MSNBC’s Most Embarrassing Mockery of Mitt Romney’s Russia Warnings

Mediaite.com:

The smug self-assuredness that often suffices for expertise on cable news was perhaps never more smug than when former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney warned the American public that Russia was rapidly positioning itself as America’s “number one geopolitical foe.” Among the worst offenders were the hosts and guests who provide MSNBC with content on a daily basis. 

In early 2012, President Barack Obama was caught on an open microphone telling Russia’s then-President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more “flexibility” after the presidential election in his dealings with Russia. Romney reacted strongly to that comment. Appearing on CNN, the GOP nominee said that the United States should regard Russia as a geopolitical adversary and should work to limit Russia’s flexibility rather than to secure it. His observation was soundly criticized by the president’s defenders who, at the time, were still attempting to rehabilitate Obama’s floundering “Reset” with Russia. 

There were few who defended Romney’s comments. Even snake-bit Republicans, chastened by the swift backlash in the media, hedged when asked to back up Romney’s assessment of the challenges posed by Moscow. But MSNBC’s wagons circled particularly quickly in defense of the president. Volley after volley of snark was lobbed in the GOP nominee’s direction.

“I don’t know what decade this guy’s living in,” MSNBC host Chris Matthews said with a sigh on March 28, 2012. “Is he trying to play Ronald Reagan here, or what?”

“This is Mitt Romney’s severely conservative problem,” University of Georgia professor Cynthia Tucker opined on-the-air. “It made Romney look dumb. He’s not a dumb man, but he said something that was clearly dumb.”

Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein agreed that Romney’s statement was evidence of an “antiquated worldview.” He fretted further about how Romney, should he become president, would enter the office having severely complicated America’s bilateral relations with Moscow given his carelessly provocative statement. 

“I personally am worried about what it says to the Russian people,” Matthews added to a chorus of sagely nods.

MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell got in on the self-satisfied ridicule, too. 

 Promoting Maddow’s latest book about the “unmooring of American military power,” O’Donnell asked the flagship MSNBC host if Romney was merely reflecting on what he might have read in that book. 

“He read about Reagan’s private, outside-the-CIA cabal of team-B zealots who were telling him that Russia had all the stuff they didn’t have so he could justify a giant defense budget,” Maddow submitted scornfully. 

“It is amazing that Mitt Romney can flip like that just as soon as he hears something to exploit in foreign policy,” O’Donnell remarked.

Maddow took her observations about Romney’s position on Russia one ill-advised step further on her MSNBC.com blog:

I can appreciate why the Romney campaign would try to make Obama’s “hot mic” story interesting, but the problem is the former governor just doesn’t have any real policy chops in this area. He’s out of his depth, and struggles when the subject takes center stage.
It’s not just that Romney is uninformed; it’s that he hasn’t figured out how to fake it.

Appearing on Andrea Mitchell Reports in April of that year, Romney surrogate and former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour was confronted by the MSNBC anchor. Calling Romney’s comments “a throwback to the Cold War,” Mitchell insisted that “we work with Russia all the time.” “Hardly an ally but certainly not an adversary,” she declared.

But the worst offender was one who should have, and likely did, know better, former Secretary of State Colin Powell. The former Army general greatly entertained his MSNBC hosts with some of the most snide commentary about Romney’s observation. 

“Come on, Mitt. Think,” Powell said of Romney’s remark in May to the chuckles of host Joe Scarborough. “That isn’t the case.” 

He went on to suggest that Romney’s assessment of the threat posed by Russia was so dubious that it was possible he was being disingenuous or he was coached to make that statement.

RELATED:  Mitt Romney Was Right About Russia

Liberal's Latest Excuse For Barack Obama: He'd Be A Better President If We Repealed 22nd Amendment

Fast and Furious. Benghazi coverup. Historically-low approval ratings. 6 wars since becoming POTUS. Godless, social agenda. Catering to white liberals on everything. Blacks faring better under Bush than Obama. Rollout for Obamacare an utter fail...the list goes on. But if you're a rabid Obamabot, surely it's a "RACIST!!!" GOP and that nonsensical 22nd Amendment that's holding Barry O. back from being the best POTUS he could be:

Last week Frank J. Fleming, one of the funniest bloggers around, tweeted: "At this point in the Obama presidency, we were supposed to be talking about how we needed to repeal the 22nd Amendment," which limits presidents to two terms. 

We laughed and gave Fleming a retweet. On Wednesday we observed that it's hard for a political humorist to keep up with the real-life absurdities of the Obama crowd. To illustrate the point, along comes Jonathan Zimmerman, a historian at New York University, with an op-ed in the Washington Post arguing that we need to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

Now of course the way this was supposed to work was that Obama would be such an amazing president that he would come to seem indispensable. There were people who felt that way about Reagan and Clinton in their last years in office. Probably someone somewhere would still stake that claim on Obama's behalf, but we doubt even Slate would publish such a far-fetched argument, never mind the Washington Post.

So Zimmerman doesn't argue that Obama deserves a third term to continue his great success, only that "Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election [again]" and that "citizens should be allowed to vote for--or against--him." Where it gets funny is in Zimmerman's resort to the 22nd Amendment as an excuse for the failures of Obama's first and second terms.

Zimmerman opens with a 1947 quote from Sen. Harley Kilgore, a West Virginia Democrat, who "condemned [the] proposed constitutional amendment" on the ground that, in Kilgore's words: "The executive's effectiveness will be seriously impaired, as no one will obey and respect him if he knows that the executive cannot run again." (We're pretty sure Zimmerman has the chronology backward here: Kilgore's quote preceded the proposing of the amendment and was part of the debate over whether Congress would do so.)

There's no denying Obama's effectiveness has been seriously impaired. As Zimmerman notes, the president's approval rates have plunged--to 37% in one poll--and amid the ObamaCare disaster, "many of Obama's fellow Democrats have distanced themselves from the reform and from the president." The administration's purported recent deal with Iran, likewise, is drawing "fervent objections" not just from hawkish Republicans but from Northeastern Democrats like Sens. Chuck Schumer and Bob Menendez.

If Obama were running for re-election, Zimmerman thinks that wouldn't happen: "Democratic lawmakers would worry about provoking the wrath of a president who could be reelected. Thanks to term limits, though, they've got little to fear." But "the scariest problem of all," Zimmerman claims, is that Obama does not "have to fear the voters," so that "if he chooses, he could simply ignore their will."

Right off the bat it seems obvious that Zimmerman has committed a fallacy of causality. We puzzled over whether to call it post hoc or cum hoc before realizing it's a rare example of an ante hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Zimmerman is asserting without evidence that events in the present are being caused by an event in the future, namely Obama's leaving office for good on Jan. 20, 2017.

Why is this fallacious? For one reason, because it does not describe the behavior of all two-term presidents since the 22nd Amendment went into effect. Only Nixon and George W. Bush are generally regarded to have had disastrous second terms. Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton all had some difficulties in their second terms, but none that proved crippling to their effectiveness or poisonous to their public standing.

There have also been disastrous one-term presidents--Carter for sure, and we'd also count Lyndon B. Johnson. Because LBJ took office with less than half of President Kennedy's term left, he was eligible to seek a full second term in 1968. He withdrew in the face of a surprisingly strong primary challenge from the antiwar left. In terms of his ability to influence Congress, LBJ arguably had been the most effective president of the 20th century, at least during his 1964-65 heyday. By 1968 he was washed up.

The proximate cause of Obama's current decline in esteem and authority is the failure of a project he undertook during his first term--ObamaCare. That he has in common with Nixon (the Watergate burglary and coverup) and George W. Bush (the Iraq war). Given that all three of these presidents sought and won a second term, it seems far-fetched to speculate that the prospect of a third term would have led to substantially better decision making in the first term.

As for Zimmerman's fear that Obama may ignore the will of the voters, all we can say is he must've been out of the country in 2010 when ObamaCare was passed. It is preposterous to suggest that so willful a president would be more responsive if only he had the legal possibility of being president for life. Further, it is difficult to deny that the requirements of re-election in 2012 were behind the administration's abuse of the Internal Revenue Service, the Benghazi coverup, and the fraudulent claim that "if you like your plan you can keep it." Does anyone think the prospect of a third Nixon term in 1976 would have averted Watergate?

RELATED:  End presidential term limits

Parents Angry After Middle Schoolers Watch Video of Celebrities Who ‘Pledge’ Support for Obama — and Ask Viewers to Do Likewise

TheBlaze.com:

Remember that “I Pledge” video produced by Oprah Winfrey’s production company after President Obama took office in 2009?

It features a gaggle of celebrities telling viewers all the good they promise to do for humanity. But toward the end, it drifts into a pledge of support for Obama — the kind of rhetoric that befits a political convention spot as opposed to a public service message.

Red Hot Chili Peppers lead singer Anthony Kiedis says, “I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama,” kissing his biceps in the process.

After a number of other celebs staring invoking their intentions to “be the change” (sound familiar?), Demi Moore finishes things by saying, “I pledge to be a servant to our president.”

For some reason the Hudson (Wis.) School District unearthed the “I Pledge” video for its middle school’s Peace One Day event a few days back, and a number parents in attendance were outraged.

District and school officials made a quick backpedal, apologizing to those offended by the video, reports KMSP-TV.

“The reason the video was used was to show students small ways to make a difference in their communities,” the district wrote in its apology. “Unfortunately, the video also had a political slant. The district is non-partisan and does not endorse the political messages found in this video. This video will not be used in the district again.”

Middle School Principal Dan Koch this announcement to students Thursday afternoon:

“The ‘I Pledge’ video we viewed yesterday included some messages about serving President Barack Obama. We apologize for any part of the video that was offensive to students, their families and staff. The video conveyed a message that people serve the presidency when in fact our elected officials serve the people. We respect the Office of the President of the United States but like all of our other elected officials, that office serves each of us as well. I sincerely hope that as participants in Wednesday’s event what you took away from the experience was to choose to make a difference in your world.”

The district wouldn’t disclose whose idea it was to show the “I Pledge” video to students, KMSP reports, but people on the streets weren’t thrilled by offering the video’s message to middle schoolers. 

“It looks a little 1940s Germany,” says one interviewee, who agrees that its essentially propaganda. Another adds, “It doesn’t seem right.”

RELATED: Ed Asner Tells O’Reilly Hollywood Doesn’t Want to ‘Damage’ Obama by Speaking Out on Syria