John McCain's Foreign Policy
Is explained here.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
A Lifetime Supply of Gander Sauce
My suggested headline was “Swallowing Their Own Medicine” but apparently that wasn’t specific enough. A newspaper-looking version of the column is here.
REPUBLICANS GET A TASTE OF THEIR OWN MEDICINE
East Valley Tribune, Aug. 10, 2008
Thanks to vote-by-mail, we now enjoy the formerly "last minute hit piece" often weeks ahead of Election Day. And, despite scads of faux outrage by my counterpart hacks on the GOP side, I do mean, "enjoy." Negative campaigning is like a freeway car wreck; we say we deplore it, but just try to stop us from rubbernecking.
Nobody's talking much about the contested Democratic primaries for the Corporation Commission and Maricopa County Attorney, because those candidates are running clean, issue-oriented campaigns, just like we always claim we want (cue tongue-clucking), then don't pay attention to because -- Look! Over there! Mud!
This year, the really nasty stuff seems reserved to GOP legislative primaries and, for clearly biased Democratic observers like me, it's a lifetime supply of gander sauce. It's much more fun when these guys practice their dark arts on each other, so we're sitting back and enjoying the show.
So far, the nastiest mudslinging -- excuse me, the hardest-hitting campaigning -- is in a Maricopa County GOP House primary, where voters received a mailer with copies of court filings from an incumbent's divorce case. 'Wingers are outraged that one of their heroes is being attacked with domestic abuse allegations his spouse made in 1985. "That's so long ago!" they cry. "And that's his private life! It's outrageous!"
People crying about "privacy" today were, four weeks ago, making tasteless jokes about the domestic crackup of my soon-to-be-former state legislator in District 11. That's the problem when your jests "push the envelope" of good taste; you create room for other people, too. Too bad.
And as for how long ago these allegations were made? Yes, shame on anyone for thinking anything that happened in 1985 is relevant to an election today. Of course, these same people had no problem making the 2004 election turn on whether John Kerry remembered exactly every single detail of what he did (and didn't do) in Vietnam. Because after all, 1985 is ancient history, but 1965 -- that's baby boomer prime time, and it's entirely relevant.
Too bad the mailer wasn't sent by "Swift Boat Veterans for Exposure and Prevention of Domestic Abuse." Then these Republicans wouldn't have had anything to complain about.
The other enjoyable intramural mud-wrestling match is in Pima County, where a relatively moderate GOP incumbent is battling a primary challenge from a hard-line conservative. 'Wingers are outraged that the incumbent is using right-wing buzzwords and phrases on his campaign signs to try to survive the primary, after which he'll start emphasizing his moderate credentials for the general election.
Yes, this tactic is surely an outrage, and I'm sure that these critics will not stop lambasting John McCain for dropping his "maverick" shtick for down-the-line conservative orthodoxy, then after clinching the nomination, flipping back to his long-discarded "maverick" persona for the general. Shame on any Republican who "pivots" for the general election -- unless he's running against a Democrat, apparently.
'Wingers upset with this wanton Republican moderate have suddenly discovered the glories of intellectual property law; they are trying to stop people from putting the trademarked GOP elephant on campaign signs supporting the incumbent.
So now 'wingers claim you can't identify a candidate's party using the elephant logo unless you get permission from the Republican National Committee? Some committee in Washington, DC, gets to decide who's an elephant-eligible Republican and who isn't?
I look forward to Republicans developing a licensing system under which people apply to be deemed acceptable by party apparatchiks inside the Beltway, becoming eligible to use the precious elephant logo. Remember when Republicans liked to call their party a "big tent?" Those days are long gone. Anybody can get into a tent; 'wingers now want to make sure that only people of whom they approve can get into "the club."
And just as conservative pundits keep offering unsolicited advice to Barack Obama, with surely only his best interests at heart, let me say that I think this is a truly wonderful idea.
My suggested headline was “Swallowing Their Own Medicine” but apparently that wasn’t specific enough. A newspaper-looking version of the column is here.
REPUBLICANS GET A TASTE OF THEIR OWN MEDICINE
East Valley Tribune, Aug. 10, 2008
Thanks to vote-by-mail, we now enjoy the formerly "last minute hit piece" often weeks ahead of Election Day. And, despite scads of faux outrage by my counterpart hacks on the GOP side, I do mean, "enjoy." Negative campaigning is like a freeway car wreck; we say we deplore it, but just try to stop us from rubbernecking.
Nobody's talking much about the contested Democratic primaries for the Corporation Commission and Maricopa County Attorney, because those candidates are running clean, issue-oriented campaigns, just like we always claim we want (cue tongue-clucking), then don't pay attention to because -- Look! Over there! Mud!
This year, the really nasty stuff seems reserved to GOP legislative primaries and, for clearly biased Democratic observers like me, it's a lifetime supply of gander sauce. It's much more fun when these guys practice their dark arts on each other, so we're sitting back and enjoying the show.
So far, the nastiest mudslinging -- excuse me, the hardest-hitting campaigning -- is in a Maricopa County GOP House primary, where voters received a mailer with copies of court filings from an incumbent's divorce case. 'Wingers are outraged that one of their heroes is being attacked with domestic abuse allegations his spouse made in 1985. "That's so long ago!" they cry. "And that's his private life! It's outrageous!"
People crying about "privacy" today were, four weeks ago, making tasteless jokes about the domestic crackup of my soon-to-be-former state legislator in District 11. That's the problem when your jests "push the envelope" of good taste; you create room for other people, too. Too bad.
And as for how long ago these allegations were made? Yes, shame on anyone for thinking anything that happened in 1985 is relevant to an election today. Of course, these same people had no problem making the 2004 election turn on whether John Kerry remembered exactly every single detail of what he did (and didn't do) in Vietnam. Because after all, 1985 is ancient history, but 1965 -- that's baby boomer prime time, and it's entirely relevant.
Too bad the mailer wasn't sent by "Swift Boat Veterans for Exposure and Prevention of Domestic Abuse." Then these Republicans wouldn't have had anything to complain about.
The other enjoyable intramural mud-wrestling match is in Pima County, where a relatively moderate GOP incumbent is battling a primary challenge from a hard-line conservative. 'Wingers are outraged that the incumbent is using right-wing buzzwords and phrases on his campaign signs to try to survive the primary, after which he'll start emphasizing his moderate credentials for the general election.
Yes, this tactic is surely an outrage, and I'm sure that these critics will not stop lambasting John McCain for dropping his "maverick" shtick for down-the-line conservative orthodoxy, then after clinching the nomination, flipping back to his long-discarded "maverick" persona for the general. Shame on any Republican who "pivots" for the general election -- unless he's running against a Democrat, apparently.
'Wingers upset with this wanton Republican moderate have suddenly discovered the glories of intellectual property law; they are trying to stop people from putting the trademarked GOP elephant on campaign signs supporting the incumbent.
So now 'wingers claim you can't identify a candidate's party using the elephant logo unless you get permission from the Republican National Committee? Some committee in Washington, DC, gets to decide who's an elephant-eligible Republican and who isn't?
I look forward to Republicans developing a licensing system under which people apply to be deemed acceptable by party apparatchiks inside the Beltway, becoming eligible to use the precious elephant logo. Remember when Republicans liked to call their party a "big tent?" Those days are long gone. Anybody can get into a tent; 'wingers now want to make sure that only people of whom they approve can get into "the club."
And just as conservative pundits keep offering unsolicited advice to Barack Obama, with surely only his best interests at heart, let me say that I think this is a truly wonderful idea.
Monday, August 11, 2008
NYC Marathon 2007 Photographs
It's not clear how long these links will work, but you can see some photos here (that's Ted B. to my right) and here and here. Plus here, here, and here. And here, and this particularly painful-looking one here, and this would have been similarly painful-looking, but at least I was finished. The difference between my chip time and the running clock was 38 minutes, because we started with the group banished to the north side of the lower level of the bridge.
It's not clear how long these links will work, but you can see some photos here (that's Ted B. to my right) and here and here. Plus here, here, and here. And here, and this particularly painful-looking one here, and this would have been similarly painful-looking, but at least I was finished. The difference between my chip time and the running clock was 38 minutes, because we started with the group banished to the north side of the lower level of the bridge.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Would You Buy A (New) War From These People?
The column got edited while I was 10 time zones away in Istanbul. My suggested title was “The ‘People of the Book’ Need a New Political Playbook” but that got cut. Unfortunately, the editor’s choice uses “Neocon” as shorthand for “Jewish,” which is a debate I don’t want to get into. (Yes, there apparently are Gentile Neocons.) Hey, JTP (Jewish Thought Police), I don’t write the headlines.
I’m also slightly upset about having the copy editor, despite my asking, change my “beyond the Pale” to a lower case p; my effort to get an Ashkenazic joke into the Tribune was foiled by my non-Yiddish-speaking editors. So it goes in the East Valley. The editor also changed “Bush and Cheney” to “President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney” in case somebody might think I was referring to a different Bush and Cheney. Newspaper version here for another week or so.
NEOCONS FUMBLE ANOTHER POLITICAL FOOTBALL
East Valley Tribune, Aug. 3, 2008
For politically-active people who talk of the importance of remembering history, Jewish voters must enjoy playing Charlie Brown with one particular political football, the location of the U.S. Embassy to Israel.
For my non-observant readers, the Israeli government sits in Jerusalem, but because of the city’s disputed international status, foreign embassies remain in Tel Aviv while Israel and the Palestinians inch closer to talking about trying to discuss the grounds upon which they’ll negotiate the future of Jerusalem.
The embassy will be in Jerusalem eventually, but “eventually” in Middle Eastern terms can be a long time, and a symbolically charged action like an embassy move could make Israeli-Palestinian relations even more difficult. (Yes, things could get worse.) It’s not a huge priority to Israel, either.
Republicans first pushed the idea in 1980, to embarrass Jimmy Carter. Democrats then postured during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. In 1995, in a move seen as seeking to bolster Bob Dole’s support among Jewish votes and donors, he pushed the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act through Congress. But the act has a loophole; the president can quietly sign a waiver every six months to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv.
Bill Clinton signed those waivers, so in the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush promised to begin moving the embassy immediately. As president, however, Bush has only signed more waivers. Now John McCain has said that he’ll move the embassy “right away” if he’s elected -- despite the sorry history of this issue, and despite not saying a thing about Bush’s 8 years of waivers. How many times will Jewish voters buy a used car that doesn’t run?
I recalled the embassy relocation debate while reading Time magazine columnist Joe Klein, who was impolite enough to write that several Jewish neoconservatives have tried to push U.S. policy toward their (sincere but mistaken) belief of what’s best for Israel. It’s usually OK to attack motives in U.S. politics -- as a Democrat, I’m beholden to trial lawyers and teachers unions, right? -- but writing that support for Israel might motivate Jewish neos is somehow beyond the Pale.
Klein noted that these people now “plumping” for war with Iran also fiercely supported the war with Iraq, believing that removing Saddam Hussein would benefit both America and Israel. He didn’t say that was an impermissible argument; Israel is a solid U.S. ally, and there are plenty of reasons for supporting it. He didn’t say that this group started the war, only that they encouraged it and provided intellectual window-dressing for President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney (and helped browbeat the majority of U.S. Jewish voters, a majority of whom opposed the war, into silence). Klein just said that these guys consider supporting Israel hugely important, and they thought the Iraq war would be good for the U.S. and good for Israel. That’s just plain wrong, and Klein believes that war with Iran would be a bigger disaster, for both countries.
Instead of arguing the merits (what, they didn’t want to argue that the Iraq war’s merits?), the response from the neoconservatives has been to accuse Klein of being anti-Semitic, of shamefully talking of “divided loyalties.” (They’ve also accused him of saying shameful things that he didn’t say, but that’s standard for these guys; their outrage needn’t be “reality-based.”)
So here’s the recap. Klein argues that the neos’ policy prescriptions are colored by their support for Israel; they were wrong about the war with Iraq, so don’t listen to their calls for war with Iran. His opponents argue that Klein is an “intellectually unstable” self-hating Jew who should be fired from his job. You tell me who’s being rational here. And, of course, these same people interrupt their playing of the anti-Semite card only to decry Obama supporters seeing racial motives in recent McCain TV ads.
I’m not sure how we got to the position where Joe Klein is a self-hating anti-Semite while Rev. John Hagee is such a wonderful friend of the Jews, but it sure doesn’t make much sense to me.
I’m also slightly upset about having the copy editor, despite my asking, change my “beyond the Pale” to a lower case p; my effort to get an Ashkenazic joke into the Tribune was foiled by my non-Yiddish-speaking editors. So it goes in the East Valley. The editor also changed “Bush and Cheney” to “President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney” in case somebody might think I was referring to a different Bush and Cheney. Newspaper version here for another week or so.
NEOCONS FUMBLE ANOTHER POLITICAL FOOTBALLEast Valley Tribune, Aug. 3, 2008
For politically-active people who talk of the importance of remembering history, Jewish voters must enjoy playing Charlie Brown with one particular political football, the location of the U.S. Embassy to Israel.
For my non-observant readers, the Israeli government sits in Jerusalem, but because of the city’s disputed international status, foreign embassies remain in Tel Aviv while Israel and the Palestinians inch closer to talking about trying to discuss the grounds upon which they’ll negotiate the future of Jerusalem.
The embassy will be in Jerusalem eventually, but “eventually” in Middle Eastern terms can be a long time, and a symbolically charged action like an embassy move could make Israeli-Palestinian relations even more difficult. (Yes, things could get worse.) It’s not a huge priority to Israel, either.
Republicans first pushed the idea in 1980, to embarrass Jimmy Carter. Democrats then postured during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. In 1995, in a move seen as seeking to bolster Bob Dole’s support among Jewish votes and donors, he pushed the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act through Congress. But the act has a loophole; the president can quietly sign a waiver every six months to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv.
Bill Clinton signed those waivers, so in the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush promised to begin moving the embassy immediately. As president, however, Bush has only signed more waivers. Now John McCain has said that he’ll move the embassy “right away” if he’s elected -- despite the sorry history of this issue, and despite not saying a thing about Bush’s 8 years of waivers. How many times will Jewish voters buy a used car that doesn’t run?
I recalled the embassy relocation debate while reading Time magazine columnist Joe Klein, who was impolite enough to write that several Jewish neoconservatives have tried to push U.S. policy toward their (sincere but mistaken) belief of what’s best for Israel. It’s usually OK to attack motives in U.S. politics -- as a Democrat, I’m beholden to trial lawyers and teachers unions, right? -- but writing that support for Israel might motivate Jewish neos is somehow beyond the Pale.
Klein noted that these people now “plumping” for war with Iran also fiercely supported the war with Iraq, believing that removing Saddam Hussein would benefit both America and Israel. He didn’t say that was an impermissible argument; Israel is a solid U.S. ally, and there are plenty of reasons for supporting it. He didn’t say that this group started the war, only that they encouraged it and provided intellectual window-dressing for President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney (and helped browbeat the majority of U.S. Jewish voters, a majority of whom opposed the war, into silence). Klein just said that these guys consider supporting Israel hugely important, and they thought the Iraq war would be good for the U.S. and good for Israel. That’s just plain wrong, and Klein believes that war with Iran would be a bigger disaster, for both countries.
Instead of arguing the merits (what, they didn’t want to argue that the Iraq war’s merits?), the response from the neoconservatives has been to accuse Klein of being anti-Semitic, of shamefully talking of “divided loyalties.” (They’ve also accused him of saying shameful things that he didn’t say, but that’s standard for these guys; their outrage needn’t be “reality-based.”)
So here’s the recap. Klein argues that the neos’ policy prescriptions are colored by their support for Israel; they were wrong about the war with Iraq, so don’t listen to their calls for war with Iran. His opponents argue that Klein is an “intellectually unstable” self-hating Jew who should be fired from his job. You tell me who’s being rational here. And, of course, these same people interrupt their playing of the anti-Semite card only to decry Obama supporters seeing racial motives in recent McCain TV ads.
I’m not sure how we got to the position where Joe Klein is a self-hating anti-Semite while Rev. John Hagee is such a wonderful friend of the Jews, but it sure doesn’t make much sense to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)