July 26, 2007 10:19 AM
Romney sides with Clinton -- just this once
UPDATED
View image Photo by M.E. Sprengelmeyer
By M.E. Sprengelmeyer
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS
MARSHALLTOWN, Iowa -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton got an unlikely ally this morning in her continuing conflict with Sen. Barack Obama over a question of diplomacy that emerged during the CNN/YouTube debate earlier this week.
"She's right on that. He happens to be wrong," former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said of Clinton and Obama following his appearance at a crowded, downtown restaurant in Marshalltown, Iowa.
Romney's morning speech was filled with criticism of various Democrats, including Clinton. But he saved his harshest words for Obama over his debate answer saying that, as president, he would agree to meet with the leaders of such American adversaries as Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela during his first year in the White House.
Clinton has pounced on that response, calling it "irresponsible and frankly naive" to make such a commitment, saying there's a danger of the president of the United States being used for "propaganda."
Sparring between Clinton and Obama has continued all week, including dueling newspaper interviews in Iowa, where the first caucus votes will be cast next January.
Obama reportedly has called it a "fabricated controversy," implying that Clinton wants to follow a diplomatic strategy that has failed under President Bush.
"The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous," Obama said, according to CNN.
But Romney told reporters this morning that he sides with Clinton on this particular question. He said there should be some contacts with adversarial nations, but that it would be wrong to "bestow the dignity of that office" on leaders like Kim Jong Il of North Korea, Fidel Castro of Cuba, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Romney said Obama's statement is "outrageous, and suggests an agenda which is not in keeping with an agenda focused on building friendships with our allies, creating understanding with other nations. It's a wrong course and he should recognize it and change direction -- or simply be rejected."
It "does that mean we don't have any communications with those countries. Of course not," Romney said. "But a presidential contact is as ill conceived as having (House Speaker Nancy) Pelosi go to Syria. That was ill conceived, but having a president meet with the authoritiarain tyrants of the world is a remarkably poor judgment conclusion."
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor fired back at Romney this afternoon.
“Unlike Governor Romney and others, Senator Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it started," Vietor said. "Our next President can’t keep showing bad judgment by continuing the Bush-Cheney style of foreign policy and stubbornly refusing to talk to countries we don’t agree with.”
In Marshalltown, Romney was asked about this rare time he found agreement with Clinton, whom he and the other Republicans in the race frequently villify on the stump.
"If two Democrats are violently disagreeing with each other, I'm probably going to be on the side of one or the other," Romney said.
UPDATE: Late this afternoon, the Democratic National Committee had harsh words for Romney.
Said DNC spokesman Damien LaVera:
“No mater how hard he tries to hide it, the American people know that smooth talking Mitt Romney is just another Bush Republican who refuses to offer the American people a new direction in Iraq, something all of our Democratic candidates are committed to doing.”
That's one way to try to take some away from the Democrats' civil war, which only intensified on Thursday, with Obama suggesting that Clinton was "Bush-Clinton lite" and Clinton telling CNN: "What's ever happened with the 'politics of hope?'"
It's at this point that we consider having an Emily Littela moment and consider adding just one last word to the very end of THIS 4th of JULY STORY: nevermind.
August 19, 2007
7:42 PM
Alan H writes:
By the way, the 'curious Democrat' you quoted in your 8/18 article about Fred Thompson may have just been a simple 'farmer and curious Democrat', but he was also more than that - or at least he used to be when he served in the Iowa House of Representatives as a Democrat.
http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=31799
Really now, if they want to comment on other politicians, they should at least be honest and represent themselves honestly...
--Alan
August 1, 2007
12:27 PM
Coloradem writes:
"If two Democrats are violently disagreeing with each other, I'm probably going to be on the side of one or the other," Romney said.
And given his record on flip-flopping, if you wait an hour or two he'll probably be on the side of the other democrat...
July 30, 2007
2:55 PM
DSS writes:
Oh, my! What a wonderful photograph. The expression and overall appearance of the lady in the painting is great. She looks so adoringly right at Mr. (winter) Olympics. Nice job on your part, ME.
July 26, 2007
5:33 PM
jflansburgh writes:
@ Rodney: Step back from the ledge, big fella - this is a good development for your guy Obama.
This is a nice move by Romney - stir up a little storm on the Dem side by pulling HRC closer to the GOPers. BHO partisans will be out in force crowing how conservative HRC is, echoing BHOs talking points. At the same time, it continues the "experinece" drumbeat against BHO and forces the conversation.
Romney smartly fanned the flames on what will be the single most important decision factor in the Dem primary. And Obama probably comes out ahead on this specific arguement.
July 26, 2007
3:47 PM
MtP DC writes:
ah...but the question no one asked on Monday -- should Barry Bonds have an asterisk by his name. Much more interesting than whether or not Hill, Barack or Mitt will meet with Fidel or Hugo!
July 26, 2007
11:57 AM
Rodney Cupp writes:
Thanks to George Bush, with whom they contrast well, the democratic contenders appear homogeneous. Unlike Bush, they all appear to think that their beliefs should correspond with reality, that there are three separate but equal branches of the federal government, that the Fifth Amendment means just what it says, and so on.
The democratic contenders are thus looking for something that will distinguish them. But this disagreement between Clinton and Obama just seems silly.
Does anyone really believe that Obama will hightail it to Tehran to meet with Ahmadinejad his first day in office? Does anyone really believe that Clinton will continue George Bush's infantile treatment of those who disagree with him?
Romney accuses Obama of not being focused on "creating understanding with other nations." How this understanding could be damaged by presidential contact is a complete mystery to me.
What a "judgment conclusion" is is also a complete mystery to me. I suppose that I misunderestimated Romney's mastery of the English language.
Rather than worrying about the dignity of the office of the president of the United States (which has already suffered greatly under its present occupant), Romney should consider all of the available options.