Santorum: Obama has 'embraced radical Islamic groups'

[Gustaf]

I don't really find this to be SO out there. One can legitimately make the case that Obama has taken a more concilliatory stance towards global islam than the previous administration and than what Santorum would like. And there are legitimate grounds for being worried about the Muslim Brotherhood and similar movements taking over in Arab Spring countries.

Don't get me wrong, I side with Obama over Santorum by a wide margin on these issues but I don't think it's particularly more unfair or crazy than most stuff that goes down in politics.

[Gustaf]

I don't really find this to be SO out there. One can legitimately make the case that Obama has taken a more concilliatory stance towards global islam than the previous administration and than what Santorum would like.

That wouldn't be extremely unreasonable, but what Santorum said was that Obama embraced radical Islam, so I don't see the relevance of constructing an argument that vaguely resembles a much less inaccurate version of what Santorum said and defending it.

That's not far afield from J.J. defending Sarah Palin's talking about sitting down with the Queen to discuss British military policy because one could make the argument that "the Crown" is the government.

We have a saying in the U.S. that ends, "and if my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle."

That formulation is hyperbolic, but that seems to be standard for American politics. In context it's clear what he's trying to say and that doesn't seem crazy to me.

I think it's different from the Palin thing because it was obvious in that case that she didn't mean what JJ tried to argue. In this case it IS clear what Santorum means. Sure, he twists that with some pointed wording but that doesn't upset me all that much, to be honest.

[Gustaf]

I don't really find this to be SO out there. One can legitimately make the case that Obama has taken a more concilliatory stance towards global islam than the previous administration and than what Santorum would like.

That wouldn't be extremely unreasonable, but what Santorum said was that Obama embraced radical Islam, so I don't see the relevance of constructing an argument that vaguely resembles a much less inaccurate version of what Santorum said and defending it.

That's not far afield from J.J. defending Sarah Palin's talking about sitting down with the Queen to discuss British military policy because one could make the argument that "the Crown" is the government.

We have a saying in the U.S. that ends, "and if my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle."

That formulation is hyperbolic, but that seems to be standard for American politics. In context it's clear what he's trying to say and that doesn't seem crazy to me.

I don't know how to disagree more that a statement that begins "Obama embraces radical Islamic groups" is a reasonable statement that can be redeemed within context. You have to strip that statement of its xenophobia and misrepresentation to get at the nugget of fact there, which is that by supporting democracy in the Middle East Obama is supporting an atmosphere that lets Islamist groups achieve power they couldn't have under the previous dictatorships, but to make this a criticism of Obama or a functional criticism of American policy (what would Santorum propose we do about the Islamic brotherhood in Egypt? Bring back Mubarak's son as Pharoah? Republican growling and talking tough on Fox News doesn't actually change how Egyptians vote, and usually makes things worse) from this is very difficult.

And the context is about saying Obama and radical Islam together and sustaining the base's prejudices against Obama, Islam, and the Democrats.

I'm sorry, Gustaf, I respect your willingness to try to see Republican rhetoric in the most generous light possible and to gently correct "your fellow red avatars" but I can't reach that far with Santorum's statement. If 99% of the audience doesn't reach the conclusion you did, and if Santorum wanted the audience to end up in that hateful, ill-informed place, I don't see the relevance of a sympathetic, educated person deciding he could land in a different place as if it has more value than the conclusions drawn by Republican voters.

Well, I see your point and I'm not really claiming that it's a reasonable statement. It's more like everyone going all "OMG" on it seems like an overreaction. He's attacking Obama for something that I do think is legitimate grounds for debate. He is exaggerating the situation considerably, true, but that is rather common.

I'd agree that if one thinks that he is doing Muslim scare-mongering it's a lot worse. But I was thinking that Santorum IS a neo-conservative who actually believes this.