New Republican Talking point: "Obama is a not personable with our foreign leaders."
WTF. What is this need to have our leaders cosy cosy with each other? I always hated when Bush and even Clinton would express this "special friendship" with England. No...we don't have a special friendship. We have business arangements with these countries.
This all started with Scarborough, this morning for me and Guilianni just reiterated this same claim today. I am tired fo this.
It's this "special friendship" that gets our hands dirtied in war...Iraq comes to mind. Obama is "detached," that's what I want. I want my leader detached and able to look at a situation with reason and not some emotional obligation to another leader. What are these fuck heads talking about.
Then they are ranting over "small bump in the road"---they love taking Obama out of context and comparing it to Romney's statement. Obama is talking about the development of democracy in the world and they are saying Obama is suggesting the death of the ambassador is the small bump in the road. What kind of comparison is this? And not a single commentator denied this misrepresentation. Sure, John Mitchum slightly implied it---but then equated it, incorrectly I might add, to Romney's 47% comment. Romney was not taken out of context. Romney was talking about 47% of the people. Obama is talking entirely about Arab Spring and not the attacks on our ambassadors.
Good Lord.....and Mika---Mika---weak. She stood up for The View, but because she obviously doesn't know the news she late that shit slide, and Mika knows better. John Mitchum knows better but he wanted to be invited back on Joe's show. What is the purpose of Barnacle? And that other kid---Willie Geise is like Scarborough's lap dog. What a waste....what a damn waste.
Not to mention the bullshit comments this morning that Obama won't do tough television like Joe Scarborough. Why would he waste his time on that guy? He has done interviews for Olbermann and Maddow. Scarborough feeling slighted also pisses me off. He runs on talking points like it's worthwhile.
Scarborough doesn't care about the betterment of this nation--he knows that Romney is a worthless piece of shit. However, he only cares about his party winning.
What the hell is Romney even talking about in this speech at the Global Initiative (I'm listening to it as I type this up)? What a shitty speaker!
= new reply since forum marked as read
...and Romney will be?
he doesn't give back rubs or barf in their laps. 
detached to protect american interest. 
I heard Joe S. for a few minutes and he said:
Obama is uncomfortable in a crowed room.
His lack of skill in international politics makes him uncomfortable around other leaders.
Obama does not golf w/ democratic congressional members because he is socially awkward.
Pretty amusing.
'nuff said.
BTW are they pulling stuff out of their posteriors or are there world leaders (other than Netanyahu) complaining about this? My guess is the former rather than the latter but that's just par for the course. If he were spending too much time with world leaders, esp. European ones, they'd just be pointing to that as (more) proof that he's trying to turn the US into Europe (as if that would necessarily be a horrible thing.....)
And no one called BS on that. Not a peep from Joe's chorus. 
of Arab countries and specifically, the "Arab Spring" is that their guy, GWB, spent a fairly significant portion of his Presidency (after 9/11) calling for freedom and democracy in the ME, claiming, among other things that democratic countries would be less likely to support terrorism. He even going so far as to advance the spurious claim that invading Iraq and overthrowing SH would lead to other countries in the ME gaining democracy and freedom. They even tried to claim that some of nascent uprisings in the ME in 2005-2006 were evidence of this. Now that some Arab countries have risen up- with President Obama's encouragement- and overthrown their oppressive regimes and are in the process of instituting new forms of democratic government, they now blame President Obama for the outcome of their democratic decisions. So, do Republicans really stand for freedom and democracy (which means that we might have to tolerate some democratically elected governments that we might not agree with) or do they stand for supporting puppet dictators that preserve our interests at the expense of our people? Is it our prerogative/responsibility to ensure that only "approved" governments are "chosen" by their own people?
I don't expect anything less (or more) from the right when it comes to President Obama. One thing I've learned over the past four years is that-to the right-President Obama is bad, awful, horrible, evil, etc. no matter what he does, doesn't do, is allegedly planning to do...............
Which one is it?
