Hopefully McCain won’t take a lesson from Romney’s playbook
If you haven’t already seen Mitt Romney’s “suspension” (aka withdrawal) speech, it’s certainly worth a look. It’s this speech that confirmed for me that our county, and our hopes of a more bipartisan foreign policy, are better off without someone like Romney vying for the Presidency. Of course, what I’m referring to is the particular line in his speech when he says, “Frankly, I’d be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. Frankly, in this time of war I can not let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”
Here’s the clip of it
Yes, you heard it right.
Certainly Democrats and Republicans have differing view on what to do in Iraq and many other foreign policy issues. However, to explicitly say that a Democrat winning in 2008 would be a surrender to terror is just plain offensive. It might energize the base but it does so at the expense a more effective bipartisan foreign policy.
In the primary season there are plenty of extreme views that are expressed by candidates. The primaries have traditionally been the realm of the party faithful, which tend to have views that are either left of right of the mainstream. So, yes, it’s expected that in the primary season one would hear both Democrats and Republicans attacking the rival party to rile up the base. But in my mind, this goes way too far.
Granted, Romney has had a hard time trying to prove to conservatives that he’s really one of them at heart. His record in governing liberal Massachusetts exhibits anything but traditional conservative ideals. Before Romney began campaigning I was hopeful that perhaps he might run as a candidate who could bridge the divide between red and blue America because of his experience as a Republican governor of a blue state. No such luck. Romney figured that his best way to get the nomination was to try to run to the right of the other Republican candidates. The voters didn’t buy it. Yet, he continues to try even in his withdrawal speech to continue to highlight the politics of fear and division that have characterized the past eight years.
In 2004 the underlying theme of the Republican presidential campaign was that if you supported Kerry you were setting the country up for more terrorist attacks. Dick Cheney said exactly that in September 2004. Cheney told Republican supporters at a town hall meeting in Des Moines that they needed to make “the right choice” in the November 2 election. “If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again — that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.” Kerry, tried to take a page from the Republicans playbook and also made similar arguments that in fact we were less safe because of the Bush administration’s policies.
I agree that Democrats and Republicans frequently have different approaches to foreign policy. However, to say that a vote for the opposing part is a vote for the terrorists is an example of the worst of politics. Such an argument made by either party is simply dishonorable.
Fortunately, I believe that the presumptive nominee, John McCain, will run a much more honorable campaign. There will be many advisors, though, who will encourage McCain to lower himself to this type of politics. The pressure to accede to such tactics will become even greater if he finds himself trailing. Let’s hope that McCain’s principles win out over the politics of fear and division. The Democrats, of course, must also not fall into this trap on the campaign trail. Pointing out differences is fair game. However, saying that your opponent helps the enemy, in this case terrorists, must not be tolerated. We must be careful not to forget that such campaign tactics, while perhaps effective in the short run, can do tremendous harm to the very coalitions necessary to govern effectively.
Related posts:
Maybe Romney isn’t interested in doing what is popular (democrat wise, republican wise or reach across the aisle wise) but instead what is right.
Comment on February 12, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
How is pulling troops out of Iraq not surrendering to the terrorists? Isn’t that what the terrorist want? Mitt was just stating the obvious of what would happen when the Democratic nominees get their wish and without consideration for the consequences they pull our troops out. I can’t imagine supporting a party who also has the support of the terrorists who are hoping that a Democrat wins so that they can get back to the work of bringing destruction to the United States without having to worry about fighting us in Iraq. Sometimes the truth hurts but voters need to know what they are going to get if they vote for Hillary or Obama.
Comment on February 12, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
Obama and Clinton have made it clear: they will pull our troops out if elected. There has been far too much sacrifice made there to pull those troops out without consideration of what will happen to that part of the world and eventually to the US if these terrorists are allowed to bully that country again. The reason the surge worked is because just as in any fight if you bring more of your friends those you are fighting will be less willing or just plain lose. Pulling out our troops does indeed equal surrender because we would not bring stability to that part of the world. Clinton thinks it is their (Iraqis) responsibility to take care of this, but they are having a hard time doing what is in direct interest to the US. If they fail all our efforts will fail as well because you CAN NOT TALK TO THESE PEOPLE! Go MITT2012
Comment on February 12, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
Hi Brian,
While I understand your post and intention behind it, you have to ask yourself why at this point Hillary and Obama do want to withdraw from Iraq. With regards to the individuals fighting there, they are by a majority foreign born. If we leave Iraq, the majority of these foreign born “freedom” fighters/terrorists will not simply retreat to their homeland to participate in civilized society. Mitt Romney hit the nail on the head regardless of your agreement or disagreement, and I fear that Democrat’s belief that we can live in a utopian society is simply an irrational by product of American prosperity.
Comment on February 12, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Mr. Vogt, let’s consider the recent Democratic debate where the candidates were asked if they would pull out our troops in Iraq, even if all indications showed we were in fact winning. Despite this hypothetical, Obama and Clinton both refused to acknowledge that this was even a possibility. They refused to even consider the question. Posturing on this question was extremely upsetting. The democrats have accused Bush, and rightly so many times, that he is unwilling to admit his mistakes. Why can’t the democrats do the same. The fact is that stabilizing Iraq was grossly underestimated, but the surge is showing positive signs of success. In my opinion, we must give this a chance and be patient. Prior to WWII, the majority of Washington politicians had an isolationist mentality. A lot of lives could have been saved were it not for this closed, run and hide policy. America is a target. It always has been-and running away will just bring more war and blood shed on our young men and woman in uniform. The democrats will really foul up this mess if they really intend to pull out of Iraq.
Comment on February 12, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
“However, to explicitly say that a Democrat winning in 2008 would be a surrender to terror is just plain offensive. It might energize the base but it does so at the expense a more effective bipartisan foreign policy. ”
And that statement is just plain offensive. What you’re saying is you’ll choose to be offended until everyone agrees with your approach. We don’t need you telling us how you’re offended, we need people with bright, selfless ideas.
We don’t need to compromise to continue providing service to those in the Middle East just like the many years we did for Germany and Japan. If you want “more effective foreign policy, suggest that Dems (and Ron Paul) stop bellyaching and tell their constiuents to produce more for others and expect less from others. Starting with not expecting instant results from people who have had a different culture all of their lives.
The suggestion of a ” more effectiive bipartisan foreign policy” is complete nonsense until Clinton/Obama decide we’re staying in there to clean up our mess (yes, I said OUR mess, not Bush’s mess), or leaders on the other side of the aisle decide to give up trying. Until you have leaders from both sides of the aisles solidly behind doing the same (and hopefuly right) thing, you won’t have bipartiship.
Comment on February 12, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
Hey, let’s just wait until November when Obama is elected and wait for the Democrats to prove Romney right or wrong before we throw him under the bus. History will show the statement to be either accurate or inaccurate. Why fuss about it now?
Comment on February 13, 2008 @ 8:40 am