Santorum: Obama has 'embraced radical Islamic groups'

[Brittain33]

In short, he wants America to look like Iran.

Uh huh. Good one.

Care to defend his original statement here?

[Brittain33]

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."

[Brittain33]

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.

Yeah, there's nothing "crazy" that I have to "defend" here.

Ok, so you believe that Obama has embraced radical Islam, or think that's an acceptable description of events?

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

Phil, do you think Obama has embraced radical Islamic groups?

[Brittain33]

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.

Aha, I see.

What would you see as the terms of debate? I ask because I feel as if the option of propping up dictatorships in Egypt was dismissed pretty soundly last year. And I don't think Santorum would have supported Mubarak, which would have been a tough policy to support - what I hear is him complaining it's too wet when it's rainy and too hot when it's sunny and blaming the President. If you support democracy in Egypt, you get an opening for the Islamic Brotherhood. But I don't hear Santorum advocating for... what would it take?... ending democracy in Egypt. I hear him attacking and slurring Obama because moderate Islamists are winning elections and that's scary to his voters. I see no constructive debate there.

I grant that Santorum likely does believe the ridiculous things he says, more than Gingrich or Romney does, but I don't see that as a defense. I'm glad that he's disqualified himself as a nominee because his views are so far outside the pale.