Obama's Open Mic Gaffe and the Etch A Sketch Gaffe, Compared A couple of readers have compared President Obama's live-microphone remark about flexibility after the election to the Etch A Sketch line from Mitt Romney's political adviser, and wondered why I came down harder on the latter than the former. A brief recap: Mr. Obama was at a nuclear arms summit, talking to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev when a live mic recorded him saying: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it's important for him to give me space." He later added: "This is my last election. The "he" Mr. Obama mentioned was the soon-to-be returning Russian president, Vladimir Putin. "Missile defense" referred to Russia's desire for the United States to scale back or remove radar systems in Europe. And "all these issues" likely denoted the broader issue of negotiating nuclear arms cuts. Clearly, this was a gaffe according to Michael Kinsley's famous definition of the term: "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth - some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say." The "truth" here is that it is reasonable to compromise on American anti-missile systems in Europe and nuclear arms in general, and that it would be foolhardy to try to accomplish anything along these lines before any election, but especially this one. There are, to my mind, vast differences between what Mr. Obama said and the suggestion by Mr. Romney's adviser that Mr. Romney can simply shake the Etch A Sketch if he gets the nomination, erase all of the loony right-wing tunes he's been singing all year and change his positions to more moderate ones. Mr. Obama is not suggesting any change in position. He has been working for desperately needed reductions in nuclear arms for years. Russia is the only relevant country to talk to about that, and it is in Russia's interest to reduce nuclear arms stockpiles, just as it is in the interest of the United States. Mr. Obama is also right, as he said at a news conference yesterday, that the wildly partisan environment in Washington would make it impossible to reach an agreement on issues like these, which are not only sensitive but susceptible to demagoguery - as we saw this week. Just look at Mr. Romney's response that Mr. Obama's comment was "alarming." He complained that Russia is not a "friendly character on the world stage," which is obviously true, but also completely irrelevant. The Romney campaign later released a statement by 36 (yes, 36!) foreign policy advisers accusing Mr. Obama of being "neither strong nor constant" and claiming his overheard remark raises questions about "whether a new period of even greater weakness and inconstancy would lie ahead if you are re-elected." The real weakness is not recognizing that in the post-Cold War world, the real threat does not come from Russia's nuclear weapons. The government must cut the U.S. arsenal carefully; maintaining current levels is a drain on our resources and makes it difficult to discourage other countries from amassing nuclear arms. Moreover, the cuts Mr. Obama has suggested would still leave him, and his successors, with enough nuclear missiles to destroy the world several times over. The real act of irresponsibility was Mr. Romney's attack. Either he knows his charges are wrong, and damaging to American negotiating positions, which would be the mark of a reckless candidate. Or he doesn't, which voters should consider a warning sign.