By Mollie Hemingway
Friday, September 09, 2016
The New York Times
published an article this morning headlined, “Donald Trump’s Campaign Stands By
Embrace of Putin” that begins:
WASHINGTON — Donald J. Trump’s
campaign on Thursday reaffirmed its extraordinary embrace of Russia’s president,
Vladimir V. Putin, signaling a preference for the leadership of an
authoritarian adversary over that of America’s own president, despite a cascade
of criticism from Democrats and expressions of discomfort among Republicans.
The New York Times
has always struggled with even-handed coverage of Republican candidates, long
before this year, when they gave up even the pretense of a fight and ran an
article on the front page of the paper defending
and justifying explicit media bias against Trump.
Reporters Jonathan Martin and Amy Chozick aren’t trying
to conceal how they feel about Trump or his comments regarding Russia. Fine.
People noticed the dramatic language.
What’s weird about it is how different the media,
including the New York Times, are about
Trump’s posture to Russia relative to the the views of the previous Republican
candidate for president, Mitt Romney.
Remember all the way back to four years ago when Romney
said Russia was our greatest geopolitical foe? The context was that President Barack
Obama had been caught on a hot mic being very convivial with Russian President
Dmitry Medvedev “This is my last election. And after my election, I have more
flexibility.” Medvedev said in response, “I understand you. I transmit this
information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.”
This alarmingly friendly posture toward Russia was
pooh-poohed by many in the media. In fact, in the very interview in which
Romney made his comments about Russia, Wolf Blitzer defended the president.
“That is a factual statement that the president is making. If he doesn’t have
to worry getting reelected, he doesn’t have to worry so much about domestic
politics.” But then he asked, “Is there anything wrong in – when it comes to
national security issues, to be saying something like that to the Russian
leader?” Here’s a snippet from later in the interview:
ROMNEY: …And if he’s planning on doing more and suggests to Russia
that – that he has things he’s willing to do with them, he’s not willing to
tell the American people – this is to Russia, this is, without question, our
number one geopolitical foe. They – they fight every cause for the world’s
worst actors. The I – the idea that he has some more flexibility in mind for
Russia is very, very troubling, indeed.
Blitzer found this extremely surprising and worrisome:
BLITZER: But you think Russia is a bigger foe right now than, let’s
say, Iran or China or North Korea? Is that – is that what you’re suggesting,
Governor?
He joined the rest of the media (“What about your gaaaaaaaaaffes?”)
on the Romney fainting couch.
Obama and his allies in the media made their outrage over
Romney’s comments a major part of their campaign. Remember Obama brutally
mocking Romney for thinking Russia was a bigger threat than al-Qaeda? (al-Qaeda,
for those in the juicebox journalistic community, used to be the world’s
leading Islamist terrorist organization.)
“The 1980s called. They want their foreign policy back,”
Obama said. And oh, did the media cheer him on. “Oh, snap!” they all
triumphantly tweeted in unison, pleased with him and themselves.
Richard Oppel Jr.’s story on Romney’s totally weird views
on Russia being a threat was headlined “Romney’s Adversarial View of Russia
Stirs Debate.” It began ominously:
WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney’s recent
declaration that Russia is America’s top geopolitical adversary drew raised
eyebrows and worse from many Democrats, some Republicans and the Russians
themselves, all of whom suggested that Mr. Romney was misguidedly stuck in a
cold war mind-set.
If Russia is an “authoritarian adversary,” as the New York Times is asserting in opening
paragraphs of their Trump story, why in the world would Romney’s comments about
them being such a major geopolitical foe have raised eyebrows or worse? That’s
weird.
The New York Times
editorial page was less restrained in its editorial, “The Never-Ending Cold
War.”
Two decades after the end of the
cold war, Mitt Romney still considers Russia to be America’s “No. 1
geopolitical foe.” His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge
about international affairs or just craven politics. Either way, they are
reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender.
Hunh. That’s super weird. Is it reckless to find Russia a
serious threat? Is it unworthy of a major presidential contender? Because in
that same story about how Trump’s embrace of Putin is the worst thing ever,
Hillary Clinton says:
Hillary Clinton excoriated Mr.
Trump for asserting that Mr. Putin is a better leader than President Obama,
saying it was “not just unpatriotic and insulting to the people of our country,
as well as to our commander in chief — it is scary.”
She seized on Mr. Trump’s assertion
in the televised forum that Mr. Putin’s incursions into neighboring countries,
crackdown on Russia’s independent news media and support for America’s enemies
were no more troublesome than Mr. Obama’s transgressions. She said it showed
that, if elected, Mr. Trump would be little more than a tool of Mr. Putin.
“It suggests he will let Putin do
whatever Putin wants to do and then make excuses for him,” Mrs. Clinton told
reporters Thursday morning at Westchester County Airport in New York, stepping
up her criticism as polls indicate the race has tightened, and as Mr. Trump
continues to say things rarely heard before from a major party’s presidential
nominee.
Does the New York
Times find Hillary Clinton’s comments reckless and unworthy of a major
presidential contender? Do they display a shocking lack of knowledge about
international affairs, or just craven politics?
The U.S. relationship with Russia and its authoritarian
strongman Vlad Putin is complicated. I’m not even talking about Hillary Clinton
signing off on a Russian company with many ties to the Clinton Foundation
taking over 20 percent of U.S. uranium reserves. I’m not talking about her
embarrassing multi-layered failure to “reset” our relationship with Russia.
Some see the country as a menacing threat that seeks world domination and some
see it as a potentially valuable partner in the fight against global Islamism.
Some see it as both.
But whatever one’s views on Russia, they shouldn’t change
diametrically depending on whether a Republican or Democrat is talking about
them.
And if the New York
Times is going to flip out over Trump’s lack of concern about Russia,
perhaps they could at least do so after a heartfelt apology for their unseemly
and indefensible role in unfairly tearing down Mitt Romney in 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment