How to Beat Obama

The president is far more vulnerable than he thinks on foreign policy.

BY KARL ROVE AND ED GILLESPIE | MARCH/APRIL 2012

In an American election focused on a lousy economy and high unemployment, conventional wisdom holds that foreign policy is one of Barack Obama's few strong suits. But the president is strikingly vulnerable in this area. The Republican who leads the GOP ticket can attack him on what Obama mistakenly thinks is his major strength by translating the center-right critique of his foreign policy into campaign themes and action. Here's how to beat him.

First, the Republican nominee should adopt a confident, nationalist tone emphasizing American exceptionalism, expressing pride in the United States as a force for good in the world, and advocating for an America that is once again respected (and, in some quarters, feared) as the preeminent global power. Obama acts as if he sees the United States as a flawed giant, a mistake that voters already perceive. After all, this is the president who said, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Voters also sense he is content to manage America's decline to a status where the United States is just one country among many. As he put it, his is "a U.S. leadership that recognizes our limits."

The Republican nominee should use the president's own words and actions to portray him as naive and weak on foreign affairs. Obama's failed promises, missed opportunities, and erratic shifts suggest he is out of touch and in over his head. For example, before he was elected, he promised to meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela "without precondition." Nothing came of that except a serious blow to the image of the United States as a reliable ally. During the 2008 campaign, he also argued that Iran was a "tiny" country that didn't "pose a serious threat." How foolish that now seems.

At the same time, the Republican candidate should not hesitate to point out where Obama has left his Republican predecessor's policies largely intact. He will be uncomfortable if the nominee congratulates him for applying President George W. Bush's surge strategy to Afghanistan, carrying through on the expanded use of drones, reversing course on the handling of terrorist detainees, and renewing the Patriot Act after previously condemning it as a "shoddy and dangerous law." Such compliments will give the Republican candidate greater ability to be critical of Obama's many fiascoes -- not only his proposed outreach to tyrants in Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, but also the disastrous "reset" with Russia, mismanagement of the U.S. relationship with Pakistan, politicized timetables for withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and neglect of important traditional allies such as NATO, Canada, and Mexico, as well as key rising powers like India.

Obama recognizes that he's seen as "cold and aloof," and the Republican nominee should hammer this point home. The president has few real friends abroad (excepting, of course, Islamist Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as he told Time magazine's Fareed Zakaria). The Republican nominee should criticize Obama for not understanding that the U.S. president's personal engagement is essential for effective global leadership. Obama's lack of regular close contact with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which has destroyed relationships with America's erstwhile allies, is simply the most jarring, inexplicable example of this president's hands-off approach.

Because the fall campaign must be devoted to promoting the Republican message on jobs and the economy, the GOP nominee must share his big foreign-policy vision no later than early summer. Giving voters a sense of where he wants to take the country is important to cementing his image as a leader worthy of the Oval Office. Merely projecting the right image is not enough.

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

 

Karl Rove served as deputy chief of staff and Ed Gillespie as counselor to U.S. President George W. Bush.

WAKETHEWORLD

9:42 PM ET

February 26, 2012

"mismanagement of the U.S. relationship with Pakistan"

Mismanagement of the U.S. relationship with Pakistan? Wrong. Pakistan got what they deserve, a wake up call! I don't care for Obama, but I like how he got Bin Laden in within two years of taking office. It was nice to see the seals in action. Now, the Saudis are next?

 

MODERATEWINGER

11:05 PM ET

February 26, 2012

Are you serious???

Printing anything by Karl Rove is just plain lunacy!!

 

10JACOBF

11:41 PM ET

February 26, 2012

They've done worse...

They had Vladimir Putin write in just a few days ago. But then again this magazine would be less of itself if it didn't take men in power (no matter their past) with a level seriousness.

But to be fair I don't think that what was said in this article is particularly helpful advice to any candidate (GOP or not). It strikes me as too....anachronistic.

 

KAMATH

8:52 AM ET

February 28, 2012

Karl Rove's views on Obama

Do you have to be so grating on Karl Rove who once served as a distingushed public servant.

 

COLD_HARD_FACTS

8:56 AM ET

February 28, 2012

Yea verily.

Yea verily.

 

PABLOPK

11:23 AM ET

February 28, 2012

Not to feed the possible troll, but

Kamath, I don't think mean to shrill but I think it can not fairly be said that Rove ever served as a "distingushed (sic) public servant". The most could be said was that he served as Deputy Chief of Staff, which is largely a political not a public service post, especially under Rove. For the remainder of his White House tenure he served as a policy and political adviser. While he may have able served Bush and the Republican party, he never really served (or even purported to serve) the public's interest.

 

THE_SLASHER14

5:26 PM ET

February 28, 2012

Rove and Gillespie on Obama

My main impression on reading this is "that's the best they can do? Obama is home free."

1. Perhaps Rove and Gillespie think Maliki and Karzai are "allies" but most Americans feel, with considerable justice, that they are self-serving politicians who are skimming at the public trough of their countries and whom we are well rid of (Maliki) and should GET rid of as rapidly as possible (Karzai). If the GOP nominee plans to run on an increased commitment to the Afghan War on the grounds that we cannot abandon Karzai, Obama will eat their lunch AND dinner. If these guys don't know that, their reputations as political operatives are vastly overblown. Even RUSH LIMBAUGH, for God's sake, sees that Afghanistan is a lost cause -- not because of American failings but because the people there don't WANT US to defend them.

2. I would welcome it if the Republican nominee, or his Super-PAC backers, argued that the Seals killed Bin Laden, not Obama. All but the dimmest bulbs on the far right know that if Dubya had given the go on the operation, they would be praising him to the skies. The plain fact is that Obama bet his Presidency on going forward with the operation -- we all remember that when Jimmy Carter did the same thing and it failed, he was toast in 1980. Obama is totally within his rights to claim credit for having gotten the guy Bush failed to get, and trying to minimize his role in it risks being perceived -- rightly -- as sour grapes.

3. The US military views a bombing campaign in Iran as a disaster to be avoided at all costs, because it will cement the hold of the mullahs on the country at the precise time that the sanctions have thrown Iran's economy into turmoil -- the surest way to get the mullahs removed. Military action in the Middle East has FAILED -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and it will in Iran as well. It will continue to fail unless the United States is prepared to occupy the region from Karachi to Tripoli. And we all know -- Iraq proved it -- that the American Army makes a lousy occupation force because the American electorate is not prepared for decades of dead bodies and billions of dollars of money spent on...what, exactly? Our "exceptionalism?" Or is it security firms and oil companies aligned with the GOP? There was a time when that last question would never have been asked, but that time ended with the Iraq War. Only Rove and Gillespie haven't gotten the memo.

4. What these gentlemen are REALLY saying is that foreign policy in this era is filled with complexities and pitfalls that the simpler Cold War era did not have, and that by attempting to work within those parameters Obama has left himself vulnerable to simplistic arguments like "we are exceptional" and "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." They are hoping to win the White House with arguments that will, should they achieve power and try to implement them, put us back into more futile wars like Iraq. They are, in short, putting party politics ahead of national loyalties. Disgusting.

 

ATTYINNY

7:52 PM ET

February 28, 2012

Karl Rove as "a distinguished public servant"?

Really? when did he do that?

 

RSCHOFF

11:04 AM ET

March 2, 2012

Slasher14's comment

Very well said. This "article" doesn't belong here. It's nothing but campaign propoganda. Shame on FP.

 

LIZARDO

2:33 PM ET

March 14, 2012

Distinguished

A distinguished architect of lies.

 

KUNINO

1:05 PM ET

March 16, 2012

Distinguished public servant ...

Mr Rove was on the Bush staff as a political planner, and a smart one: he represented the Republican party rather than the American people.

How was he regarded in his White House circles a few years back? As was well known at the time, the president of the United States had nicknamed him Turd Blossom. That's certainly a mark of distinction.

 

FPREADER13

4:09 AM ET

March 19, 2012

Tremendous comment

Tremendous comment

 

REALREALIST

11:47 PM ET

February 26, 2012

you may not like rove, but he happens to be correct

In order to attempt to appease the muslim "street", obama conjured up an approach called "muslim outreach" as the central plank of his FP coupled with his new miraculous "multilateralism"....specifically, he lined up foreign nations to isolate israel and thought that if the arabs thought he might sacrifice israel then he could appease the muslim world...appeasing your enemies by sacrificing your allies is NEVER a wise strategy.

obama was the one sticking it to israel first. He is on board with samantha power, rashid khalidi, zbigniew, freeman, malley, koh, reverand wright, and many many others... all of whom have well known anti israel viewpoints. no, its not because they are friends of israel and friends can talk this way, its because they really have issue with israel that have nothing to do with friends and everything to do with personal bias.

If netanyahu stood up to obama while obama was abusing him, so be it. He is the democratic leader of a free and sovereign state, whose friendship goes back decades....obama picked a fight with bibi for several reasons, not least of which is obama 's own narrative he was schooled on...he also picked the fight in order to APPEASE the muslims so he could be seen to be "fair"....thus tamping down muslim rage...bad advice he received.

obama has tried to interfere in israeli domestic politics from day 1....he has abused bibi in public and shown another head of state extreme discourtesy. His speeches in cairo, and ankara were subtle and not necessarily friendly...his handling of the freeze where he scolded israel and said nothing to the pals was frankly, a disservice to peace talks; he then made another huge blunder by declaring 67 lines IN ADVANCE of peace talks even beginning. Not that SOME aspects of that border wont come into play, but to declare it in advance, was stupid. Then you have his subtle mention of denuclearization for the region which is really a fantasy and smokescreen so he can hopefully get iran onside...

His WHOLE muslim outreach is a gigantic failure, and MUCH of it has to do with bad advice he's received that basically he sought out due to his own personal narrative about the region. He acts like he's still just a guy, but when your president, you HAVE to put your own narrative aside. He can't or won't.

Mr. Obama's whole foreign policy stinks; including the left's new fetish of leading from behind and the platform of muslim outreach, which has been tied to the so called "realists" notion of "treating Israel fairly". I also think the whole focus group contrived "RESET BUTTON" with Russia has been a GIANT failure, what with the removed missiles from Poland and Czech republic while receiving NOTHING in return...and NOW he wants to supply Turkey with an x-band radar (ostensibly through NATO as his cutout so he gets deniability so to speak) knowing that the x-band in turkeys hands drives a big whole through his whole medium range missile shield vis a vis Israel's protection. I think his foreign policy is weak, I think it is dangerous. If everyone wants to lead from behind on the toughest issues like Iran and Syria, then who will lead from the front? It is asinine and the republicans ought not be afraid to confront him on it. Using drones from cozy Las Vegas is fine, and it arguably helps, however, its ‘easy’ to do. Sending in seal team 6 was not easy per se, but it was THE call to make for any president. but these don't make a foreign policy...the whole surge in Afghanistan was made with wrought hands until his team devised a political win in it by suggesting they have a pro hawk FP BECAUSE of the surge , and yet at the same time they announced its departure!...which of course was for the left wing ....but it made NO SENSE FROM A NATIONAL SECURITY point of view...and THAT needs to be attacked...He played politics for domestic electoral needs and put that ahead of sound geopolitical strategy. I call that selfish and I call that a lack of leadership. What happened to the first “post partisan” president? I mean, could the media have been more deceived?

I think Iran will be his 3AM call and it will be his legacy. He PLEDGED in 08 to never allow Iran nuclear weapons...and ever since then, he has subtly been moving towards cold war containment theories, which wont work here, and to nuclear umbrellas which similarly wont work. He needs to be challenged on his words! His whole idea to float a world without nukes is if you ask me, a "direction" he wants to lay out so he can eventually try to denuke iran by ostensibly de-nuking Israel. I am sure this is his aim. Again, it’s naive. As for the "RESET" button with Russia; Just last week Russia announced it will recieve a delegation from hezbollah. Is that part of the new RESET? And what of China? Obama's whole new kinder MULTILATERAL approach was supposed to win over China for new FP initiatives and what does China do? They were offered Saudi oil to replace their Iranian oil (14% of China's oil needs) at lesser prices too and what did they say to Obama? No thank you. Obama should be challenged on all of these issues. I could go on about the handling of the peace process sham, or the Muslim outreach efforts re; Gitmo, “man made disasters”, morandizing on the battlefield, the fort hood Muslim terrorist they wont call a Muslim terrorist, asking NASA to make Muslim outreach its number 1 priority…etc..etc…

Obama’s sleight of hand FP needs to have a bright line shone on it…

Lastly, vis vis israel, his "unshakeable ally"; has he been to his Israel even ONCE since he's president? He's been to ankara, He's been to riyahd, He's been to cairo...but not his BEST FRIEND in the region????.

yes my friends, something in denmark stinks...if it walks and talks like a duck...well, you know the rest...

 

JOHNBOY4546

1:39 AM ET

February 27, 2012

Thanks for that, TIMING.

Note that REALREALIST is simply the troll who used to call himself TIMING, because this exact same nonsense was posted by TIMING in Thomas Rick's blog back on January 30, 2012.

Either that, or both these lamentable script-kiddies are cutting 'n' pasting from the same documents....

 

JMBELAN

12:37 PM ET

February 27, 2012

Cliches in place of ideas

There is little effective difference between what Obama has done and what McCain would have done. The rhetoric is different but not the result. That's why Rove is way off target here. And besides that, no Republican candidate other than Huntsman ever sounded like more than a high school student (and not one planning on going to college) when he or she talked about foreign policy. Especially Romney. Most people think Hillary is one of the best at her job since George Schultz and are not in the mood for exceptionalism. Yes, Iran is dangerous, but no one has a better plan--one that will work any better--than containment. I guess we can thank to neo-cons for making sure that a military strike is the last thing most people want. Go ahead and use the "a" word (appeasement)--no one with a brain is listening

 

BAH1MAN

11:35 AM ET

February 28, 2012

I think his real name must be

I think his real name must be Karl or Ed.

 

LIZARDO

2:38 PM ET

March 14, 2012

Appeasment

I recognize Barry's tendency to appease those who would destroy the government of the nation (Republicans) but who out there offers a better alternative?

Rove designed the strategy of selling the nation for influence. Seriously, they just borrowed money from China to bribe the Congress.

 

LABIBLIOTECA

12:24 AM ET

February 27, 2012

Really?

Come on, FP, I want to hear from scholars.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

12:40 AM ET

February 27, 2012

hahaha

Mr. Rove, Mr. Gillespie

You said:
" Obama acts as if he sees the United States as a flawed giant, a mistake that voters already perceive. After all, this is the president who said, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." "

Here's the deal. If you don't believe what Obama was saying there is the truth, then you are an unabashed idiot of the highest order. Only a man with sub-par intelligence would truly believe that the Untied States is actually more exceptional than other countries just because of who we are. We will only remain exceptional if we work hard to be so; NOT because we were born so. To think otherwise is un-American, and an affront to the men and women who fought and worked HARD to make this country free AND exceptional.

 

FEYD

2:43 AM ET

February 27, 2012

You my friend are wrong

America is different, it is Obama who hates everything that makes USA exceptional. He would like to change it to another boring European state like sweden with high taxes and big government.

 

MELODYBA

9:57 AM ET

February 27, 2012

Feyd's reply

??????? Hurricanewarning says what's so, what's in our very Declaration of Independence. Try reading it.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

1:46 PM ET

February 27, 2012

In response to FEYD

Thanks for once again proving my point, that people who think in line with modern conservatism are just a little bit (well, some a lot) less intelligent than the rest of us. Sigh...If only there were an IQ test for voting eligibility.

 

FEYD

2:31 AM ET

February 28, 2012

RIGHT

If I am not thinking like you I am an idiot and dont deserve to have a vote. Typical, in Soviet Union people who didnt believe that they lived in the most developed, free and progressive country in the world were diagnosed with "Sluggish schizophrenia" and hospitalized in mental institutions.
In USA people who dont agree with the liberal elites are only declared stupid, for now...

 

FEYD

3:20 AM ET

February 28, 2012

in addition

It does not matter how hard you work if the system does not support you. Look at the east and west Germany during cold war, same kind of people, I suppose they work as hard but only one country succeeded. Why? because in one of those countries the political system is far better.

The time proved that the system in America is better than in the rest of the world (but still not perfect of course), then the question is why Obama hates it so much?

 

COLD_HARD_FACTS

9:02 AM ET

February 28, 2012

And once again our

And once again our Scandinavian allies, in their immaculately clean homes, raise their lips from their Glogg, stretch out their long clean limbs to exclaim, "Wait, WE'RE the bad guys?"

 

JMBELAN

8:21 AM ET

February 29, 2012

not just liberals--it's the way it is

you are right about liberals but the same can be said even more strongly about the right--you disagree with me not only are you wrong, but stupid, immoral, unpatriotic, a secular monster, traitor, and blah blah blah. Maybe the Soviets did win the cold war at least as far as permanently damaging our political discourse

 

THE WIND

3:22 PM ET

February 29, 2012

HURRICANEWARNING

Well mr. Feyd,

As a response on your reaction about your conclusion that America is better than for example Sweden (i particulary don't like or dislike that country), i wonder if you ever have visited Europe.
I can assure you that Western Europe is in a much better shape than the United States are at the moment.
Despite the Greek tragedy.
We do have a different way of looking at taxes, or at least fot the use of it.
I don't like taxes just like every American or European or anybody else on this world for that matter.
That doesn't say that because of the taxsystem in Europe we are some dull people who don't know what life is or should be.
Fact is that the social system in Europe and the care for the ones who are in a bad situation because of illness or unemployment is way better than in the U.S.
We pay a lot, that's for sure, but we also get a lot and i don't have to be afraid to be left at the sideline, just because something happened to me and i couldn't help it.
This is not a stupid communist idea, a lot of Americans see it that way, it is just that we believe everybody should participate in our community's.
Nobody must be left alone because he or she isn't able to support him or herself.

It isn't perfect, the system does have it's pro's and con's, but if i would have choice, i would go for Europe and not for the Karl Grove type of country that you seem to endorse.

And yes, i am from the Netherlands and i have been in America Twice now in 2009 and 2011 and i have seen the growing poverty because of people like Karl Grove.

I hope for you that you never get in a situation where you have to beg for food at Karl Groves house, because he will let you die.

 

NONAMEON

3:04 AM ET

March 2, 2012

Obama wanted Gitmo closed,

Obama wanted Gitmo closed, engage with Iran and Syria cordially, pull out the military from the Middle East practically overnight, reach a global climate change deal, and wanted nuclear weapons wiped off the face of the Earth. These and more foreign and domestic policy farces proved to never pan out even in outline. Worse still, they were equally ridiculous and unrealistic as any that GOP candidates have - but most of us knew that anyway. It is strange how this GOP nominee selection became about Obama. I guess they think the insurance to the nomination goes through bashing him. They have no economical plans to insurance our pockets, no political plans to insurance our safety and certainly no energy plans to insurance our future. It's all about bashing Obama.

 

FEYD

8:35 AM ET

March 4, 2012

@HURRICANEWARNING

I dont mean to offend you sir, but the Dutch showed what kind of people they are in 1993 in Srebrenica. I dont blame the soldiers, it is the system that produces that kind of people.

 

SURREAL WOMBAT

10:54 AM ET

March 18, 2012

Exceptional Americans - with few exceptions

Besides being exceptionally loud, Americans are also exceptionally fat.
I'm talking serious lard-arsery here, not little pot-bellies or "big-boned" individuals.

Autopsies on Americans dead reveal an average of over 7 lbs of fecal matter attached to the intestines. This is not passing through, this is attached, it's stuck on, it's not going anywhere.
So, by any stretch of the imagination, Americans are exceptional.
They're full of it.

 

CHARLESFRITH

1:16 AM ET

February 27, 2012

Do People Even Take Lizard Rove Seriously?

He's despised by ordinary humans.

 

FOPO27

2:43 AM ET

February 27, 2012

@Karl Rove - You're too old,

@Karl Rove - You're too old, just let it go

 

C4LCNCPLS

5:33 AM ET

February 27, 2012

Not So

Considering it takes the independent votes to win the presidency, this is the worst approach a candidate could take.

Most independents are totally against the wars and coming off as war mongers will insure a loss.

You can only beat Obama by taking away his independent votes.

Stress the spending and debt incurred under his administration.
(From Washington to Bush $6.3 Trillion. Obama alone $6.5 Trillion)
The state of the economy.
The joblessness.
The loss of freedoms
The lack of respect for our constitution

Then, you can take Obama voters away from Obama and beat Obama.

 

SWEINBERG

2:31 PM ET

February 27, 2012

Independent Voters...

Seriously a misnomer. There is no such thing as truly independent voters, merely those who wish not to publicly disclose their political disposition. We talk about independent voters as if they exist as a collective voting block that can be swayed with clever psuedo-intellectual arguments. Nothing could be further from the truth. Independent is the keyword, and that anyone who self identifies as such - your truly included - it is given as much a signal to keep your petty political pep talks to yourself - I'll make up my own mind - thank you very much. In the macro scale, the reality is the more we slide off towards a totalitarian police state with government bureaucrats steering the ship by the politically correct winds whipped up by the media elite, the more you will see the voting population identify itself as independent. The American voting public is clearly divided in half, and those who wish not to pledge allegiance to a particular political party has as much to do with the failure of their politicians as it does a resistance to being categorized as a lemming voter. If only our elected officials would spend less time working on their golf games and more time addressing the real issues affecting our daily lives, we'd have a better world to show for it. We've shaded our eyes long enough to the disparity between the light of what we wish for, and the promise of what we've yet to see.

 

REALREALIST

8:30 AM ET

February 27, 2012

 

XTIANGODLOKI

9:43 AM ET

February 27, 2012

Look at Turd Blossom's last real "success"

Turd Blossom's efforts produced Dubya, one of the worst US presidents in history. Now I do think that Rove is a genius when it comes to manipulating the public, but he is out there to win for his party and not necessarily to make America a better place.

 

BAH1MAN

11:34 AM ET

February 28, 2012

He is doing it again. And the

He is doing it again. And the Republican base is stupid enough to buy this crap.

 

PIXIESTIXX

1:15 PM ET

February 28, 2012

Not This Time...

It's a good thing that the Republican base that buys this bullshit is less than 22% of the overall electorate.

Let the Bush dead-enders/teabaggers rant and rave, but the rest of us will NEVER allow them back into power again after what they did in Iraq.

 

BLAKESTILWELL

9:55 AM ET

February 27, 2012

Karl Rove?

Everything Karl Rove and his Neocons have done within the last twenty years was absolutely wrong in regard to Foreign Policy. It's a good thing he thinks the President is wrong. the only thing I fault Obama for is not putting Karl Rove in a federal prison where he belongs. Traitor!

 

PIXIESTIXX

1:14 PM ET

February 28, 2012

Amen

Karl Rove is a goddamn war criminal.

 

JFAIR

1:38 PM ET

February 27, 2012

What about your own position?

Karl rove seems to have ignored the Republican position of foreign policy of War with the Taliban and War with Iraq. This position represents an area of great weakness in a country drowning in debt and weary of war. A vote for the Republicans is a vote for war.

 

KEYBASHER

1:47 PM ET

February 27, 2012

No one since FDR has defined "victory"

"He should make the case that victory must be America's national goal, not merely seeking to "delegitimize the use of terrorism and to isolate those who carry it out," as Obama's May 2010 National Security Strategy put it. As in the Cold War, victory will require sustained U.S. involvement and a willingness to deploy all tools of influence -- from diplomacy to economic ties, from intelligence efforts to military action. "

Messrs. Rove and Gillespie carry on the classically American Cold-War-era mistake of never openly defining in concrete terms what constitutes "victory."

The WW1 Allies made victory for themselves and abject defeat for Germany but never convinced the latter to accept that defeat. The interwar "stab in the back" myth which the Nazis cultivated, and the subsequent unraveling of the peace, led FDR in 1943 to demand at Casablanca for the Axis Powers' unconditional surrender. The Germans and the Japanese were left with no doubt that they'd lost the war. Since then we've enjoyed a prosperous peace with them.

OTOH, also since then no PotUS has defined any American war aims - not Truman in Korea; not Ike, JFK or LBJ in Vietnam; not Reagan in Lebanon (remember that?); not Bush41 in Kuwait or Somalia; not Clinton in Iraq or the Balkans; not Bush43 in Afghanistan or Iraq (no, not even when he declared "mission accomplished.) NONE of them set any terms for "victory." Except for the part of Korea we refused to let go, we enjoy neither peace nor prosperity in any of these places.

 

JSMITH1177

1:56 PM ET

February 27, 2012

Karl Rove - Seriously?

How anyone can take anything said / written by Karl Rove seriously is beyond me. After presiding over 8 years of disastrous foreign policy, this guy tries to say that Obama is weak on foreign policy?

Perhaps Rove hasn't read up on the latest economic news that shows huge wins for Obama, and therefore very bad news for Republicans. On the foreign policy front - oh yeah Karl - I'm sure the thing on every American's mind is GEEZ WHY ARE WE LEAVING IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN?? Why don't we continue to pour trillions of dollars into these foreign countries while we can't even afford to take care of our own citizens and infrastructure?

Give me a break - these clowns should be laughed out of town. You had your chance Karl and you messed up big time. Go away please.

 

POLITIKALHACK

2:39 PM ET

February 27, 2012

non-sequiters and contradictions

I just love Karl..and Ed too! Great guys with 'great minds'...Arguably the best heads currently taking up space in the world of conservative politiks. That said, I'd like to humbly submit a question about their Escherichian logic regarding how the opposition candidate should address Obama's foreign policy choices.

Let's begin: If Obama must be held to task for his foreign policy choices, and if those choices are held to be weak and subject to rabid criticism by the right, then how can the dynamic duo make the claim that [their] republican candidate: "... not hesitate to point out where Obama has left his Republican predecessor's policies largely intact."

This line also applies to Obama's policies regarding health care and TARP.

Somebody from the conservative brain trust help me out here. George Will?

The notion that any person that holds or will hold the office of POTUS has the power to meaningfully affect policy choices in today's political arena is naive at best. The entire [political] system has been co-opted by what is commonly called the 'power elite.' And whatever policies the 'new boss' promises to address, is subject to the will of these power players. That said, if indeed "K Street" is the real public policy creator, then perhaps the answer to the implied question of how do we return the political system to one that includes the People in the policy loop, we might start by admitting that this Republic will not remain a republic if it continues to look--and act--like an Empire created by the 1% bent on world rule.

The term 'realpolitik' comes to mind...as it should if you are a practicing [political] citizen. It is based on the notion that states will act in their own best interests. Another term is 'rationalism' used in the context of international relations theory. Both ideas posit the idea that in order to insure continued existence as a viable nation-state, that state must first express its identity on the world stage as a major player with the political [read military] might to maintain its sovereignty, which by extension, means that it must command the resources it needs to exist. The rational state model and the policy of realpolitik, have been the stated goal of the U.S. since the first WW. Also, then, we could argue that those most interested in maintaining this state world view must obtain the power necessary to ensure that the state can achieve this stated goal. Manipulation of peripheral states with the goal of controlling their resources deemed vital to 'national security' then becomes the raison d' etre of that state.

OK so much for Poli-sci 101. I personally love the election cycles here in the U.S. The spectacle is worth every penny of the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be spent creating this political reality show. I can start back up my day trading as the economy will certainly gain from the obscene amounts of money pumped into the economy--especially the media stocks. Already by modest portfolio has gone from a paper ROI of 5% to 16%!

So here's the deal: Obama will get another 4 years. The conservatives will rethink their party and align themselves anew along whatever new dividing line they think will represent the new [moral] majority. The liberals will try and find a backbone and attempt to act more like the party of the people and not the left wing of the Republican party.

And I'm going to get a job on K Street, where the real politicians live.

 

BRIGHTLIGHT

3:50 PM ET

March 28, 2012

Dear Mr. 16% Thanks for your

Dear Mr. 16%
Thanks for your poli-sci 101 lecture. but here's the real deal: Obama is already finished and he does'nt know it yet. It does'nt have anything to do with money.It has everything to do with arrogance,pride,and a contempt for life as we have known it in this country for centuries. The days of his promotion of the taking of unborn human life on a world scale and financing it is the single most contributor to his own demise.He has been repeatedly told by religious leaders from pope's to parish priests,and from prominent spiritual leaders of many faiths all over the world.Yet, he treats them as if they were political precinct leaders of a political party and arrogantly dismisses their admonitions to stop.These people are called by God and act on his behalf. It is not without mercy that he hase been repeatedly warned. Now, upon his own reflection when he is not re-elected, he still will not admit to his failure to reverse his course as the reason for his removal. The office he now holds and is seeking again will escape him,and sadly it is the one thing he wants most of all. If you tout yourself as being christian and participate, infact lead the effort to destroy human life,indeed on that world platform, does God not see ? Will God not act? So, all the other issues going on today are mere symptoms of the bigger issue. What all the discussion is about is really mostly about the mechanics of what will lead to a particular outcome of a presidential election on various fronts and we can be oh so intellectual about it and we are all experts. The trruth of it is God is still in controll.He gave us enough rope the last time and we deceived ourselves. Now he is bringing us back and recovery is looming. Not because of President Obama but by His mercy. Our next president will not be the peoples most charismatic choice but will be more than suitable to help bring us back from our current set of circumstances.

 

MCM_47

3:26 PM ET

February 27, 2012

Here we go again, Rove and his lies...

KARL ROVE, is
such a lire, He could not even be trusted when working for Bush. He was approved a lire then. I don’t care if a person is Republican or Democrat, but theses fools who talk such trash like in this article, any person with a 4th grade education can see that it is lies. Under Bush, since 9-11; he never was able to get Bin Laden, however, we have a President who did, but he is still considered not up on Foreign affaires. Rove, you look like an fool when you talk like this.

 

RICHABEAUTY

3:56 PM ET

February 27, 2012

All is Well

I think Americans are a bit different than the others, its the presidential rule which hates all and making America to be excluded from everything. awesome recipes

 

RYANINDUSTRY

4:12 PM ET

February 27, 2012

Karl - the stupid people you pander to

don't read FP. Get off it. This would be laughable if it wasn't actually published. Just like it would laughable we invaded Iraq because they had WMD's if it hadn't actually happened, resulting in tens of thousands of innocent and American casualties.

 

GARYJAMESONEILL

4:33 PM ET

February 27, 2012

The president is far more vulnerable than he thinks!

There is little effective difference between what Obama has done and what McCain would have done. The rhetoric is different but not the result. That's why Rove is way off target here. And besides that, no Republican candidate other than Huntsman ever sounded like more than Web Design a high school student (and not one planning on going to college) when he or she talked about foreign policy. Especially Romney. Most people think Hillary is one of the best at her job since George Schultz and are not in the mood for exceptionalism. Thanks for the information.

 

OLSONIST

5:51 PM ET

February 27, 2012

I sure hope that Romney the

I sure hope that Romney the client follows the advice of Karl Rove his political consultant.

If Romney/Rove wants to get into a tit for tat with Obama about who gets credit for killing OBL, good luck with that. Romney sure didn't and Bush sure didn't either. And Michael Hayden didn't either. Basically that's just a whole bunch of didn't eithers and that argument will convince exactly no one.

Generally, Obama gets an B+ grade in the foreign policy arena. If he had extracted us from Afghanistan that'd be an A-. If he'd deal with Syria already probably an A. But that's a pretty good grade.

This election was supposed to be about the economy but with an improving economy and an embarrassing cohort of Republican candidates contesting an endless gauntlet of primaries, the last thing voters will listen to is Rove lecturing them on the foreign policy of the one adult in the room.

Yeah, good luck with that.

 

REALREALIST

6:28 PM ET

February 27, 2012

I give obama an f for a failed foreign policy.

Mr. Obama's whole foreign policy stinks; including the left's new fetish of leading from behind and the platform of muslim outreach, which has been tied to the so called "realists" notion of "treating Israel fairly". I also think the whole focus group contrived "RESET BUTTON" with Russia has been a GIANT failure, what with the removed missiles from Poland and Czech republic while receiving NOTHING in return...and NOW he wants to supply Turkey with an x-band radar (ostensibly through NATO as his cutout so he gets deniability so to speak) knowing that the x-band in turkeys hands drives a big whole through his whole medium range missile shield vis a vis Israel's protection. I think his foreign policy is weak, I think it is dangerous. If everyone wants to lead from behind on the toughest issues like Iran and Syria, then who will lead from the front? It is asinine and the republicans ought not be afraid to confront him on it. Using drones from cozy Las Vegas is fine, and it arguably helps, however, its ‘easy’ to do. Sending in seal team 6 was not easy per se, but it was THE call to make for any president. but these don't make a foreign policy...the whole surge in Afghanistan was made with wrought hands until his team devised a political win in it by suggesting they have a pro hawk FP BECAUSE of the surge , and yet at the same time they announced its departure!...which of course was for the left wing ....but it made NO SENSE FROM A NATIONAL SECURITY point of view...and THAT needs to be attacked...He played politics for domestic electoral needs and put that ahead of sound geopolitical strategy. I call that selfish and I call that a lack of leadership. What happened to the first “post partisan” president? I mean, could the media have been more deceived?

I think Iran will be his 3AM call and it will be his legacy. He PLEDGED in 08 to never allow Iran nuclear weapons...and ever since then, he has subtly been moving towards cold war containment theories, which wont work here, and to nuclear umbrellas which similarly wont work. He needs to be challenged on his words! His whole idea to float a world without nukes is if you ask me, a "direction" he wants to lay out so he can eventually try to denuke iran by ostensibly de-nuking Israel. I am sure this is his aim. Again, it’s naive. As for the "RESET" button with Russia; Just last week Russia announced it will recieve a delegation from hezbollah. Is that part of the new RESET? And what of China? Obama's whole new kinder MULTILATERAL approach was supposed to win over China for new FP initiatives and what does China do? They were offered Saudi oil to replace their Iranian oil (14% of China's oil needs) at lesser prices too and what did they say to Obama? No thank you. Obama should be challenged on all of these issues. I could go on about the handling of the peace process sham, or the Muslim outreach efforts re; Gitmo, “man made disasters”, morandizing on the battlefield, the fort hood Muslim terrorist they wont call a Muslim terrorist, asking NASA to make Muslim outreach its number 1 priority…etc..etc…

Obama’s sleight of hand FP needs to have a bright line shone on it…

Lastly, vis vis israel, his "unshakeable ally"; has he been to his Israel even ONCE since he's president? He's been to ankara, He's been to riyahd, He's been to cairo...but not his BEST FRIEND in the region????.

yes my friends, something in denmark stinks...if it walks and talks like a duck...well, you know the rest...

 

OLSONIST

8:04 PM ET

February 27, 2012

Obama's 3am call

was Osama bin Laden. Answered, not sent to the message machine.

Obama also handled Libya with finesse. He extracted us from Iraq. Overall, he has been cooly efficient in the foreign policy arena. I especially like his refocusing on the Pacific, on China.

What you call leading from behind, most people call building a coalition. It worked well for Clinton in the Baltics and it worked well for the first Bush in Iraq.

And in that region, Turkey is our best friend. We have a long history with Turkey; we used to station missiles there when that was important. Should anything happen in Syria, Obama will use his goodwill to lean on Turkey to help out, especially in the aftermath.

Saudi Arabia is just too massively important, would that weren't the case but it is. Israel on the other hand, is an interest, not an ally. Allies help; interests need to be helped.

 

REALREALIST

8:31 PM ET

February 27, 2012

sorry...a few pts

libya? that was sarko's and camerons win. obama could have stepped in far earlier to prevent the 7 months of bloodhsed that did take place. libya is now mired in sectarian and tribal violence. It too is islamicizing and fast.

iraq was something that he ought to have and could have pushed maliki on to retain a military training and advisary role...he chose not to for political pts and it will come to hurt the US in the region. See iran..

vis a vis turkey..are you kidding me? erdogan is a nasty islamist who is hurting not helping matters in the middle east...either obama is naive to erdogan OR he is onside with erdogan. I think its the latter.

That aside, you very obviously didnt mention Russia and the laughable "RESET BUTTON"...which as you can see, is horribly broken. I assume you can connect the dots on that. So much for his new gentler kinder multilateralism....what a joke that is....

pakistan? a mess where the US pakistan relationship is in freefall.

Israel? the relationship is detriorating fast and not because of bibi...it falls squarely on obama.

china? they are doing squat to help with iran...

lastly- iran? here's where it IS 3 am and the phone is ringing...obama is shitting the bed.

saudi? they loathe obama. Egypt? going islamist.

overall ??? an F for his piss poor foreign policy. Hell, even Canada hates him!!! That alone tells you what a boob obama is....

 

OLSONIST

9:06 PM ET

February 27, 2012

amusing

I'll have to inform my Canadian in-laws that they hate Obama. They'll be disappointed. In fact, Obama is massively popular in Canada and made his first foreign visit to Ottawa.

As per Libya, under Resolution 1973, Operation Odyssey Dawn was initially under *our* overall strategic command, eventually under NATO. Neither France nor the UK ever held command. As to their sectarian conflict, that's gonna happen. It's kind of like what happened after Bush liberated Iraq.

As per Turkey, Erdogan must be the worst kind of Islamist. You know, the NATO member wants to join the EU kind. Just the worst.

Russia is an oil state with a foreign policy problem, easily ignored with Putin in power. How you go from superpower to the resource cursed takes imagination.

China is more of a problem. Their mercantilism is effective and get this. They're part of the Iran problem. They are the Iran problem. If Syria is a going to be a proxy war with Iran, Iran is a proxy for China. It's where they get their oil and China needs oil. Lots of it.

"pakistan? a mess where the US pakistan relationship is in freefall." Yeah, Obama probably shouldn't have killed OBL and gone and hurt their tender feelings. They'll get over it. Heck, they just went and leveled OBL's house. Sounds like they're at the fifth stage of grief.

"saudi? they loathe obama." Obama isn't Bush. He doesn't kowtow to either Tel Aviv or Riyadh. He's what we call American.

 

OLSONIST

9:25 PM ET

February 27, 2012

Bush and Obama in Canada

Yes, Obama is quite popular in Canada:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/barack-obama-more-popular-canadians-stephen-harper-190049037.html

It pegs him at 55% Canadian approval compared to Steven Harper's 43%. The article then goes on to say about Bush,

A 2008 Canadian Press/Harris Decima study found 42 per cent of respondents called Bush one of the worst presidents in U.S. history, while 23 per cent said he was the "absolute" worst.

 

RSCHOFF

11:28 AM ET

March 2, 2012

REALREALIST

Reading this person's stuff argues for these replies being moderated. A realist is the last thing (s)he is.

I suppose it serves FP right, for printing campaign distortions from Rove.

 

AUSTEN_NICK

6:50 PM ET

February 27, 2012

It is surprising that Foreign

It is surprising that Foreign Policy would provide Mr. Rove a venue to perpetuate ignorance and I hope that they rethink such matters in the future. For starters:

Where does Mr. Rove's credibility on foreign policy come from? His administration ignored the terror threat prior to 9/11, didn't provide OEF the resources needed to defeat the Taliban, didn't provide the soldiers and diplomats in Iraq the resources to do their job until the surge in 2007 after they had enacted policies that brought the country deep into a civil war. The administration's excuses have been that nobody could have foreseen what would happen is surprising considering the long standing animosity between Sunni and Shia Muslims in Iraq. To say that the challenges were unforeseen is to admit ignorance of matters they should have been thoroughly versed in. The Bush administration's handling of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars should be case studies in how to lose international allies and alienate people.

If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it will be the culmination of efforts that continued throughout the Bush administration and they wills hare the failure of US foreign policy. A country doesn't develop a nuclear program inside three years. If anything, the Bush administration probably accelerated Iran's desire to be secretive and their desire to obtain nuclear weapons by casting them as a pariah state and part of an axis of evil. If the most powerful country in the world did that to you, wouldn't you want to hold the trump card that could keep them at bay?

Let's also not forget that North Korea actually did develop nuclear weapons during the Bush administration, as well as launched several missiles. If is surprising that somebody who was a failure in this arena is so outspoken about Obama on Iran before Iran has even tested a nuclear bomb.

The comments about the OBL raid and how" In the end, voters know that Obama did not kill bin Laden -- SEALs did." are downright disrespectful. Somebody such as Rove who would have personally witnessed many decisions that a president makes that involve great amounts of risk should know that in a decision of that weight, the president carries the the burden on his shoulders. If the raid had been a failure and SEALs had died, Mr. Rove would surely be blaming Obama for putting our servicemen at risk and jeopardizing our relations with a key ally. Obama has been very outspoken in his praise for the military and to suggest otherwise is appalling.

Rove's comments on American exceptionalism are also based in ignorance. Nobody wants to work with a country that walks into the room with the attitude that they are better then everybody else and always right. The Bush administration proved that the United States can make mistakes, and to pretend otherwise is unhelpful in an arena where we must be willing to make the concessions and choices necessary to get things done.

It is all too easy to criticize Mr. Rove's article. Foreign Policy editors, Mr. Rove already has a pulpit to pander to ignorance and be disrespectful on Fox News and any number of talk radio stations. He does not need the respectful institution of Foreign Policy.

 

REALREALIST

10:31 PM ET

February 27, 2012

weird blog but a very interesting picture...

http://frankfamilyfacts.blogspot.com/2008/06/michelle-obama-and-mother-khadijah.html

what is michelle obama doing with louis farrakans wife?

 

REALREALIST

10:37 PM ET

February 27, 2012

more good stuff...its all on google...

http://www.jillstanek.com/political-antilife-bias/latest-on-the-m.html

 

DELTA22

2:13 AM ET

February 28, 2012

-

Yeah, I'm not reading anything written by such a shameless partisan hack.

 

ANBUDMOR

6:38 AM ET

February 28, 2012

Obama bad, but Republicans offerings awful

This article presupposes that the current stable of Republican pretenders could beat Obama; that is clearly a mistaken supposition. While Obama has been a very poor president, the only opponent who could reasonably challenge him is not liked by a large number of Republicans, and the other candidates are all nut-jobs.

 

COLD_HARD_FACTS

8:55 AM ET

February 28, 2012

Who Are You to Speak to Us, Again?

Is there anyone demonstrably less qualified to give political advice to Karl Rove? Is there? The man singlehandedly responsible for the implosion of the Bush Administration, the collapse of neoconservatism and wholly to blame for the sucking vaccuum of leadership in the present GOP will now, from a secure location hidden within the blasted heath of the Republican landscape, will now sermonize to us how to beat Obama?

With all due respect, the fact that Obama occupies the Oval Office is the direct result of Rove's past advice so I respectfully suggest that we all take a pass on anything -and everything- this proven loser offers.

 

SJWILLIAMS12

9:10 AM ET

February 28, 2012

...or perhaps just lie about what Obama actually said.

…And it only took a few paragraphs to do it:

"During the 2008 campaign, he (Obama) also argued that Iran was a 'tiny' country that didn't 'pose a serious threat.' How foolish that now seems."

Silly naive Obama, guess I better click on the link to see him acting "foolish" again.

Obama: "....Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny COMPARED TO THE SOVIET UNION (of the Cold War era)....they don't pose a serious threat to us THE WAY THE SOVIET UNION (of the Cold War era) DID..."

Wow, amazing what a little context will do. Unfortunately, I guess Rove and Gillespie don't give Republican voters enough credit that they can stay focused for more than single word policy statements.

What's even more amazing about the gall of Rove and Gillespie is that video they've linked to actually shows Obama PRAISING BY NAME previous Republican presidents’ foreign policy and their successes..

 

PIXIESTIXX

1:12 PM ET

February 28, 2012

Typical Rovian Lie

Karl Rove has been a liar his entire career. Why should we be surprised when he continues to spread his pernicious filth by misquoting Obama now?

 

SJWILLIAMS12

2:15 PM ET

February 28, 2012

FP would be better off having Ham Rove write editorials..

Indeed. I particularly enjoyed the second-to-last paragraph of utter-BS. Let’s have a look:

A November 2011 survey conducted by Resurgent Republic (A) showed that 50 percent of voters (as well as 54 percent of self-identified independents) think America's standing in the world is worse under Obama, while only 21 percent believe it is better. This represents a sharp drop from April 2010(B), when 50 percent (C) of voters (and 49 percent of independents) (D) believed Obama had improved America's standing.

(A) Resurgent Republic helps policy makers, think tanks, interest groups and others advocate for policies that are consistent with conservative principles, and to oppose policies that stifle job creation, weaken national security and undermine values that have made America a great country…

Nope, can’t see any potential bias there.

(B) What poll does this represent? Same polling company? Same question?

(C) So in November 2011, 50 per cent of voters think the country is headed in the wrong direction (according to RR BS poll) and in April 2010, 50 per cent believed Obama had improved America’s standing. My math ain’t what it used to be, but doesn’t that indicate nothing has changed?? 50-50?

(D) The margin for error for independents was +/- 5.34%, so more than the supposed difference between April’s and November’s numbers…

As Mitt Romney might say, “Gee, these trees just don’t seem to be the right height...”

 

AVATAR AVATAR

9:55 AM ET

February 28, 2012

"cold and aloof"?

Obama has definitely appeared "cold and aloof" at times, but how exactly would Mitt "Anne has...some Cadillacs" Romney or Rick "I don't have wealth (oh, but I make $1 million a year as a beltway insider)" Santorum attack him on this topic?

Moreover, it's not going to be hard to throw that line right back at candidates that are proposing austerity measures.

 

RSHOUCK3

10:27 AM ET

February 28, 2012

Missing Ingredient

So, where is any reference to waterboarding? I thought that was an essential part of our foreign policy. The Republican nominee needs to pledge to reinstitute waterboarding.

 

BUTTONS

10:49 AM ET

February 28, 2012

LOL

I skimmed through this article and was highly amused by the closing paragraph: "Because Obama has failed to become a strong international leader..." LOL THis is coming from Karl Rove, the guy who advised GW Bush on... LOL... on foreign policy! LOLLOL Haha, I needed a good laugh today. Thanks guys (Rove and Gillespie). Somehow the irony makes me laugh that you really do get paid vast sums amounts of money for your wormy, unintelligent, and pea-brained advice.

 

RISTA B

11:00 AM ET

February 28, 2012

Where to start on this...

This is a good example of why our political system is broken. Instead of figuring out real reasons to beat Obama up we get this...

Obama's point about being careful on how to view "American exceptionalism" is a good one. He could've added a few more empires that rose and then fell. Arrogantly believing that our country cannot suffer the same fate of other nations that were preeminent in their time is the height of arrogance. It can happen here. And we need to understand our limits. Bush's invasion of Iraq ended up defining the limits of our military power for our adversaries and emboldening our enemies as they knew we had much of our attention focused there.

Obama's offers to meet with the leaders of many nations hostile to the US was at best naive and at worst incompetent. Those nations have no interest in seeing the US as anything but their adversary for many reasons one of which tends to be domestic politics. It's always nice to get people focused on the American boogeyman so that they will not pay as much attention to their own domestic freedom and economic issues.

Whether he's perceived as cold or aloof one legitimate area of criticism for this president is his overall poor leadership. He has simply failed to make progress on the big domestic and international problems facing this country today. And to those that would immediately blame the Republicans, sorry but leadership means you have to find a way to get things done regardless of the obstacles not look for excuses to blame the other side. The sanctions against Iran are the one bright spot other then the killing of bin Laden. The list of failures is long....jobs, housing, entitlement reform, deficit reduction, tax reform, Afghanistan, contraception rules, energy policy reform, immigration enforcement and reform, etc, etc.

As far as Israel goes the Obama administration did not coddle the Israel government as it catered to it's domestic political base and infuriated the Palestinians creating a poisoned well that will never generate meaningful peace talks. Balancing the Iranian threat against ignoring the plight of the Palestinian people is not easy but the US interest is to try to strike this balance.

The last line of attack is supposed to be the economy and that he has not been aggressive enough in opening foreign markets. Can someone give me an example of a president that was? Let's face it, administration after administration has been making a quid pro quo of you can access to the US markets and our influence will grow in your country because of all that money your business community will reap. Whoever is in the White House after the election won't be changing that either way.

There's plenty of room to attack Obama. The problem is the Republican party can't come up with a candidate worthy of the office. Until they solve that problem the issues really won't matter.

 

JOHN PACE

12:20 PM ET

February 28, 2012

please please please

DO attack the President on FP. Please!

I'm no big fan of Bill Clinton, but have truer words of guidance for a political campaign during high unemployment and slow growth ever been spoken than, "It's the economy, Karl."

 

RALPH_W

12:58 PM ET

February 28, 2012

This time is DIFFERENT, I mean it

Karl Rove believes we are EXCEPTIONALLY exceptional. We are the holy ones, the true chosen ones. No other culture could have ever believed this before.

 

PIXIESTIXX

1:06 PM ET

February 28, 2012

Obama: 1 Karl Rove: 0

Last time I checked Obama got Bin Laden while Karl Rove was busy letting out the waistband of his big-boy pants.

So with all due respect, Karl Rove can STFU.

Obama: 1 Karl Rove: 0

 

PIXIESTIXX

1:10 PM ET

February 28, 2012

American Exceptionalism Is A Fraud

American exceptionalism is a fairytale for children and overly-patriotic idiots.

It's a dangerous myth that encourages foolish behavior instead of a clear-eyed view of the world.

Only idiots and fools buy into this nonsense.

 

GOODEPIC

1:21 PM ET

February 28, 2012

What a Joke

Rove continues to prove that he's just a joke now. One trick pony who came across exactly the right time and situation for his one trick to be JUST barely effective enough to steal an election with help from the supreme court, and then mistook the nationalist reaction to 9/11 as validation that his one trick made him master of the political universe. If Romney or Santorum let Rove run their election bid Obama would stomp all over them so hard it would be pathetic.

This formula for beating Obama is almost literally unbelievable, as in, it's unbelievable that Rove really thinks this formula has anything to do with reality or with what could actually be a winning Republican campaign this year. And that's ignoring the bald lies and partial truths it's largely based on.

 

DEMOMAN925

1:45 PM ET

February 28, 2012

Classic Rove move

This whole article is a classic Karl Rove campaign trick:
Take one of your opponent's strengths and twist it around to make it one of their weaknesses. Attack them where they're strongest.
He did it with McCain in the 2000 primaries, he did it to Gore and he did it to John Kerry.

It's so callous and cheap and he does it every time. The sad thing is, it usually works. If you destroy one of your opponent's core strengths, you've just made your chances of winning the election a little easier.
He knows as well as anyone that the public doesn't pay attention to foreign policy- they only know the headlines. In Obama's case, his headlines are "Bin Laden Dead" and "Iraq Troops Return Home". Those are two soundbites that will definitely give him a leg up over his GOP opponent when talking about foreign policy in the debates and on the campaign trail.

Karl Rove knows the economy is an easy target and Obama's greatness weakness, so he wants to hit him where it hurts: foreign policy.
Unfortunately for him, I don't think the public will digest the argument he makes in this article. It's a bit weak and not visceral enough to catch on.

Nice try, Karl.

 

DEMOMAN925

8:53 PM ET

February 28, 2012

Uh oh

Looks like no one on here is buying his BS lol

 

J762

5:34 PM ET

February 28, 2012

Ah, yes. Let's listen to the

Ah, yes. Let's listen to the architect of the Bush Doctrine lecture us on foreign policy.

 

KUNINO

5:58 PM ET

February 28, 2012

Beating Obama by imitating him

Rove bloviates again. This is the guy seen as the mastermind able to ensure that Obama lost in 2008.

Now, his major tip, his guidance to the first priority for whoever wins the Republican nomination this year is "adopt a confident, nationalist tone emphasizing American exceptionalism, expressing pride in the United States as a force for good in the world, and advocating for an America that is once again respected (and, in some quarters, feared) as the preeminent global power."

That's a pretty good picture of what Obama has succeeded in showing those parts of the world that don't happen to be Karl Rove. It's also a pretty good picture of what herman Cain was projecting successfully until recently.

The Rove prescription kind of overlooks the reality that quite a big share of the Republican party and its friends are growing in belief that one of the major two candidates to take the field against the president is an empty man, and the other is a crackpot. Some day Mr Rove's prince may come.He doesn't seem to be in public view yet. Doesn't matter toMmr Rove, it seems.

 

BOBBY TAYLOR

6:08 PM ET

February 28, 2012

you gotta be kidding, right?

you gotta be kidding, right? I am a 25 year republican and i know better than this

all of the international newspapers, magazines, governments, etc rate our foreign policy under Obama very high and what happened under President Bush as lower than Russia or China

sometimes we need to show leadership, and to fear. We no longer can pay for fear
most foreign policy experts rate what happened in 2000-2008 as the worse
foreign policy disasters since we have been a county!

please tell me we have something else to get rid of this president because this is a total non starter.

and can Karl Rowe take a backseat and a lower profile?
he is going to kill us as it appears the same old Bush and we are all tired of the name Bush

i wish it had been the governor of New Jersey but it is not

 

CULTIVELEJARDIN

6:39 PM ET

February 28, 2012

Republicans are irrelevant

After 8 years of the Bush administration and a recession, I believe American voters are starting to recognize this kind of bellicose drivel for what it is, a cheap political tactic that circumvents the real issues--jobs, healthcare, debt, and so on.

 

JEREMYBL

2:37 AM ET

February 29, 2012

same crap

Now we have a new emitter of bellicose drivel.

 

THEWORM

7:33 PM ET

February 28, 2012

Karl at the Wishing Tree

#1 Obama is soft on Isalmo-Terrorism: Really, Karl? And “weapons of mass destruction” and “we’ll be greeted as liberators” and “the war is will pay for itself with Iraq oil”. Okey Dokey. That sounds like a winning Republican pitch. Credibility is all that’s lacking.

#2 Obama’s Afghan “Draw Down” proves he’s a wimp: The ‘draw down’ in Afghanistan is probably the only sensible thing Obama has done in the bogus “war on terror” – a “war” opposed by over 60% of the citizens.
#3 Obama is soft on ‘rouge states”: The ‘Axis of Evil’ – Really, Karl? Not that again.

#3A Obama has mishandled the “Iranian Threat”: The ‘Iranian Threat’, like the Karls “weapons of mass destruction”, is largely a fantasy; people know this now, or will not require much to remember.

#4 Obama has muffed the economy, it is “fragile”: The economy pitch will be tough given Bush and the Republicans were given a balanced budget but instead of maintaining it chose to cut taxes on the wealthy, and for the last two years the Republicans have chosen to block all progress and all attempts to fix the economy.

Karl is at the wishing tree. But it’s not working.

 

ATTYINNY

7:58 PM ET

February 28, 2012

What a standard!

This article demonstrates that the Republican leadership has given up all hope of winning the presidency this year, because the standard set is one that no Republican candidate for president can meet, or is even interested in meeting. The Republican voters have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot give a "rat's a**" about foreign policy, except to the extent that it is mindlessly repeated that Obama (or any Democrat) is a paragon of evil, intent on betraying America, its interests and its values, without ever articulating or understanding what those interests and values really are (aside from putting a Republican in the White House).

 

KHENGSTA

10:46 PM ET

February 28, 2012

Say what?!?

"he promised to meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela "without precondition." Nothing came of that except a serious blow to the image of the United States as a reliable ally"

Obama shouldn't be faulted for at least trying to extend the hand of friendship. Rather odd hearing this sort of critcism from the side of the beltway that usually claims to be guided by Jesus. And precisely what precondition should we have insisted with Chavez's Venezuela - "Stop saying bad things about us, it hurts our feelings"?

And I find it rather rich to hear this sort of criticism from Rove and Gillespie when their boss, W, invaded Iraq looking for non-existent WMDs, was fully on board with bringing in Syria out from the cold when Qaddafi stopped his WMD program, and apparently gauged we could trust Putin as a real reformer and partner in peace just from making eye contact.

 

DALTONJ

9:45 AM ET

February 29, 2012

Great Plan Karl!

As an Obama supporter, I definitely hope the Republican candidate follows your plan to

1. We can totally eliminate Terrorism, VOTE FOR ME.
2. We need to stay in Afghanistan so nobody thinks we're sissies, VOTE FOR ME.
3. We should probably get ready to pre-emptively attack N. Korea and Iran, VOTE FOR ME.
4. Using steps 1,2, & 3 I can promote more international trade & economic engagement because attacking MORE people always helps the free market. VOTE FOR ME.

Whizbang plan there boy genius.

 

CATHERINE A. FITZPATRICK

10:08 AM ET

February 29, 2012

You Left Uut Eastern Europe

I agree Obama has been weak on foreign policy and I'm not going to be voting for him again.

But this article leaves out some things. What about the Czech radar stations and Polish missiles and the old Captive Nations lobby? anything for them? Obama even managed to anger Lech Walesa, who was a friend of US leaders for years -- Walesa even refused to meet with him.

The unilateral disarmament gesture of renouncing the Czech radar might have been far more effectively used with the Russians to call out their fake peace propaganda. Instead, it merely alienated long-time close allies. There shouldn't have been a "reset" with Russia because it didn't do anything to deserve it. Today, backing the Syrian regime, and continuing to back Iran, the Kremlin deserves only scorn and great distance.

You didn't mention Libya and Qaddafi, who of course can be added to this Nobel Peace prize winner's kill list. But that leads to the question of how much Obama is responsible for the Arab Spring (the Cairo speech), if at all, and how much in fact he played catch-up, badly, so that outcomes are troubling now.

Is it really fair to call Erdogan an "Islamist"?

All in all, the arguments would be more persuasive if North Korea hadn't just promised to give up its nuclear plans in exchange for a US food package. But of course, this remains to be seen.

 

SAULPAULUS

1:17 PM ET

February 29, 2012

We didn't need Toto to pull the curtain back

Rove and Gillespie show us just how naive and gullible they think the American people are. They think the American people want an endless war in Afghanistan and another war in Iran. They think that acknowledging America's failings is a sign of weakness. And they would like you to believe that President Obama has weakened America's image in the world.

It was in fact the previous president whom they served who has done more to weaken America economically, diplomatically, and in really every way possible. A recent poll reflects that popular attitudes around the world toward America were at theiur lowest ebb under GWB and have revived. Everyone knows who got this country involved in an unneccessary war in Iraq and everyone knows whose policies led to the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Rove, Gillespie, and the neocon elite aren't satisfied with one unneeded war and one unnecessarily prolonged one. They want to prolong the agony of Afghanistan evern longer and they want to create a war with Iran.

They pretend that President Obama continued Bush policy with the drone war when, in fact, he vastly expended it and is making it a permanent feature of future US war strategy

They dismiss the killing of Bin Laden and fail to mention the killing of Khaddaffi because it undercuts their argument that the President is a weak leader. GWB was obsessed with Saddam Hussein and saw Osama bin Laden as a distraction. Only after enormous political pressure, did he even begin a serious effort to track down our nation's chief nemesis. The President pursued it with a laser focus after taking office.

GWB ignored genocide in Darfur. When the President saw potential genocide in Libya, he acted and prevented it.

And what inconvenient timing for this lame critique given the news from North Korea today. How many times did GWB get the North Koreans to announce a moratorium on nuclear weapons and missile testing as well as uranium enrichment? None. The President achieved that today and was also able to announce today that a travel ban on US NGO employees in Egypt has been lifted.

The economy is getting better, gentlemen. It took a few years to undo the mess you created. America's image around the world is improving as well. That's another fine mess you managed to get us into that the President is getting us out of.

A return to failed leadership? No thank you, gentlemen. America knows real leadership when it sees it.

 

DAVID EDENDEN

2:20 PM ET

February 29, 2012

Exceptionalism = Uber Alles = God's Chosen People = HUBRIS

"First, the Republican nominee should adopt a confident, nationalist tone emphasizing American exceptionalism, expressing pride in the United States as a force for good in the world, and advocating for an America that is once again respected (and, in some quarters, feared) as the preeminent global power."

The article in general and this quote in particular promotes HUBRIS ... the first and greatest of the deadly sins as the doctrine of American foreign policy.

The concept of American "Exceptionalism", German "Uber Alles", Jewish "God's Chosen People" and Greek "Cradle of Democracy" and any other bullshit nationalism is the doctrine of the devil.

George W. Bush was a disaster. Vote Ron Paul

 

JOSSEFPERL

12:52 PM ET

March 2, 2012

Too Delusional even for Repubplicans Partisans

The advice Karl Rove and Ed Gillesspie offer the Repubplican presidential candidates here is at worst dellusional and at best disconnected from reality. Karl Rove apparently still think that he can "sell" the American people a bad presidential candidate like he "sold" GWB, using nationalistic slogan such as "the Republican nominee should adopt a confident, nationalist tone emphasizing American exceptionalism, expressing pride in the United States...." Not only Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie have been associated with the worst administration of the last 50 years on economic grounds, but they apparently have not learned the lesson, that competence and results are more important than pride and bragging about Americam power. They somehow believe that Americans have forgotten all the sawger of "dead or alive", while GWB left the WH with Bin Ladin stil on the loose, Iraq in a mess and the Taliban winning in Afganistan, all of which have been "fixed" or improved by the Obama administration. Frankly, I doubt that any future Republican candidate will take advice from either Karl Rove or Ed Gillespie.

 

JOEDANIELS

8:53 AM ET

March 3, 2012

I like obama

I don't know why a lot of people dislike obama. Even though i am not in the USA my views are not similar to many others. I believe that he has done an excellent job since 2008, but I guess if i lived in the USA i'd have a different opinion...oh well lol.

 

ALERTGIRL23

1:28 PM ET

March 3, 2012

I Could Beat Obama In a Debate Very Easily

Just Mention:

Our "ILLEGAL PRESIDENT"

Eric Holder (racist) who refused to prosecute the Black Panthers voter intimidation case

Fast and Furious. Why is Holder not in prison already? A Federal Officer Brian Terry was killed
due to ATF and DOJ actions. Am I correct? Holder lied and people died! No one was killed by Watergate!

Barry does not like Jewish People and Israel (Reverend Wright taught him well).
Maybe he will pick Mel Gibson as his Vice President if he gets in again.

He gave 900 million to Hamas! Why would he do that? Unless..............?

His illegal connection to Media Matters

The price of oil and gas making his Muslim brothers richer. Accident or planned?

He produced a phony Birth Certificate which has been proven to be a fraud. Isn't this a felony?

Suspicious SSA #. Is he using another persons number? Selective Service Number?
Investigators have said he has 39 different SSA #'s. FRAUD?

HE SEALED ALL OF HIS RECORDS. WHAT IS THIS GUY HIDING?

Why did Barry and his wife had to surrender their law licenses in Illinois?

His open support for Muslims and the Muslim Brotherhood

His idol Frank Marshall Davis. His friends Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dorn.
His friends Van Jones and Color of Change, ACORN. Louis Farrakhan.

What is his real name: Obama, Barry Soretoro, Bari Shabazz or what?

Now he signed the illegal NDAA. What's next?

ObamaCare is illegal and unconstitutional.

He will not seal the borders or protect America. Didn't he swear an oath to do this?

He and Soros owns the media and they is why they protect him every chance they get.

The courts have been compromised and every challenge to Barry has been thrown out
or dismissed due to "no standing". What is this all about.

He has been stepping all over the Constitution. He makes Watergate seem like nothing.

He recently appointed a member of La Raza to his administration.

He raised 350 Million to run for President. Arab money???

He is destroying our military.

It is very apparent the radical left have taken over the media, education, and the courts. It took them
many years to put their people in place but they have been successful. Look at MSNBC which is the propaganda part of the White House and even has Al Sharpton on . Unbelievable how low they are to have this racist on.

Nothing happens by accident. This has been well planned. Senator McCarthy was so correct.

 

LANNONMAC

4:49 PM ET

March 6, 2012

How Republicans can attack

How Republicans can attack President Obama’s foreign policy record: Lie, mislead, provide misinformation and spin right wing fantasies. Yep, right up Karl Rove’s ally. Karl Rove is lucky the that the Sedition Act repealed.

 

ALIFELIX

4:17 PM ET

March 9, 2012

Carrying Out Good Practices From A Past Administration Is Bad?

I enjoy reading this article and some goog points were made. What annoys me though is the paragraph starting with the phrase "Obama has left his Republican predecessor's policies largely intact." That is such BS party politics clamining that this is a negative of Obama. Anyone smart enough to realize that something is good or works well even though it comes from the other party is making good decisions. I almost had to put down my iphone5 when seeing this statement. It is so absurd.

 

JAC323

12:23 AM ET

March 10, 2012

Karl Rove's strange reality.

Isn't this the guy who claims that he sets your reality? Just another chicken hawk who would never fight for this country, if he could avoid it. Rove's stupidity is the best thing that Obama's campaign could ask for.

 

FPREADER13

3:58 AM ET

March 19, 2012

Better title

How to Lie About Imaginary Issues to Get Stupid People to Vote for the Other Guy.

-By Karl Rove

 

BEATRIX

12:34 PM ET

March 19, 2012

Future Shock

Rove's success or failure in the past isn't important. That he is articulating some of my doubts about Obama is. Obama's speeches connect to Americans, but he has never connected to America's power. We're only 235 years old and I'm not willing to give that up, yet.

OBL led 21 terrorists in a tragic attack. He caused 3,000 American deaths and we're grateful that he's gone, but is killing him really the equivalent of D-Day, Eisenhower's leadership, and victory in Europe? Obama's handlers think so and have convinced many Americans of this.

Obama warms you with his speeches, and under most circumstances a cold tuna like Romney wouldn't have a chance against him. But so many of us are so disappointed, and even worried by Obama's presidency, that this is probably the best time for someone like Romney to run for office.