NY Times Hypes Boast: Obama Strongest Foreign-Policy Democrat 'In Recent Memory'
Michael Haltman at The Political Commentator blog plucked out this Saturday New York Times article as an example of how the Times serves as an Obama bulletin board instead of a newspaper: "Obama Seizes National Security as An Issue." Reporter Helene Cooper "spends 1,000 words discussing Obama national security policy and how his campaign is chafing at the bit to take Mitt Romney on in this arena."
Romney's team gets a tiny rebuttal at story's end, but Cooper highlighted David Rothkopf of the Foreign Policy Group (without explaining he worked in the Clinton administration) to unleash the hounds: “Barack Obama’s position in foreign policy is substantively stronger than that of any other Democratic candidate in recent memory,” he boasted. “The general Romney refrain of ‘I can do better’ is easily defused with one word: ‘How?’ ”
Last month, Times columnist Thomas Friedman began a column by oozing: "David Rothkopf, the chief executive and editor-at-large of Foreign Policy magazine, has a smart new book out." Capitalism, of course, needs to "evolve" and "adapt" to more socialism, to "grand bargains" on health care and labor....like in Germany.
As usual, the Times is trying to promote the Democrats as much tougher on foreign policy than their reputation as peaceniks and apologizers, and trying to paper over Obama's reputation as "leading from behind" and kicking the can down the road. This was the paragraph setting up Rothkopf, listing him not as a Democrat, but as part of a gaggle of nonpartisan experts who praise Obama after he was mocked in 2008 for his naivete:
Mr. Obama’s victory that year over Senator John McCain, a Vietnam War hero, was in part a result of an electorate weary from years of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, with a record that includes winding down the Iraq war and killing Bin Laden, coupled with the success of the military strikes in Libya and the removal of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, political and national security experts have embraced the Obama campaign’s belief that this could be the year when national security issues actually help a Democrat.
Typically, Cooper describes the battle as between the "conservative magazine" National Review and the Obama team of "mostly Democratic-leaning" experts writing for the (no label here) Foreign Policy magazine, owned by The Washington Post:
Mr. Rothkopf’s description of the Obama counteroffense played out late last month, when Mr. Romney’s national security advisers sent an open letter to Mr. Obama via the conservative magazine National Review. The letter took the president to task over a host of issues, from Israel — which the Romney team said Mr. Obama had not done enough to support — to Iran, Afghanistan and Venezuela, where President Hugo Chávez, Mr. Romney’s advisers said, is growing in influence under Mr. Obama’s lax watch.
Within 24 hours, the Obama campaign struck back, this time choosing Foreign Policy magazine for its counterpunch. Beyond taking on each of the Romney letter’s accusations point by point, the Obama letter, signed by 18 mostly Democratic-leaning national security experts, demanded that Mr. Romney say what he would do instead.
The people quoted in the story around Rothkopf were all on Team Obama: press flack Ben LaBolt, defense spokesman Michelle Flournoy, and Richard Danzig, one of the signatures on the Obama campaign letter. Notice there was no actual quote from the National Review piece by Romney advisers. Cooper picked a very weak 72 words from Team Romney to end the piece:
Mr. Romney, of course, has his own national security surrogates. Richard S. Williamson, who was Mr. Bush’s special envoy to Sudan, said Mr. Obama’s national security record left plenty of room for Mr. Romney to attack.
“The world is better off because Osama bin Laden is dead. The world is better off because Muammar Qaddafi is dead,” Mr. Williamson said in an interview. “But two deaths do not a foreign policy make.”
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
NYT
Submitted by Jersey Girl on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 7:31am.
If it is written in the NYT then it's gospel.
Now we know where Jay Carney gets his fairy tales.
Yeah that Arab Spring turned out great!
Submitted by frank14 on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 12:42pm.
Now we have the Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt, abrogating the 1979 Israel-Egyptian Peace Accord. We have North Korea and Iran working together on nukes and ICBMs. We have Libya being run by terrorists, pirates attacking the shipping lanes off Somalia, 50,000 dead from narco-terrorists in Mexico and Europe in economic collapse. Nobody could do better than Obama!
"There you go again." - Ronald Reagan
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 7:32am.
Well, yeah, if your "recent memory" goes back to January 2009! But to liberals, history began on the day Obama was coronated.
Once again a liberal show his racist condescension. It's not enough to simply praise Obama as a good, or even "great" president. He must always be described as the best there ever was, at everything. Yes, I can hear them even years from now...."the best president we ever had" was a black man.
I really think liberals view a black man as president the same way Samuel Johnson talked about a dog walking on its hind legs...... It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."
I think they are that racist, and that's why they have to go so overboard in praising him. Because they just never expected him to succeed at all!
I agree motherbelt
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 8:55am.
Obama (and other American blacks) must be 'elevated' in order to assuage the 'white guilt' many (most!) liberals feel. It matters not if those elevated are raised well beyond their level of competence, just that they be elevated and put on a pedestal with the label 'high achiever'.
They remind me of the Eric Endicott character in 'The Heat Of The Night' when Endicott compares the cultivation of orchids to the care needed to 'raise' blacks.
MB~
Submitted by GG_NB on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 9:13am.
Hey, I have my tagline already set up for this one!
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
In recent memory
Submitted by bmac32 on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 7:42am.
Well let's see, Clinton nope, Carter double nope, Johnson, he quit so nope, Kennedy, most likely but today's writers know of him but most weren't even born.
Thanks for the mention Tim.
Submitted by halthouse1 on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 8:02am.
Thanks for the mention Tim. This represents a very large problem heading into November!
Mike Haltman
The Political Commentator
Looks like they're just doing their part....
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 8:28am.
Who was it that said in '08 that the media support would translate to a 10-15% advantage for Obama?
On paper
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 8:56am.
On paper.
See? We’re not at war with Canada.
Submitted by needle on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 8:58am.
In the past when I heard these ridiculous tropes from Liberals stone drunk on Kool-aid about Obama and his strong/effective foreign policy, I would remark: You mean because we are not at war with Canada?
Since the Keystone pipeline fiasco I have had to change my comment to: You mean because we are not at war with Canada YET?
OK, what about our other neighbor, Mexico?
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Good news: the Joint Strategic Plywood Treaty is still in place.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 9:08am.
And the Labatt Blue pipeline remains operational.
Canadian oil is not that big deal of that according to Obama's DOE.
Come on, needle!
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 10:10am.
Obama capped OBL, all by his lonesome. I thought everyone knew that?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
strongest foreign policy *democrat*
Submitted by kgarry1 on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 9:02am.
Obama's ... "foreign policy is substantively stronger than that of any other Democratic candidate in recent memory."
- That might make him the tallest midget in the room, but maybe still not worth bragging about.
Well, if you believe a weaker US
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 9:53am.
along with a weaker Israel and stronger Arab and communist/former communist world powers is the way to a better world, then you'll agree with the folks at the NYT.
For the NYT, recent memory
Submitted by celator on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 10:43am.
For the NYT, recent memory means last week.The editorial staff there is in full Zumba workout mode in their re-elect Obama campaign, so we'll get a hat-full of such heroic descriptions and sentiments from them until Nov.
Yeah, making the world safe for sharia law is hard work
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 12:08pm.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Wow.
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 12:13pm.
That's all i have to say. Well...not really.
I think that Clinton was better at foreign policy, but still pretty weak. Obama is trying to compete with Carter to see if he can be subservient to more countries and make the USA look as weak as possible.
He has allowed France(!) of all countries to take the lead on many international issues. He as subordinated the USA to NATO and has bowed to and shown deference to all manner of middle eastern tyrants. He has allowed a long-time US ally to be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists and done nothing to support our greatest ally in the Middle East as they are under diplomatic seige to give-in to terrorist demands. He inherited a problematic Iran who was starting to ramp up an enriched uranium program along with a policy of preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon. He has morphed that into an Iran that is on the brink of producing a nulcear weapon and a policy of grudging acceptance and containment.
Because the USA has taken a "team player" role in the UN instead of a leadership role (which he inherited) the UN is a more dangerous organization with more thoughts of world control than they ever had before. To the extent that they are openly talking about levying their on taxes on verious things to generate operating funds for themselves sperate from member dues.
IMO, history (if there is any) will look back and deem this period to be an unmitigated disaster in foreign policy for the USA and might be the inflection point they can point to where the USA fell from being the most powerful and influential country in the world and marked the rise of China as the world's newest and biggest superpower.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Sounds like "The Jerk"
Submitted by CarlosS on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 12:27pm.
Navin R. Johnson (The Jerk): "Anything in this three inches right in here, in this area."
David Rothkopf (The DNC Jerk): "Obama's position in foreign policy is substantively stronger than that of any other Democratic candidate in recent memory"
Strongest Anti-American
Submitted by Semus on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 2:18pm.
Strongest Anti-American foreign-policy President, although Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were close.
R O F . . .
Submitted by rickbren on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 5:15pm.
. . . L M A O