Brian4Liberty
01-13-2016, 06:37 PM
Five Big Failures in Nikki Haley’s Response to Obama (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/13/nikki-haley-attack-on-the-republican-opposition/)
by Joel B. Pollak - 13 Jan 2016
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley delivered the official response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday evening.
Beltway Republicans praised her speech–Charles Krauthammer called it “the best written and best delivered answer to a State of the Union I have ever heard”–but that was, in a sense, because she was speaking for them, distinguishing them from Donald Trump.
There were five major failures in Haley’s response.
1. Ignoring Obama. Haley offered no actual response to what President Obama had said in his State of the Union address, and few direct criticisms of his policies. She began, in fact, by praising him: “President Obama spoke eloquently about grand things. He’s at his best when he does that.” She did note that he was “unwilling or unable” to confront terror. But the other contrasts she drew between Obama and Republicans were abstract and muted.
2. Attacking Republicans. Haley’s main goal, bizarrely, was to criticize her own party. “…[W]hile Democrats in Washington bear much responsibility for the problems facing America today, they do not bear it alone. There is more than enough blame to go around. We as Republicans need to own that truth.” She spoke these words over two minutes into her speech–before saying anything about what Republicans actually offered in contrast to Obama.
...
More: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/13/nikki-haley-attack-on-the-republican-opposition/
The Republican SOTU Response (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-republican-sotu-response/)
By Daniel Larison • January 13, 2016
One thing that Haley unfortunately had in common with Trump and Cruz is opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran. She understandably had almost nothing to say about foreign policy in her response, but she did say this about how foreign policy would be different under a Republican president:
We would make international agreements that were celebrated in Israel and protested in Iran, not the other way around.
This doesn’t make any sense, not least since Israel rarely participates in multilateral diplomacy. Besides, the point of negotiating disputed issues with adversaries is to settle them for the mutual benefit of all parties. If Iran didn’t have something to celebrate in the nuclear deal, the deal and the benefits the U.S. and its allies receive from it wouldn’t have happened. More to the point, it shouldn’t matter whether Israel protests or celebrates an agreement so long as the agreement advances U.S. interests. It should be good enough that the nuclear deal was supported and welcomed by some of our oldest and most important European allies. Haley is implicitly dismissing the importance of those allies for the sake of a very tired bit of “pro-Israel” boilerplate. It was just one line thrown in near the end, but it still managed to convey so much of what is deeply wrong with Republican thinking on foreign policy.
...
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-republican-sotu-response/
by Joel B. Pollak - 13 Jan 2016
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley delivered the official response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday evening.
Beltway Republicans praised her speech–Charles Krauthammer called it “the best written and best delivered answer to a State of the Union I have ever heard”–but that was, in a sense, because she was speaking for them, distinguishing them from Donald Trump.
There were five major failures in Haley’s response.
1. Ignoring Obama. Haley offered no actual response to what President Obama had said in his State of the Union address, and few direct criticisms of his policies. She began, in fact, by praising him: “President Obama spoke eloquently about grand things. He’s at his best when he does that.” She did note that he was “unwilling or unable” to confront terror. But the other contrasts she drew between Obama and Republicans were abstract and muted.
2. Attacking Republicans. Haley’s main goal, bizarrely, was to criticize her own party. “…[W]hile Democrats in Washington bear much responsibility for the problems facing America today, they do not bear it alone. There is more than enough blame to go around. We as Republicans need to own that truth.” She spoke these words over two minutes into her speech–before saying anything about what Republicans actually offered in contrast to Obama.
...
More: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/13/nikki-haley-attack-on-the-republican-opposition/
The Republican SOTU Response (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-republican-sotu-response/)
By Daniel Larison • January 13, 2016
One thing that Haley unfortunately had in common with Trump and Cruz is opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran. She understandably had almost nothing to say about foreign policy in her response, but she did say this about how foreign policy would be different under a Republican president:
We would make international agreements that were celebrated in Israel and protested in Iran, not the other way around.
This doesn’t make any sense, not least since Israel rarely participates in multilateral diplomacy. Besides, the point of negotiating disputed issues with adversaries is to settle them for the mutual benefit of all parties. If Iran didn’t have something to celebrate in the nuclear deal, the deal and the benefits the U.S. and its allies receive from it wouldn’t have happened. More to the point, it shouldn’t matter whether Israel protests or celebrates an agreement so long as the agreement advances U.S. interests. It should be good enough that the nuclear deal was supported and welcomed by some of our oldest and most important European allies. Haley is implicitly dismissing the importance of those allies for the sake of a very tired bit of “pro-Israel” boilerplate. It was just one line thrown in near the end, but it still managed to convey so much of what is deeply wrong with Republican thinking on foreign policy.
...
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-republican-sotu-response/