Is Obama skipping out on meeting with world leaders to spite Romney?

Posted by: ST on September 26, 2012 at 11:08 am

Fox News national security analyst K.T. McFarland writes an intriguing piece on why she thinks President Obama is skipping out on tradition by not meeting with world leaders this week at the UN:

Why would President Obama part with a long standing tradition and refuse to meet with world leaders this week at the United Nations? It’s the single time and place every year where all the world’s leaders are in one place. It’s the one opportunity all year for face-to face-meetings, to iron out problems and to sound out solutions and to work, without the glare of formal state visits. So why is President Obama doing a hit and run at the UN? Too busy for meetings, but not too busy to go to fundraisers or to appear on New York-based daytime talk shows while he’s in the Big Apple?

None of the excuses make any sense — ‘he’s too busy campaigning,’ ‘he can talk to them on the phone anytime,’ ‘he can’t meet with everyone, so he’s meeting with no one.’

Everyone is missing the point. In an election year, if the president meets with world leaders, his opponent has the right to ask for meetings, too. And no world leader, who might be facing a President Romney in just a few weeks time, dares to refuse that request. They will all hedge their bets. After all, when the president travels abroad, he often meets with the opposition leader of a country, especially in the middle of an election season.” And President Bill Clinton, hardly one to promote a Republican candidate, gave equal time to both Romney and Obama speeches at the Clinton Global Initiative Conference this week.

And that is exactly what President Obama wants to avoid — doing anything that lets Romney look presidential. Obama and his surrogates have been quick to criticize Romney as lacking foreign policy experience. It’s hard to make that point if there is photo after photo of Romney grinning and shaking hands with one world leader after another.

She makes a compelling case, and I’m inclined to agree with her. This President has proven time and time again – especially over the last few weeks – that he is shamelessly willing to put partisan politics and game playing above at least appearing to be presidential and leader-like in a time of international crisis. What better way to deny Romney the chance to counter the images of Obama and the First Lady on fluff shows like “The View” than to keep his opponent from the opportunity of obligatory meetings with heads of state by way of refusal by Obama to meet with them individually himself, as would be his privilege as the sitting President?

Obama has a seeming (but questionable) edge in battleground state polls as of late, and this President , his administration, and his campaign want to continue to ride that wave and keep that alleged poll edge from now until election day. So it’s understandable why they’ve chosen the path they did this week on the issue of face time with world leaders.

It’s also very transparent what they’re doing … and not in a good way. Leaders lead while politicians play politics. I’ll leave it up to you to determine which description best fits our President.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

12 Responses to “Is Obama skipping out on meeting with world leaders to spite Romney?”

Comments

  1. Libertarian Advocate says:

    So, just because Obama opts out of meetings with foreign leaders during U.N. Week (a/k/a Hell Week in Manhattan), that means Romney must forgo such meetings? I call B.S. on that theory.

    Were I Romney, I’d absolutely seek to schedule such meetings, particularly right now as faith in Obama’s obliviously incompetent foreign policy is swirling the porcelain throne’s bowl both domestically and internationally.

  2. ST says:

    I suspect it’s done out of courtesy, not wanting to give off the appearance of meddling.

  3. Kate says:

    Imagine if Romney did what Lib Ad suggests….Obama and his media crew are already saying Romney would be starting wars!! They would be having hissy fits and conniptions!! How dare he invade presidential territory, they would all declare. He’s just a wannabe, others would protest.

    It’s the idea that Obama is the ONLY ONE who is ALLOWED to “look” presidential. It’s all about the superficial and appearances count!

    Those who will vote for Obama a second time are all about appearances…they don’t follow the substance and are not aware of half of the damage he has done to this country.

  4. Medbob says:

    To heck with that! How many “standard conventions” has BHO dismissed without a thought? How many “must attend” events have been missed?

    I think Romney needs to seek out the meetings! If he says “to heck with BHO”, I’m getting the feeling that the World Leaders will say the same.
    It’s really not as if the World Leaders have any love for BHO. It’s my understanding that they all look down on him..

  5. Kate says:

    …mission accomplished. BHO has made the USA unimportant.

  6. Obhammud is skittish about Romney because he has laid the circumstances out where Obhammud had to come clean about the embassy attack being a terrorist act. Romney popped that balloon in a speech in Ohio by asking exactly that; why won’t he admit what it was? The polls are a fraud and anyone with half a brain knows it. Answer this question,”If the race is already decided why is Obhammud still campaigning?”

  7. Great White Rat says:

    Actually, this fits right in with Obama’s narcissism. His goal is to keep Romney totally uninformed about any top level security concerns.

    It has been customary for many years for the White House to provide intelligence briefings for both party’s nominees, regardless of administration. In 2008, the Bush White House provided them to both McCain and Obama, and to Kerry in 2004. Likewise, in 2000 the Clinton administration made sure that both Bush and Gore got them. The reason is obvious: whichever candidate becomes president will have a thorough background on all the major issues well before taking office.

    But not this year.

    As reported in the LA Times, of all places, Obama is not providing them to Romney. Obama’s not the least bit concerned with national security, especially if he loses. If Obama can paint Romney as uninformed about security issues – owing mainly to Obama’s childish and unpatriotic selfishness – he can use that as a campaign tactic.

    @ST:

    I suspect it’s done out of courtesy, not wanting to give off the appearance of meddling.

    Correct. Romney isn’t going to go over the head of the sitting president, or try to pretend he’s something he’s not. Obama did that sort of self-aggrandizement when he was running in 2008 (remember the knock-off presidential seal that Obama had affixed to podiums during the campaign?) – another textbook sign of NPD.

    On the other hand….

    In talking about passing up meetings with world leaders, you have to consider how much else Obama has on his plate right now. There are fundraisers galore. There are parties with Beyonce and Jay-Z, and broadcasts with the “Pimp with a Limp”. Hell, there’s a GOLF handicap that badly needs work!!! Where are your PRIORITIES, ST????

  8. ST says:

    GWR wrote:

    In talking about passing up meetings with world leaders, you have to consider how much else Obama has on his plate right now. There are fundraisers galore. There are parties with Beyonce and Jay-Z, and broadcasts with the “Pimp with a Limp”. Hell, there’s a GOLF handicap that badly needs work!!! Where are your PRIORITIES, ST????

    I know, I know! ;)

  9. Carlos says:

    As if “appearances” count to any jackass when it comes to foreign policy! Heck, Duh-1 picked Slo Joe as his running mate because Slo joe was supposed to be a foreign policy HEAVYWEIGHT, fer cryin’ out loud!

    Wonder what they’d call someone who actually knew something about foreign policy and relations?

    Add onto all that the jackasses who’ve actually gone to foreign countries before elections and meddled in sensitive relations (Kerry comes immediately to mind, but there have been others). But I suppose that’s OK with libs because they had provable “gravitas” simply because they had a “D” behind their names.

    Just another case of Republicans afraid to do what most jackasses do as a matter of course because they’re afraid of exactly what is suggested, that they’d be accused of “meddling.”

  10. Kate says:

    Catch-22 for anyone other than Obama I suppose!

    The guy already has his Nobel Peace Prize so why should he worry about his rep?

  11. Libertarian Advocate says:

    The guy already has his Nobel Peace Prize so why should he worry about his rep?”

    Speaking of which, the members of that “prize committee” must be more than a bit humiliated by their absurd selection of Obama, in light of his chest thumping drone assassinations. Then again, they gave it to Arafat and serial grad school dropout Al Bore so, maybe not.

  12. Carlos says:

    Obhammud couldn’t be bothered with such mundane activities as meeting with other nations’ leaders and trying to solve real problems.

    He had an appointment to be “eye candy” for a bunch of blathering sows.