Reacting Monday to President Biden’s off-the-cuff comments from Saturday that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power,” CNN’s New Day featured three analysts/pundits who had all decided that not only was it not that big of a deal, but it was proof of Biden’s strength and level of advanced strategic knowledge.
CNN’s ever-pompous senior political analyst John Avlon insisted it was only “a mistake to the extent that it is a gaff” and “outburst” that showed he really cares about Ukrainians since he “visit[ed] refugees that very day.”
Always one to insist he’s not a partisan (when he, in fact, is), Avlon said Biden’s line wasn’t “a call for regime change” or “redefinition of U.S. policy” seeing as how, deep down, most world leaders view Putin as someone who doesn’t deserve to stay “after showing himself to be such a fundamentally lawless butcher of civilians.”
“But that is different then a statement of regime change. Did it muddle an otherwise excellent speech? Absolutely. Was it a mistake because it’s been a distraction for two days? Yes. Is it a redefinition of American policy? No,” he added.
CNN senior global affairs analyst Bianna Golodryga must have been reading from the same White House talking points, saying she “agree[d] with John” as while it wasn’t “helpful,” she “[didn’t] think it was that harmful either.”
She acknowledged this was a key Kremlin talking point for years that the West wants to toss out the Putin regime, but instead of emphasizing that, she argued it wasn’t too high of an escalation from how Biden called “Putin a killer” years ago and the Russia tyrant still met with him.
Incredibly, she denounced other world leaders for overhyping it:
I think all the attention is unwarranted and I don't think it was helpful to have nearly every single European leader weigh in and walk it back and say that's not their view or what have you. If we're going to be presenting a united front, as NATO has been, then they need to continue making that point.
Before moving on, co-host John Berman noted the reality that “the White House clearly thought there was an issue else they wouldn't have walked it back, right” even though it was popular with Ukrainians he had spoken to.
Two hours beforehand, former Obama State Department official Joel Rubin offered more hopeless White House spin, saying it was proof of Biden “[speaking] from the heart” as “anybody...say[ing] that Vladimir Putin staying in power is a good thing I think clearly are misreading the entire environment” following what was the “capstone of an incredibly successful week.”
Reliably liberal co-host Brianna Keilar conceded one shouldn’t be in such a frame of mind when dealing with a delicate situation, but Rubin doubled down since Putin’s “brought a lot of misery across the board.”
After Rubin reiterated that Biden wasn’t calling for any change in U.S. policy, CNN political analyst Kimberly Dozier was incredulous. In response, Rubin claimed it was only a case of Biden being “a couple of steps ahead on this whole situation” (click “expand”):
DOZIER: Well, I don't think it's obvious that regime change is not the U.S. policy when he says something like that. It was indisciplined (ph). It was a speech where the world was watching and Biden handed a gift to Russian propagandists. It's been Putin's line all along...I don't think this was a moment to ruin...other things from the visit that were great in terms of lining up NATO countries together, showing unity and then saying something also that you're not prepared to follow through with. So, you know, as Putin remains in power year after year from here on out, it becomes a way of undermining Biden's power. You said something that you didn't make happen. It was just sort of wishful thinking. So that's why I was disappointed in it.
RUBIN: Well, you know, I think those are fair points. But Biden is a couple of steps ahead on this whole situation. If we remember about a month ago or so, there was this question about SWIFT banking and whether or not SWIFT would be used to sanction Russia. And there was a question, why are we not doing it? And President Biden said, well, Europe's not there yet. And then, within 24 hours, Europe fell in line and the SWIFT banking system was closed off to Russia. A significant penalty. So, President Biden is making the argument that, frankly, does get people thinking about, how could Russia become part of the global community again with Vladimir Putin running that country? Can they really get taken off from sanctions? Can they really be trusted? Can Ukraine be next to Russia with Vladimir Putin running it? That doesn't mean the U.S. is going to go in and do regime change, but it does mean that people have to be thinking big picture here while this policy goes forward because we are in it for the long haul. I think that's the key theme from the week is that this is not going to be a one or two-week dynamic. This is months, years potentially of clash.
DOZIER: Well, then, he should be prepared to lay out the strategy. If he is signaling that this is a change in policy from the White House, that they do want regime change, then you've got to be prepared to back that up, but this was supposed to be — it was right after the part of his speech where he was messaging and reaching out to the Russian people, so it sounded like he was calling on them to overthrow their leader.
Monday’s Team Biden spin on CNN was brought to you by advertisers such as Angi and ClearChoice. Follow the links to see their contact information at the MRC’s Conservatives Fight Back page.
To see the relevant CNN transcript from March 28, click “expand.”
CNN’s New Day with John Berman and Brianna Keilar
March 28, 2022
6:30 a.m. Eastern[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: War Intensifies; WH Walks Biden Biden’s Comment That Putin Shouldn’t Be in Power]
JOEL RUBIN: He spoke from the heart, clearly. And I think for anybody who would say that Vladimir Putin staying in power is a good thing I think clearly are misreading the entire environment that we're in right now. And so for the President, this speech was a capstone of an incredibly successful week. Significant diplomacy with our allies. There is unity across the board with the G-7, the European Union, clearly with Ukraine. And it's the kind of success that we can really build on. So, while he made this statement that got people thinking about that statement, the whole picture is a very successful trip.
BRIANNA KEILAR: Can I ask — I just want to ask you about something on that because I understand Joe Biden speaking from his heart when he's talking to storm victims or he's empathizing with someone. Can you really talk from the heart when you're discussing whether a world leader should stay or go, considering this was not in his prepared remarks?
RUBIN: Yeah, you know, I think, look, after 22 years of Vladimir Putin, we've seen what he brings to the table, which is murder of his political opponents, invading neighboring countries, launching this cataclysmic war towards Ukraine, destroying his own economy, as we just discussed. So, Joe Biden is making an argument that, frankly, this man in power has brought a lot of misery across the board. So, it is a harsh statement. It clearly has gotten people thinking about it. And they — and people should be thinking about it. It's not American policy for regime change, obviously. But saying that Putin is somehow qualified to still be in power and that's the right thing to do, I think that would be an argument that people shouldn't be making.
KEILAR: What do you think?
KIMBERLY DOZIER: Well, I don't think it's obvious that regime change is not the U.S. policy when he says something like that. It was indisciplined (ph). It was a speech where the world was watching and Biden handed a gift to Russian propagandists. It's been Putin's line all along that this isn't about Ukrainian sovereignty. That really this is the U.S. versus Russia and the U.S. wants to change the government. Now they had their statement that, for them, proves that. And I don't think this was a moment to ruin all of the other things from the visit that were great in terms of lining up NATO countries together, showing unity and then saying something also that you're not prepared to follow through with. So, you know, as Putin remains in power year after year from here on out, it becomes a way of undermining Biden's power. You said something that you didn't make happen. It was just sort of wishful thinking. So that's why I was disappointed in it.
RUBIN: Well, you know, I think those are fair points. But Biden is a couple of steps ahead on this whole situation. If we remember about a month ago or so, there was this question about SWIFT banking and whether or not SWIFT would be used to sanction Russia. And there was a question, why are we not doing it? And President Biden said, well, Europe's not there yet. And then, within 24 hours, Europe fell in line and the SWIFT banking system was closed off to Russia. A significant penalty. So, President Biden is making the argument that, frankly, does get people thinking about, how could Russia become part of the global community again with Vladimir Putin running that country? Can they really get taken off from sanctions? Can they really be trusted? Can Ukraine be next to Russia with Vladimir Putin running it? That doesn't mean the U.S. is going to go in and do regime change, but it does mean that people have to be thinking big picture here while this policy goes forward because we are in it for the long haul. I think that's the key theme from the week is that this is not going to be a one or two-week dynamic. This is months, years potentially of clash.
DOZIER: Well, then, he should be prepared to lay out the strategy. If he is signaling that this is a change in policy from the White House, that they do want regime change, then you've got to be prepared to back that up, but this was supposed to be — it was right after the part of his speech where he was messaging and reaching out to the Russian people, so it sounded like he was calling on them to overthrow their leader. And, in that case, I think it sort of — if you're going to do that while also saying, we don't want to risk giving jets and other things that Ukraine is asking for because that would risk World War III, this seemed to be going way over the threat of transferring some more lethal aid to Ukraine.
(....)
8:30 a.m. Eastern [TEASE]
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: War Intensifies; Biden’s Remarks on Putin’s Future Spark Global Reaction]
BRIANNA KEILAR: President Biden trying to walk back his comments that seemed to call for a regime change in Russia what will Vladimir Putin take away from this.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: War Intensifies; France’s Macron Lectures Biden on “Butcher” Rhetoric]
Plus, French President Emmanuel Macron lecturing Biden on his rhetoric? What did he say, next.
(....)
8:35 a.m. Eastern
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: War Intensifies; WH Walks Biden Biden’s Comment That Putin Shouldn’t Be in Power]
JOHN BERMAN: President Biden now trying to walk back comments he made while in Poland this weekend in which he seemed to call for regime change in Russia.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN [on 03/26/22]: For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.
POOL REPORTER [TO BIDEN] [on 03/27/22]: Mr. President, were you calling for regime change?
BIDEN [on 03/27/22]: No.
BERMAN: Joining me now, CNN senior global affairs analyst bianna Golodryga as well as CNN senior political analyst John Avlon. John, you think Biden made a mistake?
JOHN AVLON: He made a mistake to the extent that it is a gaff. It was an outburst that was not part of his scripted remarks, I think, probably influenced by his emotions being in the — visiting refugees that very day. It is not a call for regime change, thought. Let's be clear. It’s not a redefinition of U.S. policy. And, to some extent, he just said the quiet part out loud, which is that nobody — world leader believes that Vladimir Putin should remain in power indefinitely after showing himself to be such a fundamentally lawless butcher of civilians. But that is different than a statement of regime change. Did it muddle an otherwise excellent speech? Absolutely. Was it a mistake because it’s been a distraction for two days? Yes. Is it a redefinition of American policy? No.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA: Yeah. And I don’t necessarily —
BERMAN: So, Bianna, it is interesting — sorry — go ahead.
GOLODRYGA: — no, I was just going to say I agree. I agree with John. I don't think it was necessarily helpful, but I don't think it was that harmful either. Clearly, this has been the narrative coming out of the Kremlin for years — right — since the revolution of dignity in Ukraine in 2013 and 2014. This has been the Kremlin's talking points, that obviously we are a democratic country, as laughable as that is, and it is the west and its outsiders that want to change leadership in Russia. That was always going to be their narrative. And so, this feeds into that. That having been said, listen, this President has called Vladimir Putin a killer and they ultimately met and had spoken many times after that. He called him a butcher recently. So, I think all the attention is unwarranted and I don't think it was helpful to have nearly every single European leader weigh in and walk it back and say that's not their view or what have you. If we're going to be presenting a united front, as NATO has been, then they need to continue making that point.
BERMAN: I will say, the White House clearly thought there was an issue else they wouldn't have walked it back, right? They felt the need to walk it back, which indicates that they saw some kind of a problem. I’ll also just note that every Ukrainian I’ve spoken with, including the former President, Victor Yushchenko, just a few moments ago, was basically saying we've been waiting for him to say this for a long time. It was absolutely correct.
