Three thoughts on the Democratic/media onslaught against Romney over foreign policy this week:
1) A lot of it seems to be based on the idea that Romney has “politicized” events or “jumped the gun” in an untoward way. When journalists use their own sensibilities as the standard by which to judge candidates — and it’s not like they’re looking at polls about Romney’s statements — they give the freest rein possible to their own biases. Which is what we’ve seen over the last few days.
2) I don’t think those sensibilities are, for the most part, shared by swing voters.
3) I don’t think the Republican counterattack is going to be all that effective either. When Romney surrogate Rich Williamson says that no ambassador would have been killed if Romney were president, it doesn’t seem very persuasive. When Paul Ryan says, as he did today, that by the “steady, consistent American leadership” Romney would provide “violence and evil” in the Middle East will be overcome, it raises the question of what that leadership would consist of. Which I notice is not a question Ryan answers.