Obama- this is my last election year

  • News
  • Thread starter jreelawg
  • Start date
  • #1
107
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

Obama-"...this is my last election year"

The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.
The exchange:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...se-after-my-election-i-have-more-flexibility/

How much will this hurt Obama's chances of reelection?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #3
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
24,579
7,484


Why would it hurt him?
Because one way to interpret this exchange is that it implies that he will say one thing to the American people during the run-up to election, and do something else once he no longer has to fear the election.

To be honest, I don't think it will hurt him. The people who will interpret it this way fall into two camps - the ones who weren't going to vote for him anyway, and those who think that this is a clever strategy.
 
  • #4
918
16


I think it will help him. Most people are relieved to hear this will be his last election.
 
  • #5
128
2


Most people are relieved to hear this will be his last election.
I thought that part might've been a thinly veiled snide comment aimed at good ol' Putin. You know, for being president a little too often. I'm probably trying just to see too much into this.
 
  • #6
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
6,994
291


I would have thought the point of the comment was rather obvious, given the musical chairs (or revolving doors) game being played out by Putin and Medvedev. (Edit: Hobin types faster than I do...)
 
  • #7
107
0


I think this will hurt, and will probably be a critical talking point of the republican campaign. I could be wrong.

It will let the republican campaign generate and stir up fears about Obama's re-election. The fear is the unknown. What are Obama's true positions, and plans? What is he keeping a secret? What will he do when "he has nothing to lose"?

This plays right into the republican strategy. And, it isn't a totally bogus fear in some ways. It's true, politicians do engage in political posturing to get elected; they do say what you want to hear, and they aren't necessarily sincere.

I think this issue will draw a lot of attention to this, and the more attention this idea gets, the more it hurts Obama's campaign.
 
  • #8
Evo
Mentor
23,139
2,679


I think this will hurt, and will probably be a critical talking point of the republican campaign. I could be wrong.

It will let the republican campaign generate and stir up fears about Obama's re-election. The fear is the unknown. What are Obama's true positions, and plans? What is he keeping a secret? What will he do when "he has nothing to lose"?

This plays right into the republican strategy. And, it isn't a totally bogus fear in some ways. It's true, politicians do engage in political posturing to get elected; they do say what you want to hear, and they aren't necessarily sincere.

I think this issue will draw a lot of attention to this, and the more attention this idea gets, the more it hurts Obama's campaign.
I tend to disagree. I think it is the only intelligent strategy considering the recent Russian elections and the upcoming US election, IMO.

President Obama offered his explanation today for the hot-mic moment that caught him asking the Russian president for “flexibility” and “space” on missile defense until after November’s election, saying “this is not a matter of hiding the ball.” “The only way I get this stuff done is if I’m consulting with the Pentagon, with Congress, if I’ve got bipartisan support and frankly, the current environment is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful consultations,” Obama told reporters following a meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/the-notes-must-reads-for-tuesday-march-27-2012/
 
  • #9
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616


Meh, it simply means Obama is a pragmatist -nothing new here. It's also why the fringe left is so mad at him.

It's just a case of realpolitiks. Anyone who follows politics knows that some things are done in election years, some things are not. Things have been this way for as long as there have been elections.

Kings had it easy.
 
  • #10
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17


It's not like Mitch "shake the etch-a-sketch" Romney can directly attack Obama on this. Indirect attacks, however, might have some weak effect.
 
  • #11
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711


To be honest, I don't think it will hurt him. The people who will interpret it this way fall into two camps - the ones who weren't going to vote for him anyway, and those who think that this is a clever strategy.
Agreed. Either it can be read as he's just being pragmatic and looking to focus his energy and resources on the election first or it can be read that he is preparing for a clandestine deal and that his reference to "last election" means that once he gets this it doesn't matter what he does.
 
  • #12
skippy1729


It shows that he is unwilling to use the one bargaining chip that we have against the Russians. I would have much rather heard "Tell Vladimir that if he wants the Defensive Missile System to go away then he better get on board with Iranian sanctions."

Most of the people who would prefer such a hardball attitude aren't voting for him anyway. This comment will be very old news by election day and have no effect.
 
  • #13
chemisttree
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,421
450


Could you ever imagine Nixon asking Brezhnev for some 'space' so he could be more 'flexible' in his negotiating the SALT I treaty? He continued negotiating the SALT I treaty until it's successful conclusion in May of 1972. Did Bush ask Yeltsin for 'some space' until after the election in 1992 so he could so he could be more 'flexible' in his negotiating the START II treaty? He continued negotiating the START II during his re-election year as well.

Why should the President be worried about consulting with the Pentagon? The Pentagon works for him! Treaties are not negotiated with the full prior approval of Congress either. It's just another Obama lie and excuse that doesn't pass the smell test.
 
  • #14
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17


Could you ever imagine Nixon asking Brezhnev for some 'space' so he could be more 'flexible' in his negotiating the SALT I treaty? He continued negotiating the SALT I treaty until it's successful conclusion in May of 1972. Did Bush ask Yeltsin for 'some space' until after the election in 1992 so he could so he could be more 'flexible' in his negotiating the START II treaty? He continued negotiating the START II during his re-election year as well.

Why should the President be worried about consulting with the Pentagon? The Pentagon works for him! Treaties are not negotiated with the full prior approval of Congress either. It's just another Obama lie and excuse that doesn't pass the smell test.
The problem is that when a Republican President negotiates an arms reduction treaty, the Dems are happy and the Reps stay quiet. If a Democrat President tries to negotiate a similar treaty, he will immediately be painted by Reps as weak on defense, and a danger to the security of the country.
 
  • #15
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45


The problem is that when a Republican President negotiates an arms reduction treaty, the Dems are happy and the Reps stay quiet. If a Democrat President tries to negotiate a similar treaty, he will immediately be painted by Reps as weak on defense, and a danger to the security of the country.
Yep, pretty much. This has been a consistent pattern for years (decades, even) and we are not out of it. Obama needs to be able to negotiate the deployment of anti-missile defenses with the Russians (especially in the light of Putin's rolling office-holding with challenged elections), but needs some breathing-room. Not such a bad idea. We need to have a president that is willing to negotiate a draw-down in nuclear weapons and not keep rattling the sabers to no effect except to keep tensions high.
 
  • #16
67
165


This was one of the few times that I remember where an American president has has truly communicated with a Russian official. Obama just told it like it is, and Medvedev apparently understood.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/26/obama-medvedev-space-nuclear

Obama explained the open mic comments.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/mar/27/obama-open-mic-russia-medvedev-video

Then Obama Joked about the open mic situation.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1531334907001/obama-jokes-with-medvedev/

It is fine with me, I see no problem. Limbaugh will definitely be pulling it out of the garbage can for months.

EDIT to add link
 
Last edited:
  • #17
chemisttree
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,421
450


The problem is that when a Republican President negotiates an arms reduction treaty, the Dems are happy and the Reps stay quiet. If a Democrat President tries to negotiate a similar treaty, he will immediately be painted by Reps as weak on defense, and a danger to the security of the country.
Obama is already painted as such by Republicans. He has nothing to lose then, eh? Unless you're saying that he is afraid of the fight (he isn't). Why not look 'Presidential' during an election year? Reason - he intends something highly controversial and not in America's or our allies best interest. He won't get it through the Senate after the election anyway if that's the case. So what's his real problem?

Kennedy got the Limited Test Ban Treaty through in 1963. Clinton continued to negotiate the ABM treaty in 1996. Carter concluded negotiations of SALT II in 1979.

Yes, Obama is as weak as Carter was back in 1979, IMO, but negotiations could still go on and he could still appear quite presidential while pushing back any Senate ratification until after the elections, after all HE is in control of the calendar with any negotiations he chooses to enter into.
 
  • #18
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
24,579
7,484


The problem is that when a Republican President negotiates an arms reduction treaty, the Dems are happy and the Reps stay quiet. If a Democrat President tries to negotiate a similar treaty, he will immediately be painted by Reps as weak on defense, and a danger to the security of the country.
Only Nixon could go to China.
 
  • #21
1
0

Related Threads on Obama- this is my last election year

Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
139
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
4K
Top