Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumRomney criticizes Obama for not meeting Netanyahu
Republican Mitt Romney is criticizing President Barack Obama for not planning to meet in person with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu next week, calling it "confusing and troubling."
Romney said at a New York fundraiser Friday that Israel is America's "closest ally" and "best friend in the Middle East." He urged Obama to meet with Netanyahu surrounding the start of United Nations General Assembly meetings next week.
The White House has denied published reports that Obama had rejected Netanyahu's request for a meeting with the president in Washington next week, saying no such request was made or rejected.
The White House says Obama and Netanyahu spoke for an hour Tuesday night and reaffirmed their countries' commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
http://azdailysun.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/romney-criticizes-obama-for-not-meeting-netanyahu/article_b3f26959-4064-5ba8-8c3e-81afdae50414.html
tyne
(1,248 posts)"Romney said at a New York fundraiser Friday that Israel is America's "closest ally" and "best friend in the Middle East."
What has Israel ever done for us to warrant "ally" status? I'm sure there's something...
Seems to me like we have a one-sided friendship.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)President Obama is not their 'step and fetch boy' - much as Romney, Netanyahu and the guy who supports them BOTH - Sheldon Adelson - would like to think.
Rich. White. Male. Arrogance. Regardless of their respective religions. . .
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)even though the White House says no such meeting was requested
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I haven't seen anything this debased and futile in Presidential politics since the 60s. But most of all these silly shits don't seem to realize that there could be a downside to pissing off Obama, and you'll never know if he decides to do something about it.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)everyday I see headlines upstairs about Romney saying this or that, I swear must come from The Onion but they don't
about the 60's campaign are talking a specific one or all 3 of them?
Nixon vs Kennedy (will the Vatican rule the US?)
Goldwater vs Johnson (nuclear nightmare)
or Nixon vs Humphrey (Vietnam)
all 3 were pretty nasty
bemildred
(90,061 posts)But Nixon is the guy, back then, who reminds of Rmoney, and this campaign. The secret plans, the brinskmanship and fear-mongering, dirty tricks, international provocations, jingoism, the lies and name-calling, that's all Nixon, you won't find it carried to that level in Presidential politics before then, it was dirty, but they still tried to maintain the image. Nixon is where it became a racist, jingo mud-fight, playing off LBJ and the civil rights act and Title IX and other feminist laws, the culture war. And Raygun picked up that torch and passed it on.
1960 was still conducted according to some standards, real debates and everything, I remember, but that didn't win, after that, it was all handlers and consultants and throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, sort of what Rmoney is doing now, he is just saying things like you would try passwords, looking for some response.
Some of that, to be fair, is our fault, before TV the US' electorate had a longer attention span and could handle big words.
But then it always gets emotional when the conservatives are losing the culture wars badly, I remember the furor over Jimmy Carter, and he was a conservative southern white man and straight as an arrow.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and he was known for dirty tricks and rumor has even when he was caught and had to resign from office he still made backroom deals to be pardoned as to Cater and the 76 campaign what I really remember is not so much dirt but feeling pretty assured Gerald Ford didn't stand a snowballs chance in Hades, but I do remember the dirt after he was elected
oberliner
(58,724 posts)He took over after Nixon resigned.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but Ford ran against Carter in 1976 and lost
oberliner
(58,724 posts)What was he doing giving an interview with Playboy in the first place?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)a bit ahead of Clinton who ah did it with his 'part' as opposed to only in his heart, besides can you honestly think of any married man or women for that matter who hasn't committed adultery in their hearts, at least these days?
BTW Playboy is 'almost' respectable I'd question it much more if it had been Penthouse or Hustler
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I can't imagine anybody doing that today, "risking" it. Much has changed since then, including Playboy.
But I never said Jimmy was smart, though if I remember right he was a nuukular engineer at one point, anyway, no dummy, but he always had this kind of goober good will, or maybe it was christian charity, but anyway he was not a cynic, and that was one of the things they tagged him with in 1980, not being "tough" enough.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)If memory serves once in office Carter cut back quite a bit on some of the perks governmental officials got
bemildred
(90,061 posts)once they lost their fear of the electorate. He was always an outsider, never made the transition to insider like Clinton did. Maybe if he'd got that 2nd term. But then we'd be far different country now.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)At the time, Carter was actually considered quite the centrist.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)However, economically and politically, he advanced progressive policies.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)They were related to his not having particularly progressive positions, economically or politically.
Health care reform being one example.
Imagine what things would be like today if Kennedy had won the nomination over Carter!
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Sort of like the old Obama-Clinton argument now. It's funny how little historical non-events like Chappaquiddick can have profound long-term consequences. Or the Lewinski affair. Jimmy knew to keep his pecker in his pants too, unless he had the appropraite counter-party handy.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)I remember his Rosegarden Campaign, he conducted his freelection campaign from the WH because of the Iran hostage crisis and thought the American people would understand that sort of altruism, sadly he was wrong
bemildred
(90,061 posts)What I remember mainly is his inauguration; and how surprised I was when the media turned on him. That was when I first began to realize just how fake our public political "debate" is.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)before that, when I was in High School and my 11th grade civics class was the Watergate Trials, but it later when Reagan was elected in fact the day after when how deep the hatred in our country went I was working as a waitress at a Denny's and listening to the early morning working class breakfast crowd go on about how Reagan was change change everything or "ya let those lazy ni**ers starve to death, good enough for em", it wasn't that I was unaware of racial hatred but I did not realize the depth it went too, at least in 'liberal' Minneapolis