A Timid Advocate of Freedom

[DarrinS]

Ouch!

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTYyYzEzMzBhNTgzMTBkZTk1N2I0MDIxZGMxN2Q3MDM=#mo re





A Timid Advocate of Freedom
President Obama has failed his early foreign-policy tests.

By Mitt Romney

At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas.

In his first press interview as president, he confessed to Arabic television that America had “dictated” to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has fought to free other nations from dictators. And in Strasbourg, the president further claimed that America has “showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” London’s Daily Telegraph observed that President Obama “went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.” Of course, it was not just the Daily Telegraph that was listening: People around the world who yearn for freedom, who count on America’s resolve and support, heard him as well. He was heard in China, in Tibet, in Sudan, in Burma, and, yes, in Cuba.


The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them. When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” a surge of confidence rose that would ultimately breach the bounds of the evil empire. It was the same confidence that had been ignited decades earlier when John F. Kennedy declared to a people surrounded by Communism that they were not alone. “We are all Berliners,” he said, because “freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confident commitment, spoken as he led us into the war that would free millions in Europe, inspired not only Americans but freedom fighters around the globe: “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” Such words of solidarity, of confidence, and of unwavering conviction that America is indeed “the last best hope on earth” are what freedom’s friends would have expected to hear from our president when our nation was slandered. Instead he offered silence, smiles, and a handshake.

Even more troubling than what he has or has not said is what he has not done. Kim Jong Il launched a long-range missile on the very day President Obama addressed the world about the peril of nuclear proliferation. As one of the world’s most oppressive and tyrannical regimes is on the brink of securing the “game changing” capability to reach American shores with a nuclear weapon, the president shrinks from action: no seizure of North Korean funds, no severance of banking access, no blockade.

Not to be outdone by Kim Jong Il, President Ahmadinejad announced that his nation has successfully mastered every step necessary to enrich uranium, violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has signed. So, like North Korea, Iran will have changed the world’s equation for peace and security: It will be capable of devastating Europe and America, and of annihilating Israel. And as with North Korea, the Obama administration chooses inaction — no new severe sanctions, no hint of military options. Ahmadinejad can act with confidence that the forceful options once on our proverbial table have been shelved.

Vice President Biden was right that the new president would be tested early in his administration. What the world learned was not good news for freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world has been a timid advocate of freedom at best. And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking. We are still very early in the Obama years — the president will have ample opportunity to defend America and freedom, and to deter nuclear brinkmanship. I am hoping for change.

[clambake]

yeah, right, america has never dictated to other countries.

[DarrinS]

yeah, right, america has never dictated to other countries.


I don't think that's the point, do you?


Example: So you think we should NOT dictate Iran's nuclear policy?

[Winehole23]

All this for me is like thinking that a heroic grimace is indispensable for statecraft. If we hold our mouths just right, maybe the Iranians will do what we want.

Romney does have nice hair and chiseled Republican good looks. Too bad he is an airhead and opportunistic. Out of consideration for surviving family I'll not remark again on the distinct decline of culture, humor and manners at NR since the 1970's, but note it briefly here for the record.

[DarkReign]

For whatever reason, your reference of NR is not ringing a bell as an acronym...

[Marcus Bryant]

National Review

[DarkReign]

National Review

Thank you, kind sir. I guess I should read a byline every now and then.

[Marcus Bryant]

No prob.

All they can do now is just reprint Bill Buckley in every issue.

[RandomGuy]

At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega.

This is a great example of how you start off a powder puff piece.

I would say I stopped reading this with this sentence, but I really stopped at

"by Mitt Romney".

I'll get around to reading the whole thing at some point, but I know that I will probably find a partisan hit piece with little worth commenting on. As it is, I don't have the time now to spend on reading Republican cool-aid.

Oh yeah!

[PixelPusher]

This is a great example of how you start off a powder puff piece.

I would say I stopped reading this with this sentence, but I really stopped at

"by Mitt Romney".

I'll get around to reading the whole thing at some point, but I know that I will probably find a partisan hit piece with little worth commenting on. As it is, I don't have the time now to spend on reading Republican cool-aid.

Oh yeah!

I see what you did there.

[RandomGuy]

I see what you did there.

Delicious irony... mmm with a side order of confirmation bias sauce.

[PixelPusher]

Delicious irony... mmm with a side order of confirmation bias sauce.

Kind of like when the Bush Bot collective at National Review's "The Corner" (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTkyNjE5NTg0ZTU3ZjYyMjI2YzU2YTVlMmM2MzBjZGM=) named "Brazil" one of their their 25 most conservative movies.

I shit you not.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm thinking of spending another $40 million so Republicans can question my religion

by Mitt Romney

[Crookshanks]

So according to the resident libs, the "Blame America" Tour was okay. When will you wake up? When the next buildings are smoldering ruins?

[Marcus Bryant]

Romney is one of the few GOPers who could at least pull the party in the direction of greater personal, as well as economic, freedom. The problem is, there's always an opening for a social conservative (ie Huckabee) to show up. One would think that after the last two federal election cycles the notion of the evangelicals as an overwhelming political force has been disproven. Rove really misread that when he thought he had built a majority political coalition for a generation (hence Bush significantly expanding an entitlement program). A true majority would center around greater liberty in all facets of life in today's USofA. One might dare call it libertarian.

[Winehole23]

So according to the resident libs, the "Blame America" Tour was okay. When will you wake up? When the next buildings are smoldering ruins?Oh, I don't know. Our economy is on fire right now. That seems much more momentous to me.

The meme that Obama is projecting weakness abroad is counterbalanced by US action in Iraq, AfPak and Somalia.

Are you ok with the drone attacks in Pakistan, CS?

[DarrinS]

This is a great example of how you start off a powder puff piece.

I would say I stopped reading this with this sentence, but I really stopped at

"by Mitt Romney".

I'll get around to reading the whole thing at some point, but I know that I will probably find a partisan hit piece with little worth commenting on. As it is, I don't have the time now to spend on reading Republican cool-aid.

Oh yeah!


Despite what some might think of Mitt Romney, at least he didn't start off his op-ed by saying Obama had a great week because he got a Portuguese water dog.

[Winehole23]

Do you even read past the hook, Darrin? There's not much very much in your recent posts to support that you do.

[ChumpDumper]

Despite what some might think of Mitt Romney, at least he didn't start off his op-ed by saying Obama had a great week because he got a Portuguese water dog.Right, he started off his 2012 campaign by attacking Obama.

Rather predictable, but in your own entertaining way you completely missed it.

[DarrinS]

Do you even read past the hook, Darrin? There's not much very much in your recent posts to support that you do.


I did read the entire article "Obama Derangement Syndrome" that RandomGuy posted, and, afterward, I wished I could have the last five minutes of my life back.


EDIT> And, I never attacked the source, I just thought it was a poorly worded opening paragraph. I'm entitled to my opinion, no?

[Marcus Bryant]

As it stands, the GOP candidate in 2012 will be running on the more efficient management of unprecedented government intervention (ie Jindal). Big government conservatism is not the electoral seller Rove thought it was, however. Romney's probably the only candidate who could articulate some kind of alternative vision. His time has come and gone, IMO. Then again, the last GOP nominee was essentially a progressive Republican who idolized TR and who locked up the nomination due to a weak field, his courageous personal history, and his willingness to rattle the saber. The problem seems to be that the powers that be deem the Reagan coalition an electoral winner here almost three decades later.

[Winehole23]

EDIT> And, I never attacked the source, I just thought it was a poorly worded opening paragraph. I'm entitled to my opinion, no?Sure. Lack of reading can limit the reach of your remarks, is all. No biggie.

[Winehole23]

The problem seems to be that the powers that be deem the Reagan coalition an electoral winner here almost three decades later.Everything before this made sense to me. Can you gloss this for me please?

[Marcus Bryant]

Everything before this made sense to me. Can you gloss this for me please?

National security conservatives, social conservatives, and economic conservatives. I guess you could place the so-called "Reagan Democrats" in one of the first two groups.

[Marcus Bryant]

I guess it's more generally referred to as the "Reagan Revolution." Remember how every GOP candidate fell over themselves in the debates to embrace the 40th POTUS? Of course, the amusing thing was the one candidate who was a charter member of said 'revolution' was deemed to be the most heretical Republican.

[Winehole23]

You said it was a problem that the *powers that be* have anointed the *Reagan coalition* winners *thirty years later*. Did you mean inside the GOP?

Demographically speaking, the Reagan coalition is not growing by leaps and bounds. Were you perhaps referring to that?

Your phrasing was a bit ellliptical...

[Marcus Bryant]

Yeah, I could have phrased that better. The "powers that be" in the GOP. In a way, it makes sense, as those party activists who were in their twenties and thirties in the early 80s are now approaching their fifties and sixties and are in positions of influence and leadership inside the party. I think they share this frame of reference with regard to presidential politics and it's not helpful in winning here in the 21st century. Rove had essentially written out the economic conservatives by 2003 or expected that they wouldn't care about the prolifigate spending as long as there were no Bush tax hikes. The social conservatives were given center stage as they were the ones who could provide campaign support (in terms of $ and volunteers) and votes. Instead of a broad, lasting coalition, it appears to have been a temporary one in the shadow of 9/11.

[Winehole23]

Yeah, I could have phrased that better. The "powers that be" in the GOP. In a way, it makes sense, as those party activists who were in their twenties and thirties in the early 80s are now approaching their fifties and sixties and are in positions of influence and leadership inside the party. I think they share this frame of reference with regard to presidential politics and it's not helpful in winning here in the 21st century. Rove had essentially written out the economic conservatives by 2003 or expected that they wouldn't care about the prolifigate spending as long as there were no Bush tax hikes. The social conservatives were given center stage as they were the ones who could provide campaign support (in terms of $ and volunteers) and votes. Instead of a broad, lasting coalition, it appears to have been a temporary one in the shadow of 9/11.Solid take, MB.

[Oh, Gee!!]

not for nothing--but isn't the author hoping to unseat the target of his op-ed in 2012?

[Winehole23]

The 2012 horse race is already well underway, as Chumpy pointed out. The field is wide open, though Palin seems to be the early favorite.

[SnakeBoy]

The field is wide open, though Palin seems to be the early favorite.

Palin already has my vote. It's time for this country to stop treating attractive women only as objects.

If Palin picks Carrie Prejean as her vp I'll even send her money, lot's of money.

[ChumpDumper]

Palin already has my vote. It's time for this country to stop treating attractive women only as objects.So you want to treat Palin as an object and a political candidate.


If Palin picks Carrie Prejean as her vp I'll even send her money, lot's of money.All singles.

[SnakeBoy]

All singles.

No, Prejean is worthy of a couple of fives.

[Winehole23]

Hey, big spender.

[spurster]

Unfortunately for the GOP, the Reagan Revolution was overthrown by the Cheney Coup.

[Winehole23]

And now it is overthrown by demographics.

[RandomGuy]

Unfortunately for the GOP, the Reagan Revolution was overthrown by the Cheney Coup.

What a wonderful turn of phrase. :tu

[MannyIsGod]

Its funny how Darrin goes out looking for articles that go against the man he voted for. Self Loathing indeed man. I've never seen anyone so eager to be proven wrong.

[Marcus Bryant]

And now it is overthrown by demographics.

To what extent can the GOP find its way back to personal liberty and away from the twin strains of collectivism as it relates to private social matters and the permanent martial state? Social conservatives reacted to greater state intrusion deemed as anti-religious not with a move to defend religious liberty but rather to shape public policy to their view of the world. The party needs to get back to a 'Don't Tread on Me' mentality and away from offering a 'conservative' option for social engineering. Liberty demands responsibility and I think most Americans understand that, though perhaps not as many as before. Goldwater said it best when he advocated a government that was 'out of your pocketbook, out of your bedroom, out of your children’s lives, and out of your life.'

[FaithInOne]

I am still disgusted by any name that can be associated with this last GOP presidential candidate offering just because of the complete nothingness it brought to the table.

I stopped at the By line as well :lol

[Winehole23]

Its funny how Darrin goes out looking for articles that go against the man he voted for. Self Loathing indeed man. I've never seen anyone so eager to be proven wrong.It seems like buyer's remorse to me. Palin/McCain had him backed up into a corner to start with, and when the election of Obama turned out not to be the unicorn ride he thought Obama promised him, he became exaggeratedly disappointed.

I cut Darrin some slack on this one. Obama must've fooled him.

[Marcus Bryant]

And why is it generally assumed that we should serve that which aggrandizes the power, the prestige of the federal government? I thought it's purpose was to serve that which serves the individual, to protect his or her liberties and enables them to pursue their happiness? McCain was perhaps the best example of the 'National Greatness' conservative (well, other than Reagan). The weird thing is that McCain really offered nothing more than the progressive view of the federal government which originated with Theodore Roosevelt.

[DarrinS]

It seems like buyer's remorse to me. Palin/McCain had him backed up into a corner to start with, and when the election of Obama turned out not to be the unicorn ride he thought Obama promised him, he became exaggeratedly disappointed.

I cut Darrin some slack on this one. Obama must've fooled him.


You've got me pegged. Manny just doesn't like ANY criticism of his hero. I doubt there's ANY Obama policy he disagrees with. But, everyone's entitled to their opinion. It's a free country (for now).

[DarrinS]

The weird thing is that McCain really offered nothing more than the progressive view of the federal government which originated with Theodore Roosevelt.


True. And his whole "reach across the isle" thing was really more of a "reach around".

[Darrin]

I don't think that's the point, do you?


Example: So you think we should NOT dictate Iran's nuclear policy?

I think we're losing the power on that fight. I think all nations should disarm, but really, outside of power, what gives us the legal justification to have veto power over another country's military policy?

Unfortunately, my slippery slope is into isolationism and we all have the right to protect the planet from total annihilation.

[Marcus Bryant]

True. And his whole "reach across the isle" thing was really more of a "reach around".

At least he was honest about his true ideological hero. Nothing wrong with that. I'd just rather not be roped into someone's grand designs for glory.

[Winehole23]

To what extent can the GOP find its way back to personal liberty and away from the twin strains of collectivism as it relates to private social matters and the permanent martial state? Not very much, IMO. Big government conservatism is here to stay.


Social conservatives reacted to greater state intrusion deemed as anti-religious not with a move to defend religious liberty but rather to shape public policy to their view of the world. The party needs to get back to a 'Don't Tread on Me' mentality and away from offering a 'conservative' option for social engineering.+1


Liberty demands responsibility and I think most Americans understand that, though perhaps not as many as before. Goldwater said it best when he advocated a government that was 'out of your pocketbook, out of your bedroom, out of your children’s lives, and out of your life.'I only wish. I love Goldwater, but he's the GOP's McGovern.

I also think a lot of "me too" libertarians don't really have any idea how much social pain would be involved in shrinking government and devolving power, or how much they themselves would be affected by it.

Talk is cheap.

[DarrinS]

I think we're losing the power on that fight. I think all nations should disarm, but really, outside of power, what gives us the legal justification to have veto power over another country's military policy?

Unfortunately, my slippery slope is into isolationism and we all have the right to protect the planet from total annihilation.



Just wait. Israel has serious plans to take out Iran's nuclear sites. When they approach the US for "permission", this will be a serious test for Obama's presidency.

[DarrinS]

I only wish. I love Goldwater, but he's the GOP's McGovern.


I would never guess you'd like such a hawkish politician.

[Winehole23]

And why is it generally assumed that we should serve that which aggrandizes the power, the prestige of the federal government? I thought it's purpose was to serve that which serves the individual, to protect his or her liberties and enables them to pursue their happiness? McCain was perhaps the best example of the 'National Greatness' conservative (well, other than Reagan).When the GOP held the reins of government, this view became irresistible to most conservatives. Power evidently trumps principles, even among so-called conservatives (who have no idea what they are conserving) and "values" voters. Reflexive loyalty to POTUS and his policies was demanded even from the opposition, until the GOP lost its Congressional majority in 2006.

Conservatives have started to play with conservative ideas again. I hope something sticks, but fear the new liturgy worships at the same altar: expedience.

[Winehole23]

I would never guess you'd like such a hawkish politician.They clues are all out there, but I guess people prefer to stick with their preconceptions rather than evaluate people based on what they actually say. People get shunted into this pigeon-hole or that based on single-issue takes, which can be misleading.

That's life. It used to make me mad. Now I just feel pity and disgust.

[Marcus Bryant]

I also think a lot of "me too" libertarians don't really have any idea how much social pain would be involved in shrinking government and devolving power, or how much they themselves would be affected by it.

Talk is cheap.

Absolutely. So many rail against 'wasteful spending' but somehow SS, Medicare and the military are exempt. What's left is a drop in the fiscal bucket. How many 'conservatives' were privately glad that Bush added the drugs handout to Medicare?

[MannyIsGod]

You've got me pegged. Manny just doesn't like ANY criticism of his hero. I doubt there's ANY Obama policy he disagrees with. But, everyone's entitled to their opinion. It's a free country (for now).

Seriously? I guess you've missed the several threads where I've disagreed with the administration on many subjects. I have no problem with criticism of him even when I don't view it as valid. However, if I post every thread you've started will I find a consistent trend Darrin? I will find threads specifically going after Obama.

You've been on this trip since the day after the election.

The fact is I'm not the one arguing against the selection I made before the polling lever has gone cold. The argument that Obama somehow fooled you is absolutely laughable. What exactly has he done contrary to what he campaigned on?

[MannyIsGod]

Just wait. Israel has serious plans to take out Iran's nuclear sites. When they approach the US for "permission", this will be a serious test for Obama's presidency.

Ha, not really. They're not going to get it. It is impossible for them to strike Iran unless they overfly Iraq. The answer for that is and will always be no.

[LnGrrrR]

Just wait. Israel has serious plans to take out Iran's nuclear sites. When they approach the US for "permission", this will be a serious test for Obama's presidency.

Why should they have to come to the US for 'permission'? If you mean blessing, we should say "no". Why should we be on the hook for responsibility?

[Winehole23]

The fact is I'm not the one arguing against the selection I made before the polling lever has gone cold. The argument that Obama somehow fooled you is absolutely laughable. What exactly has he done contrary to what he campaigned on?I don't think Darrin has an analytical take on this. IMO he got swept up in the atmospherics. I was only kidding a little when I said Darrin thinks he's been denied his unicorn ride.

It could happen to any first time Democratic party booster.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think Darrin has an analytical take on this. IMO he got swept up in the atmospherics. I was only kidding a little when I said Darrin thinks he's been denied his unicorn ride.

It could happen to any first time Democratic party booster.

I have no problem with people having opposing opinions or beliefs. I take issue with people who have no idea why they make the decisions they do and then have no idea why they regret the decisions they made which they didn't understand to begin with.

[Winehole23]

I have no problem with people having opposing opinions or beliefs. I take issue with people who have no idea why they make the decisions they do and then have no idea why they regret the decisions they made which they didn't understand to begin with.PFA style politics rules the roost, and the netroots hand out the slogans.

Besides, if you have the habit of passing around talking points before you've even read your own post, how can you possibly be the master of even *your own* ideas?

[RandomGuy]

Ouch!

A Timid Advocate of Freedom
President Obama has failed his early foreign-policy tests.

By Mitt Romney

At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas.

In his first press interview as president, he confessed to Arabic television that America had “dictated” to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has fought to free other nations from dictators. And in Strasbourg, the president further claimed that America has “showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” London’s Daily Telegraph observed that President Obama “went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.” Of course, it was not just the Daily Telegraph that was listening: People around the world who yearn for freedom, who count on America’s resolve and support, heard him as well. He was heard in China, in Tibet, in Sudan, in Burma, and, yes, in Cuba.


The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them. When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” a surge of confidence rose that would ultimately breach the bounds of the evil empire. It was the same confidence that had been ignited decades earlier when John F. Kennedy declared to a people surrounded by Communism that they were not alone. “We are all Berliners,” he said, because “freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confident commitment, spoken as he led us into the war that would free millions in Europe, inspired not only Americans but freedom fighters around the globe: “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” Such words of solidarity, of confidence, and of unwavering conviction that America is indeed “the last best hope on earth” are what freedom’s friends would have expected to hear from our president when our nation was slandered. Instead he offered silence, smiles, and a handshake.

Even more troubling than what he has or has not said is what he has not done. Kim Jong Il launched a long-range missile on the very day President Obama addressed the world about the peril of nuclear proliferation. As one of the world’s most oppressive and tyrannical regimes is on the brink of securing the “game changing” capability to reach American shores with a nuclear weapon, the president shrinks from action: no seizure of North Korean funds, no severance of banking access, no blockade.

Not to be outdone by Kim Jong Il, President Ahmadinejad announced that his nation has successfully mastered every step necessary to enrich uranium, violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has signed. So, like North Korea, Iran will have changed the world’s equation for peace and security: It will be capable of devastating Europe and America, and of annihilating Israel. And as with North Korea, the Obama administration chooses inaction — no new severe sanctions, no hint of military options. Ahmadinejad can act with confidence that the forceful options once on our proverbial table have been shelved.

Vice President Biden was right that the new president would be tested early in his administration. What the world learned was not good news for freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world has been a timid advocate of freedom at best. And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking. We are still very early in the Obama years — the president will have ample opportunity to defend America and freedom, and to deter nuclear brinkmanship. I am hoping for change.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTYyYzEzMzBhNTgzMTBkZTk1N2I0MDIxZGMxN2Q3MDM=#mo re

:lmao

But, North Korean and authoritarian leaders are good now.

wow.