White House wants Romney to explain Israel remarks

[babsbunny]

White House wants Romney to explain Israel remarks

By Agence France-Presse
Monday, July 30, 2012 19:58 EDT

WASHINGTON — The White House called Monday on Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney to explain recent remarks including his apparent endorsement of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a position that counters US policy.

Romney, in the midst of a three-nation tour, gave a speech Sunday in Jerusalem where he hailed the city as “the capital of Israel,” in apparent support of a position held by the Jewish state but never accepted by the global community.

The comment was swiftly rejected by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat as “unacceptable” and “harmful to American interests in our region.”

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. On the fence about this.

I am sure they needed to, but this gives him credibility as opposed to blowing him off as a private citizen with his foot in his mouth.

Then again, I don't play chess.

[Lemonwurst]

3. I know what you mean, but...

... at some point Team Obama really does have to treat him as a serious candidate, despite our own hopes and wishes. "Regular folks" who aren't paying attention right now will consider Romney just fine until proven otherwise by President Obama (and OFA). And even with the withering attack ads, the President's re-election team really hasn't been dismissive.

I hope you're right about the chess move. Publically scolding Romney might make his Keystone-Cops election team advise him to dig in his heels, like he's done about the taxes. That would actually help Team Obama, I think. Romney says something really stupid, the WH calls him on it, then he's stuck with the choice between doubling down or walking it back. Either can be bad for him.

Ironically, the best response to the WH would be no response. But have you ever heard of a Repug keeping their mouth shut when chastisted? They're all actually quite easy to get riled, which I think helps draw even more distinction between him and our President.

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. Excellent point about Willard's temperament.

He isn't used to people challenging him - he is used to being held responsible to no one and surrounded by yes-men.

This very well could be in play to get him to double down because thats all his ego knows to do.

I like it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. I completely disagree

Romney is the presumptive nominee and must be taken seriously-despite his clown like behavior.

[Tx4obama]

2. Do you have a link to the OP article? n/t

[ohgeewhiz]

5. I Googled the title and found this:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/30/white-house-wants-romney-to-explain-israel-remarks/




“If Mr. Romney disagrees with that position, he’s also disagreeing with the position that was taken by presidents like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.”

[evilhime]

7. The fact is

it is not his place to contradict policy of the current administration. Imagine if someone did that to Bush, the hue and cry that would have ensued! The remark also showed absolutely no comprehension of the situation in that part of the world, and bodes very badly for the world if he were to get elected. The middle east is a powder keg, and keeping it from blowing is not for amateurs - which Willard is.

[DCKit]

8. Teh Rmoney campaign doesn't understand that we hear their dogwhistles for what they are...

and fully understand the context and subtext. That the Obama campaign is fighting back is a real shocker, too. Dems have been rolling over and apologizing for telling the truth for so long, the (R)s have forgotten how to handle any push-back. Authoritarians never do.

Of course, Willard will simply claim to be misunderstood and/or taken out of context - again.