E. J. Dionne: Obama and the Republican Cavaliers
Comment in parentheses entirely mine.
Obama vs. the Republican Cavaliers
Those who counsel Obama to be more conciliatory toward Republicans in defending an agreement that could block Iranian nuclear ambitions for at least a decade (and probably more) are nostalgic for a time when many Republicans supported negotiated settlements, saw containment policies as preferable to the aggressive rollback of adversaries and were committed to building international alliances.
Such Republicans still exist, but there are not many of them left in Congress. And we should have enough respect for the partys presidential candidates to believe that they mean what they are saying when, for example, one of them (Scott Walker) insists that Iran is not a place we should be doing business with, while another (Jeb Bush) declares that we need to stop the Iran agreement, for sure, because the Iranian mullahs have .?.?. blood on their hands.
(Wow! This is incredibly rich coming from JEB! whose brother Dubya has far more Middle East blood on his hands than anyone on earth--other than perhaps Dick Cheney.)
Obama is defending a long bipartisan tradition of negotiating even with adversaries we deeply and rightly mistrust, the prime example being the Soviet Union. For now, the consensus across party lines in favor of such diplomacy is broken. Many of us would like to see it restored, but the evidence of Obamas time in office is unambiguous: Friendly gestures wont win over those determined to block his policies.
In the short run, Obama simply has to win enough votes for his Iran deal. For the long run, he has to convince Americans that his measured approach to the world is the safest path for the country. Defending this view aggressively is no vice.