E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSGINGRICH: He’s charging $50 a photo and he’s “lost his last embedded print reporters," reporters on the trail confirm to Politico, Political Wire writes. "The last two print reporters covering Gingrich full-time on the trail -- from Politico and the Atlanta Journal Constitution -- pulled out on Friday. The Associated Press pulled its embed after Tuesday's Illinois primary."
ROMNEY: Romney’s drawing fire for branding Russia the U.S.’s “number one geopolitical foe.” Russia’s Medvedev said Romney’s comments “smells of Hollywood” and is stuck in another time. "Regarding ideological clichés, every time this or that side uses phrases like 'enemy number one', this always alarms me, this smells of Hollywood and certain times (of the past)," Medvedev said at the end of a nuclear security summit in the South Korean capital, per Reuters. "I would recommend all U.S. presidential candidates ... to do two things. First, when phrasing their position one needs to use one's head, one's good reason, which would not do harm to a presidential candidate. Also, (one needs to) look at his watch: we are in 2012 and not the mid-1970s."
Time’s Michael Crowley notes that Romney opened his campaign “with an argument heavy on foreign policy,” including a book called, “No Apology.” Crowley notes: It wasn’t until the recovery sputtered and Obama scored a string of foreign policy successes that Romney adopted a monomaniacal focus on the jobs picture. But some Republicans remain convinced that they can score points against Obama on foreign policy.” Crowley calls Romney’s “surprisingly harsh assessment of Russia” “a perhaps defensible position when you consider questions like U.N. Security Council vetoes, but still a tough one to square with his past remarks about Iran. (For example: ‘Right now, the greatest danger that America faces and the world faces is a nuclear Iran.’)”
And he points out: “There’s also something ironic about Romney leading this line of attack right now. Just days ago, after all, Romney was explaining for the Weekly Standard the virtue of keeping his policy positions vague until after an election, lest they be misrepresented and attacked unfairly in the heat of a campaign. (Among other things, Romney has left his plans for the war in Afghanistan extremely opaque). Perhaps Romney should show more sympathy for someone who may be following his own advice.”
The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison: “Whenever Romney speaks about foreign policy, I never rule out that it could be driven almost entirely by shameless opportunism. He sees an opening to criticize Obama on policies related to Russia, he takes it, and then predictably can’t avoid ridiculous hyperbole. However, it’s not just opportunism. This seems to reflect the bizarre, outdated hostility towards Russia that his earlier policy statements have conveyed. Sometimes the U.S. and Russia have divergent interests, and sometimes these interests may conflict, but that’s true of the U.S. and any other major power. His description of Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe” suggests that Romney has a very warped, anachronistic view of the threats to the United States. It’s a good bet that “our number one geopolitical foe” wouldn’t be permitting the resupply of our military in Central Asia through their territory and airspace. For some reason, Romney wants us to think that his Russia policy would be defined by Cold War-era paranoia.”
Is Romney getting a “health-care truce” from members of Congress, as Roll Call puts it? “Even as Rick Santorum steps up his attacks on Mitt Romney over health care, Senate Republicans are expressing confidence in the GOP presidential frontrunner and his ability to lead their party on this crucial issue come November,” the paper writes.
Rep Jeff Denham (R-CA) will endorse Mitt Romney tomorrow, according to a senior Romney aide, NBC’s Garrett Haake reports.
“Republican leaders covering much of the party’s ideological spectrum lined up behind front-runner Mitt Romney yesterday as part of an escalating effort to conclude the presidential primary battle and close ranks before the general election,” Bloomberg says. Al Cardenas of the American Conservative Union, Tea Party Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, and Carly Fiorina all endorsed Romney. Nevada Sen. Dean Heller said he’d bet $100 on Romney being the nominee, though he didn’t endorse and says he doesn’t have plans to.
Bloomberg calls Restore Our Future a “killing machine”: “Since the contests began, Restore Our Future has spent $35 million on commercials attacking Santorum, a former Pennsylvania U.S. senator, and Newt Gingrich, the former U.S. House speaker, the two candidates who have come closest to knocking Romney out of front-runner status, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money. The super-PAC has spent just $1.1 million promoting Romney, the data shows.”
(Romney was also pressed on CNN about the appropriateness of bringing his grandchildren to see The Hunger Games.)
SANTORUM: “Rick Santorum may be ranting about the potential for Mitt Romney to be an Etch-a-Sketch-in-Chief — but that doesn’t mean the conservative wouldn’t be his running mate,” The New York Daily News writes in response to Santorum telling CBN’s Brody: “Of course,” he’d be Romney’s VP if asked. “As I always say, this is the most important race in our country’s history. I’m going to do everything I can. I’m doing everything I can.”
Ouch. The New York Post dubs Santorum “Side-Show Rick.”
Leave a Comment:
We really need to be on good terms with the Russians. We have a lot more in common (say worries about China) than differences. Russia has its own internal problems. They are no longer the USSR of the 1960's.
“Of course,” he’d be Romney’s VP if asked.
Why of course.
If this primary has shown us nothing else, it's that the Republican Party is morally bankrupt. NONE of them really believes what they are saying at any given moment (except Ron Paul, perhaps.) Santorum goes around the country landing body blows on Romney, then turns around and says he'd be his Vice President, if asked. The craven nature of these for-profit candidates is simply unlike anything we have ever seen before.
Amy,
You said the magic words "for-profit candidates". I totally agree.
"This smells of Hollywood" said Medvedev.
Later he issued a challenge to Romney, "I must break you..."
phine - I was thinking the same thing - my focus would be on China too.
Honestly, I look at Romney and it's like he's stuck trying to fit into his father's shoes and those shoes only fit back in the Cold War era.
IF Romoney were President, I cannot imagine how his stale, self-centered attitude would be received by the other powerful leaders around the world. IF Santorum were President, I believe the world would look at the USA and think we've all gone crazy.
Wow $35 million attempting to put down a medieval religious fanatic and a wannabe moon base mayor!
Not only that, it hasn't worked. Does Willard really need to kiss up to St. Richard (Not a Mormon) to neutralize him?
Gotta believe a couple of million in consulting fees to each early on would have been a lot more efficient.
Wow, a put down of Romney by the leader of another nation, better than anything our own press can do. Wrap that one up and play it in the fall. Apparently, someone has been so out of touch that he hasn't noticed the history that has taken place the last 40 years. That's the trouble with some businessmen. So busy making money and listening to accountants, they fail to see and grasp the larger world around them that the rest of us live in.
Have you seen the GOP platform? They think it IS 1954...
Any time a Republican/TP Inc. party politician starts talking about foreign policy, every country in the world starts becoming frightened, friends and enemies alike. If there was ever a poster child for warmongering, it is today's Republican/TP Inc. party.
Matthew, I could not agree more. I cringe too often when I hear the GOPs hatred being heard/read around the world. Hopefully the world knows that the GOP are only out for money, power, and votes. Let's also hope that the world knows that the majority of Americans support President Obama.
Particularly when Willard endorses increasing the non-combat defense budget by $2.5 trillion over the next ten years.
I believe that Russia is one of the most troubling nations today. It might not be the USSR anymore but it is trying to get the alliance back. The best way to confront the Russia's is head on, just like JFK and Reagan did. Russia recently stated that they would have vetoed the UN action in Libya had they known the force used by NATO. They have, and will continue, to block any UN action concerning Iran and Syria. Russia does not want the missile shield, even after President Bush offered them a partnership in the missile shield. I believe President Obama will try, if reelected, to kill the missile shield as he really doesn't want it. (Actually I am not convinced it is needed). The fact that the USSR no longer exist does not mean that Russia is no longer a threat to our national security.
sfcret,
While I agree with most of your assessment of Russia, I believe the old adage of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" may be apropos here. The biggest threat, IMHO, now and in the future is China. Thus, I believe we should try and cultivate whatever kind of alliance we can with Russia.
phinephancy - Russia is trying to revive its super power status and they actually support more so called "rogue nations" than China does. China will go after the U.S. on the economic front and not the military front. Russia has no real economic power to challenge the U.S. on, but they do militarily. We will never have a true alliance with Russia.
BTW, I see you were the first poster on several of the FR articles today.
I am not sure how my being first really happened. Just saw some things I was interested in and commented. I just worry that China is building itself up militarily. And, now remember I am just observing here, there is a lot of civil unrest in Russia now. People in the urban areas are enjoying new found freedoms, I don't see where they want to go back to the "good old days". I don't see us having a close relationship with Russia (the old "verify" thing Regan used to talk about, we need to always keep in mind). But, I do feel it is in both countries best interest to find a working relationship that we can deal with for both our futures.
sfcret and phiny -I think it's not a simple us and them situation anymore. While I do not trust Putin (now that's one scary guy ) and I do not trust China at all! We need both of them to help keep the world stable.
China to try and keep a lid on North Korea and Russia to try and settle the middle east.
They will help us when the situation benefits them and will work at cross purposes when it doesn't.
Just like our ally - Israel (and any other country,right?)
But as far as Russia trying to build back the old alliances - did you guys see Brzezinski on Morning Joe today? very good analysis on Russia's future plans and trying to rebuild her army(and Joe actually let him talk LOL ).
According to Brzezinski, the only way Putin can bring their former satellites back under the Soviet wing and also the only avenue to revive the Army is to make a strong appeal to Nationalism.
If the President runs around spouting Cold War rhetoric and issuing strong arm statements to and about Russia,what a bonus recruiting tool we have handed Putin.
If we keep our stance statesman like and reasoned as though we are partners in the world,we have taken his propaganda edge away from him. (just make sure our intelligence is better than theirs and keep a wary eye on them always).
Phine I agree wholeheartedly,the one to really worry about is China. They are fast building up their armament - not importing,building in country. And what really makes me paranoid is their intelligence gathering ability via computer hacking. (and yet,no one talks about this)
God, I better get my tinfoil hat back on here, I'm scaring myself. ;~)
ps - here's what I have read about JFK's relationship with Russia - he may have talked big for the American public, but he favored back channel diplomacy.
Example - missiles in Cuba - we agreed we would remove our missiles from Turkey that were aimed at Russia,if they removed their missiles from Cuba that were aimed at us.
And if Kennedy had done what the military wanted him to do -done a preemptive strike - we would have had a nuclear war on our hands.
Okay my ranting is boring even me now....
Having been to Russia three times, and doing business in Russia, I can definitely tell you that they will never go back to what the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. They have had a taste of what freedom means, and the people trying to drag them back are the leftovers from, as they say, 'the bad old days'. Putin is 60, and his formative years were during the 60s, near the height of the Cold War, and when the Soviet Union had started showing cracks. There was still glory to be had in those days, and he wanted some of it. His generation is getting old, and the current average life span of a Russian male is 64.5 years. The new generation does not want what the old generation had.
Currently, I personally know a 23 year old criminal investigator in Siberia, a 44 year old tax lawyer, several business people there, and even some who now live here (including a former colleague). There is no way in he11 that the Cold War will return. We may be rivals economically, but we will never be military rivals, again. Until you personally know Russians, you cannot understand them.
The reason the Russians have such interest in the Middle East is because they have long, and strong economic ties. The Middle East is almost on their back door step, there is no ocean between them, just more Muslim dominated countries. To expect them to have the same attitude, and to act the same as America towards the Middle East is to be very naive about the geopolitical realities of Russian interests.
On top of the Middle East at their back door, Eastern Europe is on their front porch, again, with no ocean between them. It would behoove the US to play nice with them, if we want to participate in any economic activity in the Middle East, or Europe. And why not? They represent a market of about 145,000,000 people. They can be a very generous, and warm people, when you get to know them. Just don't pi$$ them off, they are very capable of defending themselves, they've had to defend themselves longer than the white man has been on this continent.
George Washington advised that international alliances should be based on our own self interest. Period! Our 150 odd international competitors base their foreign policies on their own self interests.