Going Nuclear: Romney vs. Obama (and Kerry)

Kerry’s smackdown of Romney’s stupidity was nothing compared to what Fred Kaplan did over at Slate:
.
http://www.slate.com/id/2259779/

Let’s see Brown, Snowe, Collins, Lugar, Graham, Voinovich (he’s retiring), Grassley (plausible) and perhaps Lemiux (FL)……all the rest of the republican senators are running for the presidency or fighting off the tea partiers

So, Michael, when evaluating a statement by a potential President, its factual accuracy is less important than how it plays as a “political document?” And how it plays as a political document has nothing to do in your mind with its factual accuracy?
.
Because it seems to me one of the keys to evaluating a candidate’s qualifications for office is if he can present a honest, realistic, factual statement on a key policy. That would seem to be more important in evaluating him, and even, oh, I don’t know, reporting on him, than how the statement “plays.”
.
But what do I know, I’m not a political correspondent for a major publication like you. I’m sure you know best.

Well said.

I don’t pretend to know best. That’s why, rather than opine about a subject in which I’m interested but not fluent, I linked to two persuasive factual critiques (three actually, if you count Bergmann) and also noted the pro-START position of several GOP foreign policy gurus. That, I think, offers a reader pretty good context for evaluating Romney’s position. Were I able to spend a couple days reporting on the fine print of the START treaty, then I might be comfortable adjudicating more authoritatively. Yes, there’s a kind of false he-said she-said style in the media that can obscure the truth. But I hardly see this blog item as a felony offender.

PS I didn’t argue that the substance is “less important” than the politics here, although I think you *could* make that argument, given that what I do know about START tells me, as I wrote initially, that the treaty doesn’t have particularly great strategic importance beyond its broad warming effect on DC-Moscow relations. But the larger posture of the Republican party on national security issues, as evidenced by Romney’s position on this and other topics, does seem more pertinent than whether or not we should worry that Russia might interpret START as allowing it to mount ICBMs on its strategic bombers.

Lugar will probably not run again and will retire. Indiana governor Mitch Daniels will run in his place and probably win because democrats in Indiana don’t seem to anticipate anything, and I’m a democrat.

All these liberal geniuses that are slamming Romney are the same ones who ridiculed Ronald Reagan calling him, among other things, a “warmonger”, a “cowboy”, an “moron”, a “dithering fool” and “stupid hollywood actor”…

Yet Reagan was the one who ended the Cold War… WITH THE UNITED STATES ON TOP AS THE LONE SUPER POWER.

If liberals had their way, the Soviet Union would probably still be a threat, because the United States Military would have been gutted by Democrats, and would never have pursued aggressive military initiatives like the “Star Wars” missile defense system.

So no, excuse me if I laugh at liberals trying to sound authoritative on foreign policy, especially policy dealing with strong-armed regimes like Russia, Iran, North Korea, and South American dictators.

Romney is correct; what liberals never get is that leaders in those regimes do not respect weakness (which is why they hold Obama in contempt), they only respect strength… which is why they called George W. Bush names, but still feared him when it came to actual policy.

rather than opine about a subject in which I’m interested but not fluent, I linked to two persuasive factual critiques (three actually, if you count Bergmann) and also noted the pro-START position of several GOP foreign policy gurus. That, I think, offers a reader pretty good context for evaluating Romney’s position. Were I able to spend a couple days reporting on the fine print of the START treaty, then I might be comfortable adjudicating more authoritatively.
.
I prefer the much more pithy Joe K’s “I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who’s right”

Michael, thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail to my comment. I do appreciate that, although I don’t agree with much of what you said in that response. I do agree that this item wasn’t a felony offense but, as Bruce Springsteen wrote, “From small things, mama, big things one day come.”
.
You claim that “I didn’t argue that the substance is “less important” than the politics here,” but you wrote, “But ultimately I find Romney’s op-ed more interesting as a political document.” Sounds like it to me.
.
I also found it lame to say, “Were I able to spend a couple days reporting on the fine print of the START treaty, then I might be comfortable adjudicating more authoritatively.” If you applied that standard on a daily basis, you’d never write about anything. Reporters almost never had detailed expertise on the subject matter at hand. But you should be able to call on outside resources to help you evaluate the facts at hand.
.
In this case, the facts at hand suggest that Romney’s article was largely baloney. “The Russians could walk away from the treaty.” Really? Gee, that never happens. Guess we shouldn’t sign treaties, then, huh?
.
My main gripe is that politicians now count on responses such as yours to their policy statements. If this article is referenced by you and others in the future, it’s doubtful that the fact-checks and harsh criticisms will be referenced as well. Romney will have achieved his goal, publishing a piece that “enhanced his national security credentials” or at least “outlined his differences with the Obama administration on national security.” The fact that only the Obama is dealing in reality will likely get lost along the way.
.
It’s hardly at the same level, but this reminds me of the ongoing debate about the media coverage of the use of torture during the Bush years. The New York Times has now admitted that it felt calling waterboarding torture would have been seen as taking a political stance because Bush and Cheney had said it wasn’t. It therefore allowed a debate to flourish over a fact that’s not debatable. The media therefore allows the participants to turn over control of the reporting process to the participants, which isn’t exactly the way it’s supposed to be.
.
I won’t keep hammering you on this, but I just feel like this is another example of the modern mentality of DC-based reporters/commentators, exemplified by Politico. What they say isn’t as important as what it means, especially what it means to the next election. And we wonder why nothing’s getting done.

True. I lived In Indy for while, West Lafayette to be exact. I got the feeling that while Indy has the Midwestern careful of govt vibe (er, what happened to Illinois..no one will ever know)..they don’t like bomb throwers on either side. I like Lugar and Daniels, I now live in FL and this dem will be gladly voting for Crist and Jeb Bush,if he were to run for anything.

Yet Reagan was the one who ended the Cold War..
.
Great, one of those morons who think that the Cold War ended because Reagan told Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall.
.
The Cold War ended because communism is an unworkable economic system, and the Soviet Union was crippled by a fossilized industrial economy and bound up in deteriorating trade pacts with the Warsaw Bloc. The writing was on the wall as early as the early 1970s, which is something even Reagan recognized — go read his speech before the British Parliament, for instance.
.
Reagan deserves huge credit for helping the Soviet Union self-destruct peacefully, though. He met with Gorbachev five different times during 1986-1988 and worked out an arms reduction plan.
.
Of course, if Reagan did that today — meeting with a dictator whose country vowed to destroy us, without preconditions!? — he’d be denounced by the far right for being an appeaser.

Sorry, you’re one of those morons who think SDI ended the Cold War. Turn off Fox and try a history book.

“Yet Reagan was the one who ended the Cold War.”
.
The people of Poland, East Germany, Afghanistan, and the Soviet Republics (among others) offer you the finger.
.
So silly.

Turn off Fox and try a history book.

It sounds to me like he has been reading a history book; likely one of those fine Texas Board of “Education” editions though.

VA Gentleman:
.
First off, good work above. And do you have a link for this: “The New York Times has now admitted that it felt calling waterboarding torture would have been seen as taking a political stance because Bush and Cheney had said it wasn’t.”
.
Somehow, I missed this admission/discussion of.

Great comment, Mr. Gentleman, and thanks, Michael, for wading into the thread to discuss his point.
-
On the substance, the NYT’s Peter Baker fact-checked Romney yesterday, and Slate’s Fred Kaplan tore him apart today. But ultimately I find Romney’s op-ed more interesting as a political document.
-
That is to say, “Romney’s op-ed was ignorant and full of lies and distortions; that’s because he wants to run for president as a Republican.”
-
(jcapan– see this article for substantiation, and the NYT’s justification, for its about-face on calling torture torture: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/03/keller )
-
“Hey, this candidate has no rational views on any subject, but his stump speech has got a good beat and I can dance to it! A-!!” The media’s politically correct refusal to accurately report these facts, to call a spade a spade, is savaging our discourse and our security. Such is the problem with an accountability-free environment. Consider the op-ed writers at the Washington Post for another example! Republicans can lie and spout nonsense with impunity, so they lie and spout nonsense.

Thanks Elvis–how I missed a Greenwald post is beyond me. Particularly dig the Orwell passage he used. Edit out the euphemisms and what’s left?

Michael – the relevant text of Next START (i.e. minus the non-legally binding and generally irrelevant preamble wordage that got Romney’s knickers in such a twist) is about 12 pages long, and it would take less than an hour to fact check Romney’s statements. He’s wrong on virtually everything. The fact that he’s seriously using the PREAMBLE to argue against the treaty is telling enough – it’s the equivalent of arguing for rejection based on the font or formatting of bullet points.

The point is Romney and the GOP are playing games with a serious national security issue. Either that or virtually the entirety of the Senate GOP caucus is ignorant of virtually every aspect of arms control and how treaties work. THAT’S THE STORY! Not the fact that this is ‘he said she said’ typical garbage. Its the fact that the Republicans are willing to engage in hugely cynical political gamesmanship on NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

As an Irishman living in Britain, I can assure you that the rest of the World trembles in fear at the prospect of the GOP getting anywhere close to power in its current form, and this is why. They’re literally willing to engage in deceptive and misleading campaigning to derail a crucial arms control treaty. Every time they get a hold of the reigns of US foreign policy the world becomes an objectively more dangerous place for both America and its allies.

The fact that you’re unwilling to call out Romney’s article for what it is – a tissue of lies that could only have been put together by a total cynic, or a total moron – is a good example of how American journalism has been indirectly responsible for many of the problems of the last couple of decades in the US, simply due to its refusal to grow a backbone and tell the truth, rather than flattering the lies of the GOP as simply one equally valid side of an argument that cannot be resolved except through partisan lenses.

Because I’m a Liberal Elitist I feel like big-footing this one. I did my MPhil in Russian and East European studies at Oxford, in what is recognised as one of the best centres of studies on Russia, the Cold War, and the Soviet Union in the world. I can tell you that the notion that Reagan ‘won’ the Cold War is treated as utterly laughable by anyone with even the most basic notion of the political decision making processes of the USSR. It’s a myth that was dreamed up by Bush the elder’s 88 campaign team. If someone repeats it, you can be sure they have no idea what they’re talking about.

Liberals would have gutted defense? Which liberals?
.
Not Jimmy Carter, who’s last two budgets had increased defense spending, and would have continued to increase if he had one re-election.
.
In fact, the vast majority of weapon systems deployed during the Reagan years were were from the 1970s. The only major program that I can remember that Carter cut was the B-1 bomber, because the feeling was that it lacked to ability to penetrate the Soviet PVO defense network, and he wanted the AF to concentrate on cruise missiles and the Advanced Technology Bomber (which became the B-2).
.
Secondly, the Strategic Defense Initiative was a chimera. Sure it had all these cool pictures and cartoons that showed space-based lasers and railguns blasting red star-clad MIRVs to smithereens, but the technology was, quite literally, light years beyond the best US technology, or was, as in the case of the X-ray laser, not practical at all. Plus, even if it was possible to put some kind of SDI system in place, the Soviets had planned on responding by building a new generation of inexpensive ICBMs and cruise missiles that would overwhelm it.
.
If you had to pick the person who helped end the Cold War, I would say it was Mikhail Gorbachev.

“Liberals would have gutted defense? Which liberals?”
.
Just thought I might point out that “would have” already is. Control of the Senate, House, and the WH.
.
And of course, don’t yell it from the rooftops or anything, but defense has not been gutted…

The truth is that Romney doesn’t know diddly about foreign policy and like Palin, has zero experience or credentials. Romney single handedly created and passed perhaps the world’s worst health care law here in Massachusetts; which doesn’t even cover my disabled, widowed mother. Romney, like all republicans know nothing about foreign policy. The only foreign policy the republicans know is how to squander $1.8 trillion in national treasure on useless immoral wars and how to alienate your every partner around the globe. It is sickening to even consider another republican being elected president. Of the top 10 presidents of all time, 7 are Democrats, 2 are republicans, and 1 was a “Federalist”.

You know one thing. This right wing B.S. is going to get us all killed. We have over 5000 nuclear devices right now. The Russians the same. Yet we get this right wing only super power crap and we want to believe it is true. Why? Why? I think Russia wants to work with us and have even befor the cold war ended. But as long as we have some John Wayne nut trying to keep the cold war going for there best intrests. Now that should once again wake up America as it did in the Johnson Goldwater campain. Remember the little girl? Well Russia is just as strong as we are if not stronger then that picture. I am old now and if the bombs start to fall well I have had a chance to live a good life. But I pray that the Mothers And Fathers of the greatest the best we have the little ones. They deserve a chance too. So mom and dad tell the nuts like Romney, Palin and the rest of the right wing nuts to not be playing games with my kids life. That is for sure!

are we talking about the same Mitt Romney that was passed over for the VP job because S. Palin was more qualified, would it be that same guy? Who care what he says or thinks.

What everyone fails to understand is that facts and reason have little to do with the wings. For them it’s about energy and belief. Once the wings have staked out a belief — say, that the “libruls” are weak on defense or that Israel is the cause of the world’s problems — they have become personally invested in it. It’s irrelevant whether or not Romney and Palin know what they’re talking about. What matters is that the base believes them.

By the way, being a policy wonk doesn’t mean you know what you’re doing as a policy maker. Les Aspin was a policy wonk and a disaster as defense secretary. Jimmy Carter was a policy wonk and a failure as a leader.

The much-maligned George W. Bush got this right: the president is The Decider. The president will let the wonks thrash their arguments and then decide on one or build a consensus based on more than one. It’s why presidents want internal policy contenders — they want to know all sides.

The problem now is that this isn’t the president deciding but the Senate deliberating, and the GOP — who have always placed their class above the national interest — are willing to sacrifice national security for the sake of campaign Kabuki. In their cynical calculus they understand that the merits mean nothing to their base. If the base believes the Democrats are soft on defense, then one must pander to that belief. Hey, some — like the two Neanderthals from Oklahoma — may be true believers themselves.

PS: Carter did get the Panama Canal treaties passed, so miracles can happen.

He was passed over because the GOP’s Southern Baptist bigot wing blackballed him for being Mormon, not because he was less qualified than Palin. Romney has proven talent — in business and government — and though his politics, being Republican, are wrong, it’s stupid to demean him. The Dems did this with George W. Bush, a far lesser talent, and we’re still living with the consequences of that stupidity.

lbjack
I agree with you that he is smart, as a dem I may have voted for him. I hate the fact that after he was bypassed over bigotry, and really shamed he did not tell them all to go to hell, instead a campained for people he knew were not qualified. It tells me that he has no backbone

I doubt it was lack of backbone. A lesser man — I, for example — indeed would have said, “To hell with you,” and walked. But I think Romney realized that regardless the shabby treatment he got, the dumbest thing in politics is to burn bridges out of pique.

Romney has a great legacy. His father was a fine man, from a now-endangered species, the moderate Republican. And from what I’ve read, Mitt and his dad were very close, though I suppose one could say that about the Bushes. But Mitt is made of different stuff than Dubya.

Though also a Democrat, I’m tired of rhetoric and images and feel-good candidates. We have states, whose distinct cultures are largely insulated from what happens in Washington. I might not bring myself to vote Republican, but I’d not be too upset to see an intelligent, can-do guy like Romney as president. Hey, if the Dems offered someone like that, then I’d vote for him in a flash.

i feel like i spend my whole day reading online and yet it still seems like you cover twice the ground. do you sleep? eat? I don’t really skim frontpages. maybe that’s where im going wrong

ok so if you want to post about the political aspects of this much talked about story it has to come after your own full fact checking of it? linking to multiple veracity analysis (all brutal) still makes you part of the problem of non-accountability??? you guys gotta be joking. Michael’s response completely neutralized every charge virginiagent made.

Just like Jimmy Carter’s S.A.L.T. II Treaty, the Senate should not ratify Jimmy Carter Jr.’s START treaty. Again, Obama gives something for nothing, and it is not in the US interest. Oh, gee we have Kerry backing it. The guy who voted against the first Gulf war.
I like how people diss Romney’s experience when

Obama got elected he had zero foreign policy experience and was less than four years out of the Illinois state senate.

The fact is I don’t think Obama has the American interest at heart, he wasn’t even raised here and even his wife admitted she hated the US as an adult. Remember Obama even wants a policy where it would be okay for other countries to attack us and kill thousands of American civilians in cold blood without the THREAT of a nuclear answer.

There are many Bush trade treaties that still haven’t been ratified, so there should be no rush for START either, again it should go the way of SALT II.