When they stop even trying to lie to you

At the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin bizarrely praises Romney for not even promising to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. She is correct that Republican presidential candidates who got the big job promised it and then broke their promise, but is there something praiseworthy in Romney refusing to even promise something as basic as that?

"Unlike Newt Gingrich, for example, he's not insulted Jewish audiences by playing on two emotional issues with pie-in-the-sky promises." says Rubin. But since when is moving the embassy to the capital of the country it's in, a "pie in the sky" promise. You might think that Romney was being asked to end genocide forever or insure that no child goes hungry ever again. No, he's being asked if he will move the US embassy to Jerusalem. His response is that he will have to "consult" with the Israeli government, which is a misleading way of saying no, unless it's a slightly less misleading way of saying that he doesn't understand the issue... which is unlikely given how often he's jogged across the presidential block. The Israeli government doesn't need to be consulted with. It has no objection to moving the embassy to its capital. It would like very much for the US embassy to be where it is in every normal country.

---

Sure it's bad when presidential candidates lie about moving the embassy, but what does it say about a candidate who isn't even bothering to make the promise? Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection points out that Rubin misrepresented Gingrich on Pollard. The larger issue here is that Rubin is willing to misrepresent Romney's refusal to comply with congress and basic norms as a refusal to pander. And Romney doesn't even get off on the not pandering charge. If he had said, "No" then he couldn't be accused of pandering to Jews. Instead he said, "Uh, why don't we see what happens and I'll umm consult with the Israelis and then have a sitdown with the Dalai Lama and then eat a blueberry pie." That's not the opposite of pandering. It's right up there with Obama's united Jerusalem. What this column really does is mark Jennifer Rubin's transition from an advocate to parroting Tom Friedman like rhetoric, as she does in her conclusion.

As for Jerusalem, it really is time to stop promising something that the U.S. can't and shouldn't deliver unilaterally. If we want to maintain our role as a future broker in the (however presently dormant) "peace process," we're not going to make a move that will be read as a fait accompli on the final status of Jerusalem.

Really? The US can't unilaterally move its own embassy? If it can't unilaterally do that, then what can it do? Scratch its own nose? The US can do it, but Rubin has decided it shouldn't, because the PLO terrorists and their foreign backers want to stake their claim on the city. Worse she's adopted the "honest broker" patter which mandates that the United States should be absolutely neutral when it comes to any piece of Israeli territory that the terrorists might want to one day get their hands on. But not neutral in pressuring Israel to give up that territory by denying basic recognition to its capital. This is bizarre and a reversal of her own writing in Commentary. I am disgusted and disappointed. Like him or not, Gingrich has spoken compellingly and specifically about the issues when it comes to Israel. Romney has pushed out the same boilerplate rhetoric that's borderline indistinguishable from Obama. Bachmann, Santorum, Perry and the rest of the lineup excluding Paul, have also been strongly supportive. Maybe Gingrich is being completely insincere, but he's had a history of saying similar things over the years. And what he says again shows that he knows the issue. Now to be fair, Romney has been asked this before and given a similar response that suggests he is just unfamiliar with the issue...

"The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don't seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel's leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that's something I'll be inclined to do. But again, that's a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don't think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally. Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist."

This is the kind of response that a candidate who doesn't understand what the discussion is about might give. Or it's the impression that a candidate who doesn't want to commit to anything might give. But it actually is pandering. This isn't an issue for Israeli leaders, it's an issue for American leaders who want to normalize the status of the US embassy. Does Romney actually not know what the issue with the embassy is. His "leader of the peace process" line is fine, but all he really had to do was say that he supports making the move, so long as Israel has no objection to it. And since that interview it's been several weeks and he's still giving the same non-response. Going back to the 2008 election, I don't see any statement from him on the embassy and his rhetoric hasn't changed much. It's still talk of indicting Ahmadinejad on charges of genocide and imposing tougher sanctions on Iran./ It would appear that Romney has never made a statement on the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which means that he should be asked about it directly with the introduction that it's a congressional act and that it would normalize the US diplomatic presence in Israel. All Romney's vague rhetoric has done is provided ammunition to both sides. If he's really not interested in pandering then he can say clearly what he means.