WHITE HOUSE

Romney on Embassy Attack Is No Ronald Reagan in 1980

Updated: September 13, 2012 | 12:52 p.m.
September 12, 2012 | 3:15 p.m.

Foreign-policy crises don’t often punctuate presidential campaigns. And when they do, the response from the campaign trail usually isn’t to criticize the commander in chief. Mitt Romney’s sharp statements on the Obama administration’s response to a fatal attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya are a departure from the approach taken by Republicans in a similar position over 40 years ago — most notably, that of Ronald Reagan.

Former President Carter’s handling of the Iranian hostage crisis helped torpedo his reelection hopes. But when news broke in April 1980 that an attempt to rescue Americans held hostage at the Tehran embassy had failed, the immediate response from the campaign trail was more supportive than critical.

Former California Gov. Ronald Reagan told reporters it wouldn’t be appropriate for him to express an opinion at that time. “This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united” and to pray, Reagan said, according to United Press International.

George H.W. Bush, also campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination, went further. “I unequivocally support the president of the United States — no ifs, ands or buts — and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision,” Bush said in Michigan, UPI reported. 

Democratic challenger Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massaschusetts also called for unity.

The strongest criticism of Carter came from a Democratic long-shot: then-Rep. Henry Reuss, D-Wis., who said that Carter should withdraw his candidacy and “quietly serve out his term without any more impulsive actions,” UPI reported.

Although the Reagan campaign wasn’t afraid to go after Carter’s foreign-policy record in campaign ads later that year, he refrained from inflammatory rhetoric when he debated Carter as the GOP nominee that fall.

“Your question is difficult to answer,” Reagan said, when the debate moderator asked how he would deal with a similar hostage crisis. “Because, in the situation right now, no one wants to say anything that would inadvertently delay, in any way, the return of those hostages if there is a chance of their coming home soon, or that might cause them harm.”

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.


Leave A Comment
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus
Follow National Journal
Related Content
Expert Opinions
Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

7:33 a.m.

Latest Response by Michael Schmidt: Debate is Microcosm of Energy Policy

Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

6:25 p.m.

Latest Response by Jack Rafuse: The LNG Export Conundrum: Dow Chemical

Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

4:23 p.m.

Latest Response by Bernard L. Weinstein: Export more LNG to fight climate change

More Expert Opinions »
Columns
Charlie Cook: Off to the Races

Republicans’ Hatred of Obama Blinds Them to Public Disinterest in Scandals

May 20, 2013
Republicans are so focused on their bitter battles against Obama, they can’t see how little impact the “scandals” have had on public opinion.
Charlie Cook: The Cook Report

Republicans Should Go Easy on Obama, At Least in Public

May 16, 2013
As a tactical matter, a subterranean campaign will score more direct hits on the president.
Ronald Brownstein: Political Connections

How the White House Scandals Could Hurt Republicans, Too

May 16, 2013
By enraging the base and strengthening the faction least willing to compromise with Obama, the IRS and Benghazi affairs could hurt a GOP shot at the presidency.
More Columns »