Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
"On Foreign Policy, Obama Is Bulletproof - Why Has Every Attack on Obama's Foreign Policy Failed?"
On The Atlantic, the link to this article is headlined: On Foreign Policy, Obama Is Bulletproof
Why Has Every Attack on Obama's Foreign Policy Failed?
The electorate supports what he has done, is unpersuaded by his Republican critics, and doesn't care about his broken promises.
President Obama's foreign policy has provoked two very different critiques.
The one I've pursued, along with a small group of civil libertarians, non-interventionists, and disaffected progressives...
Far more Americans are familiar with the critique offered by Republican politicians, conservative television and talk radio hosts, and neoconservative writers....
-snip-
These critiques (the latter based mostly on distortions) share just one feature: the electorate is rejecting them both. Polling data suggests that as Election 2012 approaches, voters are broadly supportive of the actions he has taken, unpersuaded by Republican attacks, and unperturbed even by Obama's broken promises. Is he invulnerable to being attacked on foreign policy?
-snip-
How do you attack a president on foreign policy when his two most consequential initiatives -- the drone war and the troop drawdowns -- are both supported by roughly 8 in 10 Americans surveyed? Also wildly popular: the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and the successful assault on pirates.
There is one bit of good news in these numbers for non-interventionists. Americans want to bring our troops home. Civil libertarians have less to celebrate, but can at least console themselves with the possibility that public opinion on their issues could change if the substance of their critique is heard by more people, though it's difficult to see how that could happen prior to the election.
For Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, the polling data is even bleaker. Few Americans accept the fantastical critiques the right has been making for the last few years, many of which will invite the retort, "Tell that to bin Laden." It seems as though Iran is the issue on which they're presently trying to distinguish themselves. Depressingly for non-interventionists, however, Obama can credibly talk and even act like a hawk on Iran, and attempts to get to his right risk triggering in voters bad memories of hawkish conservatives urging the invasion of Iraq in 2002 or 2003.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/why-has-every-attack-on-obamas-foreign-policy-failed/252799/
The electorate supports what he has done, is unpersuaded by his Republican critics, and doesn't care about his broken promises.
President Obama's foreign policy has provoked two very different critiques.
The one I've pursued, along with a small group of civil libertarians, non-interventionists, and disaffected progressives...
Far more Americans are familiar with the critique offered by Republican politicians, conservative television and talk radio hosts, and neoconservative writers....
-snip-
These critiques (the latter based mostly on distortions) share just one feature: the electorate is rejecting them both. Polling data suggests that as Election 2012 approaches, voters are broadly supportive of the actions he has taken, unpersuaded by Republican attacks, and unperturbed even by Obama's broken promises. Is he invulnerable to being attacked on foreign policy?
-snip-
How do you attack a president on foreign policy when his two most consequential initiatives -- the drone war and the troop drawdowns -- are both supported by roughly 8 in 10 Americans surveyed? Also wildly popular: the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and the successful assault on pirates.
There is one bit of good news in these numbers for non-interventionists. Americans want to bring our troops home. Civil libertarians have less to celebrate, but can at least console themselves with the possibility that public opinion on their issues could change if the substance of their critique is heard by more people, though it's difficult to see how that could happen prior to the election.
For Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, the polling data is even bleaker. Few Americans accept the fantastical critiques the right has been making for the last few years, many of which will invite the retort, "Tell that to bin Laden." It seems as though Iran is the issue on which they're presently trying to distinguish themselves. Depressingly for non-interventionists, however, Obama can credibly talk and even act like a hawk on Iran, and attempts to get to his right risk triggering in voters bad memories of hawkish conservatives urging the invasion of Iraq in 2002 or 2003.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/why-has-every-attack-on-obamas-foreign-policy-failed/252799/
22 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
so I could care less what they have to say about ANYTHING, especially this president's excellent record on foreign policy & national security. Rec.
the "learning" and "using correct definitions" to you. 
