Libyan Rebels Succeed In Tripoli and Laud Obama's Measured Intervention: GOP Candidates Mum.

If there's one very resonating message within the current Republican Party, it's anti-Obama all the time. Any mention of Obama's successes, or even noting the man in a positive light, has been met with open criticism and conservative news cycle backlash for days. In the case of Romney's attempt at diplomacy in saying that he "liked" the President, it meant several public hecklers and three days of lashes on Fox News. So what happens when the guy gets something right? When Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. Seals during a raid that Obama ordered, the radicals still railed against him (what do you mean he's not releasing pictures? I want gore!) and the rest of the Party stayed quiet. Now, after some heavy criticism from the right for getting involved in Libya at all (or for not getting involved enough), Obama's measured response in that country seems to be, once again, tying the tongues of Republicans, and this time it's the GOP Presidential hopefuls that are shirking the public eye.

As reported on POLITICO.com, Jon Huntsman was the only candidate to lay out a clear position on Obama's decision to assist the NATO-lead civil war, stating through a spokesman that he still believes that the mission was "not core to our national security interest." Everyone of the other candidates that has made any comment at all has carefully dodged passing judgment on Obama's strategy in Libya, instead hailing Gaddafi's downfall or praising the Libyan fighters. Rick Perry called the fall of Gaddafi's “violent, repressive dictatorship” a “cause for cautious celebration.” Romney simply said the world was better of without Gaddafi, and called for the return of the Lockerbie Bomber to the U.S. for trial; a politically-motivated statement that might get some positive attention but has little bearing on events in Libya's actual events.

Several Republicans, including John McCain and Brian Hook, advisor to Tim Pawlenty's no defunct campaign, criticized Obama on moving too slowly to military action. However, American involvement can take many different shapes, and although unilaterally "empowering" (see: overpowering) a country's people to defeat a dictator has been a legacy of the House of Bush. For decades before, many of the U.S. engagements overseas were much more similar to Obama's strategy in Libya, careful application of intelligence, money, and military alliances in effecting an outcome. Now that the strategy has proven effective in at least overthrowing the dictatorship, his Republican opponents need to figure out how they can reframe the narrative away from their previous criticisms. In other words, they need to find new ones, and that will probably mean pretending it didn't happen at all.

This election is going to hinge more on the economy and jobs, for sure. However, for people looking at being the Commander-in-Chief, it's impossible to ignore such a pivotal foreign policy moment forever. Instead, my guess is that most of them will follow Huntsman's lead. The criticism is banal, but it's enough of a soundbyte to throw to reporters until they can move the conversation to what Libya should do to rebuild, and not the success of Obama's strategy there.