Karl Rove's attack group, American Crossroads, released a new video this morning, going after President Obama for his hot-mic comments on missile defense, which tops off a week in which the right has been desperate to turn this into a real story.
Rick Santorum said Obama's comments suggest "he's willing to sacrifice American security and willing to sacrifice the security of our allies." Mitt Romney said the president's can't "recover from" such a humiliation. Republican lawmakers are looking for the fainting couch; Republican commentators are apoplectic; and even Jon Stewart was critical.
I still don't see what all the fuss is about. Obama, in Seoul for a nuclear security summit, told Russian President Dmitri Medvedev he's willing to work on missile defense, but the U.S. will need "space" and "flexibility" outside of an election season. Obama was quietly confirming what we already knew -- political environments sometimes restrict foreign policy talks.
So what is it, exactly, Republicans are worked up about? The gist of the argument seems to be that Obama will effectively scuttle Western missile-defense policy once freed from re-election concerns. Fred Kaplan makes a compelling case that the accusations are "totally out of whack with reality."
[I]s there anything to the prediction that Obama will set out to destroy missile defense? If there is, he has a funny way of going about it. The military budget he submitted to Congress last month cuts the allotment for a lot of high-profile weapons projects -- but it requests $9.7 billion for missile defense (with forecasts of $47.4 billion over the next five years). In other words, no cut at all.
And it's not just the money. One item on the agenda at the NATO summit in Chicago this May is the announcement that the missile-defense system will have achieved "interim capability" -- which is to say that, to a limited extent, it's right on schedule.... At the same time, as agreed late last year, an early-warning radar system will be switched on at the Kurecik base in Turkey. Meanwhile, Spain has agreed to serve as the home port for four Aegis cruisers. Agreements have also been signed with Romania and Poland to serve as sites for land-based SM-3s in 2015; already, Polish and Romanian officers have been rotating in and out of a training base for operating the sites.
Now it's true, Obama could junk all these accords after swearing the oath for his second term.... But why would he have gone to the trouble of spending all this money, redesigning all these ships, and arranging all these NATO agreements, if he was just going to scuttle them? It's a lot to scuttle. If his real agenda all along were simply to cuddle up with the Russians, it would have made more sense not to build these projects and make these commitments in the first place; the cuddling wouldn't seem such a conspicuous reversal.
Kaplan's piece goes further, and explains what's likely if Obama gets a second term, but the bottom line remains the same: the hyperventilating in some corners over this is misplaced. I can appreciate why hot-mic stories have an inherent appeal, but the apoplexy is getting a little silly.
Leave a Comment:
I'm sorry, I could not hear his comment over the noise of my car elevator. Can you repeat, please?
Greed is a disease, Look at Steven Tyler the mans' dream came true and he has yet to Thank someone for that. He thinks he did that all by himself. Egotism is also a disease.
Colbert was right on when he mockingly said that lack of proof to someone looking for a conspiracy proves the conspiracy. It is too bad he is not using his super p a c to debunk. Maybe he is waiting until Romney is nominated.
I think the GOP is totally out of control. The nuts are in charge.
Do they ever stop and listen to themselves?
No jobs bills, no bills except women's health and voter restricting bills! IT is about the ECONOMY!
Of course the hyperventilating and faux outrage is exaggerated and misplaced and totally out of whack with reality. You know it. I know it. They know it. And everyone else knows it. But it's all part of the daily dance attempting to win the media narrative of the day. It is these very "stories" that have become the lifeblood of much of the media. Try to get good cable news ratings and loads website visits without consistently offering such nonsense.
Don't know if everyone else knows this. I heard a couple of co-workers hyperventilating around the watercooler a few days ago. Unfortunately, the misinformed co-worker, who had kinda sorta heard the media's soundbyte, was telling the completely uninformed worker about Obama's "big, bad gaffe, OMG!". Of course, the uninformed worker bought everything the misinformed worker said, hook, line and sinker... and was equally shocked, even though she couldn't imagine that Obama would say something that bad...
The thing that does bother me a bit with statements like that is that it IS kinda true. The POTUS cannot do some of the things he wants to do because it is an election year. That also goes for all the people in Congress that base their votes on how it will affect their chances for re-election OR the potential political ammo a certain piece of legislature will generate. That basically means that every 4th year for the Presidents term and every SECOND year for US Representatives (6th yr for Senators) is a "no wake" year where you either play to the middle of an issue or don't even try on some issues.
Also, his comment on doing things after the election seems to imply that he thinks it is a forgone conclusion that he will be re-elected. IF a lot of his supporters think that way and don't go the extra mile in helping him win (like actually voting), this "confidence" may backfire.
I think they're complaining because it showed that President Obama expects to be re-elected.
It's entirely their fault, if they wanted the President to show more fear of losing the election, they shouldn't have picked such lackluster candidates.
They're living in conservative cuckoo land, being childish and petty, and meanwhile, the grown-ups have to go talk to the Russians about Disarmament.
Vox, I agree. All this reading into things is exhausting. I know Democrats do it too. It's kind of sad that we can't all just say what we mean and not have our words twisted or have people see hidden meanings in everything.
Obama strength: foreign policy
Karl Rove classic strategy: attack opponent's strength
It doesn't have anything to do with Mitt Romney's foreign policy prowess.
Try to redefine the opponent to lure him into an ambush (pun: am"Bush").
The goal is to put the opponent on the defensive before he starts defining himself.
Example: Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran; Bush a draft-dodger.
Strategy: call Kerry a coward. Everyone forgets that Bush was a draft-dodger.
After all, Obama is NOT an American.
Of course, he will betray America.
Obama-haters will be more likely to get out and vote against him.
What's going to say? "I might or might not be in office after the election, so thats when we can come to an agreement." Yea, that sounds convincing.