I read the Atlantic every day, mainly for Goldblog and the unparalleled Ta-Nehisi Coates (who's so good he'll probably be asked to be a regular op-ed for the Times, which I hope he won't take, because that op-ed page has become dumber than a bag of rocks). At one point, I read Andrew Sullivan but stopped when he became a vicious anti-Zionist (which, as has been proven in every case in every way is the same as an anti-Semite). Sullivan left to spew his bile elsewhere, but in the past few months the Atlantic has added a number of new anti-Israel bloggers.
This was the comment I was going to leave on the site:
Does the Atlantic really need another anti-Israel guy? Steve Clemons and Robert Wright are already on that popular bandwagon. Add something new - maybe there's another small ally of the US you can throw ire on. How about Taiwan? They continually resist China, and China is actually better with human rights than Israel's enemies.
A scary trip: a movie clip that shows the growing unemployment over the past 18+ months, here. Below are screenshots I made of the before (March 2007) to after (October 2009). Dark colors are bad (purple = 10% unemployment) ...
OK, this may be strike three. As I detailed in two (recently published back-)posts here and here, Andrew Sullivan has been worrying me, as of late, with his unnecessary swipes against Israel. But yesterday he totally crossed the line. Here's the letter I wrote him:
Dear Andrew,
You were making an important point in the [linked] post about taking Plain and Cheney seriously as potential GOP candidates. Then you said this (emphasis mine):
"[Palin and Cheney] represent a real populist and authoritarian option for a declining power. In the face of a bewilderingly changing world, they stand for white America, the extension of its power across the globe, the elevation of torture as a core American value, the permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and American occupation of client states like Iraq and Afghanistan."
Now, I have been a Democrat - and a liberal - all my life. I'm also a born American. I am repulsed by Cheney and Palin and the entire Republican party, and this revulsion has partially come from my growing up in the Reagan era (another Republican who I believe damaged my country). And I am also a Zionist and in favor of nuance and wisdom about the Arab-Israeli conflict. You are committing a great wrong by equating the Palin/Cheney lust for torture and preemptive war with anything to do with Israel. Israel's occupation of the West Bank is a matter of international law and is something with which reasonable people can disagree. I am a liberal, and a Zionist, and I'm calling you to task.
I know Goldblog defends your Zionist bona-fides and you get angry when someone accuses you of being Anti-Zionist... but that was an evil thing you said. It's so strange - you single out the behavior of a U.S. ally as a symbol of a domestic political party's depravity. That's not such a 'Zionist' thing to do.
Why are you so insistent to be called a 'Zionist' anyway? Just say that you're neutral about Israel - that you're treating it with the same ignorance and apathy that you would for Kashmir or Northern Ireland or Quebec, or any other of our U.S. allies.
It reminds me of Ta-Nehisi Coates' talk about 'racism' - that it's impossible to call a racist by that title in the U.S. despite a person's actual bigoted words and deeds. [ed: e.g. how Rush Limbaugh or Joe 'You Lie' Wilson will push back against being called racist even though they clearly are.] So to with you - just admit that being a Zionist isn't actually that important. And, again speaking as a liberal and a Democrat, your support for Reagan while you attack Cheney makes you sound daft.
Sincerely, JC
No, I don't expect him to respond. And I really should have cc:ed Goldblog, but he's not my constituency. And, as I said in part 2, there are reasons to read Sully as an info-resource and not as an editorialist. So be it.
Andrew Sullivan has been going off the rails (or off his meds) for a few months now. I think it's an elastic snap-back from his years attacking Republicans that he feels a need to just lash out brainlessly. I've detailed my misgivings about his most recent foray into anti-Zionism (it's in a backpost, be patient). But just today he shows the true reason why a sane person (like me) needs to be wary of anybody in the press. Obsoive:
"Maureen Dowd's column today hits on something she's been tuning into for a while. Dowd's instincts about human character are foolish to bet against. She has essentially read every recent president correctly from the get-go as types.
OK, pause for a second... do you get that? Sullivan is praising Maureen Frickin' Dowd! As being always right! Dowd may be the only person in the press corps who is *more* of a screaming splitting borderline hysteric than Sullivan. They're birds of a feather. I guess I always knew that but to see him actually praise her, and for something totally stupid, is just too much:
And she has always seen Obama as a bit of a cold fish, aloof, too unwilling to punch back, too arrogant to explain himself too much.
Get this: Modo's nonsense vendettas are validated because of her childish belief that Obama is just too aloof? This is the same complaint about Obama made by the insane Right Wing - which should tell you, immediately, how much into crazy town we've gotten. But the real proof is in his last line (emphasis mine):
MoDo worried about that in the campaign as the Clintons brought more raw human emotion to the trail and Obama often seemed to coast too cockily only to right himself, usually with some spell-binding speech or shrewd piece of campaign management. I generally trusted Obama's instincts. In the campaign, MoDo was nearly right (Obama did let the Clintons get back off the mat a few too many times) but in the end, wrong (look who got elected). But in government? The coolness has yet to be proven effective - as Kissinger has noted."
You know just how bad Sullivan has gotten when he uses Henry Kissinger as support for Maureen Dowd. Barf.
Pic from here, note - I am only one of millions that think Dowd is a silly person who is given too much of a platform.
As I asked below, here, Sullivan's swipes against Israel have been getting more frequent and irritating. It's like he's gone enough to the left because of Bush-Cheney that he now has to hate Israel like a J-Streeter.
So thank goodness Jeff Goldberg has been on top of the case. First here in August 2008 he gives Sullivan some pro-Zion backing:
I know Andrew as a supporter of Israel, a Zionist, even,
But "unregistered Israeli lobbyist"? This is vile, like Pat Buchanan-vile. Robert Wexler is pro-Israel, too. Is he an unregistered Israeli lobbyist? What about Rahm Emanuel, and Barbara Boxer, and Frank Lautenberg, and Henry Waxman, and Howard Berman? Are they dual-loyalists as well? Or is their tribal-based treason excused because they're Obama supporters? I wish Andrew would go back to bashing the Jew-baiters, rather than reveling in their smears.
I'd say that it's one of the early signs that Sullivan is equating the GOP with Israel (a problem that I warned about back in 2001 with the stupid frummie love of the evil GWBush) and thus to repudiate the GOP (like Sullivan's been doing) means also attacking Israel.
But in the year since, Sullivan has gotten worse. 'Goldblog' is still defending him, be in doing so we brings up some disturbing counter-proof:
I've gotten a fair number of hostile e-mails for stating that Andrew, in my understanding, is a Zionist. Here's Andrew on his own understanding of what "pro-Israel," or "Zionist," means:
My own definition of pro-Israel would simply be, I think: support for the existence of a secure Jewish state in Palestine. That's my position, and it is as deeply held as it is open to all sorts of arguments about what is best for its security and the interests of the US. I think it should easily be enough to earn one's credentials as a Zionist, as I proudly and passionately remain.
I would make only two points about this. One is small (but actually consequential); the word "Palestine" was invented by the Romans as a deliberate attempt to erase the word "Judea" from the map. So I wouldn't say that Israel is a Jewish home in Palestine; if anything, the future state of Palestine could be called the Arab state in Judea. I know this sounds like a nitpick, but names matter, and chronology matters.
The second, larger point: Zionists generally hold Israel to the same standard they hold every other country. People who don't like Israel very much hold it to a special standard, created for one scapegoated country alone. On this count -- and only this count, so far as I can tell -- Andrew sometimes fails the test. There are times lately when he seems to single out Israel for special excoriation, and times when he holds Israel to a double-standard. By the way, this doesn't make him an anti-Semite, as some marginal figures claim he is. It makes him, if anything, normal. Most of the world holds Israel to a higher standard than it does other countries. Many Jews do, as well. One of our specialties is self-criticism. But even when it comes from Jews, it isn't fair. Context is everything. I'll continue with these profound thoughts on Andrew later on.
I'm not as charitable as Jeff here. Just off-the-bat anybody who casually uses 'Palestine' like Sullivan does is the first strike (he also does a related strike by constantly referring to an 'Israel Lobby' as if it exists as the bogeyman the Looney Left desires it to be). Sullivan's well-known friendship with the scummy anti-Semite Christopher Hitchens is strike two.
And while I have growing respect for Goldberg, I definitely break with him about self-hating Jewish anti-Zionism (J-streetism, for now, until they redeem themselves). Jstreeters hate Israel because it makes them look bad to their imagined goyish friends and neighbors. It's not OK when they do it and definitely not when it's done by goyim.
I'll take this up more later, but there's just something very British about Sullivan's take on Israel - it's a combined paternalism and moral hauteur, as if the Europeans (any of them) have taken the proper moral path on anything.
Quick answer: Evidently not, but its complicated. In the past few months, really ever since Cast Lead, he has been getting more an more crazy about Israel. He's bought straight into the canard that the settlements cause Palestinian violence, and he seems to knee-jerk respond *against* Israel. This is bothersome.
But this is sort of the price I pay when I read Sullivan.
So why do I? Why should I care about him? Especially since he does no reporting and holds many ideas I find stupid, annoying, and/or just plain wrong. So, here's something I wrote about him for another blog's comments:
The thing about Sullivan is that when he gets an idea, he clings to it with fierce tenacity. And the tenacity results in massive amounts of near real-time linkage that comes as close to reporting as an opinion blog will get.
Examples: he hates Hillary with a weird rancor, so he was great in links to support Obama; he hates Palin even more than Hillary so he was the go-to guy for that; he hates that the US tortured, so he gave great linkage for that.
So when I agree with his obsession, his website is gold, because he gives me enormous amounts of info. But for all those things that he's wrong about, no matter of facts will sway him, and I just skip those posts.
Caveat: Nothing will sway him - except his own tortured mind. That's why it's hard to predict where he'll wind up on an issue, because of the above-mentioned personality quirkiness (British Catholic Gay HIV-Positive Thatcherite). His load of cognitive dissonance is enormous and it's now cracking into pieces. Somehow, I think he hates being associated for so long with the Democrats...
So I still read him, and send him letters (which he has never, nor will ever, respond to), because I still think he's an important resource. He's the purest form of blogger, and as such, the purest expression of the power of the internet. And so far his weirdness about Israel hasn't undermined that; I just put it in the same category as his worship of Ronald Reagan and his British drag equivalent (Thatcher).
Backpost finished 2009-12-02. Pic from around the 'net.
More miscellaneous links & commentary from my inbox:
09-03-2008: From Sullivan, it turns out that Palin *is* what the GOP tried to smear Obama as... right down to the preacher!
The Onion's page about Bob Barr is right on the money in almost every way (warning: nivul peh).
09-05-2008: Washpost review of Woodward's scathing new book about Bush. Woodward's a consummate journalist - his books supported Bush when he was popular and attacked Bush when he was not. Thanks, Woodstein! It just proves that the real hero of Watergate was William Deep Throat" Felt - the FBI informer who gave the journalists all the info. He risked his career, they made theirs. Ah well, there's a reason why print media is dying.
09-07-2008: Maureen Dowd is so weird. She thinks so little of Obama... that he'll somehow be eviscerated by Sarah Palin; and she thinks so much of Hillary, while hating her. Sad.
09-07-2008: Frank Rich is a great contrast to Dowd (and others). When he was a regular columnist, he wasn't so hot, but since his weekly Sunday spotlight he's been en fuego! Key line (about Palin): "How long before we learn she never shot a moose?"
09-01-2008: Martin Peretz defends Biden. Peretz is as Zionist as they come (and as Zionist as necessary). If he defends Obama and Biden - which he has - then it's good enough for me. Peretz' critics claims he finds anti-Semities in shadows... so choke on this feebs. Key line: "Look, what is happening here is that a senator with a sterling record, an unexceptionable sterling record on Israel is now in the eyes of the snipers, a kind of political terrorism in which evidence has no place, history no relevance and real politics no standing. Joe Biden is one of the most astute and committed supporters of Israel in American politics."
09-17-2008: Ruth Marcus of Washpost turns against the McCain campaign. Something I predicted: that journalists will start to be professionally insulted by the bald-faced lies and distortions. I've been there: I get more angry at a lie that insults my intelligence than an attempt to deceive based on desperation or greed. And here's another journalist fleeing.
09-21-2008: The only good thing I can say about Maureen Dowd is that she lets better writers do her work for her; here's Aaron Sorkin imagining Obama meeting President Bartlett.
As you may have noticed, I've not been bloggin' much about politics over the past month or two. One reason has been the imminent move and all that entailed. But also it's because the bruising primary was - in my mind - the only real contest. Once Obama trounced Hillary, the election choice is clear. I've lost interest because I've made up my mind (were it Hillary/McCain, I'd be in a quandary wrapped up in an enigma wrapped up in a pickle; I'd still vote Democratic - because of the Supreme Court - but I'd really hate doing it).
For Obama, the Times reported that there are three clear front runners: Sen. Biden (DE), Sen. Bayh (IN), and Gov. Kaine (VA). My favorite, Gov. Sebelius (KS), is considered less than likely.
I think Biden would be a mistake. While he's a fierce partisan fighter, he's also a gaffe-prone goofball. Nonetheless, it won't be a disaster; he's good on foreign policy; while he's not a veteran, his son (DE's current AG) is and will soon be deployed to Iraq. Bayh is the safest choice possible - he's a bland career/legacy politician from a red state with a good resume. If Obama chooses Bayh, that means he's being as risk averse as possible.
Of the top 3, Kaine is most likely. I'm averse to Kaine (and Bayh) on strategic party grounds - i.e. if either leaves office, they will be replaced by a Republican. This is not such a loss in a state house (who cares about 1 state), but can be a disaster in the Senate where the national stakes are high. Note, Biden and Sebelius would be replaced by Democrats.
Kaine's most likely because - based on what I've read - he's close to Obama and they trust each other. Virgina's an important swing state, and Obama may want to have a governor as #2 so to bolster the executive profile of the ticket (something which also applies to Sebelius). Kaine however is 10 years younger than Sebelius, 50 to her 60, and that may be the clincher. It's stronger to have a 58 year old run in 2016 than a 68 year old (even if it's an actuarially positive female).
In any case, here's an awesome spoof (via Sullivan) of all four candidates from 23/6 News:(WARNING very profane language): If they IM'd: Obama's VP Prospects.
This comes from TNC via Sullivan, it's a Huffpo post by Robert Mackey commenting on a Michael Goldfarb statement. Got all that. OK. Goldfarb is a former editor of the Weekly Standard and now McCain's deputy communications director, and (sadly) a Princeton grad who is a doughy Jewish Republican. Mackey's bio states:
Dr. Robert Mackey, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired), is a combat veteran of the invasion of Panama, Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was Assistant Professor of Military History at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and served on the Army Staff and Joint Staff at the Pentagon.
Now on with the show.
Goldfarb, evidently believing that he is himself John McCain, stated this:
It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman's memory of war from the comfort of mom's basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others.
Mackey responded in a post entitled "Cloak of Stupidity +5, or the Art of the False Political Assumption." I am posting the majority of his response because it is so very sweet:
Ok, second admission. I played Dungeons and Dragons for years. Started with the old "blue" rule book from 1977-78, graduated to the 2nd Edition hardback books later, waiting eagerly on a small family dairy farm in northwest Arkansas for the newest module or book to come out. Working a part time job to make enough cash to afford the hobby and spending weekends staying up all night trying like hell to survive Tomb of Horrors.
Yes, I'm a card carrying geek. And at the ripe age of 17, I raised my right hand and swore to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Just like Senator McCain. Just like all veterans do. And you know what? In basic training, in the streets of Panama City, in the deserts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and in fact, all over the U.S. military, there were D&D players. It was one of those things you never expect.
Why? I wonder what the fine folks at the McCain camp think about things like teamwork, loyalty, duty, honor, responsibility, friendship, and good old wholesome family entertainment -- all things I learned and practiced playing D&D. Apparently, not too much, as noted in the quote above. It seems Mr. Goldfarb, with the blessings of his employer, has decided that anyone who plays Dungeons and Dragons is some sort of anti-social uber nerd, incapable of manly activities, such as political blogging or being shot down over Hanoi.
Well, as anyone with half a brain should know, not all D&D players live in their parents' basement. Some live upstairs.
And others, the vast majority of them, became doctors, lawyers, excelled in business, the arts, and even politics. And a more than a few of them put on the uniform and stand by the colors. And more than a few of them have come back from the very wars that men like Mr. Goldfarb have sent them covered in the colors, the same colors that are given to grieving mothers, wives, and girlfriends.
Yes, Mr. Goldfarb, I play Dungeons and Dragons. And I have, in my home, a very large box filled with medals and decorations that prove my service to this nation. Where were you, sir, when your country called? Oh yes, writing for the Weekly Standard.
While gaming geeks rallied around the flag.
Yeah, I'm a AD&D fan from my early days. And I am a non-veteran. And a geek. And I love a good smackdown, don't you?
Pic is of Goldfarb taken from an above website and motivated by me. Backpost finished 2009-12-07.
WINSTON: Don't tell the Party, but sex is way better than totalitarianism. EVERYONE: Surprise! We're the Party. WINSTON: Oh, rats.
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe C.S. LEWIS: Finally, a utopia ruled by children and populated by talking animals. THE WITCH: Hi, I'm a sexually mature woman of power and confidence. C.S. LEWIS: Ah! Kill it, lion Jesus!
Paradise Lost
ADAM: Paradise has arbitrary dietary restrictions? DEVIL: They're really more like guidelines. GOD: Incorrect.
Moby-Dick
ISHMAEL: I'm existential. AHAB: Really? Try vengeance. ISHMAEL: I dig this dynamic. Can we drag it out for 600 pages?
The Great Gatsby
NICK: I love being rich and white. GATSBY: Me, too, but I'd kill for the love of a woman. DAISY: We can work with that.
Oliver Twist
OLIVER: Poverty ain't so bad, what with all the Cockney accents and charming musical interludes. ME: Thanks to movies, no books were read in the passing of this class. PROFESSOR WATERMAN: You're half right.
h/t Sullivan. Pic from McSweeny's page, cropped by me. Backpost finished 2009-11-30.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court miraculously reinstated habeas corpus. The country is slowly edging back from the Bush precipice. In Boumediene v. Bush:
The majority found that the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus review applies to persons held in Guantanamo and to persons designated as enemy combatants on that territory. If Congress intends to suspend the right, an adequate substitute must offer the prisoner a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate he is held pursuant to an erroneous application or interpretation of relevant law, and the reviewing decision-making must have some ability to correct errors, to assess the sufficiency of the government's evidence, and to consider relevant exculpating evidence. The petitioners met their burden of establishing that Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 fails to provide an adequate substitute for habeas.
This is great news, right? Well, not to John McCain.
The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country. ... So now what are we going to do. We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material....
One of the worst decisions? Really?
When I say "didn't take long" that means that McCain has swiftly shown himself to be unfit to be President of the United States. Bush and Co. (which alas has now included Hillary) like to describe the president as "commander in chief" - using military terminology and military imagery. This allows Bush, Hillary, McCain to talk all cowboy like about punching cowpokes in the varmints, or whatever they do in Texas. But the president is actually Chief Executive of the Constitution first and foremost. Which means that he needs to protect our rights, liberties, and freedoms above everything else. That's his job.
I don't want to get all 2nd Amendment here, but ultimately that amendment makes clear that individual safety doesn't stop with the Federal government but with each individual citizen. The president's job is to make sure that government doesn't take away the liberties of the citizen. Bush failed spectacularly at that job. By rejecting Boumediene, McCain plans to fail even more. McCain is standing square on Bush's shoulders and appears to be proud to extend Bush's legacy.
If the 2004 election was about the war, 2008 is about the Constitution. McCain has failed.
The headline reads: "The Victory of Obama" and the line on top: "History in the USA: First Black Presidential Candidate"
His last name is spelled: Aleph-Vov-Bet-Aleph-Mem-Heh His first name is like the Tanakh character Barak (Bet-Reish-Quf), which is interesting. I remember seeing a headline in 1991 which spelled a politician named David with Daled-Yud-Yud-Vov-Vov-Yud-Yud-Daled. That is, David was spelled phonetically in Hebrew instead of putting it as the Biblical David (Daled-Vov-Daled). So why with "Barack"?
I blog on blogger and it has annoyed me that "Obama" is still considered an incorrect word according to their spellchecker. Of these four names, only Obama's is highlighted in red: "Obama Clinton Giuliani McCain" Note, the correct word proffered for Obama is not Osama (which is actually also highlighted in red) but "ABM." Osama gets "Asama" for some reason. Asama is a mountain in Japan according to the Wiki .
Anyway, maybe we can start a petition to get the spellchecker updated. The man's the nominee (and next president!).
Thanks for all your work, JC
Let's see if Sullivan quotes me and how long it takes from his quote til it gets done.
The news is spotty but consistent. Obama has the magic number of delegates. He is the presumptive nominee (he loses the presumptive at the convention in August). It is a glorious day for the Democratic party, for America, and I'd say the world.
Sullivan has been posting different Youtube videos of celebration. Here's my favorite:
I was on the road for Appeasement-Gate (or Bush-Knesset-gate), when Bush accused strawmen of appeasing dictators, just like bad people did back in the 30s with Hitler. (Oh, funny side-point, turns out Prescott Bush, the president's Senator grandfather, was one of those appeasers... heh). Anyway, in the past 8 years, Bush has shown either to mean exactly what his words sound like or to be a complete liar, whichever happens to be worst at the time. That is not a joke. When he sounds like he's saying something good, he's lying ("heckuva job", "we don't torture") and when it sounds bad, it is bad.
Bush's comments at the Knesset were OBVIOUSLY referring to Obama and the Democrats in general. Duh. Duh duh duh. And the Press understood it too, which is an uncommon admission, given their slavish acceptance of every lie uttered by the Bush administration so far (cf. Iraq war, Iran, torture, civil liberties, the attorney firing).
Yeah, some bullet-heads are still claiming that Obama overreacted, but they're the same people who believe that Bush is the reincarnation of King Arthur and Richard "First Crusade" Lionheart, so whatever.
McCain, gotta love him, is so maverick-y that he immediately followed Bush's lead. That'll show 'em how independent you are John! You mavericky mavericking maverick, you.
What I wonder is why ANYBODY believes that the GOP knows what it's doing with foreign policy anymore. Seriously. The concept that diplomacy=appeasement has resonance only if you are 6 years old and are presently in a schoolyard. Outside of that puerile universe, diplomacy is how actual real life occurs. I'd go so far as to say that the bright-shining-line between childish and adult personality is the recognition that life is about compromise and negotiation and not about violence and absolutes.
Bush is a big baby, this is clear. He is a bully and a spoiled brat. Bully proof comes from how he treats those out of power; spoiled brattishness has been amply shown with his recent comments about nobly giving up golf in recognition of the sacrifice of the thousands of casualties from his foolish war.
McCain is following along because he doesn't actually appear to possess leadership qualities. Yeah, maybe when he was in the military, but in the Senate? That's the downside of being a maverick: unless you can translate your rebellion into a movement, then you're just a troublemaker, a noisemaker, not a leader.
Why is diplomacy not appeasement. Here's a good summary by Matt Yglesias:
The problem here is that, once again, we see hawks not understanding what diplomacy is. But think of diplomacy as a kind of bargaining. Like you might do at a yard sale or something. Diplomacy doesn't exist at one end of a spectrum of coercive measures -- we try war, we try sanctions, we try diplomacy -- any more than bargaining operates on a smooth continuum with robbery. The point of bargaining with a vendor is to see whether or not it's possible to find mutually acceptable terms that improve both parties' positions. In terms of diplomacy with Iran, the idea isn't that Obama's steely gaze would force concessions out of the Iranians, the idea is that we might be able to give Iran something Iran deems more valuable than weapons-grade nuclear material, and in exchange we would get verifiable disarmament.
The "something" here would presumably be some form of security assurances plus an accommodation to Iranian interests in Iraq, along with Teheran and Washington laying out a pathway to gradual normalization of relations in exchange for an end to Iranian support for terrorism and Palestinian rejectionist groups. Would it be possible to strike such a deal? Maybe, maybe not. But the purpose of a negotiating session would be to find out by attempting to do the bargaining rather than having five more years of back-and-forth blog posts speculating about the possibility. The general theory of diplomacy is that rational actors should, through negotiations, be able to achieve positive-sum settlements rather than negative-sum conflicts. It's always possible that your would-be negotiating partner will prove irrational (as George W. Bush did when he rejected Iranian peace overtures several years back) and the process will fail, but it's worth attempting in good faith.
And just in case Yglesias is too much of a squishy leftie to truly understand things, here are two recent examples of (sane) Republicans who agree, Sen. Specter (from Yglesias) and James Baker III (from Sullivan):
Summaries: Specter is asking Sec of Defense Gates why Bush is calling negotiation appeasement when negotiation is normal, logical, and sensible. Specter assails the Bush perspective and hopes Gates can talk some sense into the President.
Baker is even more clear; he says that a strong leader talks to enemies. He himself travelled to Syria 15 times, on Bush Sr's request, to get Syria to recognize Israel and on the 16th trip Syria agreed to negotiate at the Madrid Peace Talks. Baker, while an anti-Semite GOP running-dog, is also from the time when the GOP were considered competent. Not any more; Baker (and Specter) are as slimy as Obama. Only Bush and McCain know what to do!
I wrote this on Friday, but didn't send it out right before Shabbos. Then, today, Sullivan links to a corroborating quote, so here goes:
Stubbornness is not a virtue. It's the combination of stupidity + selfishness. It's the ugly mirror image of perseverance.
'Not quitting' is only virtuous when its done to help others or help a cause. Most of the time, when you meet stubborn people, they are that way because they are either too stupid to know how to change their minds or are to selfish to accept another view.
I'll say more about this later, but time is short. (Friday)
Naturally this applies to Hillary Clinton, but it's a view I've held for years (ask friends and family, they'll tell you that I consider stubbornness to be a common trait among people who are considered to be 'smart' but - when manifest - tars them as low and mean intellects. Sadly, as the phrase k'shei oref (stiff-necked), implies, this is a vice found common in our people.)
Today, Sullivan linked to this comment by Philip Klein of the American Spectator (GOP rag) which pithily encapsulates my views of Hillary's stubbornness quite well:
"It has become popular in conservative circles these days to suggest that "you just gotta admire her tenacity," a sentiment that is advanced at her campaign rallies...
But what is there to admire about this so-called "tenacity"? Clinton began this campaign with a financial edge, the support of a popular former Democratic president, a built-in political apparatus, a consistent lead of more than 20 points in national polls, and more than a hundred superdelegates.
If a candidate starts off with all of those advantages and is too stubborn to drop out of the race, it's no surprise that she is still hanging on.
There is absolutely nothing admirable about a politician so narcissistic and hungry for power that she is willing to say or do whatever suits her political interests at any given moment. If the Republican Party has declined to the point where conservatives are so worried about defeating a freshman Senator that they are rooting for Clinton to do their dirty work for them, it is simply pathetic,"
I've discussed different ideas for VP, especially for Obama (who I most care about) here, here, and here. To recap these issues, for all three candidates, and to expand into a discussion of major cabinet officials.
Vice President:
Hillary Don't know why I care, but I still think it's going to be Evan Bayh.
Obama: I used to believe that he'd need some old white ex-Senator to offset his foreign policy credential problems, but over this long primary I think new pressures have arisen. First, his war-cred has been bolstered by new supporters like Sam Nunn. And since McCain is a warrior, there's no good way to offset that advantage except, possibly, with your own warrior (cue: Clark or Webb), but even then I'm not sure how much that will help. But, bottom line, while '04 was a "war" election, '08 is about the economy. Getting a warrior may be irrelevant; Obama needs managerial help. Ironically Bloomberg would be good for that, but as I've said before, the VP is about votes and perception not actual talent.
In the past few weeks, many have stated that Hillary's polarizing presence is almost forcing that she be put on the ticket. Even Sullivan has floated the idea, but (as I emailed him), this idea is daft and to suggest it means that Hillary has managed to get into your head. It is what she wants right now, but it would add all of her negatives with the only positive coming from her disgruntled supporters and surrogates who, I must reiterate, are die-hard Democrats. The people who support her because they can't vote for a 46 year old, and/or an African American, won't vote for Obama just because Hillary is there. If so, who needs her to offset the young/race biases... anybody and everybody would help.
Moreover, a lot of her support comes from people who want to vote for 4 more years of Bill Clinton. Why else would the guns-and-church crackers, who think that Obama is a crack smoking Muslim terrorist, support the pantsuit posterchild of feminism?! It's because she's married to "the Big Dog" who is a card-carrying member of the Good Ol' Boy Klub. And you won't get 4 years of Bill again unless she's in the #1 slot; because if she's #2, then what more influence does the VP's spouse have over policy than he would if he were on his own? Billy C will be able to advise Obama better as a freelancer (no government oversight if he's just called three times a day) as opposed to being in the executive branch again.
Bottom line, I'm sticking with my analysis from here - the only bloc that will leave the party if Hillary ain't on the ticket are the over-50s women. And they can be mollified with a woman VP. I'm sticking with Sebelius or Napolitano.
McCain I haven't thought about this as much recently. I thought he'd need a die-hard conservative, but that looks less likely. It does depend on who is the Democrat. I used to think Brownback; recently people have floated as the top 2: Pawlenty (Gov. MN) or Crist (Gov. FL). Some even have suggested Sec. of State Rice. However knowing McCain as well I do (we shot skeet back in the 1960s), and reading a bunch of articles, I think these things are clear: McCain is a military man through-and-through; he will want a veteran and a strong national-security ticket. This rules out anybody who doesn't have decent war experience. Christ and Pawlenty aren't veterans. And Rice? While it's great for pundits and predictors, I think it's D.O.A. Because for all of McCain's lack of general knowledge, I think he's smart enough to know that Rice is a total Bush-toady and incompetent. Anybody from the Bush cabinet will be poison in '08 (doing to McCain what Hillary would do to Obama) and Rice is one of the worst: responsible for both 9/11 and Iraq. Yipe.
To my eyes the favorite for VP would be McCain's senate foxhole buddy Lindsey Graham (Sen. SC). The two are connected at the hip; both are "mavericks" in the GOP (meaning they are all bluster, no action) and I think McCain's going to go for comfort over electoral math. Graham is 53, a veteran, as true-red conservative as McCain (which is considerable, in the old sense). I'd put money on this.
If I'm wrong, and I will likely be wrong, I think the two tickets should at least be Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain-Jeb Bush, just to drive the anti-legacy corps crazy!
This site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.
