Stating that Romney seems to want a "stronger partnership" is little more than stating that he wants a partnership--obvious, hence the point of the article/thread.
A partnership with the PRC is not necessarily a bad thing--depending on what Romney was referring to as 'partnership'--especially at this point when the American economy is becoming more and more intertwined with the PRC's.
The United States ostensibly restarted trade with China because capitalism supposedly would lead to a more representative government. Sort of skeptical, but if the Chinese and American economies are more intertwined, not only would the United States find declaring war on China difficult, but also the other way around. To ward off social unrest, China is trying to keep up economic growth. A war with the United States would cut off one of China's main trade partners, and if the war goes particularly badly, China has one of the largest amounts of reserve dollars (around $trillion) of Earth's states. If the dollar devalues rapidly, the impact would also hit the Chinese.
And maybe capitalism will lead to a freer China. Interactions with freer countries through trade, the internet, and tourism could lead to change in China.
“You still didn’t define ‘partnership.’”
I didn’t define partnership, because Romney didn’t. I couldn’t figure out what he means. We already have an approximately $275 BILLION EACH YEAR trade imbalance with Red China. What more does Romney want?
China doesn’t need capitalism - they need democracy. China isn’t getting any closer to democracy with capitalism. The people of Red China don’t have freedom.
Free trade for free countries!