya), but I think you (and Romney) are stretching it to interpret the "abuse" of free speech as a statement that the filmmaker does not deserve the right of free speech. A more reasonable interpretation is that the embassy recognized that the filmmaker had a right to free speech, but abused that right by creating an inflammatory and insulting movie. There is no call for censorship, no call for any action to be taken against the filmmaker, and no limitation on free speech.

[sacase]

As I said, I don't think their statement was particularly well written (and it probably would have been ignored like all of their other tweets if a diplomat hadn't been killed in Libya), but I think you (and Romney) are stretching it to interpret the "abuse" of free speech as a statement that the filmmaker does not deserve the right of free speech. A more reasonable interpretation is that the embassy recognized that the filmmaker had a right to free speech, but abused that right by creating an inflammatory and insulting movie. There is no call for censorship, no call for any action to be taken against the filmmaker, and no limitation on free speech.

Like I said in my first post, all that needed to be said was the USG does not endorse the views of the film maker, it should have never been called an abuse of free speech. I actually saw this yesterday and thought it was a stupid comment to come from an embassy. I had moved on from it just as fast as I read it. Like I said I have no problems with what Romney said either, it echo's how I felt. I think Obama is doing what he needs to do with this situation as it is not an easy one. So while I think that comment was dumb coming from the Embassy, Obama is cleaning it up well and so far seems to be saying and doing the right things. You would hope that the State Department would have consulted with the President before issuing statements like this. I can't call this an abuse because the film represents what free speech is all about. Normally this would be a minor issue, however its political season so any missstep is going to be jumped on by the opposition no matter how minor.

[visionary]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...mirked_.2.html

After these facts became clear (along with reports of Stevens’ death, which he hadn’t known about), Romney could have backpedaled. But instead the Republican presidential hopeful stepped on the gas. He held a press conference—just minutes before President Obama was scheduled to speak—and repeated his attacks. Worse yet, he spoke his lines with a slight smirk, as if taking undisguised delight at scoring political points. When a reporter asked what he would have done differently had he been president, he had no answer. Instead he repeated his line that Obama’s embassy was “apologizing for American principles” and that, when these things happen, “you speak out.”

No other prominent Republican, even those who have vigorously criticized Obama in the past, has spoken out against the president on this issue. Sens. John McCain and Mitch McConnell, as well as House Speaker John Boehner, have stepped before microphones to condemn the attacks, mourn the deaths, and assert American unity in seeking justice. These politicians know, as Romney apparently doesn’t, that in these sorts of crises, the proper thing to do is to rally around the flag.

Ironically, it’s also the politically smart thing to do. Imagine if Romney had called President Obama, asked how he could be of assistance in this time of crisis, offered to appear at his side at a press conference to demonstrate that, when American lives are at risk, politics stop at the water’s edge—and then had his staff put out the word that he’d done these things, which would have made him look noble and might have made Obama look like the petty one if he’d waved away these offers.

But none of this is in Romney. He saw a chink in Obama’s armor, an opening for a political assault on the president’s strength and leadership, and so he dashed to the barricades without a moment of reflection, a nod to propriety, or a smidgen of good strategy.

[KAOSkins]

It sounds like you're saying that free speech can never be abused, sacase. Is that right? We all agree that the Westboro freaks abuse it, right? We condemn the abuse for what it is but accept that we can't limit it. Condemnation is what you get for using free speech to espouse ideas that most people don't agree with. I don't see why that's a problem with some. That's what diplomats do.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

This was a new low for the Romney campaign.

What an absolute disgrace.

"Politics doesn't change who you are, it reveals who you are."

---First Lady Michelle Obama

[DieselPwr44]

Barry needs to take a campaign break and make another apology tour.

He's good at that.

[Predicto]

Barry needs to take a campaign break and make another apology tour.

He's good at that.

That's the best you got, eh?

[No Excuses]

This was a new low for the Romney campaign.

What an absolute disgrace.

He won't be able to live this down. Every single time a topic of foreign policy will come up, this will be a point of conversation.

Doubling down on his already moronic statement was the biggest disgrace. He had time to get his facts straight and still screwed up.

The only people who can praise him for doing this are the dummies over at Free Republic.

[Unforgiven]

Barry needs to take a campaign break and make another apology tour.

He's good at that.

Are you an adviser to Romney? Because that sounds like the advice he's taking when he brings that nonsense up and is going to cost him the election.

Mitt Romney repeats claim that Obama went around the world apologizing for the United States

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...around-world-/

Our ruling : We found not a single, full-throated apology in the bunch. And on the new angle Romney has added -- that the trips were intended to offer the president a forum to apologize to other countries -- we think it’s a ridiculous charge. There’s a clear difference between changing policies and apologizing, and Obama didn’t do the latter. So we rate Romney’s statement Pants on Fire.