WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

Should Romney hit Obama hard on Libya?

POLITICO reports intense infighting within the Romney Campaign:

Should Mitt Romney go for the jugular, accusing President Obama of ineptitude in the handling of Libya?

Or no, no, no, Romney should hold his punches, lest the ex Massachusetts Governor only come off as unlikable?

Besides, it's the economic stupid! This will not be a foreign policy election.

To some extent, such infighting is inevitable - especially when your candidate is behind. Although the latest Battleground poll showed an uptick for Romney among independent voters.

Here's the article from POLITICO---


Posted at 8:00am on October 1, 2012 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts

Comments on this post:

Mon, Oct 1, 2012 9:05am
Of course Mr. Romney should go after the Administration on Libya. Has political correctness overtaken the governor to the point where he is afraid to offend his political opponent? How was he so successful in business if he cannot throw a punch?

The economy should be one piece of the campaign package. But the overall point here is that Mr. Obama does not have the know-how to be president. He did not have any credible executive experience. He had little legislative experience, holding office in title only. Mr. Obama did not, and still does not, understand economics outside of European socialism. He has only a basic, dangerously ignorant, understanding of foreign affairs. He actually believes that if he apologizes to all nations, they will be our friends. Now that they see our weakness, they are more than ever our enemies.

If Governor Romney is too timid to take on his opponent, one has to wonder about HIS qualifications. If he cannot forcefully point out how unqualified his opponent is to be president, how will he ever confront world leaders? Let Mitt Romney “man up” and do the job he was nominated to do!

Mon, Oct 1, 2012 9:50am
JimH: I agree 100%, If Romney wants to be a world leader, he needs to prove he's up to the job...and not just the economic portion of the job but ALL OF IT.

I believe Romney genuinely loves America, if he (to use a Palin) acts like a Father Grizzly protecting his family (America) in these debates, he would be viewed as a strong, yet caring, leader of the Land of the Free/Home of the Brave.

I also believe Romney needs to hit hard on Fast & Furious! Holder needs to be fired before the election.

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Oct 1, 2012 1:08pm
JimH and EarlGrey well said. it's time for Romney to man up and get er done.

Mon, Oct 1, 2012 1:35pm

Romney has zero foreign policy experience and has zero qualifications to tell the president what to do about Libya.

If Romney were president, we'd likely have another war, nuclear holocaust and End of Days. Just what we want, right?

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Oct 1, 2012 2:44pm
Teatime: That's what advisers are for. Given Obama had NO experience in anything other than being a community agitator, whoops I mean organizer, he had to totally rely on advisers for everything. So from where I sit, Romney has far more creds than Obama.

To be fair, considering that fact that Obama had no experience, he did quite well in keeping the nation from going down the whirlpool into a full flung depression. He and his folks should be given credit for that.

But in this discussion, you're essentially saying Mitt has no experience in foreign affairs as a reason not to vote for Romney, and my point is Mitt has far more experience than Barry did when he took office in 2008.

Mon, Oct 1, 2012 3:48pm
teatime: So are you voting for Obama?...Gary Johnson?..Mitt? Write-in for Ron Paul or no one?

Mike: To be fair, I believe we would be in better shape financially had we not done TARP and the many other economic experiments and boondoggles like Solyndra & Government Motors... but I also think McCain would have done many of the same things. Maybe we needed to see dramatic "change" to realize that is not what makes America strong and unique among the other countries of the world.

Mon, Oct 1, 2012 8:07pm
Teatime: I know you're a Ron Paul person and Mr. Paul has a vital function as a Texas congressman, and I hope he continues in that role because he's going to be needed regardless of who goes to the white house. However, it's time to give it up and vote for Romney, because you know as a conservative, there's nothing else on the ticket right now.

Mon, Oct 1, 2012 9:15pm
I agree with your arguments mrpizza (though I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is retiring). I would take it a step further for all Ron Paul or Gary Johnson supporters...only Romney/Ryan have said they will audit the Fed, Romney said he will immediately fire Bernake, and Romney/Ryan have been researching the feasibilty of returning to the gold standard, in addition to these facts only the Rs are talking about a real budget...something Obama NEVER did while in office (pass a budget).

Is the R&R ticket perfect? No, but much better than the alternatives available.

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Oct 1, 2012 9:53pm
EarlGrey: good point. We have been running without a real budget for 4 years. Apparently Obama and his boys don't know how to make a budget. I guess Michelle handles the money in the Obama household - heh heh.

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 9:04am
Obviously none of you do budgets. For if you did, you would know you were telling untruths. The budgets we have gotten have to go through two chambers, often of different political persuasions from each other, and have to have some input from both parties. The fact that the Republican Party has been recalcitrant since Obama's election is the reason our government can't function. Ryan was the problem; not the solution. Cantor was the problem; not the solution. Boehner was actually a hard bargainer. Boehner and Obama reminded me of Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan. It is the juvenile antics of the Tea Partiers that have kept the whips lashing across America's back, keeping it on it's knees. What is direly needed, is a defeat so bad for the Republicans that anyone who has ever supported them, will never mention it again, out of pure embarrassment. That appears to be happening...

As stated, and repeated here for new readers, the problem is the philosophy behind the Republican Party. That the rich should have things run their way so they can make more money for themselves. That simply doesn't work for the majority. Writing off 47% of the population because "they do no matter", is exactly the truth behind what motivates the Republican Party.

In an election, writing off 47% of the population, can be considered a mistake... and now you see scared Republicans back-pedalling from that remark, but we all know, the day the election is over, that will be the number-one policy of the Republican Party. They will thwart all progress the next four years as they did this.

In a sad way, being a Republican these days, is similar to being a Royalist in the Revolutionary War. It is actually the same class of citizens who were in both. The wealthy elite, and those who were timid and willing to accept crumbs from their table, as their meal of the day.....

Republicans are against Freedom. Which is why they probably try to hide that by screaming the word Freedom so loudly no one hears that they offer no means to achieve it....

I firmly believe in voting ones conscience. All of you here, who are in the top one percent, certainly SHOULD vote for Romney, because he will further your interests. Your interests are not supported by a stronger America. In fact, your interests grow significantly as America becomes weaker and sicker. Obviously the plight of the 47% matters to no one here. And for that reason, I encourage you to vote your conscience..

And just in case there are readers of this who do not respond regularly on this blog, if you are in that 47%, you too need to vote your conscience; you need register in which direction you want this nation to go... build up the middle-class. Of course that has to be paid for by the one percent. Don't worry about them; they can certainly afford it and more...

These are fascinating times, and we are lucky that the 47% remark came out, to refocus this election upon exactly who gets the rewards after the swearing-in takes place in January.

Back to budgets. Perhaps if you actually read the budgets you would refrain from looking silly by making it obvious you have no idea of what you are talking about? Here, I'll help you...


Tue, Oct 2, 2012 3:35pm

“They’re so unserious they won’t even vote for a budget that was written by a president of their own party. It doesn’t get more irresponsible than that.” ~Mitch McConnell

Brief history of President Obama's fiscal record (See link below)


Tue, Oct 2, 2012 5:02pm
Earl Grey. You ARE smarter than that. Silly you. Putting up liar Paul Ryan as purported evidence to Obama's budget not being balanced... Shame on you. You are now about to pay the price. :)


Paul Ryan voted for: (and how much of the debt it's cost)

the Bush tax cuts, ($1.6 Trillion)

creation of the Department of Homeland Security, (1.1 Trillion)

war in Iraq: ($0.8 Trillion)

war in Afghanistan: ($0.6 Trillion)

Medicare prescription drug pkg. ($1.3 Trillion)

TARP: ($1.4 Trillion)

Add those up and Paul Ryan voted for $6.8 Trillion-dollar of outlays with no resources to pay for them... Let's put that in plain language. Your good old buddy, Paul Ryan, voted to add $8.8 trillion dollars to the amount you, your children, and your grandchildren, and possibly their children, will have to pay back. Your buddy Ryan voted to allow the wealthy of today keep all their trillions and trillions of profits, and take a loan out to pay for two wars, to pay for old people's prescriptions, and for the bailout of his own state and his own town of Janesville Wisconsin, and to pass that cost PLUS INTEREST up to the next generation... This is YOUR buddy Ryan, we're talking about; the one you said would define the race and steer it to policy..... which exactly is what is happening... and you, you... actually use HIS chart to blame Obama on the budget? Ha, ha... let us see ... that link shows $9.75 trillion... and your buddy was responsible for $6.8 trillion of it... Your side is pretty pathetic, isn't it now?... I'm think the irony of you using Ryan to blast Obama is absolutely delicious....

And you want to vote in Ryan to lower the deficit?

LOL. Your side definitely plays loose with the facts.... If you lose, it is for one reason: Because Paul Ryan sank your ticket.... Dude needs to shut up, and hide in Romney's shadow for the next 5 weeks!... yes, Sir, Mitt, yes, Sir, Mitt,


... and I thought you were much smarter than that.... :)

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 5:04pm
Mr. Pizza and Earl Grey, up until one month ago, I was going to cast my ballot against Obama for his irresponsible spending, amnesty for illegal aliens, and a health-care plan that punished people who can't afford premiums.

But, the 47-percent comment was the turning-point for me and thousands of other conservative Americans.

I get up after 5 a.m. every morning to go to work and have been doing so almost every day for the past 30 years. I take great offense that Mr. Romney has dismissed me (and millions like me) as having no "personal responsibility" simply we don't have the same seven figure paychecks that Romney gets, even though ROMNEY DOESN'T WORK.

You're right, Mr. Romney you've lost 47 percent of working-class conservatives, and we'll never vote for you.

Go Obama!

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:23pm
teatime: I have no idea when to take you seriously...you are now going to vote for the antithesis of Ron Paul because of a statement made by Romney that has been twisted to mean something other than what he actually said...listen to the debates over the next few weeks and hear which pair is actually listening to Ron Paul's ideas on the Fed, the budget and smaller government...(hint, it's not Obama/Biden)

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:28pm
...and yes kavips I think Ryan was a great VP pick by Romney and can't wait to see him debate good ol' Joe from Delaware.

Wed, Oct 3, 2012 2:10am
The antithesis of Ron Paul, is Romney/Ryan. Not Obama. Here is why.

Romney is blind to anyone making less than $250,000 a year. The more one makes, the more is their worth in the eyes of Mitt Romney. All policy in his administration will be aimed to appease those who make billions.

Ron Paul could not give one nit how much a person made. To Ron Paul, all Americans are equal. If you wake up at 5 am to work every day, you are just as equal as that financier flying in to New York from the Cayman Islands.

Obama is very different from Ron Paul. But who he will help, ... is the same. Those making less than $250,000 a year.

If all America can turn these elections into a rout of all Republicanism, then true idealistically inclined candidates like Ron Paul have a chance to get their points out there into the mainstream. Currently, Ron Paul gets shoved down by Mitt Romney each and every time Mitt can. Remember the convention?

Teatime is not alone. A very large number of America also gets up at 5 am and has done so and worked for 30 years. To be called worthless, lazy, ignorant, dumb, is not so much an insult to them personally, but to what built this America for which those presidential contenders are running to lead.

Tea time understands that quite often different people have different ways of seeing things. But as someone who works, he also knows what mostly matters is whether your co-workers got your back should something happen.

On a gut level, I think, if you make less than $250,000, Obama has got your back. You might disagree on health care, taxes, or moral issues, but when you go down, he is there with a hand, to pull you up.

Both Mitt and Ryan ooze our of their personality that you are there for "their" benefit and "their" benefit only......

I would however urge Teatime and everyone else not already working in the GOP to look at Gary Johnson as an alternative. I found Gary and Ron Paul, to be very similar.... I would appreciate Teatime's analysis, in order to know the subtle differences. From where I look, they seem to be very much identical, except for the age of the candidates....


Wed, Oct 3, 2012 4:51am
Kavips, just like Mark Rice, knows it all!

Wed, Oct 3, 2012 8:14am
kavips...funny you keep pushing Gary Johnson for Republicans and Independents but the only people I know who are voting for Johnson next month are former Obama voters dissappointed with "hope & change"...the hope is gone but he has definitely changed our country.

mrpizza: you are correct...like two peas in a pod.

Mike from Delaware
Wed, Oct 3, 2012 9:59am
Kavips: too little too late. A vote for Gary Johnson is like a vote for Ross Perot, meaning it dilutes the fiscal conservative / Social Conservative/ Biblical Christian vote thus giving Obama the victory next month.

As I agree with the FDR approach that did work to end the Depression, Romney's will also work, the question is which one will work faster? I believe Rommey's will fix the economy thus restoring jobs faster AND I don't have to support the anti-Biblical, anti-Christian values that make up today's DEM party platform. So even though I still consider FDR not Obama to be one of the greatest Presidents ever, I have to vote GOP for the above reasons. When the DEMS decide to walk away from the anti-Christian morals they now support, then I would return to my roots of being a Democrat, but NOT before that change happens.

Wed, Oct 3, 2012 10:49am
Mike: that is exactly WHY kavips keeps pushing Johnson...he wants a Perot-type to siphon away Republican voters; however, Johnson seems to be attracting Democrats & Ron Paulians... not Republicans.

Wed, Oct 3, 2012 11:02am
Back to original question posed by Mr. Loudell...Romney should hit hard on both foreign and domestic issues...the two are interconnected thanks to our country's involvement in a global economy.

AND we still don't know WHY Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on 9-11 Anniversary!! It has also been revealed the White House denied air support from nearby base when Ambassador requested it during attack.

Mike from Delaware
Wed, Oct 3, 2012 11:11am
EarlGrey: that's the problem, the GOP needs those conservative DEMS and Ron Paul folks as this is going to be a very close photo finish election. EVERY vote counts.

So better that Johnson NOT be in the debates. Now IF the Green party candidate (forget her name) wants to be in the debates, that would delute the DEM vote for Obama, which would be OK from where I sit, but my guess is Kavips wouldn't want that for the same reasons we don't want Johnson in the debates.

The difference between Perot and these two candidates is Perot had campaigned nationally and had major name recognition so it made sense then, in that election, for Mr. Perot to be included in the debates. These two folks no one has heard of until this past week.

So better neither the Libertarian nor the Green party candidates be in the debates now at this late stage of the election. That makes it a level playing field for BOTH Obama and Romney. Each man will have to win this electoin based on their merits and programs to fix this nation and not some johnny come lately to siphen off votes for one side or the other.

Tue, Oct 9, 2012 1:30pm
I love it how discussion here is over what is best for the Republican party, and not over what is best for America.

Again, I will stress, what is best for America, is that we get to hear something different perspectives.

Gary Johnson is a Reagan Republican. He was loved by Democrats and Independents in New Mexico, which means he is the hope of the New Republican Party if it ever hopes to win.. If Iowa had shown him some love, and refuted the Conservative spin doctors who had the media eating out of their hands, it could be a much tighter race now.

For the Republican who is middle class. For the Republican who works hard, who budgets tightly, and who has a little left over to spend at the end of the month, Gary Johnson is far closer in line with your beliefs, than Mitt Romney, who's own yacht, actually flies the Cayman Islands' flag when it docks within American ports.

People who vote for Romney, are not thinking clearly I'm afraid. They are duped, by wealth, and by the dream of winning. It takes a clear eye to run this nation, and only two candidates I believe have that. Gary Johnson, and President Obama.

What would be best for America would be to have a discussion between the two of them over which direction is truly better for America.

And yes, if voters see how well Gary Johnson can do, it would spell bad news for the Republican Party. A fool who is conservative can pretend he's smart, as long as there is no one else around.

Our nation deserves the best discussion over our future. Keeping Johnson off the stage, does not allow that to happen.

Ironically, your discussions above just proved that premise, that Romney has to be protected, insulated, hidden, in order to win. That is a really sad state of affairs for this Republican candidate if you ask me.

I'm glad I'm not supporting such a loser... lol.

Thu, Oct 11, 2012 8:13am
Kavips: The Republican party IS what's best for America.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Oct 11, 2012 12:28pm
Kavips: As you clearly favor Obama over Romney, your point of view three weeks from the election are suspect. Gary Johnson should run in 2016, and then I'd agree with most of what you wrote, but now he'd only steal votes from Romney, who you clearly don't want to win.

To reverse this, I can't image you and the DEMS wanting Ralph Nader of the Green Party NOW declaring his candidacy for the same reason, all Nader would do is steal votes away from Obama. Again, if Mr. I hate Corvettes wants to run in 2016, I say go for it.

Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.

Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach