Click on WORD or PDF for full content
Toby Harnden starts off the coverage of the open mic in Korea.
Caught on an open mic during a photo op with outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev in Seoul, President Barack Obama did something very, very stupid. He got caught committing what is known in Washington as the ‘Kinsley gaffe’ – being accidentally caught telling the truth – which is, naturally, the most damaging type of all.
‘On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space,’ he told Medvedev, who responded: ‘Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…’
Barack Obama was chatting with outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during a bilateral meeting at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul Obama then cut him off to stress, ‘This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility’ before tapping the Russian reassuringly on his forearm. Medvedev indicated that the message had been received loud and clear: ‘I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.’
Great. So once the election is over, Vladimir Putin, the incoming Russian president, will know that a re-elected Obama can abandon all his campaign promises about taking a tough line with the Russians blah blah because he will never again have to face voters. …
Andrew Malcolm enjoys the flap too.
Barack Obama has, like most in public life, made his share of gaffes–the president of Canada, 57 states, the Austrian language, E Pluribus Unum, the pronunciation of corpsman, among others. To be sure, they are stunning signs of ignorance of things that are common wisdom for most, even Harvard alums.
Closet Obama supporters will seek to downplay the incident. But his Monday mis-step is huge politically and may well come to haunt and hurt him as Republican Mitt Romney rolls out the attack plan for this fall’s campaign and before. Of all the GOP wannabes, Romney has been Obama’s most outspoken critic, especially on the Democrat’s “failed leadership” in foreign policy.
A main strain of Romney’s assaults has been basically, Given the spending, chronic ineptness and apologies for America, can you imagine what Barack Obama would do in a second term unrestrained by any need to face voters ever again?
That’s an effective line because it leaves the worst things possible to voters’ imagination. And there is no response. What can Obama say, “My secret plans aren’t as bad as you think.”
What makes Obama’s Monday blunder so bad is that it doesn’t come from any sort of dismissable ignorance by someone who spent formative childhood years in Indonesia. It was clearly backstage conniving on Obama’s part and feeds directly into Romney’s ‘Can you imagine’ line.
Plus, it fits with the suspicions of millions that the community organizer has unspoken plans to take America in a transformative direction involving much more government. How else to explain his baldly touting more domestic energy while reducing federal drilling permits and torpedoing the Keystone pipeline? …
More on this from Craig Pirrong, the Streetwise Professor, who has a more sophisticated understanding of Russia and its place in the world.
… Obama is trying to deceive someone. He is either deceiving the American people, by his refusal to be honest with his intentions regarding missile defense, or he is attempting to deceive Medvedev (and Putin-the “him” referred to in Obama’s “give me space” remark), by insinuating that he will make a deal after the election. But even the latter interpretation involves an attempt to dodge the US electorate: if he convinces Russia to tone down its rhetoric on BMD, he takes this issue-and the issue of Russia generally-away as a campaign matter. This relieves him of the necessity of dealing honestly and forthrightly with a potentially contentious issue, and permits him to avoid accountability for the complete lack of concrete results arising from the vaunted Reset. If the Russians continue to be cantankerous about missile defense, the Reset looks like a sham. (Well, it is, but it will be obvious to everyone.) If Putin tones it down, based on Obama’s wink and stroke, Obama can continue to claim that he has improved relationships with Russia.
But given the fact that Obama is obviously playing somebody, do you really believe that Putin will conclude that Obama is playing the American electorate, and not Putin? Given Putin’s suspicions of the US, I doubt it.
But I think that Americans have to take seriously the possibility that Obama is planning to conceal actively his intentions regarding a second term. If he is willing to be “flexible” after the election-i.e., if he is willing to do things after the election that are contrary to what he says before it–about Russia and missile defense, what else is he being “flexible”-i.e., lying-about?
In other words, this exchange with Medvedev raises serious additional questions about his sincerity and honesty. I don’t think he deserves space. He deserves to be pressed repeatedly on his intentions, and this video provides a perfect pretext for the pressing.
The exchange with Medvedev was also notable for its confirmation of Medvedev as Putin’s errand boy: “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.” How embarrassing, mainly because Medvedev says that without a trace of embarrassment. He is well and truly whipped. He has his mind right. He knows who is boss.
In fact, pretty much anybody paying attention knew who was boss from day 1. But Obama predicated the Reset on the idea that Medvedev was a rival of Putin’s. How’s that looking now? …
Karl Rove has advice for the GOP on how to handle the open mic.
… Just as Senator John Kerry’s explanation in 2004 that “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it” exposed the Massachusetts Senator as a pandering flip-flopper, so may Mr. Obama’s private-turned-public remarks confirm doubts that he’s not shooting straight with the American people. It may also contribute to a belief that he holds voters in thinly disguised contempt.
Is Mr. Obama also concealing unpopular domestic policies he’ll spring on the country in a second term? What the president calls “flexibility” with Russian autocrats, Americans voters will likely view as a lack of candor with them. If that’s the case, it could seriously undermine the president’s chances for reelection.
This won’t all happen by itself. To make the most of Mr. Obama’s statement, Republicans will need to raise it again and again in speeches, ads, videos and debates. After all, Mr. Kerry’s March 2004 remark became an issue only when repeated endlessly in ads and on the stump by the GOP’s surrogates. Then and only then did it become the “a-ha!” moment that shaped perceptions of the Democratic nominee and helped bring about his defeat.
Alana Goodman deals with excuses from Obama and the NY Times.
… Read the New York Times coverage of Obama’s explanation this morning to get an idea of how fast the media is trying to sink this story. The spin is that Obama was simply being pragmatic. Of course he can’t deal with an issue as complex as missile defense during an election year, what with all those radical Republicans in Congress trying to sabotage his chances in November, and the media jumping all over every little perceived controversy. “I think the stories you guys have been writing over the last 24 hours is pretty good evidence of that,” Obama told reporters this morning. Can you believe the nerve of the press to actually report on the president’s hot-mic conversation with Medvedev?
If Obama had been caught on the hot mic saying, “This is my reelection year. After my election, I can actually get something done on this,” that might mesh with his excuse today that he can’t “get this stuff done” because the politically-charged election year “is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful consultations.”
But Obama didn’t say that. He said: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” That doesn’t sound like someone who is primarily concerned about reaching a bipartisan agreement with Congress. That sounds like someone implying that he can personally offer more after he’s no longer beholden to voters (the key words being “my last election”). …
For a change of pace we have a few items on Mitt Romney’s success lately. Bloomberg News says the GOP is beginning to get behind him.
Republican leaders across the party’s ideological spectrum are lining up behind front-runner Mitt Romney in an escalating effort to conclude the presidential primary battle and close ranks before the general election.
Even as Rick Santorum vowed from the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court (1000L) to continue his challenge to Romney, calls for an end to the contest echoed yesterday across Capitol Hill. Some Republicans fear a prolonged fight could damage their party’s prospects in November.
“Every day we continue to have a protracted primary is one less day you can get prepared for the big race in November,” Senator Johnny Isakson, a Georgia Republican who hasn’t endorsed a candidate, said in an interview.
A series of elected officials, business leaders and party activists have raised similar concerns in recent days, urging Republicans to unite around Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, to avoid further damaging the standing of their nominee against President Barack Obama in the November election. …
According to Naomi Decter at Contentions, Romney was a big hit on Jay Leno two nights ago.
Did my ears deceive me? Was that the “Tonight Show” audience Tuesday night giving Mitt Romney big ovations? On everything from foreign policy to health care and the tax code to Rick Santorum?
They cheered when Mitt said President Obama shouldn’t have hinted to Dmitri Medvedev – even away from a hot mic – that there would be more “flexibility” on missile defense once Obama was reelected. They cheered when Mitt said that if Vladimir Putin was really on our side, he would be fighting for freedom, not for oppression. They cheered when Mitt said he hopes to be the Republican nominee (and laughed when he spontaneously suggested Santorum as press secretary in a Romney administration). They cheered when Mitt said we should encourage businesses to bring foreign profits back to the U.S. They even cheered when Mitt said it’s a dangerous world, and we shouldn’t reduce the size of our military! Oh, and there was a smattering of applause for Marco Rubio; maybe a few tourists from Florida? …
Andrew Malcolm brought us the transcript of the Romney/Leno dialogue.
JAY LENO: Now, this whole election, at least to me, it seems to be about the economy, or it should be about the economy. What would you change about the tax code? What would you do there?
MITT ROMNEY: What I want to do with tax code is create more growth that creates more jobs, and puts more people in a position to have rising incomes, and to pay their taxes. So how do you create a tax code that encourages small businesses to hire?
And the answer is, you bring down the marginal rates, at the same time you get rid of some deductions and exemptions, or you limit them, so that you stay with a code that’s progressive. But you bring down those top tax rates, you get rid of some of the special deals, and by doing that you encourage investment and hiring of American workers.
(Applause.)
JAY LENO: You said something interesting a while back. What is the tax rate for corporations in most of the rest of the world?
MITT ROMNEY: Well, it’s in the 20s. Some nations are lower than that. Our corporate tax rate is 35 percent. So I would want to bring that rate from 35, down to 25. Get rid of some of the special breaks and special deals so we keep the same revenue coming in, but have a lower tax rate so it’s a more attractive place for people to come and invest. But do you know that 54 percent of American workers in the private sector work in business that are taxed at the individual tax rate, not the corporate tax rate?
JAY LENO: Right.
MITT ROMNEY: So when the President says he wants to raise that tax rate from 35 to 40 percent, he’ll kill jobs and small business. And I want to take that tax rate, bring it down to 28 percent so we can create more jobs.
(Applause.) …
Thomas Sowell has nice things to say about Jerry Rivers. Oh wait, I meant Geraldo Rivera.
It is not often that I agree with Geraldo Rivera, but recently he said something very practical and potentially life-saving, when he urged black and Hispanic parents not to let their children go around wearing hoodies.
There is no point in dressing like a hoodlum when you are not a hoodlum, even though that has become a fashion for some minority youths, including the teenager who was shot and killed in a confrontation in Florida. I don’t know the whole story of that tragedy, any more than those who are making loud noises in the media do, but that is something that we have trials for.
People have a right to dress any way they want to, but exercising that right is something that requires common sense, and common sense is something that parents should have, even if their children don’t always have it.
Many years ago, when I was a student at Harvard, there was a warning to all the students to avoid a nearby tough Irish neighborhood, where Harvard students had been attacked. It so happened that there was a black neighborhood on the other side of the Irish neighborhood that I had to pass through when I went to get my hair cut.
I never went through that Irish neighborhood dressed in the style of most Harvard students back then. I walked through that Irish neighborhood dressed like a black working man would be dressed — and I never had the slightest trouble the whole three years that I was at Harvard. …
Turns out popcorn is a very healthy snack. At least that’s what the Daily Mail says.
As well as being a great diet food, popcorn also contains a high level of antioxidents, which help fight harmful molecules.
Plain popcorn has already been hailed as a great diet food for its low calorie content but now a group of scientists claim it may even top fruits and vegetables in antioxidant levels. Antioxidants – known as polyphenols – have huge health benefits as they help fight harmful molecules that damage cells. Popcorn was found to have a high level of concentrated antioxidants because it is made up of just four percent water while they are more diluted in fruits and vegetables because they are made up of up to 90 percent water.
Researchers discovered one serving of popcorn has up to 300mg of antioxidants – nearly double the 160mg for all fruits per serving. …