(06-09-2020, 08:33 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote:

(06-09-2020, 07:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: Yup. Wouldn't have hurt my feelings either, if it occured.  But it didn't occur.  
Obama gave many speeches in this frame: "America has taken a wrong tack lately.  I'm committed to changing course in this area."
I can see how you might get mad if you really liked the path America was on, or if you deeply mistrusted Obama's plans, but, the structure of the speech isn't the problem.
Trump's inaugural address was in the same frame. "America has, lately, put global interests first.  I commit to putting America first."
Same rhetorical structure.  If Obama's statements are apologies, so are Trump's.

We are not perfect, so I don't mind apologies. I don't even mind when a President apologizes on behalf of America. While I have no problem with a statesman showing humility (a trait I wish was more present in Trump), there are several times Obama apologized, you twit. The key word in the definition of apology, and the word I think renders your example above moot, is regret. Obama clearly regretted the things done in the past, where as Trump is arguing with policy. I recognize that I am splitting hairs here, and won't continue to argue this line of thought, primarily because I don't really care if a person apologizes for something. I think the poorly conveyed distinction here made by posters is that Obama was yielding American power while doing so. Not directly, but implicitly, best exemplified in the following:

Quote:Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas. My Administration is committed to the promise of a new day. We will renew and sustain a broader partnership between the United States and the hemisphere on behalf of our common prosperity and our common security.

The current iteration of democrats are globalists, by and large (this is true for some Republicans, too). When the apologies are paired with a globalist agenda, the implication is that we need to relinquish power and share it equally. Whether or not you agree with this approach largely determines whether or not you can appreciate the apology. I think the perfect example is the current crisis our nation is facing. Many people can recognize the evils of slavery without wanting to take a knee. There are some who choose to take a knee in solidarity. Would you claim that those who do not want to take a knee are apologizing?

Post 2016, the framework makes sense.  The criticism of Obama is not that he apologized or expressed regret, it's that he failed to prioritize our interests over global interests.  
But in 2012, it didn't make much sense, as Romney was also more of a globalist.  
I have less of a problem with calling what Obama did apologizing if we agree that these types of apologies are morally neutral.  What I object to is the insinuation that apologizing is always wrong or weak or inappropriate.
It was a dumb thing for Romney to say at the time, and unfortunate that it's stuck around in people's minds enough that it comes up here, 8 years later.

---