Obama Open Mic comments to Russian minister

[Apeman81]

The open microphone comments he made Monday after a bilateral meeting with Medvedev happened right as journalists were being let into the room.

Obama could be heard saying, "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space."

Medvedev responds in English, "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you..."

Obama then brings up a frank statement about timing and what he can get done, "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

Medvedev replies, "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir," a reference to the next Russian President-elect Valdimir Putin.

Building up missile defense in Europe, which the U.S. is for, and Russia is against, has been an issue of contention between the two countries.

Is this another example of telling the voters one thing and saying another behind their backs?

Just what flexibility will he gain? The ability to reverse his position?

Why should we the people accept this from our elected officials? What good does it do us? How does our nation benefit?

[crimethinker]

What did he say that we're not supposed to accept? That he'll have more flexibility in his second term? That's true. I don't see the problem.

[Apeman81]

What did he say that we're not supposed to accept? That he'll have more flexibility in his second term? That's true. I don't see the problem.

Really?

A politician should believe that once he's gotten past the pesky elections he will have more "flexibility" than he does while working to get re-elected?

So his position on matters of state should be one thing when attempting to influence the electorate by telling them where he stands on the issue, knowing that what he is telling the people is not the truth, and then be free to "modify" that position with greater "flexibility" after the election?

How are we the people to make an informed decision when choosing our elected officials if they are free to say one thing while planning to do another once elected?

I find that a rather significant problem. Allowing them to lie with such impunity about their position is of absolutely no value to a government of, by, and for the people.

But you don't see it that way. C'est la vie

[crimethinker]

Really?

A politician should believe that once he's gotten past the pesky elections he will have more "flexibility" than he does while working to get re-elected?

Ideally, yes, because it's true. I don't want a politician who exists in a separate reality where there is only one's ideology.

So his position on matters of state should be one thing when attempting to influence the electorate by telling them where he stands on the issue, knowing that what he is telling the people is not the truth, and then be free to "modify" that position with greater "flexibility" after the election?

Flexibility doesn't necessarily entail position reversals. Maybe it involves actually fighting for his positions, the ones for which he was elected, because he won't have to worry about the Republicans lambasting him over every little thing, even when he's agreeing with them, in the next election.

How are we the people to make an informed decision when choosing our elected officials if they are free to say one thing while planning to do another once elected?

Oh, I know. How will we ever vote for a politician knowing that he or she is a politician? I assume you want honesty. Barack Obama was being honest. He said the truth. You want him to actively deny the truth that he'll have more political flexibility in his second term?

I find that a rather significant problem. Allowing them to lie with such impunity about their position is of absolutely no value to a government of, by, and for the people.

But you don't see it that way. C'est la vie

Well, ignoring that it has nothing to do with lying -- the opposite, in fact -- you know what I find a rather significant problem? GOP leadership stating that their top priority is to make Obama a one-term president. Not even to advance their own crony capitalist agenda or oppose liberal policies, but to make him a one-term president, because they just hate him that much. I admire their honesty, but given that position I think "flexibility" for the president is something we should all look forward to.

[sulh-i-kul]

He said the truth. You want him to actively deny the truth that he'll have more political flexibility in his second term?

Come one now...
The problem is obviously not with this truth but with the implication that his current behavior is dictated not by his principles or by his plan for the USA but by the coming election. It's not suprising coming from a politician of course but I kind of prefer people who stand for what they believe in over hypocrites.
.
One must however keep in mind that Obama might have been deceiving Medvedev and not voters. Using the upcoming election as an excuse to placate the Russians would simply have been good diplomacy.
.
I thought Obama's comments to Sarkozy in November were more significant and revealing by the way.

[Yarn]

Obama has been far more consistent than Mr. Etch A Sketch, who will almost certainly be his opponent.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ises/obameter/

[crimethinker]

The problem is obviously not with this truth but with the implication that his current behavior is dictated not by his principles or by his plan for the USA but by the coming election. It's not suprising coming from a politician of course but I kind of prefer people who stand for what they believe in over hypocrites.

His plan for the USA is to get re-elected and implement what change he can given the state of our political system. That's better, in my opinion, than insisting on full adherence to ideology, thereby failing to deliver any change, and swiftly getting the opposing party voted into office.

If political realism makes Obama a hypocrite who intends to betray his country, I'd love to see how you and Apeman respond to the Republicans. They'll shiv you in the back and when you ask what just happened, bleeding out, lie right to your face.

[sulh-i-kul]

principles or a plan != ideology

What would be truely better is a plan to change the state of your political system.
I don't believe in Obama's change. In 2008 he was the first black Prez which was pretty cool but now he's measured by how much Romney sucks. It may be a winning strategy but it's a strategy that won't bring about change.

[crimethinker]

principles or a plan != ideology

Good then, he has both of those. His comment makes it simpler for his opponents to say he doesn't, but it doesn't make their claims any more true.

[Angry Citizen]

For the love of god, if it's not the left wing blowing shit out of proportion, it's the right..

Obama's looking at a more favorable second term than first term. He'll retain control of the Senate and the Republicans will be much more willing to work with him in the House - assuming it doesn't flip blue too.

[Apeman81]

His plan for the USA is to get re-elected and implement what change he can given the state of our political system. That's better, in my opinion, than insisting on full adherence to ideology, thereby failing to deliver any change, and swiftly getting the opposing party voted into office.

If political realism makes Obama a hypocrite who intends to betray his country, I'd love to see how you and Apeman respond to the Republicans. They'll shiv you in the back and when you ask what just happened, bleeding out, lie right to your face.

Blinded by the us v us argument, I see.

Another tried and true methodology of elected officials. Keep us trapped in an inane discussion of the relative superiority of the available parties instead of holding them all accountable. The "useful idiots" love playing this game on demand.

I point out Obama doing it, and then ask why we should accept this from our elected leaders, and you fly into "useful idiot" mode trying to enter political party in the mix in order to obfuscate the discussion.

I don't care about party affiliation. i care about the elected official.

Your first statement about getting whatever change he can passed being better than openness, that is the Saul Alinsky way!

[crimethinker]

Blinded by the us v us argument, I see.

Another tried and true methodology of elected officials. Keep us trapped in an inane discussion of the relative superiority of the available parties instead of holding them all accountable. The "useful idiots" love playing this game on demand.

I point out Obama doing it, and then ask why we should accept this from our elected leaders, and you fly into "useful idiot" mode trying to enter political party in the mix in order to obfuscate the discussion.

I don't care about party affiliation. i care about the elected official.

Your first statement about getting whatever change he can passed being better than openness, that is the Saul Alinsky way!

You'll note that my party affiliation is Independent. I disagree with the very concept of political parties, but the right and left wing decided to factionalize. That's the reality we're dealing with, the reality Obama is dealing with. To ignore it is pretty inane, no?

I still don't know what I'm supposedly accepting, if not a basic truth, and what is a "useful idiot", since you're calling me one.

I'd love more openness, or the circumstances where openness would be the politically advantageous thing, where the opposing party wouldn't rip you to shreds for saying, "Yeah, in my second term I'll have more political flexibility." Same thing goes for Etch A Sketch. I don't get upset by candid admissions of political realities, but others do. That's the only problem I see here.