The National Rifle Association pre-empted Wednesday’s White House announcement on the results of Vice President Joe Biden‘s task force on gun violence prevention byreleasing a controversial ad that targets the president’s family. Amid a widespread backlash, White House press secretaryJay Carney offered a statement: “Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight. But to go so far as to make the safety of the president’s children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly.”
What got the NRA’s back up, in such controversial fashion? Well, the word on the street was that the announcement on what President Barack Obama would propose as sensible reforms to existing gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting would include a stronger background check system, a ban on high-capacity magazines and a renewed effort to pass an assault weapons ban. Naturally, the NRA, which lobbies on behalf of gun manufacturers, is not happy about any of this and released a video Tuesday criticizing Obama for being a “hypocrite” and an “elitist.”
“”Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” the ad asks. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?”
The ad continues: “Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he is just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.”
Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.
As of this writing, the petition needs exactly 2,222 signatures to reach the 25,000 threshold required for an official White House response. Just yesterday, the WH announced that the new threshold is 100,000 signatures, but existing petitions will be grandfathered in. I’d say we can manage 2,222 more signatures, can’t we?
If gun-free zones keep people safe, then I can’t think of a person whose safety is more important than the President of the United States. If having a gun in your home increases your risk of getting shot, how can we allow our president and his family to be surrounded by dozens of them? Think of the children.
US President Barack Obama swept to re-election Tuesday, creating history again by defying the undertow of a slow economic recovery and high unemployment to beat Republican foe Mitt Romney.
Obama became only the second Democrat to win a second four-year White House term since World War II, when television networks projected he would win the bellwether state of Ohio where he had staged a pitched battle with Romney.
“This happened because of you. Thank you,” Obama tweeted to his 22 million followers on Twitter as a flurry of states, including Iowa, which nurtured his unlikely White House dreams suddenly tipped into his column.
With a clutch of swing states, including Florida and Virginia still to be declared, Obama already had 275 electoral votes, more than the 270 needed for the White House and looked set for a comfortable victory.
There was a sudden explosion of jubilation at Obama’s Chicago victory party as the first African American president, who was elected on a wave of hope and euphoria four years ago, booked another four years in the White House.
Romney’s aides had predicted that a late Romney wave would sweep Obama from office after a single term haunted by a sluggish recovery from the worst economic crisis since the 1930s Great Depression and high unemployment.(inquirer.net)
Whether one accepts the US as the Uni-polar Power or not, it is indisputable that the world has its eyes and ears glued on the results of the US Presidential Election 2012.
Each Nation, from its perspective has its favorite.
The exception is India!
The US also does not take into account other Nations’ choices, least of all India.
Unlike India, the US Foreign Policy is dictated by its needs, not by what its politicians could make(in US ,they make it at Home)
Again in The US the people are aware of its Foreign Policy and they are confident that there will be a Foreign Policy in consistent with its needs, Dollars,Oil,Business not necessarily in that order.
Here in India many of us are not aware of our Foreign Policy,,
Are we friendly with Pakistan,Bangladesh,Nepal,Myanmar,Sri Lanka,?
Are we involved in the rebuilding of Afghanistan?
Is our equation the same with Russia as it was during the Bangladesh period?
Are we pro-Arab or pro-Israel?
Are we in touch with Japan?
Are we scared of China?
Do we ever think of Vietnam, Korea,Thailand, Indonesia and Latin American Countries?
Are we with EU?
Do we know enough of France and Spain?
It is not mistake in not knowing these.
Even Cabinet Ministers do not know.
Remember Foreign Minister SM Krishna’s Speech in the UN?
Any way let us look who the world wants as the US President, according to the Guardian, UK.
I opine that Obama is better for India because he is a known Devil.
Romney ,Obama.
‘The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, is widely perceived to be rooting for a Romney victory, against all protocol. Many commentators have accused him of interfering in internal US politics in his eagerness to see an ideological soulmate in the White House.
Relations between Obama and Netanyahu have been severely strained by the Israeli leader’s insistence on a tougher US stance on the Iranian nuclear programme, which the US has resisted. Romney is seen as more hawkish on this issue. But he is also even less inclined to push Israel towards allowing the Palestinians an independent state – another factor endearing him to Netanyahu.
The opposition leader, Shaul Mofaz, publicly accused the prime minister of trying to influence the outcome of the election. “Israeli meddling in internal US affairs and turning the US administration from an ally to an enemy has caused us severe damage,” he told the Israeli parliament….
Palestinians are watching the election campaign with cynicism. Many feel badly let down by Obama’s failure to force progress towards a Palestinian state, but they also know that Romney is unlikely to be a friend to their cause.
“Obama is not a saviour, and Romney will not be a devil,” said Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation executive committee. “Neither one is a free agent; there is a US policy of bias and support for Israel.” said Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation executive committee.
Those who expected a re-elected Obama to “suddenly develop a backbone and stand up to pressure” were likely to be disappointed, she said….
Obama’s election provoked euphoria in his ancestral village in Kenya, as well as among African governments who scented a chance to move up the US’s list of priorities.
Four years later, there is largely a sense of deflation and, judging by column inches in the press, somewhat less enthusiasm for this year’s presidential race. Sub-Saharan Africa has barely been mentioned in the campaign and the feeling of apathy is mostly mutual.
Yet residual loyalty to Obama remains deep and, if Africa’s billion citizens got to vote, it seems likely he would win by a landslide…
The Obama-mania that swept Europe four years ago has faded fast amid transatlantic rows over the euro crisis, the administration’s failure to deliver on its promise to close down Guantánamo Bay, and the waning attention paid to Europe by the US.
But despite the fact that the centre-right remains in the ascendancy across most of Europe, disaffection with Barack Obama is not translating into support for Mitt Romney.
Quite the opposite. There is strikingly little support for the Republican contender whose gaffe-prone visit to Europe in July won him few friends and who regularly turns European welfarism and “entitlement societies” into points of mockery in his campaign speeches.
According to the New York Times, European diplomats in Washington have been discreetly lodging complaints with the Romney camp about the candidate’s criticism.
An opinion poll last month showed widespread dislike of Romney, and residual, if no longer starry-eyed, support for Obama among Europeans…
Just 5% of those polled in France, Germany, and Britain had a good opinion of Romney. Only 4% of Germans polled said a President Romney would make them better-disposed towards the US, while 12 times that figure took the opposite view. Two in five French people said a Romney victory would turn them more against the US, while only 5% said they would be happier with him in the White House.
By contrast 87% of Germans said they would vote for Obama, while in France 67% described him as their president of choice.
The ongoing German love affair with Obama started in July 2008 when the would-be president was famously denied the chance to speak at Berlin’s Brandenburg gate by the chancellor, Angela Merkel, and opted instead for the roundabout at the Victory column where thousands gathered to hear him speak, cementing his celebrity status in Berlin at least…
China’s elite would normally be watching the election more closely. But with its own once-a-decade leadership transition beginning days after the US votes, it has other matters on its mind.
For many in China, the election is of relatively limited interest. Some will follow results avidly, but others are only concerned about the impact on China.
“I like Obama’s style. He is a very charming guy … Romney seems quite aggressive,” said Beijing-based marketing researcher Ming Ming, adding: “I’m more concerned about who will have better policy towards China.”
Zheng Jihua, an entrepreneur, said: “I don’t think it makes much difference whether it’s Obama or Romney.”
Despite the tough-talking on tackling China during debates, he said: “The economic connections [between the countries] matters more than political things. If they become president they will be more realistic.”
6. Amount the Koch brothers are known to have donated to candidates and parties in 2012: $628,100
Amount of dark money they have pledged to spent to defeat Barack Obama:$60 milion
7. Percentage of dark money spent on federal elections that went to electing Republicans and defeating Democrats:80 percent
8. Percentage of the 1 million-plus ads run by the Obama and Romney campaigns and their allies between April and October that were negative: 87 percent(motherjones.com)
Foreign Policy perception of the US Presidential Candidates is being watched by The World.
Israel.
Both support Israel, as expected and assure that if Israel is attacked they will rush to its rescue.
Iran.
Both men say they would do whatever is necessary to keep Iran from a nuclear weapon, and both expressed support for the sort of crippling sanctions the president has already put in place.
Syria.
Both of them do not want to get involved in Syrian affairs(though they will after they come to power)
Both want to pull out from Afghanistan and Continue Drone Attacks.
On US ‘Enemy’ priorities.
For Obama’ it is Terrorism;for Romney it is Russia.
On Defense Spending.
Romney ‘desire is to build more Naval ships, like his desire to spend more on defense, is tied to a belief in the importance of a robust U.S. military presence around the world.
Romney has vowed to mandate that military spending be set at 4 percent of gross domestic product..
Obama wants the military to focus more on nontraditional threats like al Qaeda, and no longer wants the United States to serve as the world’s policeman. He noted on Monday that America spends more on the military than the next ten countries combined – which you only say if you think America is carrying too large a burden.
Romney has been personally very forthcoming on the likely policies of his administration towards Pakistan in the context of the developments in Afghanistan. He has not left the articulation of his views to his senior aides as he seems to have done in the case of India.
During a TV debate on November 11, 2011, Romney said: “The right way to deal with Pakistan is to recognise that Pakistan is not a country like other countries, with a strong political centre that you can go to and say, “Gee, can we come here? Will you take care of this problem?” This is, instead, a nation which is close to being a failed state. I hope it doesn’t reach that point, but it’s a very fragile nation. It really has four centres of power: the ISI, which is their intelligence services, the military, separate group. You have the political structure, and of course, the fundamentalists. And so we have to work with our friends in that country to get them to do some of the things we can’t do ourselves. Bringing our troops into Pakistan and announcing at a stage like this that, as President, we would throw American troops into Pakistan, could be highly incendiary in a setting like that. Right now, they’re comfortable with our using drones to go after the people that are — that are representing the greatest threat.”
Romney further said in the same debate: “We have agreement with the people that we need to have agreement with to be able to use drones to strike at the people that represent a threat. And one of the things we have to do with our foreign aid commitments, the ongoing foreign aid commitments. You start everything at zero. But one of the things we have to do is have understanding with the various power bases within the country that they’re gonna have to allow us, or they themselves go after the Taliban and Haqqani network to make sure they do not destabilise Afghanistan, particularly as we’re pulling our troops out.”
During a national security debate on Afghanistan in the CNN on November 22, 2011, Romney said: “We spent about $450 billion so far.
Obama shares the same view albeit in measured tones.
India.
India relations are always conditioned by US perception of Pakistan and China.
Obama.
Obama , Romney Foreign Policy.
‘Just days into President Barack Obama’s term, Secretary of StateHillary Clinton and India’s External Affairs Minister agreed to “further strengthen the excellent bilateral relationship” between the two countries. Soon afterward, President Obama issued a statement asserting that, “Our rapidly growing and deepening friendship with India offers benefits to all the worlds citizens”, and that the people of India “should know they have no better friend and partner than the people of the United States.” As part of her confirmation hearing, Hillary Clinton told US senators she would work to fulfill President Obama’s commitment to “establish a true strategic partnership with India, increase our military cooperation, trade, and support democracies around the world.”
Despite such top-level assurances from the new US Administration, during 2009 and into 2010, many in India became increasingly concerned that Washington was not focusing on the bilateral relationship with the same vigor as did the previous. Many concerns arose in New Delhi that the Obama Administration was overly focused on US relations with China in ways that would reduce India’s influence and visibility. In addition, the government of India was concerned that America was intent on deepening relations with India’s main rival, Pakistan, in ways that could be harmful to Indian security and perhaps lead to a more interventionist approach to the Kashmir problem, that a new US emphasis on nuclear nonproliferation and arms control would lead to pressure on India to join such multilateral initiatives as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty, and that the Administration might pursue (so-called) protectionist economic policies that could adversely affect bilateral commerce in goods and services.
New Delhi has also long sought the removal of Indian companies and organizations from US export control lists, seeing these as discriminatory and outdated. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian AffairsRobert Blake contends that much progress has been made in this area, with less than one-half of one percent of all exports to India requiring any license.
India also continued to seek explicit US support for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. However, the Obama Administration said it recognized a “need to reassess institutions of global governance”, and asserted that India’s rise “will certainly be a factor in any future consideration of reform” of that Council.
Secretary of State Clinton was widely seen to have concluded a successful visit to India in July 2009, inking several agreements, making important symbolic points by staying at Mumbai’s Taj Mahal hotel (site of a major Islamist terrorist attack in 2008), and having a high-profile meeting with women’s groups. While in New Delhi, Clinton set forth five “key pillars” of the US-India engagement: (1) strategic cooperation, (2) energy and climate change, (3) economics, trade, and agriculture, (4) education and development, and (5) science, technology, and innovation.
In November 2009, President Obama hosted an inaugural state visit with Prime Minister Singh at the White House. Despite its important symbolism, the resulting diplomacy was seen by many proponents of closer ties as disappointing (if not an outright failure) in its outcome, at least to the extent that no “breakthroughs” in the bilateral relationship were announced[citation needed]. Yet from other perspectives there were visible ideational gains: the relationship was shown to transcend the preferences of any single leader or government, the two leaders demonstrated that their mutual strategic goals were increasingly well-aligned, and plans were made to continue taking advantage of complementarities, with differences being well-managed. Perhaps most significantly, the visit itself contributed to ameliorating concerns in India that the Obama Administration was insufficiently attuned to India’s potential role as a US partner.
President Obama’s May 2010 National Security Strategy noted that, “The United States and India are building a strategic partnership that is underpinned by our shared interests, our shared values as the world’s two largest democracies, and close connections among our people,” and
“Working together through our Strategic Dialogue and high-level visits, we seek a broad-based relationship in which India contributes to global counterterrorism efforts, nonproliferation, and helps promote poverty reduction, education, health, and sustainable agriculture. We value India’s growing leadership on a wide array of global issues, through groups such as the G-20, and will seek to work with India to promote stability in South Asia and elsewhere in the world'(wiki)’
Romney; Not very clear.Again this will be determined by Pakistani Perception.
China.
Romney is ambivalent, so is ambivalent in the sense that both will look after the US Business interest and make some noises now and then on Human Rights violations in China.
Watch The Foreign Policy Issues in TV Debate at the Link below.
Individual
PAC
Party
Candidate
You must be logged in to post a comment.