Political Animal
Blog
I’m not as quick as some commentators in concluding that Mitt Romney’s behavior last night and this morning is going to “disqualify” him in the eyes of swing voters, or even have a significant effect on the presidential election (other than, of course, providing yet another “distraction” for a campaign that has been allegedly struggling to get “back on message” about the referendum on Obama’s handling of the economy even as it flounders around on a variety of other issues).
But there’s a real risk for Romney that elite opinion is going to keep the debate going on the appropriateness of Mitt’s intervention to the point that the distraction, and questions about his judgment, will continue for some time.
There’s just not much reasonable ground to stand on in suggesting that Barack Obama his mishandled the situation or “symphathized” with terrorists. Dave Weigel reminds us today that even the supposedly craven statement from the Embassy in Cairo (which preceded any violence and was clearly aimed at preventing it) is precisely in line with how past administrations—most notably that of George W. Bush during the backlash to the Danish cartoon incident in 2006—talked about the “offense” caused by anti-Muslim agitprop:
Free speech advocates, then and now, retch at the thought of governments “sympathizing” with murderous thugs. But it’s not some innovation of the Kenyan anti-colonial Obama administration. It’s how our government’s acted, when either party’s been in control, in an age of heavy involvement in the Muslim world. If you’re going to maintain embassies in the hearts of Arab capitals, you’re not going to be able to respond to these situations the way Christopher Hitchens would’ve.
No question about that, and the tepid reaction of Republicans to Romney’s gambit (despite Jennifer Rubin’s hilarious effort to search high and low to create a list of conservatives backing him) reflects that underlying reality.
So what was Team Mitt thinking? Jonathan Chait is probably right in suggesting that they simply couldn’t resist the opportunity to supply some fresh example of the fictitious Obama “apology tour” that has always been at the center of Romney’s critique of Obama’s foreign policy. They saw the Cairo embassy statement, plugged it into their messaging formula, and then today made the questionable decision to emphasize it.
Perhaps the political calculation was that American voters would react viscerally to the images from Egypt and Libya, so who cares what the experts say? Trouble is, Mitt’s not only getting beaten up in the MSM, but the type of people defending him now and the arguments they advance are bound to be disquieting to the majority of Americans who see no particular reason to pursue dangerous brinkmanship in the Middle East.
Facebook
Twitter
DRF on September 12, 2012 2:58 PM:
That Romney and hss campaign couldn't even wait 24 hours before jumping in with respect to a situation that was obviously still evolving and where the facts weren't fully known--absolutely despicable. Moreover, it was absolutely stupid.
c u n d gulag on September 12, 2012 3:05 PM:
Take a look at this craven opportunist's smirk, when he's leaving his presser:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130785/-Mitt-s-biggest-fan-leaves-the-podium
It looks like Mitt's saying to himself, "NAILED IT!!!"
And then take a look at the reporters faces, which seem to say that they were under no such impression.
Mitt spit the bit.
jjm on September 12, 2012 3:10 PM:
His neocon advisers are responsible for his despicable conduct.
A couple of days ago, 'foreign policy' was 'just a distraction' according to the Romney campaign. Now, it's the whole ball game. And Romney will lose.
boatboy_srq on September 12, 2012 3:13 PM:
[T]he type of people defending him now and the arguments they advance are bound to be disquieting to the majority of Americans who see no particular reason to pursue dangerous brinkmanship in the Middle East.
Obviously we're not acquainted with the same wingnuts: our two sets differ in the intensity of their all-ragheads-are-worthless-scum, nuke-em-til-they-glow-and-shoot-em-in-dark, blow-up-Iran-and-Teh-Messiah-will-come convictions. The ones I know are all cheering on that brinkmanship, fully expecting that when nuclear winter (oh, sorry, that'd be Teh Rapture™ to them) comes, they'll be the ones "saved."
From what I see, Romney still has the 27%er vote locked up.
Good thing, though, that the remaining 73% are beginning to see what a shallow, opportunistic, hotheaded/emptyheaded, pandering, callous, craven a## he is.
TT on September 12, 2012 3:14 PM:
I have watched TV all morning and I have heard no one in the media ask or make this comment:
During an on-going international crisis in which American lives have been lost, has it ever happened that a presidential candidate has made a statement and went in full attach mode BEFORE the sitting president even made a statement to the American people? Has this happened before?
There is only one President at a time. Mitt Romney is just a private citizen. I still cannot believe he did what he did this morning. He is absolutely willing to say anything and do anything to check the last item on his bucket list - Beat Dad and become president. What a loser.
martin on September 12, 2012 3:18 PM:
There’s just not much reasonable ground to stand on in suggesting that Barack Obama his mishandled the situation or “symphathized” with terrorists.
You spend way too much time looking to "reasonable" people. The Romney base and supporters are not reasonable.
I got my two minute hate from Rush driving around this afternoon. He is pushing hard a) that Obama apologized to the militants and it failed and b) the real reason the Islamist are pissed off is the Democrats spiking the ball about Osama's killing at the convention.
Add to that the "speculation" that the Islamic Terrorist gave up Osama to make Obama look good so he will win and weaken support of Israel you have the nut job trifecta that should be infecting the internet as I write.
Marko on September 12, 2012 3:32 PM:
Well, I for one am glad to see the gloves finally come off at CNN. They're not buying Romney's BS this time.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/romneys-political-pretzel-over-libya/
Anonymous on September 12, 2012 3:35 PM:
During an on-going international crisis in which American lives have been lost, has it ever happened that a presidential candidate has made a statement and went in full attach mode BEFORE the sitting president even made a statement to the American people? Has this happened before?
yes, I'm curious about this too. Not just him, either, also a failed candidate and half-term quitter governor, running her yap before we've even been told the names of the victims. It's not just unseemly, it's rash and dangerous.
David Martin on September 12, 2012 3:35 PM:
I suspect that ads showing rioters in Cairo and the burning consulate in Benghazi are already in production, along with allegations that Obama handed over Iraq, Egypt, and Libya to jihadis, no matter that the Russian government seems to be making roughly the same allegations.
David Martin on September 12, 2012 3:39 PM:
I suspect that ads showing rioters in Cairo and the burning consulate in Benghazi are already in production, along with allegations that Obama handed over Iraq, Egypt, and Libya to jihadis, no matter that the Russian government seems to be making roughly the same allegations.
CL on September 12, 2012 3:40 PM:
The 9/11 revisionism at Rubin's post linked above should cause her tremendous shame. But it won't.
"The reaction of the Obama administration, for those who lived through it, is eerily reminiscent of the Clinton administration when a series of bombings (the 1993 World Trade Center, the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the U.S.S. Cole) were treated as discrete events without a significant U.S. response. This, the 9-11 Commission and others concluded, was a dangerous misstep and set the ground work for the 9-11 attacks. The repetition of this ominous pattern on the 11th anniversary of 9-11 shouldn’t be overlooked. It is the quickness to excuse Islamic violence and the lack of a forceful response that is deeply troubling to critics of the administration. We may be in the middle of a campaign, but the national security concerns are real and valid."
Classic conservative rewriting of history. Whatever works.
Barbara on September 12, 2012 3:41 PM:
I recall that McCain was pretty quick off the draw when the events in Georgia unfolded ("We are all Georgians now") and they even tried to criticize Obama for not reacting in the same way? I would imagine that Bush and his advisors were equally annoyed -- no one wants to conduct diplomacy in the middle of a political fight. What's good for the candidate isn't necessarily what's good for the country. Notice that we did NOT invade Russia or otherwise come to Georgia's aid in 2008.
AK Liberal on September 12, 2012 3:56 PM:
I dunno, Ed. I think that Romney is losing the Village. Once that happens, they'll make him look like an idiot at every turn.
T2 on September 12, 2012 3:59 PM:
@TT - I can't recall such a reaction directed at a US President during a war and simultaneously during a deadly attack such as yesterday's. Romney is on new ground here. As much as Bush was hated for the disaster he brought us, I don't recall a direct attack on him such as the one Romney laid on Obama. Of course, rules are different for Conservatives.....You know, my opinion of the Mormon religion has really taken a nose-dive based on Mitt Romney. I hope they all aren't as craven.
sjw on September 12, 2012 3:59 PM:
Romney's self-immolation today has been a delight to watch in real time. (And if you haven't do so already, click the link to the DailyKos photo providing by cund gulag above: this image is priceless.)
politi-mock on September 12, 2012 4:14 PM:
Romney does seem tremendously amateurish. He comes out today, guns-a-blazing, with statements promptly shot down on morning television and thoughout the blogosphere.
We routinely see him amending or retracting a remark almost as soon as he says it, and when he is interviewed, he seems utterly clueless.
Just saw him stuttering, with word-finding difficulty, looking caught and desperate, on his hasty press conference taped earlier, with the body language of the truth-impaired.
Voters now see how unpresidential Romney is when we lose our first ambassador since 1979--plus he uttered factually incorrect information for all to hear.
This quote fits him:
"Most people would succeed in small things if they were not troubled with great ambitions.:
----Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
And his sidekick Ryan seems blissfully unaware that video and you-tube tracks lies so successfully...how naive for a wonky kinda guy.
Mimikatz on September 12, 2012 4:18 PM:
Being retired, I can watch cable and surf the net on a day like this and I've got to say AK Liberal is right. Romney's offended the VSP by not taking a fo po crisis seriously. For example, Andrea Mitchell interviewed Nic Burns, whom she was quick to say she had first dealt with in the GHW Bush Admin, and Burns was scathing in his criticism of Romney and highly praised both Hillary and Obama. He said the Embassy statement was within the powers of the Embassy and entirely appropriate. Politico and Ben Smith quote loads of Republican fo po types and politicos who were privately appalled, calling it a "Lehmann moment".
I also find it interesting hat everyone but Jennifer Rubin and the wing nuts realizes Romney broke an unwritten rule criticizing the Pres at all during an attack, and particularly while events were ongoing, so that when Mitt doubled down on his lies after the real sequence of events was made clear, expecting his usual pass, the media people all attacked him. They now see him for what he is and he won't continue to get the pass on being a liar and a self-centered prick that he has gotten heretofore.
bdop4 on September 12, 2012 4:38 PM:
What rational people are realizing is the a Pres. Romney, with his neocon cabinet, is guaranteed to start AT LEAST two more needless wars. The guy can't help himself and his advisors are the same people that conned us into the last two wars.
Mitt's locked up the crazy/moron vote, and even they have doubts that he's truly "one of them."
polti-mock on September 12, 2012 4:45 PM:
Mitt's epic fail of the the proverbial 3 a.m. phone call is on full view internationally as he is roundly booed for a most undignified display.
He diminished himself further, and Republicans must be fully quaking in their collective boots.
rk21 on September 12, 2012 4:45 PM:
Does Romney not realize that the US embassy was trying to diffuse a dangerous situation. That's their job. I hate hate hate the wingnuts. None of this idiot's sons (the Tags, twits and twitters) have ever been anywhere near a dangerous situation. It's easy to tell everyone to act like a cowboy from thousands of miles away.
Marko on September 12, 2012 4:59 PM:
CNN now saying it was a coordinated terrorist attack, not some protest-gone-bad-over-a-movie:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
bigtuna on September 12, 2012 5:17 PM:
I think beyond the violation of what were obvious protocols is the speed with which these clowns came out with Willard;s statements. Things were moving so quickly, that there is NO WAY they could have had all the facts; when that sort of situation occurs, you risk very real lives, by saying the wrong thing, in the absence of all the facts. And yet they wanted to score some cheap political points. REgardless of your views, we have very hard working Americans working in the nations trying to advance our interests, etc. And you have the gall to get up, even before you know what is going on, to pronouce your distaste for aspects of policy? What a complete and utter asshole. THERE ARE AMERICANS STILL THERE
This was a truly shameful piece of work on the part of Romney.
yellowdog on September 12, 2012 10:48 PM:
John Kerry's speech last week at the DNC was unexpectedly tough and effective. It looks even better now.
The events of the past 36 hours have given us a glimpse into how a President Romney would make decisions--and not just on national security matters. A few points:
*Romney is an insecure leader. He is not looking to lead the factions of his party but to reassure them emotionally. Right-wing politics is about emotion--and little else--and Romney seems to know he is not a natural at this sort of thing, so he over-compensates. What comes across is calculated emotional pandering from someone who is not very good at it.
*Romney lacks critical distance. Romney is still trying to pay his dues with the true believers of the hard right--who know he is not one of them. He is still wooing them. That suggests that he is captured. He cannot stand independent of the hard-liners, cannot separate from them enough to view them critically. He is too wobbly a figure to tell them to stand-down when they go too far.
*Romney has a cognitive bias, 'a thinking problem.' Evidence suggests that Romney does not weigh evidence. He does not seem bound to facts. He is at such pains to prove his right-wing bona fides that he does not test his ideas against real-world challenges. He is running for the love of the right-wing echo chamber. (Why else pick Ryan?) A president has a tougher task--confronting a real world of complexity and contradiction and real consequences. It is a world written out of the right-wing script. It is easier for the right to deal in myths and images. That is to be expected--but Romney has turned off his BS detector. He seems to believe many of the myths of his party. (Or he is extremely eager to prove he does when he really does not.) Anxious to put the Yankee Republican persona to rest, Romney now follows the worst instincts of his party. (Welfare lies are a big tip off.) Along with them, he reacts. He fears. Romney speaks in myths and platitudes and he feeds their emotional neediness, clumsily. When a hard-headed pragmatist is called for, Romney cannot supply it. He has tossed aside his business-leader savvy too for red-blooded emotionalism. He is an ersatz Palin.
pj_in_jesusland on September 13, 2012 5:09 AM:
Anyone doing or saying anything disrespectful that put our troops stationed overseas in danger would be chastised up and down as unpatriotic and un-American. So why isn't Romney comdemning people who put our diplomats in jeopardy by deliberately inciting Muslims? The GOP treats diplomats as second class citizens yet they deserve as much praise as the troops -- perhaps more, since a large part of the State Department's job is to keep troops from harm's way. I look forward to the day when all these meetings around DC begin by asking the retired diplomats and former Peace Corps volunteers to stand with all the veterans so we can acknowledge their service.
Robert from upstate on September 13, 2012 10:45 AM:
In this discussion on whether Romney's criticism has any merit whatsoever-and I believe it does not-it is useful to recall the position of the British Government under that icon of the right Margaret Thatcher when faced with a similar issue in 1989 when the Iranian government called for the assassination of a British citizen Salman Rushdie for his novel "The Satanic Verses" (a much less evident attack on Islam, if one at all):
"Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Britain said Saturday that her country still insists that Iran must revoke the death sentence against Rushdie before relations can be normalized.
However, she and her foreign secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, also said they believed the novel has deeply offended Moslems."
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1989_608288/iran-severs-ties-with-britain-over-satanic-verses.html
Perhaps someone in the media should ask Romney his opinion of Ms. Thatcher's "sympathizing with murderous thugs".
kabiddle on September 13, 2012 1:24 PM:
I dunno know, the more I read about this movie trailer that was obviously meant to outrage and inflame unemployed and revolutionary youth in the middle east, wierdly attributed to some guy who said he's spent 5 million dollars and countless months putting the thing together when the actual footage apparently looks like James O'Keefe trying to do Borat over a long weekend, connected to Terry Jones the real christos terrorist as distributor, and that it emerged on or around 9/11. . . I just dunno.
And Mitt: my goodness he was quick out of the gate, flubbing his lines and then doubling down, like he KNEW it was coming and just couldn't help himself and was too excited at the obvious coup he could order. Or was told to JUMP by his sharp-shootin' circle of tricksy guys that are rapidly becoming cliches of themselves.
Knew. . . Didn't know. . . It's all the same. Romney obviously can't spot a fake.
Am reading "A Prayer for Owen Meany" these days. Perfect.
old uncle dave on September 13, 2012 3:22 PM:
It's as if Romney wants to make sure he does not win this election. Watch for more gaffes as we get closer to November.