Mitt Romney needs to beef it up.  What this means is that he should start being aggressive in advancing his political positions and stop allowing the sorry media -- the personalities of which are typically little more than leftist pundits masquerading as objective "journalists" -- to define the issues he addresses.

Example No. 1:  On September 11, 2012 (no coincidence), United States missions were attacked in Egypt and Libya, and four Americans were murdered, including our Libyan ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens.  Preceding the attacks (although not a substantiated cause of them) was a film denigrating Islam and offending Muslims. In response to the film, the United States Embassy in Cairo issued a statement that it           

condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.  Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy.

Following the attacks, Romney responded by saying:

I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi.  It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

The Obama administration quickly distanced itself from the Cairo embassy's statement and condemned Romney for allegedly playing politics with the attacks and shooting from the hip. The media made the candidate appear insensitive, thoughtless, and trigger-happy.  

But, wait, just a minute!  These violent actions against our missions are acts of war, aren't they?  What other than paying lip service to them has the Obama administration done to retaliate?  Furthermore, why did the administration not so much as lift a finger to prevent the attacks?  Oh, you say, that's because it had no prior knowledge of them?  So was there a breakdown in intelligence?  Or was it merely administrative ineptitude? Or possibly both?  What was it, too much time with Letterman instead of with Netanyahu?  The buck stops squarely with the President.  A lapse like this is his responsibility.  So why didn't Romney say it when the administration turned its guns on him?

What I'm getting at here is that he should have come out swinging with roundhouse rights and lefts. Why didn't he call attention to Obama's miserably weak and disastrous international leadership?  Why didn't he take the opportunity to highlight Obama's vision of an "Arab Spring" as so much wishful thinking and as also so pusillanimous that it puts to shame even Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler?  

The fact is that Obama's Middle East policy is an abject failure and translates as weakness and capitulation.  Because of his inexperience and steep learning curve, a critical area of the world is far more unstable now than it was when he took office. I'm referring to countries like Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, and Syria.

Republicans want Romney to speak the truth boldly.  Part of the truth is that Barack Obama is one who strains at a gnat and swallows a camel, just like Jimmy Carter did in Iran, when he was "outraged" by the human rights abuses of the Shah's secret police there.  So what did Carter do?  He facilitated the Shah's overthrow and stupidly paved the way for the Ayatollah Khomeini as a replacement for him.

Somebody should ask Obama why Hosni Mubarak was a threat to this country's interests. Or why Muammar Gadaffi constituted such a grave danger to us, especially since he swore off weapons of mass destruction. After the removal of these leaders, have you noticed how much safer the world is now than it was when they held power?  I certainly haven't.  In fact, if I were an Israeli, I would be quaking in my boots.

Romney should express in no uncertain terms that Obama is a lightweight and should also demonstrate why that is so.  The President's view of "democracy" is naive, sophomoric, and totally uncritical.  When an Arab country democratically empowers a regime sympathetic to al-Qaeda, what are the American people supposed to do -- stand up and cheer?  Is democracy the one "absolutely positive value" in the postmodern world of politics?  I don't think so.

Example No. 2:  Mitt Romney was secretly caught on video, stating the following:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.  All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. . . .These are people who pay no income tax. 47 percent of Americans pay no income taxes, so our message of low income taxes doesn't connect. . . . [M]y job is not to worry about those people.  I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.  What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent who are in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.

Obama and his administration accused Romney of not caring about citizens who pay no taxes and receive government entitlements. That is sheer baloney.  Romney was talking about the escalating dependence upon government by a large portion of the citizenry. He was relating that to the realities of his campaign.  His meaning was not that he had no human feeling for these people.

The Governor could have have done well in reply to this bogus charge to point out that Americans are presently confronted with a stark choice, either they will have (1) a continuation of the nanny state a la Obama, in which dependence upon government will be encouraged and escalated toward womb-like security (isn't that another definition of slavery?), or (2) a state fostered by Romney, in which independence and liberty are trumpeted and citizens empowered to self-reliance. 

If an apology on the Governor's part is in order (and it is not), it should be to the millions of Americans who are supporting him, who work hard for a living, who have always been productive people, and who are counting on him to express their concerns in a compelling manner.  I don't think that he has.

I must admit it.  Mitt Romney reminded me this week of a dapper Thomas E. Dewey (without the moustache).  Whereas the Democrats re-nominated "Barack Carter" with an abysmally poor record, the Republicans may have again found their Tom Dewey, a "play-it-safe" guy, who allows a presidential race to slip through his fingers.  We shall see.

The debates are almost sure to decide the election.  My advice to Romney is to "get tough!"  "Stop playing patty cake!"  "Kick this guy's butt!" 

September 20, 2012