Posted on 04/03/2015 8:46:56 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Here’s a puzzler for you: we all know the next week will feature a competition among the 35 or 52 or however many Republicans are considering a 2016 presidential run as to who can say the most irresponsible things about the multilateral nuclear deal with Iran that just got a big step closer to reality yesterday. But how are they going to outdo Scott Walker’s pledge, initially made last week and then repeated like a terroristic threat, that he’d blow up any such deal on his first day as president? I mean, I guess someone could say they’d shout insults at Tehran during their Election Night victory party, or during their nomination acceptance speech call on the Israelis to launch a unilateral military strike. But in terms of official action, Day One is as good as it gets. If I’m wrong, I shudder to think what might be worse.
Walker’s ploy is highly reminiscent of Mitt Romney’s pledge in 2012 that on the first day of his presidency he’d instruct his HHS Secretary (not that he’d actually have one that early) to issue blanket waivers to all 50 states that would have the effect of relieving them of any obligation to comply with the Affordable Care Act of 2010. That would have been quite implausible legally, but it was clever politically, insofar as Mitt stood accused of being the actual father of the Affordable Care Act. The “Day One” boast gave him a sure applause line from Republican audiences that enabled him them to move on to other, safer subjects—you know, like “self-deportation” and the lucky ducky poor who didn’t have to pay income taxes.
So Walker can henceforth address Iran with a pre-vetted slogan that distracts attention from his lack of foreign policy experience (other than dealing with all those Not-Real-American protesters in Madison). I guess all his rivals can do is to turn the volume up to 11.
This just hit the web and shows how their panties are in great, big, bad wad.
Walker eager to thumb his nose at U.S. allies "In recent years, Republicans have been preoccupied with a curious criticism of President Obama: under his leadership, the United States isn’t as respected as it once was.
As a quantifiable matter, we know the argument is demonstrably wrong. As a political matter, I often wonder whether Republicans remember what it was like at the end of the Bush/Cheney era, when America’s reputation had taken an actual, severe hit.
For quite a while, we were associated with torture and launching disastrous wars based on brazen lies. Our credibility and respect was suffering abroad in ways unseen in many years. It was not uncommon for Americans in the Bush/Cheney era to look for Canadian flags to sow onto backpacks for fear of having to defend Bush’s failures and what he’d done to America’s name. It was President Obama, fortunately, who helped turn the nation’s reputation around.
But GOP presidential candidates continue to say the opposite. Jeb Bush, for example, routinely complains that America has “lost the trust and confidence of our friends.” Scott Walker and Donald Trump recently commiserated over “how poorly” the United States is “perceived throughout the world.”
It’s against this backdrop that many of these same presidential candidates seem desperate to infuriate America’s allies and ignore our international commitments. Greg Sargent yesterday flagged a radio interview with Scott Walker, in which he was asked about the preliminary nuclear agreement with Iran.
HOST: You have said that you would cancel any Iranian deal the Obama administration makes. Now would you cancel that even if our trading partners did not want to re-impose the sanctions?
WALKER: Absolutely.
Marco Rubio recently made an identical vow, saying he would “absolutely” defy American allies by scrapping an Iran deal.
This is more than a little crazy.
The GOP line, in effect is, “It’s outrageous that we’ve lost support from U.S. allies, which is why I’m prepared to thumb my nose at U.S. allies, betray an international commitment, and ignore the repercussions.”
It is a disqualifying posture for any national candidate who wants to be taken seriously........"
Scott Walker better ramp up his rhetoric OR...
Ted will cruise right over him..
Walker and Rubio are idiots. Saying they will cancel agreements immediately is not practical and show no comprehension of the issues. Sure, we need to reapproach these agreements, if any, but I seriously cannot imagine any president simply and blindly rescinding them outright. Walker and Rubio might think they gain brownie points with such promises but all they do is paint themselves into a corner where they are proven liars.
Welcome to Free Republic. I don’t expect you to be here long, but have a nice visit.
I don’t think that was called for. He didn’t say anything unreasonable.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the leftwing media is scared sh*tless of Scott Walker.
They think they can handle Cruz but Walker in a whole ‘nother story.
Regardless, Rubio and Walker are still idiots. Cruz, by intelligent comparison, offers a more reasoned approach: “The very first step for any deal, good or bad, should be submitting it to Congress, and the President making the case both to Congress and to the American people why this advances the national security interests of the United States.” Don’t you think that is a little bit smarter?
Really?. How about “proven liars”.
Ted Cruz said he would overturn all of Obama’s executive orders on day one, so Scott Walker is basically saying “me too”
Your name-calling gives you away, Reno.
Or, are you concerned with me concluding Rubio and Walker are idiots? That's not name calling, it is a conclusion. No different than saying Reid is a liar, that Obama is a traitor. I still, and in all cases, use their correct names. Granted, I do often write Marco "Amnesty" Rubio or Scott "Amnesty" Walker, but what is wrong with that?
In 2 years it will be too late.
Iran will have their funds, trade and ‘the bomb’ likely several of them.
This agreement is the beginning of a Middle East nuclear arms race.
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, maybe Jordan. All fear Iran.
But at some point they will come to the realization they all have one common enemy. Israel.
Please explain how canceling “agreements immediately is not practical and show no comprehension of the issues.” If Obama does not follow normal protocol for getting agreements implemented i.e. consulting with Congress, and just dictates that it be done, then any following president can dictate that it is not valid. That is why there are procedures/protocols in place so that one individual (president) cannot dictate what happens. It would also seem to me that someone who cancelled this so called agreement has a heck of a lot more understanding of the issues involved than Obama or Kerry do. For crying out loud, even the French are saying this is not a good agreement.
That may be a bit strong, but they are clearly pandering (and I am a big Cruz fan). I would prefer he tone it back a bit and not give critics ammunition to paint him negatively. I always thought the same about Palin. Love her, but she makes herself into a caricature.
Second, no, I don't agree with you in any way, shape or form that what you suggest is smarter. The existing law of the United States places severe restrictions on Iran to prevent it from being able to obtain a nuclear weapon and also to carry out its myriad terrorist activities. Obama has refused to follow our law on this, as he has on many other of our laws. He is making an agreement with a foreign power that he does not have authority to make final. The Senate has to approve treaties, and it is not acceptable to try to avoid the Senate by going through the UN. If that were possible, as many people have noted, the UN could be used to disarm the US, take any and all of our rights, and even bring peacekeepers into Ferguson. Rubio, Walker and Cruz are not disagreeing on anything. The quote you attribute to Cruz, and I haven't checked to see if he said it, is merely a repetition of the requirements that the President has for any agreement of this type. Walker and Rubio would not disagree with this, they have just read the Obama Regime's statements that this would NOT be submitted to the Senate. As a result of this effort to bypass Congress entirely, it was entirely appropriate for Senator Cotton to notify the Iranians that none of this agreement is binding on the US, and for any person running for President to notify the Iranians, the world and US voters that they won't abide by this horrid deal.
You seem to want Rubio and Cruz to play some kind of game where they demand the agreement be submitted to Congress for a vote, then listen to Obama politely, then vote on it. Obama won't do that, we are capable of understanding the terms ourselves without Obama explaining it to us, we know what Obama's agenda is (for Iran to get a nuke so it can wield more power in the middle east--and against us, too for that matter), and we know that he is working against the US every second of every day with every fiber of his being. There is no need for formalities. Tell the world: IF I AM PRESIDENT, THIS UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT WILL BE IGNORED. Then, in 2 years, if we have an election, and if it is fair, and if by God's miraculous will, a conservative wins the Presidency, then it will not be a shock to anyone when the US sends a message to Iran telling them that our sanctions will henceforth be enforced, and we are going to take all efforts to ensure that they never have a nuke, never have ability to have a nuke. Period.
They are doing the exact right thing.
Yeah, President Romney really hit it out of the park with that one!!
The mainstream media has a serious Ted Cruz problem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3275491/posts
Well said.
Well said.
Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.