Incredible. Biden spends at least a third of his speech on foreign policy and @FareedZakaria says that we needed *more* of it.
We’ve had record numbers of overdose deaths each of the last two years in this country but the tv talking head set wants to know more about how Biden will make them feel good about Russia and the enemies of democracy wherever they may hide.
Did no one tell David Axelrod that we are not, in fact, at war in Ukraine…?
“He has brought the world together in unity on this issue” Axelrod just said about Biden and Ukraine, in true state press fashion.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you’ll permit me the soapbox for a second: this is why energy independence - something we recently had! - is so important. It means we aren’t beholden to other countries to keep the lights on here.
A lot of countries who have oil, in case you hadn’t noticed, aren’t exactly stable members of the global community. Russia & Iran are autocracies. Saudi Arabia has a legal system ripped from the Dark Ages.
We don’t have to rely on them doing the right thing if we’re independent.
Also particularly stupid when DC - where the speech is taking place - has basically zero transmission
If S.E. would like to compare the bravery of her saber rattling over Ukraine and willingness to submit to Covid testing to Rep Crenshaw’s combat injury, well, I don’t know that she’ll come out looking the better.
You may remember that President Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney for suggesting Russia was the US’s top geopolitical foe in 2012.
But you may’ve forgotten how the media ran with Obama’s zinger as if they were his comms team.
It feels like a good day to revisit.⤵️
The original comment dates back to a @CNN interview where @wolfblitzer was incredulous that Romney would think Russia was our greatest geopolitical foe.
CNN would even fact-check this claim after President Obama’s debate zinger.
Obama’s comment really set off a tidal wave of misplaced media mockery.
The idea that Obama’s attack was a “mic drop” or “the best line of the 3 debates” hasn’t aged well, methinks.
But journalists don’t root for a side, right, @ChrisCillizza?
There’s a few others that I remember from my days (briefly) as a psych major where I was like, huh. This sounds like pop pseudoscience. Stanford Prison Experiment, that fake electroshock one, the beating up the clown one.
Basically, I am a psychology denier. I think we draw overbroad inferences about people and the world based on limited (and sometimes bogus) studies designed by weirdos.
Sorry are we supposed to take as an article of faith that this particular attention-desperate guy was the victim of a mysterious, futuristic weapons attack out of a van in the middle of the night that would also align perfectly with his political org’s talking points about Trump?
Next we’ll find out that a Lincoln Project staffer was abducted by aliens wearing MAGA hats.
Also, for those not following the arc of this story, it’s just a relitigation of this piece where NYT alleged that Trump was ignoring attacks on American diplomats because he didn’t want to upset Russia or China. nytimes.com/2020/10/19/us/…