Strange Bedfellows: The Weekly Standard and Obama

The latest Weekly Standard opens with a remarkable editorial on Libya, offering some of the kindest words about the Obama administration you’ll ever read in the conservative media. It’s true that the Robert Kagan piece casts the fall of the Gaddafi regime as a triumph for “the United States and NATO.” And it isn’t until its seventh paragraph that President Obama’s name appears. But Kagan then declares that “the end of Qaddafi’s rule is a great accomplishment for the Obama administration and for the president personally.” He carries on in this vein, heaping praise on a president the Standard generally reviles and lampoons, while taking fellow Republicans to task:

Furthermore, the president deserves credit because his decision was unpopular and politically risky. The foreign policy establishment was almost unanimously opposed, and an assortment of wise men spent months predicting certain failure. In Congress a significant number of Republicans joined with the likes of Dennis Kucinich in opposing the military operation, to the point of voting not to authorize funding in June—a shameful moment for a party that under three consecutive presidents had stood for a robust and active U.S. role in the world. Some Republican presidential candidates, either out of opportunism or conviction, joined in opposition.

Many of the criticisms of the administration’s conduct were warranted…. But what’s new? American interventions, large and small, are never pretty. American presidents are always slow to see the need for action, always worried about their political backsides, and almost always looking for the exits as soon as they decide to act. Republican critics, especially those who served during the Reagan years or in either Bush administration, should look in the mirror….

The sputtering economy obviously gives Republicans a tremendous opening against Obama. But between the apparent success of the Libya operation; the killing of Osama bin Laden, his deputy, and countless other al Qaeda-affiliated militants; and a growing national consensus that the Afghanistan war should be wound down, Obama’s 2012 rivals will find it awfully hard to get traction against him on national-security issues. Unless, of course, Republicans start insisting that we bomb Iran.

Related Topics: Barack Obama, libya, Robert Kagan, Weekly Standard, Libya
  • Latest on Swampland

    Mitt Romney

    On Education, Romney Seeks Distance from Obama–and Bush

    In a speech at the Latino Coalition’s Annual Economic Summit in Washington DC on Wednesday, Mitt Romney called the U.S. education system a failure. Every child deserves a quality education, he said, particularly minority students who are consistently under-served. Fixing it, according to Romney, is the “civil rights issue of our era.”

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty No. 2), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay-marriage advocates — as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

blog comments powered by Disqus