Romney and Foreign Policy Plattitudes - II

I wrote on Romney's mid east policy op-ed which was devoid of substance below.  I was waiting for Daniel Larison's take and it was not a disappointment. What surprised me was the negative reaction from the right.

Even Jennifer Rubin, Romney’s most reliable booster, didn’t try to spin how poor of an effort it was:

If Romney wrote the Journal piece himself, someone should have the nerve to sit him down and say it is unhelpful and weak. If someone else wrote it, he should be benched.

Larison goes on to point out this is not Romney's first failed foreign policy op-ed failure:

It reflects how much Romney still relies on slogans rather than policy arguments. That draws attention to the inconvenient fact that Romney’s lack of experience and preparation in this area really does hamper his ability to talk about some of the more important issues in detail.

It fact Romney's entire campaign is based on slogans and no substance and people are even beginning to realize that Paul Ryan's "detailed" budget plan is short on details as we saw on Sunday when even FOX news challenged him.

Larison points out that in spite of a plunge in the polls Romney hasn't learned anything.

There is no evidence of improvement or learning going on, and no sign that Romney gives these issues the attention they deserve. I’m not talking about how much time Romney chooses to spend talking about foreign policy on the campaign trail. What I mean is that Romney hasn’t familiarized himself with these issues beyond the most superficial level. He continues to rely on little more than nostrums even after six years of running for President. Romney’s previous speeches on foreign policy have been forgettable and then quickly forgotten, so it’s difficult to see what Romney could say in a new speech that isn’t simply a rehearsal of these same nostrums.