Today, around 2PM, Mitt Romney is addressing the annual conference of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. He's expected to lay out the broad strokes of his foreign policy platform. His speech at the summit preludes the international leg of his campaign, when he’ll travel to Britain, Israel and Poland to secure international aegis as the conservative candidate for president.
Last week, I expressed my hope that Romney will spare a war-weary American electorate the jingoism that’s defined his foreign policy statements, thus far. The discussion prompted a thoughtful response from our own Jim Antle, some challenging consideration from Daniel Larison at the American Conservative, and some typically provocative thoughts from Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Beast.
Today, in preview of Romney’s talk, Jennifer Rubin posits that Romney’s foreign policy is the “opposite” of President Obama’s. If we’re talking in terms of political geometry -- perhaps identifying the shape, size, and scope of Romney’s policy priorities -- then I’d beg to differ with the Post’s conservative cognoscente. However, Ms. Rubin does offer an adroit summation of reality:
Moreover, unlike Barack Obama, who came to the presidency with sky-high expectations (and was promptly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing), Romney may benefit from more realistic and limited expectations. He would come to the White House with fewer budget resources and less public appetite for an interventionist foreign policy than did George W. Bush. Romney also has the benefit from lessons learned from the Bush and Obama administrations.
How he’ll balance these fundamental realities with the Cold War chatter we’ve heard thus far remains at question. Perhaps we’ll have a better idea after his 2PM, but if I was writing this speech, I'd stick to hammering the president for leaking secrets of state -- better known as "top-fold headlines" for the current administration.