http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/210213.aspx From NBC's Domenico MontanaroThe worldviews of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are clearly very different. Romney harks back to some of the policies of Ronald Reagan, particularly regarding increased defense spending. Obama, meanwhile stresses diplomacyen-USCommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60608.1)http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/210213.aspx#210229Thu, 31 May 2007 20:35:59 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210229Connie, Tn.Romney can forget the Jewish vote.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/210213.aspx#210376Thu, 31 May 2007 23:02:16 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210376Ralph Rudolph, Albuquerque, NMMitt may have been a reasonable governor, and in fact may have been one of the more "centrist" republicans, but his pandering to the religious right just won't work as a Mormon. And his pandering makes me lose respect for him, just as it makes me lose respect for McCain. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/210213.aspx#210491Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:29:40 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210491Mike Shirra, Gilbert, ArizonaWhat do you mean? Mitt is a devout Mormon and lives his daily life in the religious right - pandering? No, you've got it backwards... He's a committed conservative who has a number of centrist views. He's a republican who can work with democrats. Look at his record. A lot of the progress he made as Governor couldn't have been done without bi-partisan compromises. Haven't we had enough of the partisan "stick to your guns" - even if it's just a political power move... type attitude in Washington help by both the Republicans and Democratic parties? We need somebody to get SOMETHING done.. not four more years of Rockem' Sockem' politics...http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/210213.aspx#210558Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:49:10 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210558David, Atlanta, GAMontanaro is intllectually dishonest, dumb, lazy and/or cannot read, when he asserts that "... it remains to be seen how Obama would react if his diplomacy is rebuffed and he doesn’t quite get what he wants from world leaders". By this, he iimplied that Obama was "weak on defense " or "naive", a charge which an astute journalist would hardly make based on even a cursory reading of the full Foreign Affaris article. Obama states: 1). We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. 2).. I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened 3). We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability 4). Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races, creating dangerous nuclear flashpoints in the Middle East and East Asia. In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table. 5). We should pursue an integrated strategy that reinforces our troops in Afghanistan and works to remove the limitations placed by some NATO allies on their forces.(meaning more robust rules of engagement). 6). There must be no safe haven for those who plot to kill Americans. To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military ... CLearly, Obama believes in holding and using a big stick (military power), while prefering talking (diplomacy) or less lethal forms of coercion (economic sanction) as the most cost-effective way to get others to see your way. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/210213.aspx#210684Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:23:49 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210684wankin mo'I thought ANWR held reserves that would only last a realatively short time. I say get the damn-dumb SUV's and pickup trucks with beds so small you can't haul a wheelbarrow without turning it sideways first off the roads. No one mentions THAT when giving such worn-out tips as "avoid jackrabbit starts" and "Plan your errands wisely", etc. etc. etc.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/210213.aspx#210688Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:35:40 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210688Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VAMy take on this comparison - Romney is more focused on how his foreign policy will affect domestic politics, thus the reference to the two coalitions within the GOP camp - what he calls neocons and realists. Plus, he doesn't want to separate Iraq from Afghanistan because that creates political problems. Its the great lumping together simplicity - don't talk about a specific area, but do talk about general Islamic radicalism; don't talk about a specific conflict but do talk about the two countries we invaded after 9-11 as a broad response to getting sucker punched. Its a lot of words aimed at not saying anything specific. Obama on the other hand is willing to talk specifics, and place them within the context of a more comprehensive diplomatic effort. All in all, I'd have to say I'm more impressed with Obama. But Montanaro raises a relevant question - what would he do when his diplomatic initiative doesn't produce all its intended results? The answer is we have no idea, which is always the case when electing someone with no background in this stuff, which we usually do.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/210213.aspx#210699Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:48:52 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:210699F StLouisRomney was a fool to run. This is a mostly Christian country and hes a Mormon and few people will vote for this man because of this, except Mormons of course. Just aint gonna happen.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/31/210213.aspx#211548Sat, 02 Jun 2007 04:40:22 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:211548jerry/corpus christi texasGuess America really needs a president that has no morals to speak of. Hey, maybe that guy....No he already served two terms in the 90's.