Beldar on Iowa
Beldar has some post-Iowa thoughts. He says (I’m summarizing and paraphrasing, hopefully mostly accurately):
- Fred’s results are moderately encouraging, setting him up to be a potentially major force in February after McCain flames out.
- The Democrat race is about to get very, very ugly.
- Huckabee: stealth negative campaigner . . . and open populist.
- Obama reminds one of JFK — who almost got us nuked.
- Prejudice — against women, blacks, or whomever — won’t define this race. Except, maybe anti-Mormon prejudice will have a real effect.
Read it all for his reasoning.
God, Beldar’s a moron. McCain ain’t gonna flare out. Thompson is.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/4/2008 @ 7:27 amI concur with Christoph on Beldar’s ‘reasoning’.
JFK nearly got us nuked? I assume he refers to the Cuban Missile Crisis which would have certainly gone south if Nixon or GWB had been in the WH.
Semanticleo (9307d6) — 1/4/2008 @ 7:29 amRidiculous Semanticleo, neither Nixon nor GWB have ever played chicken with a major nuclear power.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/4/2008 @ 7:36 am“neither Nixon nor GWB have ever played chicken with a major nuclear power.”
Is SPQR a pseudonym for Mike Huckabee?
Semanticleo (9307d6) — 1/4/2008 @ 7:40 amThe Big Big losers? The Race Pimps, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as well as the large labor unions who worked tirelessly for Clinton. Any and all utterances by the two clowns in suits from Barney’s Surplus will suddenly seem as anti Obama. FOX had Jackson on this AM and it sure looked to me like this was a FOX coffin building exercise. Nobody but me seems to want to touch this stuff with a ten foot feather.
Howard Veit (cc8b85) — 1/4/2008 @ 7:44 amChristoph,
I’m losing patience with you. If you want to be an ill-mannered ass in your personal life, that’s your business. When you do it on my blog, it becomes my business.
It’s past time you learned the lesson that it’s possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
Patterico (703c97) — 1/4/2008 @ 7:51 amSemanticleo, learn some history some time.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/4/2008 @ 7:54 amjfk, who almost got us nuked…
i’m old enough to remember the cuban missile crisis when it happened, not from a history class. you think he should have let russia install nuclear missiles on cuba, huh?
assistant devil's advocate (dcd7bb) — 1/4/2008 @ 8:08 amThis is McCains last chance before he is 100, I doubt he will drop out. IMHO.
LiveFromFortLivingRoom (5d8f59) — 1/4/2008 @ 8:19 amPatterico;
ada makes a point. You convey Beldar’s thoughts, but do not dispute. Should JFK have allowed the Soviets to make short-range missiles operational on Cuban soil?
Semanticleo (9307d6) — 1/4/2008 @ 8:22 amThe big loser is The Politico. Their relentless attempts to lie about Fred! didn’t really work. He still finished third and still plans to carry on. That news outlet should truly be ashamed of itself. They aren’t even TRYING to report news accurately.
Bleh. Makes me ill.
H2U (81b7bd) — 1/4/2008 @ 8:29 am#3
Nixon certainly did in 1973 when the Russians entertained the idea of assisting Syria. He went to an elevated defense condition (bombers on the end of runways on alert and missile crews ready to launch) and warned the Soviets he wouldn’t tolerate a Syrian-Soviet alliance against the Israelis. They blinked obviously.
I think the Dem race will get ugly mostly due to Edwards and Clinton operatives. It will only help Obama’s standing if he avoids “going negative”.
Any prejudice is most likely to be manifested far below the surface on the Clinton side with plenty of plausible deniability.
On the GOP side the Coulters and Limbaughs need to be asked to knock off the stupid comments about “Magic Negros” and the like.
During the general (if Obama were the nominee) the GOP will be trying to draw the moderates and independents and trying hard to shut up the small number of racists in the party.
I disagree with Beldar about Fred.
voice of reason (10af7e) — 1/4/2008 @ 8:58 amObama reminds one of JFK — who almost got us nuked.
Have to disagree. JFK would have been a repulican in 2008 – low taxes, free market, strong national defense, tough on crime. Obama is none of those things.
Now, JFK was not even remotely the “great” president that the left fantasizes he was, but I would take a JFK clone over any democrat alive today in a heartbeat. The netroots would hate JFK – leftists like semanticleo may love the “idea” of JFK and camelot, but would hate all of JFK’s actual positions.
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 1/4/2008 @ 9:03 amvoice of reason, that is hardly the equivalent of confronting Soviet ships at sea in the Cuban embargo. Regardless however, the event you cite did not “go south” as Semanticleo fatuously asserts with respect to Nixon.
In terms of the Cuban missile crisis, the Democratic revisionism of the event is amusing. They seem to forget that we had put short range IRBM’s on the Soviet border. JFK secretly agreed to remove them as part of the end of the crisis. JFK was the most overrated President of the 20th Century. Comparisons of Obama to JFK are not compliments.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/4/2008 @ 9:19 amSPQR,
Elevating the DEFCON like that was a first. The Soviets knew he would launch. And I agree it didn’t go south and I am very glad it didn’t.
I was aware of the Jupiter missiles and what was done behind the scenes. I’m not a JFK fan and am old enough to remember my Dad buying a shortwave radio to keep in his car during that time.
But I do think that had Nixon been in office instead of Kennedy (I know about the Illinois and W Va votes) it is possible he would have obliterated Cuba and dared the Soviets to respond.
voice of reason (10af7e) — 1/4/2008 @ 9:29 amBut fortunately that is only speculation.
If Nixon had been President, he would have gone through and fully support the Cuban exile operation at the Bay of Pigs; the one he had argued for, because he had seen the consequence of Hungary, and he didn’t want an American version to occur in our hemisphere. However, yet had to deny because JFK had been leaked the plans by the CIA.There would have been some clear differences; he wouldn’t have put the likes of Adlai Stevenson, who whined about the operation at the U.N. Likely he would have moved the operation to a time when the UN was not in session. Another difference is that the off shore naval task force would have come to the rescue; which likely would have created a confrontation over Berlin. Khruschev would not have been able to place missiles in Cuba, however, as he had
narciso (d671ab) — 1/4/2008 @ 9:54 am‘promised’ in the fall of 1960.
Beldar’s wrong, but he’s definitely not a moron. The point about Huckabee pulling no punches while claiming the High Road is certainly valid (that quote of his… damn, that’s good).
The point about Clinton becoming a Berserker in the next five days is probably spot-on (although I don’t know what good negative ads will do, at this point: Obama’s going to be invulnerable for the next few days – the media will spin any attack ads as desperate last-bid attempts from otherwise castrated campaigns).
For what it’s worth, Obama doesn’t remind me of JFK… because I wasn’t around for JFK. Beldar’s point is moot on this one: the people that do see Obama as JFK see JFK as a demi-god, and the rest of us are too young to know anything but the most technical differences. As an aside, I think it’s kinda pig-headed to say that JFK almost got us nuked: the whole point of the Cold War was that we could be nuked at any second. What’s the difference between Nixon and Kennedy on this one? They handled two different situations two different ways; each ended with the ideal result.
Maybe Beldar’s right about race, but I think we’ll have to wait til the general election to find out.
Finally, the idea of Iowa being a good thing for Thompson is ridiculous. One of Beldar’s commentors (sp?) raised the important point that Thompson is out of money. What attention is he going to get without advertising? Media hype. What media hype is he going to get over the next month? None. If Huckabee wins New Hampshire, it’ll be a miracle, and the media will ignore Thompson. If McCain wins New Hampshire, it’ll be a back-to-basics comeback, and the media will ignore Thompson. Give it up, guys: a Thompson candidacy is a pipe dream. He doesn’t want it bad enough (not to mention the fact that he’s as underqualified as Obama, Edwards, or Clinton).
Leviticus (4ba6d9) — 1/4/2008 @ 10:07 amLeviticus: when I was a kid, we could be nuked at any minute, because of ICBMS.
But before the introduction of ICBMS, this wasn’t broadly true. Sure, there were bombers, but bombers could likely be shot down.
Which is why the placement of missiles in Cuba was such a big deal: that marked the moment when we could be nuked at a moment’s notice, and it was qualitatively massively different from what came before.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/4/2008 @ 10:20 amAll I remember personally about Kennedy is that our school closed when the news came of his death. I was an altar boy and I rang the death knell all day at our church. Obama is not JFK … yet.
nk (5221ab) — 1/4/2008 @ 10:55 amMostly I, a fellow Fred supporter, found myself nodding my head at Beldar’s analysis. I’m not so sure McCain would drop out after Super Tuesday, but then, that’s because I think McCain will do better ON that day than Beldar seems to think McCain will do.
Unless FredMentum! builds further, though, I fear Fred’s best hope is for a brokered convention. No one seems to detest Fred; he’s on just about everyone’s Top Three list.
Biggest unknown to me is, Can Giuliani hold enough of his coastal-states lead?
Mitch (890cbf) — 1/4/2008 @ 11:40 amI’ll vote for anybody besides Giuliani. I don’t want federal agents coming to my house to make sure I packaged my trash tightly enough, fixed all the peeling paint and picked up every speck off my driveway. God only knows what he’d to do to me if he thought I wasn’t watering my lawn enough.
nk (4bb3c1) — 1/4/2008 @ 11:51 amI agree with Beldar that Obama is like JFK. In addition, this race reminds me a little of what I remember about 1960.
1. Obama is black and that fact will turn off some voters no matter how good a candidate he is. Similarly, JFK had to deal with prejudice against his Catholic religion. Those issues are like a sword that will hurt their candidacies with some voters, but also a shield that protects them from criticism by the media and others. I think most Americans were and are ready to set aside those prejudices, making them the right men at the right time.
2. Like JFK, Obama is vibrant, charismatic, and has a young, attractive family. He’s positive and represents change and a bright future. Americans are inherently forward-thinking people and young people let us focus on the future instead of the past. Those attributes make Obama an attractive candidate.
3. A Giuliani-Obama race especially reminds me of Nixon-JFK. Whether it’s true or not, the perception will be a race between age vs youth; experience vs change; ethics issues vs a clean slate.
DRJ (29b04b) — 1/4/2008 @ 12:01 pmNK, I gather you don’t live in tightly-regulated Irvine. (Only MOSTLY joking here.)
Mitch (890cbf) — 1/4/2008 @ 12:02 pm“JFK nearly got us nuked? I assume he refers to the Cuban Missile Crisis which would have certainly gone south if Nixon or GWB had been in the WH.
Comment by Semanticleo ”
Read “On the Origins of War” which used KGB archives during the period when they were briefly open to researchers. The Russians were convinced (I wish I knew by whom) that JFK would be deposed by a coup if he gave away the store as he was inclined to do. He was out of his depth, as is Obama. I do agree that he would be a Republican now on domestic issues but he was badly out of his depth at the time, as is Obama.
Mike K (ae3e2a) — 1/4/2008 @ 1:08 pm“I think he’d make the best general election candidate, and the best president, but he’s far from the best primary election campaigner. ”
I think this is so. He’s a lousy campaginer but perhaps that again speaks to him refusing to play nice with the MSM rather than providing a transparency with voters. These days, campaigning seems much more like a beauty pageant with most talented, most sparkling personality, etc, rather than just hardballing policy and povs.
I prefer the lack of flash & flowery speeches and just want some transparency that easily allows me to know the specifics of a candidate. That is why I like Fred. No games, and no yielding to the demands of the pageant consultants.
Dana (bd7a10) — 1/4/2008 @ 1:46 pmHe’d be a republican on some aspects of foreign policy as well…
Who got our foot in the door in Vietnam?
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 1/4/2008 @ 2:03 pmThanks for the feedback. You’d be more convincing if you didn’t have a WordPress category “Morons” for people you disagree with.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/4/2008 @ 2:54 pmneither Nixon nor GWB have
At the Vienna summit (link), Khruschev perceived Kennedy as weak, unwilling to stand up to him.
So, he rolled the dice. And lost.
I doubt he would have concluded similarly with Nixon. As to GWB, who knows?
Obama’s reckless approach to having summits with the leaders of Iran or North Korea simply because, apparently, he believes that our differences can be ironed out over a weekend is troubing. Unless these meetings are precisely arranged, disasters can happen.
Lots of spade work, so to speak, to be done before face-to-face meetings with an enemy can be undertaken.
It ain’t a debate, Senator. It’s the real thing.
SteveMG (5586a5) — 1/4/2008 @ 3:51 pmObama reminds me more of Bill Clinton than anybody else. Totally naive in world affairs, unwilling to commit to concrete proposals about anything domestic, but oozing charisma. He’ll ride that charisma all the way to the white house if he can. And why not? That’s what Bill Clinton did. Oh, the irony.
Hillary doesn’t need to go negative, though she has plenty of available ammunition if she does – he’s a politician from Illinois, after all.
Huckabee is the same way, but as soon as he moves away from the Evangelical heartland he’s in big trouble. The Reagan coalition of fiscal/social conservatives has been rent asunder, and there’s no way he’s gonna get elected with only 1/4 of the population supporting him.
Eric (09e4ab) — 1/4/2008 @ 3:59 pm#13 Great Banana:
That’s already been proven; Joe Lieberman is among the closest to a JFK today, if not the closest…and the netroots ran him out of the party.
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/4/2008 @ 4:57 pmPatterico
Have you seen this post from the American Thinker?
Proposed revisions to California Title 24 require every new home and every change to existing homes’ central heating and air conditioning systems to be fitted with a programmable communicating thermostat or PCT beginning next year.
The Thinker says, “Each PCT will be fitted with a “non-removable” FM receiver that will allow the power authorities to increase your air conditioning temperature setpoint or decrease your heater temperature setpoint to any value they chose. During “price events” those changes are limited to +/- four degrees F and you would be able to manually override the changes. During “emergency events” the new setpoints can be whatever the power authority desires and you would not be able to alter them.
In other words, the temperature of your home will no longer be yours to control. Your desires and needs can and will be overridden by the state of California through its public and private utility organizations.”
(Emphasis is mine)
As usual the California media are silent on this, colluding with the global warming alarmists to steal personal liberties while keeping the public none the wiser. There is no other news source besides the official revision statement linked to in the Thinker’s article.
Time is of the essence. Californian’s have until January 30th to express their outrage, after which the revisions will be given the force of law.
papertiger (830204) — 1/4/2008 @ 4:58 pmI like none of them. I dislike them all to different degrees. There seems a slim chance of a non-crazy small government president in 2008.
joe (c0e4f8) — 1/4/2008 @ 5:00 pmRemind me when JFK foamed at the mouth calling for a war on Iran? Why not link Holy Joe to more relevant antecedents like Benedict Arnold?
Andrew J. Lazarus (986f4f) — 1/4/2008 @ 5:26 pmRemind me when JFK foamed at the mouth calling for a war on Iran? Why not link Holy Joe to more relevant antecedents like Benedict Arnold?
Thanks for proving the point once again, Andrew.
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/4/2008 @ 5:30 pm*yawn*
You’d be more convincing if you didn’t come off as an asshole with every comment you make.
Another big *yawn*
This is the same nonsense that was being peddled before Iowa: Fred has no money, Fred has no fire, Fred has jack shit, he’s going to crash and burn and drop out.
The South Carolina primary is in two weeks, on the 19th. I hate to say it but are the people here who can’t keep from trashing Fred seriously trying to make us believe that his campaign is going to disintegrate in the next fifteen days?
“Fred has no money,” the man’s current fundraising drive is $540,000 by the 11th. He’s on pace to reach that goal by the 9th or the 10th. Can I maybe see the crystal ball you guys are using so I can read the future and know that he’s not going to get any more cash too?
For Thompson surviving in Iowa = winning. He survived. As long as he keeps surviving until Super Tuesday he has as good as a chance as any of the candidates.
chaos (9c54c6) — 1/4/2008 @ 5:35 pmThat’s the most amazing thing I’ve ever heard. This deserves to be announced far and wide. Why did you fight a revolution against the British again? Oh, right, to have Arnold electronically come into your house and set the thermostat in your rec room.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/4/2008 @ 5:50 pmRemind me when JFK foamed at the mouth calling for a war on Iran?
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
Someone expressing words like that today would be called a neocon warmonger by the left.
Support any friend? Except those in Iraq.
Opoose any foe? Except for the Iranian mullah.
This guy JFK is a rightwing nut.
SteveMG (5586a5) — 1/4/2008 @ 5:57 pmIt’s probably just a case of Don Perata getting a large “campaign donation” from a PCT manufacturer.
nk (4bb3c1) — 1/4/2008 @ 5:59 pmChristoph sez:
“Thanks for the feedback. Youd be more convincing if you didnt have a WordPress category Morons for people you disagree with.”
I have a category called “Morons” for people who are morons.
If I had a category called “evil” for, say, people like Saddam, that would not be license for you to label sensible people (like, say, Eugene Volokh) as “evil.”
And the presence of my “Morons” category is not license for you to label sensible people (like Beldar) as “morons.”
If you can’t tell the difference, that’s your problem and not mine.
Don’t test me on this. If you do, you can go rail incessantly about my hypocrisy and double standards on another blog.
But I am simply not going to stand by and watch one of my commenters speak in an ugly manner to the most decent bloggers and commenters I know.
Patterico (f95a48) — 1/4/2008 @ 6:10 pmThis isn’t a matter of ideology, by the way. People who are unfailingly polite (such as Beldar or DRJ on the right, or aphrael or SEK on the left) should not be called morons when they politely express opinions you disagree with.
Bomb throwers may not merit the same level of decorum, though there I don’t like to see threads devolving into name-calling for any reason.
I believe in spirited debate. But I want to reward the exceptionally polite by demanding that they be treated with minimum standards of civility.
Learn the principle and live it.
Patterico (724f5e) — 1/4/2008 @ 6:18 pmThe term “morons” implies they are wrong in their reasoning; it doesn’t imply they are strident. When you criticize the L.A.T. or a writer using the term “Morons”, is it because they were rude in their article — or that you disagree with them and think they are missing the point?
Are you saying they are nasty in this example — or wrong? Your own words are that they are clueless.
I think Beldar’s a nice guy. Probably nicer than me. I don’t even really aim toward niceness, although I make an effort for accuracy… albeit with hyperbole on occasion.
Just as you don’t really believe the writers of that editorial are actually morons, I don’t think Beldar is. Not really.
It’s a way of expressing my view he’s really wrong on this subject. While my method of doing so was impolite, it would appear to be identical to your method of doing so.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/4/2008 @ 6:35 pmYou are missing the point. I am not going to debate this any further. The next time I catch you being an ass to someone who goes out of their way to be polite to people, I’m pulling the plug. Period.
Patterico (99d090) — 1/4/2008 @ 6:43 pmSometimes I wonder if DE and Semanticleo are “evil twins”, and that Christoph is occasionally the proverbial “Ross Perot’s Crazy Aunt in the Attic”?
Isn’t perception the new reality to those not a Conservative? I guess I’m losing my place in the right-of-center firmament?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/4/2008 @ 7:19 pm#22 – DRJ,
dont you think your first point is refuted since Obama just won Iowa? its over 90% white, better test than any southern state would be.
Mccain flames out before Fred!, Mccain has no credibility w/ conservatives anymore.
chas (d7c0b2) — 1/4/2008 @ 7:35 pmChas – DRJ’s point was that Obama would turn of some voters, not all voters. Look at the percentage of the vote he got.
daleyrocks (906622) — 1/4/2008 @ 7:59 pmJFK has become so iconic it’s extremely difficult to see the actual man in his time anymore. He was young, good-looking, charismatic and supremely well-liked by the journalistic establishment. As a result he raised a bar that no one has been able to get anywhere near since.
Part of this has to do with his dying young — and the way he died. But even if the assassination hadn’t happened and he lived out his two terms his stylistic signature would remian to haunt us to this day. He was supremely quick on his feet with the press and his ability to charm them created a firewall against their intrusion into his Playboy-style love life. Jackie was the perfectr partner in these beign a style icon. Add to that that two gorgeous children and a genuine interest in the arts (remember Pablo Casals at the White Hosue) and You’ve Got it ALL.
But let’s look at the record. The Cuban Missile crisis was (and I’m trying to be temperate here) unwise. The Bay of Pigs was a complete fiasco. And despite the fantasies Oliver Stone has constructed there’s no reason to believe that JFK was any less interested in the Vietam invasion that LBJ. More so in fact.
But that was all a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/4/2008 @ 8:22 pmAs for Obama, he bears nary a trace of him.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/4/2008 @ 8:23 pmAs for Obama, he bears nary a trace of him.
Obama has no interest in invading Vietnam? That’s a relief. 🙂
Seriously David, good stuff at #46 and #47. A welcome change.
qdpsteve (cd214a) — 1/4/2008 @ 8:44 pmYou’re welcome.
The Vietnam analogy re Obama is that he’s not about to end our occupation of Iraq.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/4/2008 @ 10:19 pmThe Cuban Missile Crisis was due to Kennedy’s weakness at Vienna. Khrushchev concluded he could be rolled. When the Russians gambled, Kennedy was told by his own people that he could not allow the missiles in Cuba. The alternative was an invasion. The troops were rolling to the embarkation points. The U2 gave him the time to do something as the intent of the Russians was to produce a fait accompli. The myth is that the Russans backed down because of Kennedy’s threats. What “Origins of War” points out, from KGB records, is that the Russian military became convinced that Kennedy would be overthrown by a coup if he allowed the missiles. Whether someone told them that or they were just mirroring what would have happened if the situation were reversed, is unknown.
The Bay of Pigs was a CIA operation that should have been stopped by Kennedy. He inherited it but he had run against Nixon from the “right” alleging a missle gap that he knew did not exist. The U2 had shown that the Russians did not have the missiles they said they did. Eisenhower and Nixon could not defend themselves because the plane was still secret (although I and everyone else in the aircraft industry knew about it). The CIA was out of control at the time and Eisenhower would probably not have allowed it to go and certainly would not have acknowledged responsbility, as Kennedy did. That made him look like a naif. One of the reasons it was allowed to go was that nobody knew what to do with the Cubans if it was called off. They had been training in Nicaragua. “Legacy of Ashes” points out that this happened several times. The Russians were always better than we were in intelligence. The British were better than we were but still got burned by the Cambridge circle.
Mike K (ae3e2a) — 1/4/2008 @ 10:38 pmBeldar is a smart fellow, but he has been wrong before (Miers) and I will have to disagree with him in part again in reference to Thompson.
Although I like Thompson, he does not have an agenda that I can discern–no raison d’etre in the race. His niche is filled now by Huckabee and McCain who are both very viable after the last months shake up in the polls (people have shifted from undecided to support one or the other candidate–esp. “social conservatives” have gone for Huckabee).
On the other hand, McCain will have a win in NH soon so I think he will survive in the race by absorbing the place that Guilani has forfeited as the security hawk.
I look forward to a McCain-Huckabee ticket for the GOP emerging as soon as Romney and Guilani are put to bed.
PaulD (c26d3c) — 1/4/2008 @ 10:38 pmThompson’s easily differntiable from McCain on politics and from Huckabee in not being a lying populist goofball.
Betting odds on one site currently have Clinton and Obama in a dead heat (and I think Obama would outperform Kennedy), with the Republicans at:
McCain: 2-1
Rudy: 3-1
Huckabee: 4-1
Romney: 7-1
Paul: 20-1
Thompson: 30-1
I think Paul’s chances are less, and Thompson’s more, but not a lot more. I think Romney’s also in better position than those odds indicate.
–JRM
JRM (355c21) — 1/4/2008 @ 11:45 pmThat was definitely an intelligent comment, JRM. I agree with your analysis.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/5/2008 @ 12:09 amBack in the day I roomed with 3 other guys also going to the University of Kentucky we ate dinner together, one of the nightly chores was to take a couple of buckets over to the Chem=Physics Bldg and fill them up with crushed ice for our drinks.
What was left over we hung in a plastic bag over our small apt bldgs locked thermostat.
Others control your temperature because you chose to let them
You want your home cooler inspite of the Power Company controlled thermostat?
Hang a hairdrier next to it. 😉
Dan Kauffman (b31cae) — 1/5/2008 @ 2:38 amPatterico: As always, thanks for the link and kind words.
I may be guilty of wishful thinking re Thompson, but it’s interesting to me how very, very often conservatives arguing against him based their entire arguments on his “electability” (referring to Thompson as a campaigner) rather than upon his “suitability” (referring to Thompson as a potential POTUS). With due respect, I think many of you are replaying a mainstream media meme that you’ve soaked up rather indiscriminately. If you want to let Roger [the Politico one] Simon’s ilk do your thinking for you, then you have my sympathy and best wishes.
Re Kennedy and Obama: My comment presumes a reasonably deep knowledge of 20th Century world history. The reason there was a Cuban Missile Crisis was because JFK’s perceived weakness (as a result of the Bay of Pigs, the Diem assassination and Vietnam indecision generally, the bungled Vienna summit, and other miscues) encouraged Soviet adventurism. (See also: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, based on their correct reading of spineless then-President Jimmy Carter.) The Soviets put the missiles in Cuba precisely because they were convinced — wrongly, as it turned out — that JFK wouldn’t have the backbone to respond by moving to the brink of thermonuclear war. If Nixon had been president in 1962, the Soviets wouldn’t have been as adventurous in the first place; they would have had no doubt whatsoever that Nixon’s response would have been a full-scale invasion that toppled their puppet state. Yes, it’s terrific that JFK managed to get the missiles out of Cuba and managed not to get us into thermonuclear war; but the fact that the situation arose in the first place was a result of his inexperience and bungling beforehand.
Barrack Obama suggesting that we conduct military operations to “get bin Laden” in Afghanistan, whether the government there likes it or not, is a very JFK-esque sort of suggestion. (Note that Huckabee has made distressingly similar noises about Pakistan.) And that’s just the kind of action that could immediately result in al Qaeda or another terrorist organization suddenly gaining possession of a working nuke, with the mushroom-cloud consequences for an American city that I fear.
Beldar (759113) — 1/5/2008 @ 2:56 amBeldar, I apologize for calling you a moron. I trust I haven’t damaged your self-esteem? (Kidding. You’ve accomplished more than I, which was never in doubt, and it was tongue-in-cheek hyperbole to make a point, perhaps for that reason.)
The problem as I see it isn’t so much electability, it’s health, energy, and to a lesser degree, lack of executive experience.
Plus Thompson’s temperament. He strikes one as someone who, confronted with a crisis, would prefer a couple hours to think about it, lunch, and a nap before making a decision.
Is that fair? I dunno. He’s still my second choice. But I’m not the one who came up with the analogy, and it fit when I read it.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/5/2008 @ 4:18 amJust a typo, but for clarity if anyone’s not familiar with what Obama said, you mean get bin Laden in Pakistan, I assume?
Hear, hear. Obama’s naivety and lack of understanding of military/geographic realities (we resupply Afghanistan how exactly if we piss Pakistan off?) worries me almost as much Huckabee’s.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/5/2008 @ 4:21 amBeldar,
In regards to Thompson I think that his fans could be categorized as looking for someone who is Reagan’s reincarnation. This clouds their view about his lobbying and efforts to appear to be someone he isn’t (buying a red truck when his polling numbers were off in his senate run)to name a couple of reasons not to be enamored of him.
His fans like to categorize others as you did “If you want to let Roger [the Politico one] Simon’s ilk do your thinking for you, then you have my sympathy and best wishes.”
and this underscores the GOP’s real problem in my opinion. That is simply the party has allowed itself to splinter; the conservatives are looking for the perfect conservative and the moderates are looking for someone different with what they feel are better chances of electability.
The conservatives are particularly nasty in how they paint moderate candidates; RINO, CINO, McAmnesty, etc. In return some of the moderates take cheap shots at Thompson in particular.
Both groups begin to voice sentiment that if their guy doesn’t get the nod they stay home.
Without moderates the GOP is just a club. Many of the people who call themself a true conservative have a particular issue that defines this self view. The problem is that not every conservative who feels this way has the same issue. For example abortion, 2nd amendment, or illegal immigration.
The moderates are being told that their opinions aren’t welcome. I can see many switching to the Dems or sitting it out this time.
Time is running out for the GOP and its members to prove to the country they really are a party of adults who should have their representative in the white house.
voiceofreason (f7fd6b) — 1/5/2008 @ 4:34 amWhen is comes to foreign policy expertise, Huckabee and Obama are dumb and dumber.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 1/5/2008 @ 4:47 amYeah, but I think you got the order wrong.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/5/2008 @ 4:56 amOh, wait, sorry for calling them dumb: I mean less well educated, but actually intelligent, and even less well educated and not quite, but still fairly intelligent.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/5/2008 @ 4:57 amChristoph: there was a time when your comments were a good read. Now they are not, simply a scan and discard comment when your name is next to it.
The sequence of comments on this thread alone shows why.
Verlin Martin (956398) — 1/5/2008 @ 5:14 amVerlin, I don’t remember a time when your comments were a good read.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/5/2008 @ 5:17 amNow I find this a truly strange comment. After all this time, all this momney and all these lives expnded in invading Iraq in retaliation for 9/11 (which Saddma Hussein had nothing to do with ) you’re telling me we can’t fight the actual perpetrator of the crime because he has nuclear weapons and blow up an American city?
Words fail.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/5/2008 @ 6:09 amComment by David Ehrenstein — 1/5/2008 @ 6:09 am
[Your] logic fails.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/5/2008 @ 6:17 amWrong.
Prejudice against blacks won’t define the race. Prejudice against women won’t define the race. Prejudice against Mormons won’t define the race. All of these are true.
Prejudice against Evangelicals will, and already is, defining the race.
I’ve already read dozens of complaints about Huckabee’s candidacy for which the only explanation of the sheer energy behind the objection is that the author just, plain hates Evangelicals.
I’m not saying that there are no legitimate complaints about Huckabee; I’m not supporting him myself, because he’s a big-government Republican, like GWB. But look at Beldar’s first point: he objects, not that Huck is doing something unusual, nor that it’s particularly dirty politics, but that he claims to be too good to do that sort of thing.
In other words, to Beldar, an Evangelical isn’t allowed to be a politician.
Huckabee is engaging in a cleaner campaign than many others in the race, today. That appears to be a choice made in the saddle. Huckabee is not posturing as holier than anybody; he’s acting pretty much the same as Obama on the negative campaigning score. The alleged posturing is an imposition created by Beldar. And that, folks, is what anti-Evangelical bigotry looks like. It posits that that Evangelicals have to be angels, or else it’s wrong for them to be what they are.
So long as Huckabee remains viable, it’s the sort of bigotry that will define this race. And I’m afraid that be a lot longer than Beldar thinks — Huckabee will probably win South Carolina and show well in Michigan and Florida. Sorry, that’s just reality.
(Unrelated to this, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.Plumb Bob Blog
Plumb Bob (c0e659) — 1/5/2008 @ 7:06 amPlumb Bob, as much as I’m not a Huckabee fan for yet another reason, I think you make a very good point.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/5/2008 @ 7:20 amAnd I don’t.
Evangelicals have a lot to answer for. And they have no inention of answering.
It’s their mission to “take this coutnry back for Christ.”
That means no Jews, no muslims, no gays, no athiests.
But of course to bring this up immediately clues Evangelicals to play the victim card — as Plumb Bob has done so uh. . .religiously.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/5/2008 @ 7:43 amEarlier, David E. wrote “words fail.”
As if.
It seems like he made some calm, insightful posts…then remembered to following his prior strategies. Sad.
Lurker (7e375e) — 1/5/2008 @ 8:12 amDavid, words may fail, but evidently anti-religious bigotry does not fail you. Evangelicals’ mission “means no Jews, no muslims, no gays, no athiests”. The mind boggles where in your irrational paranoia that comes from. There are people in the world whose ideology actually does demand that they kill gays for being gay. They are not evangelicals. It is more than a little astonishing that you’ve allowed your bigotry to delude yourself about that.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/5/2008 @ 8:32 amIt’s is not astonishing at all that you pay not the slightest attention to who these people really are and what they’re realy saying.
But I’ve been forced to deal wit tis very personally for the better part of my 61 years, and you ahven’t got a clue.
Meanwhile on another election season matter, as you all know I’m no fan of Barack Obama. However I found this Washington Post piece of consdierable interest and I trust you will too.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/5/2008 @ 8:46 amDavid, I’m an atheist and I rank the odds that the Evangelicals will round me up to a concentration camp as just slightly below the odds of my dying in the forthcoming Polynesian jihad.
When the Baptists get a constitutional amendment adopted to ban slow dancing, give me a call. Until then, I’m pretty comfortable with my knowledge of exactly who has a clue around here.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/5/2008 @ 9:08 amTalk about not being tough enough! Convicted out of your own mouth!
(Of course, in the modern GOP, tough is generally a euphemism for either belligerent or sadistic.)
Andrew J. Lazarus (89be8b) — 1/5/2008 @ 9:21 amIt’s is not astonishing at all that you pay not the slightest attention to who these people really are and what they’re realy saying.
Uh huh, sure, David.
But I’ve been forced to deal wit tis very personally for the better part of my 61 years
And the fact that you aren’t thankful (at least here on this blog) that you were not born in a nation governed by sharia law illustrates your sheer ignorance and delusion better than anything.
You see, in nations governed by sharia law, people with your sexual orientation are put to death. The lucky ones are simply beheaded.
I’d give you a detailed description of hwat happens to the unlucky ones, but Patterico would ban me.
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/5/2008 @ 9:24 amIt always amazes me how the gay/lesbian community and feminists are so silent on sharia law.
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/5/2008 @ 9:24 amdan kauffman’s sound approach in #54 wins the thread, reminding me of one of my favorite sauna tricks. the temperature in a sauna is controlled by a circuit known as a thermocouple; two junctions of two dissimilar metals at different temperatures. the junction outside the sauna is the reference junction, the one inside is the test junction. if you project a stream of beer from the gap between your front teeth at the test junction, it will trick the thermocouple into thinking that the temperature in the sauna is 20 degrees cooler than it actually is, and the thermocouple will fire up the furnace immediatamente. from experience i can relate that some nekkid wimmen in saunas get turned on by unexpected lectures in physics, others, no. if i have your secure device, such as a state-controlled thermostat, in my possession and enough time to work with it, i will bend it to my will 100 times out of 100.
plumb bob’s whine about anti-evangelical prejudice made me laugh. the evangelical leaders, the ones you see on tv who get tons of money, blamed 9/11 on gay people. there’s a lot more concentrated hatred in an evangelical church than there is in a casino or a bordello. you call us heathens and infidels; how is this different from calling a black person a nigger?
you say anybody who criticizes huckabee is prejudiced against evangelicals, as if you were up on a pedestal taunting and daring us to impugn your altogether higher morality and consciousness, well, here you go.
beldar’s #55 is a piece of work, jfk was responsible for the cuban missile crisis because he somehow projected weakness to the soviets beforehand, so it isn’t their fault that they tried to make cuba a forward missile base, just as when a woman wears a skimpy outfit, it’s nobody’s fault they tried to rape her. he criticizes obama for suggesting military action to get bin laden because this might result in al-qaeda getting a nuke. this is the classic politics of fear. beldar says we mustn’t go after our enemies because we might provoke them into even more drastic enemy acts. the logical extension of his position would result in never getting out of bed in the morning, because you might provoke someone if you dare to walk down the street. this is truckling appeasement.
christoph has mental health issues, and i’m not sufficiently knowledgeable in psychology to comment on them in depth.
assistant devil's advocate (d1302d) — 1/5/2008 @ 9:25 amDavid Ehrenstein writes that evangelicals want a world that means, “no Jews, no muslims, no gays, no athiests”.
David then goes on to say, “But I’ve been forced to deal with this very personally for the better part of my 61 years, and you haven’t got a clue.”
Now I can’t figure out whether that means that David is an atheistically inclined gay muslim Jew, or that David is simply engaging in the usual hyperbole of the secular left.
The United States is an overwhelmingly religious country–lots of synagogues, churches, storefront revivalists, mosques etc. I’ve yet to see millions of people pour out of those buildings chasing secularists like David (or maybe gay muslim Jew atheists) down dark alleys, beating them with sticks and stoning them to death.
But maybe I’m missing something and my “personal experiences” aren’t those that David has had to deal with in his 61 years. It could be that David’s “personal experiences” are on a par with those of Bill Clinton who claimed to have seen a lot of black Baptist churches burning in Arkansas in his youth. That claim proved to be a little embarassing (although Bill Clinton is way beyond shame or embarassment) when it was determined that no black Baptist churches had burned anywhere in Arkansas during the years in question.
Puritans have sometimes been defined as people who were outraged that someone somewhere might be having fun.
Secularists of the Ehrenstein stripe are similiarly outraged that someone, somewhere in the United States might be engaged in an active relationship with their God/Creator/Holy One [that’s a clumsy definition there, because of the multiple permutations of faith, religion or spirituality that are practiced in the USA].
But people should be permitted to believe what they believe, so long as they don’t force their views on others. I’m a vaguely Protestant but unchurched person, so I certainly don’t have much of a dog in this hunt. But I would submit that the secularists are much more likely to impose their views on others than are the evangelical types.
Mike Myers (31af82) — 1/5/2008 @ 9:25 amTalk about not being tough enough! Convicted out of your own mouth!
(Of course, in the modern GOP, tough is generally a euphemism for either belligerent or sadistic.)
Andrew, you were better off simply not commenting, because now you’ve made yourelf look like an idiot.
Try thinking before you hit “Submit Comment.”
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/5/2008 @ 9:30 amIt always amazes me how “Conservatives” go on and on about sharia law while ignoring how much it’s in line with the belifs of Fundies like Mike Huckabee.
I’m HIV- but he wants to put all HIV+’s in concentration camps.
And I can’t figure out of you’re lying or just plain stupid.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/5/2008 @ 9:43 amIt always amazes me how “Conservatives” go on and on about sharia law while ignoring how much it’s in line with the belifs of Fundies like Mike Huckabee.
Oh really? You’re alive, aren’t you?
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/5/2008 @ 9:45 amI’m HIV- but he wants to put all HIV+’s in concentration camps.
Got a link to such a statement?
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/5/2008 @ 9:47 amIt always amazes me how “Conservatives” go on and on about sharia law while ignoring how much it’s in line with the belifs of Fundies like Mike Huckabee.
Care to show us a detailed listing of the similarities beide the superficial…as in core beliefs?
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/5/2008 @ 9:49 amNo, it isn’t astonishing that we don’t pay attention to bigots like you.
Everyone has had to deal with bigots like you their entire lives, I don’t see why you think you’re so special for being a bigot who doesn’t like some other bigots.
chaos (9c54c6) — 1/5/2008 @ 9:59 amAt the moment.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:04 amOh great — now I’m Bill Clinton?
WHERE’S MY BLOW-JOB?
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:07 amWe’re trying to find your Monica, David. But we’re not having much luck.
Larry King was willing to put on a black long-haired wig and do the dirty work but we’ve a hunch he’s not quite enough your type. 🙂
qdpsteve (cd214a) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:09 amI think Beldars’ analysis is largely on the money.
I can say with some assurance that there is a deep well of anti-Mormon feeling in the electorate, even in the great west where more of your neighbors are likely to be LDS. My wife is from a small northern Arizona town, and expresses something approaching bigotry when is comes to the LDS. I have worked for or with Mormons my entire professional career and can’t bring myself to have strong feelings about Romneys’ religion – merely about his dissembly about his record on issues like taxation and gun control.
Neither of us are registered in either major political party, and so we can only watch what sausage comes out of the nominating process – but I can tell you that for us and other libertarian-leaning professionals a smarmy populist like Mike Huckabee is a far more polarizing figure than Romney.
JSinAZ (e71b0b) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:13 amHere you go David! (AKA Ann Coulter before make-up.)
qdpsteve (cd214a) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:14 amWHERE’S MY BLOW-JOB?
I thought you have a significant other, David.
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:14 amWe have an “open relationship” dear. We’re gay men. As for that blow-job, I was hoping for one of our brave fighting men. (Hubba-Hubba!)
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:18 amWe have an “open relationship” dear. We’re gay men.
He still qualifies as a significant other…and I would assume is fully capable.
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:29 amBack to the topic of the thread: How about we hear from some of the liberal commenters on Beldar’s opinion that the Democrat race is about to get very, very ugly.
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:30 amI’ll give Beldar and Patterico et al. this much: this was a good Thompson interview. He looked better too.
Seemed like a very straightforward discussion, with, admittedly, a great interviewer, Neil Cavuto.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:38 amIt’s as good a guess as any.
Try an online candidate quiz:
http://glassbooth.org/
Takes maybe a couple minutes.
steve (f374d8) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:40 amDavid’s dream date.
qdpsteve (cd214a) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:42 am#94
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:51 amI see NH a little different than others.
McCain has issues in that his last time through the state he picked up a lot of the independent voters for his support.
But there are other factors this time that throw the whole past political calculus out the window.
Iowa was looked at by some on the left as their own version of ‘anybody but Hillary’.
Huck was the only time for the Evangelicals from a populist state to have a candidate in front of them that was also Evangelical and populist so a lot went for that even though some split for others in the race.
If Obama is getting support now he will also gain from the independents who up there are left leaning compared to national average independents.
Paul will match the libertarian sensibilities of some and further cut into the independents.
So both Obama and Paul will erode the support for McCain that he enjoyed the last time around.
Mitt, JFK and the other JFKerry all in time weaken themself with the to slick by half impression that also is an anchor around the foot of Edwards.
NH leans anti-war and has a lot of BDS in some quarters and thus does not take Hillary’s position on Iraq very well.
From my viewpoint the Kennedy family has always been more veneer over substance and competence. The only one who hangs around is Ted as a memorial to his brother. Well the carrier is now retired by that name, Ted should also be so handled. Others in the family still try to carry on the legacy and as seems almost pre ordained, they have their issues making them the political version of Paris Hilton.
They spend so much of their time in damage control mode they have little time to use to address the office they are serving in.
Huck seems policy wise to be a cross between Clinton and Carter and perhaps the same could be said of Obama.
daytrader (ea6549) — 1/5/2008 @ 11:14 amHey, Patterico, it’s your site…but do we really need David E.’s personal life posted? Your choice, but it does tend to lower the ah, elegant discourse to be found here.
Still, your choice.
Lurker (7e375e) — 1/5/2008 @ 11:29 amI don’t see that at all. Do you think southerners are peas in the same pod?
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/5/2008 @ 11:48 amPatterico,
since someone else on the site feels the same way….I come on political threads looking for politics and it’s, well, really offputting to suddenly start reading detailed, shall we say, TMI about people and their personal desires for sexual acts to be performed upon themselves and suggestions of people who should perform them etc etc. If someone wants that they can head over to AOSHQ I guess.
I like reading about politics, not porn. Patterico, can we please have a gentleman’s/ladies’ agreement or something, about keeping political talk to the political threads, and any one of us who doesn’t like porn language promises to stay away from clearly labeled porn-topic or related threads, please?
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/5/2008 @ 11:59 amHistorical perspective…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/5/2008 @ 12:12 pmBeldar, I think you confused the dates of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Diem assassination/coup;
JFK’s two terms…
We assume today that Kennedy would have served two terms, but in 1962 and early 1963, that was not a given. Internal polling for both the WH and Goldwater showed that a ’64 election campaign between the two would be a nail-biter. In off-hours, the two of them even joked about it between themselves.
JFK’s image today is over-powered by the assassination, and most of the negatives (and there were quite a few) of his time in the Oval Office have been obscurred, or forgotten.
Can’t be helped, no one you know. There are people whose identity is their gonads. It’s impossible to filter them all out and the cure would be worse than the disease on the open forum provided by this site.
nk (4bb3c1) — 1/5/2008 @ 12:16 pmChristoph (#57): You’re right, the first sentence of the last paragraph of my comment above (#55) should have read: “Barrack Obama suggesting that we conduct military operations to “get bin Laden” in Pakistan, whether the government there likes it or not, is a very JFK-esque sort of suggestion.”
David Ehrenstein (#64): I’m not sure if that mistake is the source of your statement that “you’re telling me we can’t fight the actual perpetrator of the crime because he has nuclear weapons and blow up an American city.” What I intended to say is that Obama is recommending American military action in Pakistan, along its border with Afghanistan, whether the Pakistani government cooperates or even consents, for the goal of getting bin Laden. No one argues about that goal. But this — from a candidate and party that routinely (reflexively) pillories Dubya for his “arrogant” foreign policy and military strategy” — is astoundingly risky. The risk is not that bin Laden has a nuke now; if he (or al Qaeda) did, they’d use it. The risk is that by disrespecting the government of Pakistan, Obama’s (and Huckabee’s) strategy of unilateral military action in Pakistan might well destabilize that government altogether, or at the least splinter it to the point at which it loses effective control over the nukes it has — at which point radical Islamic Pakistanis might well hand over such a nuke to bin Laden.
How to handle the American relationship with Pakistan is a delicate and difficult subject. Almost certainly, that relationship is hurt, not helped, by public comments like Obama’s and Huckabee’s. This is one of those rare subjects on which no candidate from either party ought to allow him- or herself to be too specific or to get pinned down. (The foreign policy grown-ups in the race, including McCain, Thompson, and Clinton, understand this and have constrained themselves accordingly.) The next president, whoever it is, ought not be constrained in managing that relationship by overambitious and ill-considered campaign promises/threats.
Beldar (759113) — 1/5/2008 @ 12:16 pmAnother Drew (#100): You’re right, the Diem assassination in 1963 was after the Cuban missile crisis. But JFK’s waffling and inconsistency with respect to American policy in Vietnam (which ultimately led to the coup and murder) went back to the beginning of his term, and was very definitely among the mix of factors that led the Soviets to think that they could get away with placing offensive missiles in Cuba during a JFK administration.
Beldar (759113) — 1/5/2008 @ 12:24 pmYou’re correct on both counts, Beldar. Thanks for the clarification.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/5/2008 @ 12:32 pmPlumb Bob (#66): You put words in my mouth that I find distasteful. “In other words, to Beldar, an Evangelical isn’t allowed to be a politician.” That’s not my position at all.
I’m offended by Huckabee’s hypocrisy — pretending that his personal standards prevent him from running a negative campaign based on ad hominem attacks, but then making a very brutal ad hominem attack. That he’s an Evangelical was neither a necessary precondition to my reaction, nor something I mentioned. I’m less offended, but still slightly offended, at McCain pretending he’s not running negative ads because he’s merely quoting New Hampshire newspaper editorials that lambast Romney. I wish he’d just say, “Yes, my ads are negative in the sense that they’re pointing out negative aspects of Gov. Romney’s record and policies, especially policy switches.”
I do agree that some percentage of the voting public is irrationally prejudiced against Evangelicals, and would vote against Huckabee because of that regardless of anything else. I suspect it’s a single-digit number, though, like the other prejudices I’ve mentioned. But as I wrote on my site, my hunch is that a low-double-digit percentage of voters are irrationally prejudiced against Mormons. That’s not to say that Mormons suffer more from bigotry than other groups. An openly gay candidate, or a transgendered candidate, would surely be automatically rejected without regard to his/her individual merits and positions by an even larger percentage of voters. My point is simply that while Obama’s win in nearly lilly-white Iowa may be historic, it ought not be surprising — no more than, for example, the election of a black Chief Justice to the Texas Supreme Court (and as a Republican).
Beldar (759113) — 1/5/2008 @ 12:43 pma fortiori the complete context for that stunt. Huckabee made his announcement of his intentions while getting a haircut in public before the camera. This was quite a neo-Brechtian moment in that it was a clear dig at Edwards’ expensive haircuts. I wouldn’t have thought him capable of it. But he’s an exceedingly clever sonofabitch.
David Ehrenstein (da3648) — 1/5/2008 @ 12:51 pmBeldar,
The problem is that the question in re: bin Laden is loaded in the first place. If I recall, there was some caveat about “actionable intelligence”: if Obama says he won’t act given actionable intelligence, how is that going to go over, here or anywhere else? It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t: if he says he’ll act on actionable intelligence, he’s decried as dangerously irrational. If he says he won’t act on actionable intelligence, he’s decried as spineless.
“Got a link to such a statement?”
-Paul (in response to David Ehrenstein’s HIV-Concentration Camp remark)
Here you go:
Link 1, Link 2
Leviticus (6fa739) — 1/5/2008 @ 1:06 pmWhile I agree with Beldar that a military incursion into Pakistan might be quite unwise, I’m more optimistic about Obama’s ability to handle foreign policy.
He has been on Senate foreign policy committees; it looks like he’s taken trips that were not just junkets; he’s certainly gone out of his way to find solid, left-center economic advisors, and one senses that he’ll try to surround himself with knowledgeable people rather than sycophants. I think he’ll have a better learning curve than Kennedy.
My main problem with Obama is that he’s for a lot more spending than I am. He’s not a bad guy, nor a dishonest guy, nor a guy who (usually) has outright crazy ideas. He’s a liberal guy.
It’s very unlikely that I’d vote for him if the Republican is non-Huckabee, but I like him a good bit better than Hillary.
–JRM
JRM (355c21) — 1/5/2008 @ 1:09 pmJRM, I think all of the candidates (except RP) are for a TON of spending. The only difference is where the extra money will be spent.
joe (c0e4f8) — 1/5/2008 @ 1:16 pmBeldar;
Just curious. Why do you comment here, but do not respond to comments on your own blog?
Semanticleo (9307d6) — 1/5/2008 @ 1:17 pm“…JFK’s waffling and inconsistency with respect to American policy in Vietnam…”
Beldar: I agree! And, this is a major point that the ’64 Election between JFK and AuH2O would have been fought out over. Barry did not think that Jack had demonstrated any sort of courage in his actions that matched his words.
Another Drew (a28ef4) — 1/5/2008 @ 1:24 pmAs one who was serving at that time, we were fairly discouraged by the tone that was set by the abondonement of the Cubans in ’61, and the pucker-factor of Oct ’62 was off-the-scale.
And, then there was LBJ….
Learning Foreign Policy by being on a Senate Cmte:
The only thing to learn there is the relationship of policy pronouncements to local politics. I would respect his knowledge more if it came from associating with top people on some of the good Foreign Policy think tanks.
How much time does he spend with people at CFR, Brookings, or others; let alone Hoover, Cato, Hudson, etc?
Another Drew (a28ef4) — 1/5/2008 @ 1:29 pmObama’s only been in the Senate since January 2005. During a large part of that time, he’s been on the campaign trail, not attending committee hearings and briefings.
As for think tanks: JFK also famously surrounded himself with the “best and the brightest,” both during his campaign and then in his administration. One wonders whether his foreign policy was more or less amateurish because of their input; but in any event, it was, objectively, amateurish (as compared to most other presidents from either party in the 20th Century, save and except Jimmy Carter).
Worse still, the old “Scoop Jackson wing” of the Democratic Party has been permanently banished; one won’t find its adherents at Brookings or Harvard, and certainly not in the Obama, Edwards, or Clinton campaigns. When your party’s great thinkers are spread along a narrow range in between “pretty damned liberal, dovish, and naive” to “incredibly damned liberal, dovish, and naive,” the odds of getting good advice drop dramatically.
Beldar (759113) — 1/5/2008 @ 5:51 pmLevi #108: -Paul (in response to David Ehrenstein’s HIV-Concentration Camp remark)
This is not a defense of Huckabee, he was clearly ignorant about HIV and AIDS in 1992, but…
Levi, you do understand there’s a difference between a quarantine and a concentration camp?
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/5/2008 @ 6:25 pmPaul: it’s quite possible that levi doesn’t understand that, Huckabee is an idiot and possibly the worst thing to ever wear the ‘R’, but even he didn’t call for Aushwitz or anything.
Verlin Martin (f1a81c) — 1/5/2008 @ 7:52 pmVerlin #116: Yup, which is why I called David on his over-the-top hyperbole in #81.
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/5/2008 @ 8:08 pmIf your question is a serious one, Paul, then your answer is “yes”: I understand the difference between a quarantine and a concentration camp.
The whole point is that David Ehrenstein’s “hyperbole” has a basis in reality; he has reason to be uneasy about Huckabee.
Leviticus (3177a6) — 1/6/2008 @ 12:43 pmIf your question is a serious one, Paul, then your answer is “yes”: I understand the difference between a quarantine and a concentration camp.
Then why did you present those two links as evidence of Huckabee “support” of concentration camps if you knew the difference?
That’s intellectually dishonest, and you and David both know it.
The whole point is that David Ehrenstein’s “hyperbole” has a basis in reality; he has reason to be uneasy about Huckabee.
Then David could have simply said, “I’m uneasy about Huckabee as President” instead of invoking the Holocaust.
You see, Levi, I’ve had a copy of William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich on my bookshelf for 30 years; it gives a very detailed (read: gory) description of what concentration camps were like. Read it. You should also see the episode about them in the 1970’s TV documentary series The World at War; then you woud have a full appreciation of how ridiculous your moral equivalence between Huckabee’s 1992 quotes and David’s statements are.
David also broke Godwin’s Law simply to get an emotional response; you’re actually arguing the point, which makes you worse.
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/6/2008 @ 1:22 pmBeldar #114…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/6/2008 @ 2:00 pmCompletely agree. The intellectual firepower in the Dem Party has been reduced to a pop-gun; and, they could never bring themselves to actually trying to learn something from a Conservative, or Heaven help them, a dreaded Neo-Con.
“Then why did you present those two links as evidence of Huckabee “support” of concentration camps if you knew the difference?”
-Paul
You ask for links, believing that Huckabee said no such thing. I give you links, not to suggest that Huckabee actually advocates concentration camps for gays, but to show that David E. wasn’t simply pulling stuff out of his ass. You start foaming at the mouth.
Of course I don’t believe that Huckabee wants to round up our beloved queers, but If you can’t see how a gay man might be apprehensive about a Baptist minister (who believes that homosexuality is an “aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle”) calling for the “isolation” of HIV-positive individuals, then you’re a bigger moron than you sound in your posts.
“You see, Levi, I’ve had a copy of William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich on my bookshelf for 30 years; it gives a very detailed (read: gory) description of what concentration camps were like. Read it.”
-Paul
My dad has a copy. I’ve read chunks of it. For what it’s worth, Paul, you don’t need a copy of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich to know how bad the concentration camps were (although I’m sure you got your rocks off playing the patronizing asshole); you need half a brain. For what it’s worth, I have two. I’ve also read plenty of books (e.g. Hitler’s Willing Executioners, Band of Brothers – a couple of chapters in particular) and seen plenty of movies (e.g. Schindler’s List, Ken Burns’ The War).
The point is that people rarely say, outright, that they’re going to round up and kill all the Jews/Gays/Intellectuals in the name of the Greater Good: that rarely flies. These things have a tendency to be insidious, and statements like Huckabee’s, in the hands of a suspicious man (like David E.), seem indicative of some more sinister agenda.
“then you woud have a full appreciation of how ridiculous your moral equivalence between Huckabee’s 1992 quotes and David’s statements are.”
– Paul
“Moral equivalence”… real original, dumbass. If you knew world history (beyond the scope of condescending references to books with lots of pages) you’d know that there were other concentration camps besides Auschwitz and Treblinka – and you’d know that not all concentration camps were extermination centers. You’d also know that the idea of the US rounding up undesirables isn’t unfounded – no matter how much you’d like to refer to Manzanar as a “temporary vacation resort”. David E. said “concentration camps”: you’re the one that brought up the Holocaust. Unless you have some special powers that let you know the exact object of another man’s allusion, you can shut the hell up with all your “hyperbole”-whining. Like I said, I disagree with David Ehrenstein, but Huckabee’s remarks could easily portend the “concentration camp” interpretation, when you take a moment to pull your head out of your ass and realize the breadth and depth of the term.
Leviticus (ce54b3) — 1/6/2008 @ 6:55 pmYou ask for links, believing that Huckabee said no such thing.
Wrong buddy. Show me where I said Huckabee said no such thing.
Here’s the actual quote from #81
knowing all the while he was attempting to raise ire, as usual. I simply called him on it. The fact he provided nothing to back that statement up proves it.
I give you links, not to suggest that Huckabee actually advocates concentration camps for gays, but to show that David E. wasn’t simply pulling stuff out of his ass.
So how come you didn’t say that in the post with your links? No, instead you said
This is when I asked if you knew the difference between a quarantine and a concentration camp.
You start foaming at the mouth.
Hardly.
Of course I don’t believe that Huckabee wants to round up our beloved queers, but If you can’t see how a gay man might be apprehensive about a Baptist minister (who believes that homosexuality is an “aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle”) calling for the “isolation” of HIV-positive individuals, then you’re a bigger moron than you sound in your posts.
I repeat my sentence in #119:
But no, David had to go for the Big Kahuna. And you backed him up…when called on it, you state
That’s called backpedaling, buddy boy.
My dad has a copy. I’ve read chunks of it. For what it’s worth, Paul, you don’t need a copy of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich to know how bad the concentration camps were (although I’m sure you got your rocks off playing the patronizing asshole); you need half a brain. For what it’s worth, I have two. I’ve also read plenty of books (e.g. Hitler’s Willing Executioners, Band of Brothers – a couple of chapters in particular) and seen plenty of movies (e.g. Schindler’s List, Ken Burns’ The War).
Funny how that didn’t prevent you making the above illustrated actions.
The point is that people rarely say, outright, that they’re going to round up and kill all the Jews/Gays/Intellectuals in the name of the Greater Good: that rarely flies. These things have a tendency to be insidious, and statements like Huckabee’s, in the hands of a suspicious man (like David E.), seem indicative of some more sinister agenda.
Too bad you didn’t think about that more when you hit “Submit Comment” in #108.
“Moral equivalence”… real original, dumbass. If you knew world history (beyond the scope of condescending references to books with lots of pages) you’d know that there were other concentration camps besides Auschwitz and Treblinka – and you’d know that not all concentration camps were extermination centers. You’d also know that the idea of the US rounding up undesirables isn’t unfounded – no matter how much you’d like to refer to Manzanar as a “temporary vacation resort”. David E. said “concentration camps”: you’re the one that brought up the Holocaust. Unless you have some special powers that let you know the exact object of another man’s allusion, you can shut the hell up with all your “hyperbole”-whining. Like I said, I disagree with David Ehrenstein, but Huckabee’s remarks could easily portend the “concentration camp” interpretation, when you take a moment to pull your head out of your ass and realize the breadth and depth of the term.
And if you thought a bit more before you hit “Submit Comment,” and say what you actually mean, you wouldn’t look like such an idiot.
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/6/2008 @ 7:34 pmI should really hit on this again:
“Moral equivalence”… real original, dumbass.
No, it’s not original. You still did it, and no amount of posturing, ad hominems and name-calling will change that fact.
If you knew world history (beyond the scope of condescending references to books with lots of pages) you’d know that there were other concentration camps besides Auschwitz and Treblinka – and you’d know that not all concentration camps were extermination centers. You’d also know that the idea of the US rounding up undesirables isn’t unfounded – no matter how much you’d like to refer to Manzanar as a “temporary vacation resort”. David E. said “concentration camps”: you’re the one that brought up the Holocaust. Unless you have some special powers that let you know the exact object of another man’s allusion, you can shut the hell up with all your “hyperbole”-whining. Like I said, I disagree with David Ehrenstein, but Huckabee’s remarks could easily portend the “concentration camp” interpretation, when you take a moment to pull your head out of your ass and realize the breadth and depth of the term.
Shorter Levi: “I’m smarter than you, you don’t know what you are talking about, so shut up.
Ladies and gentlemen, take note: this is the sound of a liberal who has just lost an argument, and is moving the goalposts so much that I suspect he welded the wheels on himself.
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/6/2008 @ 7:45 pmSorry people, gotta hit a piece of this yet again:
Unless you have some special powers that let you know the exact object of another man’s allusion, you can shut the hell up with all your “hyperbole”-whining.
This from a commenter that
wroteprojectedwhen I made no such claim, nor did I indicate any such thinking.
Levi, you’re a piece of work this evening.
Paul (dbbea6) — 1/6/2008 @ 7:56 pm“Shorter Levi: “I’m smarter than you, you don’t know what you are talking about, so shut up.”
-Paul
You made the first move, Paul. I was very polite in my first post (simple links) and my first response (where you asked me a stupid question, which I took to be an insult). If you’d had the courtesy to return the favor, you wouldn’t have to cry about the mean ol’ liberal in a desperate attempt to regain the high ground.
“Ladies and gentlemen, take note: this is the sound of a liberal who has just lost an argument, and is moving the goalposts so much that I suspect he welded the wheels on himself.”
-Paul
Yawn. What are you, a Conservative Cliche Generator? What with your prior accusation of Moral Equivalence, this tired reference to “moving the goalposts”, and your subsequent accusation of Projection… well, it begs the question, Paul. That’s all I’m saying.
Insofar as your “moving the goalposts” accusation goes, hogwash. The conluding sentence of the last paragraph brings the question right back to whether or not Huckabee’s remarks could have an ominous interpretation in the eyes of a suspicious (or flamboyant) individual. Whether or not you can come to grips with that is up to you.
Leviticus (02d856) — 1/7/2008 @ 9:02 am