National Journal reports that the Romney campaign has learned nothing from the last month:
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney plans to deliver a major speech next week with the aim of offering a “stark contrast” between his foreign-policy vision and that of the Obama administration, which has recently come under criticism for its handling of an attack in Libya that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.
This is a foolish move for a campaign that is already becoming legendary for making foolish moves. Romney’s WSJ op-ed this morning was almost unanimously criticized across the political spectrum for being platitudinous and bereft of any policy ideas. Even Jennifer Rubin, Romney’s most reliable booster, didn’t try to spin how poor of an effort it was:
If Romney wrote the Journal piece himself, someone should have the nerve to sit him down and say it is unhelpful and weak. If someone else wrote it, he should be benched.
This is hardly the first time that the Romney campaign has produced an unsuccessful op-ed on foreign policy, but this one is a more remarkable failure because it comes so late in the contest. It reflects how much Romney still relies on slogans rather than policy arguments. That draws attention to the inconvenient fact that Romney’s lack of experience and preparation in this area really does hamper his ability to talk about some of the more important issues in detail. As Scoblete wrote in response to this morning’s op-ed:
This is not a ‘coherent strategy’ but a series of nostrums. They’re fine nostrums, as far it goes, but it doesn’t begin to address the actual issues the U.S. faces in the Middle East.
What is so damning about this is that the same could be said of many of Romney’s statements on foreign policy. There is no evidence of improvement or learning going on, and no sign that Romney gives these issues the attention they deserve. I’m not talking about how much time Romney chooses to spend talking about foreign policy on the campaign trail. What I mean is that Romney hasn’t familiarized himself with these issues beyond the most superficial level. He continues to rely on little more than nostrums even after six years of running for President. Romney’s previous speeches on foreign policy have been forgettable and then quickly forgotten, so it’s difficult to see what Romney could say in a new speech that isn’t simply a rehearsal of these same nostrums.
icarusr 
Victory over Eurasia 
Fran Macadam 
krakow 
VikingLS 
Kurzleg 
KateLE 
As I understand it, the debates are structured to devote half of the time to foreign policy, with the final debate dedicated to foreign policy. It should be interesting to watch Romney try to pad all that time with his WSJ nostrums. He’ll try to make hay over the Libya attack, but that can be milked only so many times in response to unrelated questions. Same goes for “apology tour” and “no daylight.”
I’ll be curious about “red lines” since Romney has described by last count somewhere around 5 different versions of what he means. Given that he’s outsourced his Iran policy to Bibi, maybe Bibi should be invited to share the final debate stage so we can hear what Romney’s policy is. Bibi could bring along his magic marker and drawing prowess.