It totally weirds PostScript out when political types cross party lines to be nice to each other. Like in the past couple of days when prominent Republicans have chided Mitt Romney for saying something too mean about Barack Obama.
It also weirds PostScript out when large numbers of people agree on things. After Romney’s remarks about the administration’s so-called apology, PostScript can count on the fingers of one hand and one odd finger she found on the street the political and media leaders willing to back Romney up on this one. Washington mostly seems to agree with itself. Still the Post’s editorial expressing deep reservations about Romney’s accusations and its reflection on himself and his campaign got more than 5,000 comments.
That’s right: While a supermajority of those who give statements all agree on something for once, there’s a world going on underground where controversy roils. PostScript discovers it’s just as divided in the comments as it always is on presidential politics.
skin2002 wonders why we’re even talking about Romney:
This is a foreign policy disaster for the president, and all you leftists can write about is the timing of the Romney statement. You are as unserious as the current president.
I hope WaPo isn’t jumping the gun here. I just happen to think there may be more to the story than just a few words by one of the Presidential candidates.
Two attacked embassies and the most significant issue is that Romney discredits his campaign.
AnnaLee1 turns the criticism that Romney’s statement was rash back on the Post:
The Post’s editorial board jumped out in front before the facts were known to shoot the messenger. The problem is the mess the Obama Administration has made in the Middle East, not the remarks of Mitt Romney.
But while none of those commenters seemed to support what Romney actually said, just the newsworthlessness of the fact that he said it, there were some also willing to agree with Romney’s statements about the embassy workers’ alleged apology.
Benson says Romney was right, it was an apology:
The problem isn’t so much pointing out that the administration is releasing apologetic press releases, but in the release of the apologetic message. It makes the U.S. appear weak — like when your embassy gets sacked and your ambassador gets killed.
absolutejoan says without Romney’s resolute example, the State Department would have given up on keeping their ambassadors safe:
Romney’s statement frightened the O campaign and the forced the embassy to change their memo, or whatever. It showed them up.
They’d never even thought of not apologizing and instead going after the killers. Never crossed their minds until Romney brought it up. That’s why he wouldn’t back down.
Mike from MA characterizes Romney’s remarks differently:
Why would Romney back off defending free speech?
PostScript thinks this is pretty cool, actually. There must be a group of dissenters every time all the political people seem to agree on things, and the Internet means the argument keeps going, right here in the bunker, every time bipartisan comity is reached. And that’s why there will always be a bunker.