Here's an article in the Telegraph about Mitt Romney's criticisms of Barack Obama's relations with Great Britain. He's mad about all the bad things Obama has done. You read a bit more, and you see that the British are a bit peeved about Obama's neutrality on the Falklands/Malvinas. Then you read even more and you find out that Romney actually cannot--or will not--articulate anything he would do differently.
A change in tone was reflected by the enthusiastic welcome extended to Mr Cameron during an official visit and dinner in March. However, British diplomats remain frustrated by their “transactional” relationship with the Obama White House and lack of support on issues such as the Falkland Islands.
Mr Romney has not made any commitments on the Falklands, but several in his foreign policy team favour backing Britain and publicly rejecting claims of sovereignty by Christina Kirchner, the Argentine president. Under Mr Obama the US remains neutral.
The advisers could not give detailed examples of how policy towards Britain would differ under Mr Romney. One conceded that on the European crisis: “I’m not sure what our policy response is.”
With regard to Latin America at least, this follows a pattern. There are critics aplenty about Obama's stance with regard to Argentina, but also of course to Venezuela and other countries. Yet as I've written before, these criticisms never seem to spell out a real alternative policy solution.
h/t Erik Loomis, though he was focusing on the "Anglo-Saxon" part