Andrew Sullivan --
I have been and remain an optimist about the ability of Americans to vote for and elect a black politician to the presidency. But as David Brooks points out today, resistance is no longer understandable on old white-black lines. The smorgasbord of racial and identity politics comes into play. And so long-festering black-Hispanic tensions may put Nevada at risk; and the older black establishment prefers to play the old game with the white power-brokers they have learned to deal with than the new black leader they cannot control; and some Jewish-Americans, seeing a black man with real power emerging on the national scene, immediately panic that it's Farrakhan in disguise. All the Clintons need do is sit back and allow this game to proceed.
If you can keep in mind that dizzying jig-saw that forms Sully's own analysis of the Democratic primary, then here we have him a few posts later --
The more I think about it, the more disgraceful that [Richard Cohen] column was. Pure identity politics paranoia. A Jewish columnist sees a black man running for president and the first thing he asks himself is: where is this guy on Farrakhan?
So after offering an analysis that is entirely identity politics (as he did for Hillary's New Hampshire win), he then slams Cohen for using identity politics. An Anglo-American "blogger" sees a black man running for president and the first thing he asks himself is: how can I use this to pursue my hatred of Hillary Clinton?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
He doesn't like her either
Christopher Hitchens, near the end of a long list of charges against Hillary Clinton (a list that includes the worst charges of the 1990s Hillary-hating lunatic fringe) --
Well, the main "experience" involved the comprehensive fouling-up of the nation's health-care arrangements, so as to make them considerably worse than they had been before and to create an opening for the worst-of-all-worlds option of the so-called HMO, combining as it did the maximum of capitalist gouging with the maximum of socialistic bureaucracy.
Hitch does not know or does not care that the whole point of "Hillarycare" as its opponents called it is it didn't pass. It was a proposal that got nowhere. She didn't foul up anything. HMOs have been around since the 1970s.
As a wordsmith, Hitch actually has a good description of the current healthcare system in the US. But it's that way because of his rightwing buddies, not because of Hillary Clinton. You'd think an avowed socialist would at least credit her for attempting universal coverage. If he was a socialist.
Well, the main "experience" involved the comprehensive fouling-up of the nation's health-care arrangements, so as to make them considerably worse than they had been before and to create an opening for the worst-of-all-worlds option of the so-called HMO, combining as it did the maximum of capitalist gouging with the maximum of socialistic bureaucracy.
Hitch does not know or does not care that the whole point of "Hillarycare" as its opponents called it is it didn't pass. It was a proposal that got nowhere. She didn't foul up anything. HMOs have been around since the 1970s.
As a wordsmith, Hitch actually has a good description of the current healthcare system in the US. But it's that way because of his rightwing buddies, not because of Hillary Clinton. You'd think an avowed socialist would at least credit her for attempting universal coverage. If he was a socialist.
Pass it on
Courtesy of Paul Krugman, new Alan Greenspan nickname: Mr Bubble.
But shouldn’t we worry about a candidate [McCain] who’s so out of touch that he regards Mr. Bubble, the man who refused to regulate subprime lending and assured us that there was at most some “froth” in the housing market, as a source of sage advice?
Dept. of idle speculation
Is there any chance that George Bush and Nicolas Sarkozy, in the Gulf in eyebrow-raising proximity, are planning a joint "SURPRISE!" visit to Iraq, or more likely, Beirut?
Tough crowd
The White House has made the decision to have members of George Bush's staff use the web to log their impressions of his trip to the Middle East. A "web-log", or "blog", if you will. Here is chief speechwriter, longtime Rupert Murdoch operative Bill McGurn (in between commenting on how big his hotel room is) adding what he views as a necessary detail about Bush's speech in Abu Dhabi --
Like most foreign crowds, people here did not interrupt with applause during the speech but clapped at the end.
Or to put it less politely, the crowd was not the usual rubes at a Bush event who applaud the same red meat that they've been given 10 times over. Those Arabs expect some actual content!
UPDATE: From a press briefing by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley --
Q And what was their -- what was the response in UAE to the President's presentation of the importance of the freedom agenda? Did they say anything? Did they ignore it? What did they say in response?
MR. HADLEY: Heads nod. Heads nod.
Like most foreign crowds, people here did not interrupt with applause during the speech but clapped at the end.
Or to put it less politely, the crowd was not the usual rubes at a Bush event who applaud the same red meat that they've been given 10 times over. Those Arabs expect some actual content!
UPDATE: From a press briefing by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley --
Q And what was their -- what was the response in UAE to the President's presentation of the importance of the freedom agenda? Did they say anything? Did they ignore it? What did they say in response?
MR. HADLEY: Heads nod. Heads nod.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Tuned out
REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Notwithstanding that George Bush was using his serious speech tone of voice for his address on Arab political reform in Abu Dhabi, there are many, many empty seats in the auditorium (note the area to the right of Condi's head). You can't sell the Freedom AgendaTM when you've no credibility.
UPDATE: Note the empty seats even in the favourably-angled White House photo.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Necessary but not sufficient
AFP/Martin Bureau
There's been speculation in Ireland that Taoiseach Bertie Ahern might be up for the new job of president of the European Union Council, a job that will be created by the
But anyway, Nicolas Sarkozy seems to have put an end to any such ambition when it seemed ever clearer that he and Tony Blair have cooked up a scheme to put Blair in the job, with Blair's speech to Sarko's UMP party today looking like the launch of the bid. Sarko explicitly ruled out "lowest common denominator" candidates for the position, which seems to have been Bertie's strategy.
Yet there is one irony with Bertie on the outside looking in as the job is allocated. It will only exist if he successfully shepherds the treaty through a referendum later this year. Hopefully his heart is still in it.
Bush in the Gulf
REUTERS/Larry Downing
Not much to do but make a list --
With his favourite prop -- the troops in uniform, in Kuwait:
I appreciate what this Third Army did in World War II. I hope you do too, as well. After all, you're members of Patton's own. Played a vital role in the destruction of the Nazi war machine. They helped liberate about 12,000 towns; at least that's according to the history of the Third Army. From their noble ranks came soldiers with some of our nation's highest directors*
He meant to say "decorations" but he always has the corporate hierarchy on his mind.
The history will say, it was when you were called upon, you served, and the service you rendered was absolutely necessary to defeat an enemy overseas so we do not have to face them here at home.
Did we mention that he spoke in Kuwait?
When you get to emailing your family, you tell them I check in with you. (Laughter.) And you're looking pretty good. (Applause.) It looks like you haven't missed a meal. (Laughter.)
Just the light-hearted approach that a war which has killed 150,000 Iraqi civilians needs.
In Bahrain --
Your Majesty, I appreciate the fact that you're on the forefront of providing hope for people through democracy. Your nation has held two free elections since 2000 -- and in 2006, your people elected a woman to your parliament.
This is his briefing book talking point that he got mixed up with Kuwait, which has zero women MPs. Bahrain has infinitely (in percentage terms) more.
Back now to a brief session with the travelling press corpse in Kuwait --
Q What about the political benchmarks? Do those no longer matter?
THE PRESIDENT: Of course they matter. They matter to the Iraqis a lot. It's a sign of reconciliation. I just mentioned they passed a pension law, which, of course, got a huge yawn in our press. But that's -- well, that's okay. (Laughter.) We can't pass -- we can't reform our own pension system, like Social Security, but they did.
Social security reform and a civil war: exactly the same.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the only thing I can tell you we're on track for is to follow through on that which he [Petraeus] recommended last September, and that we'll be on track getting down to 15. And that's what we're on track for. My attitude is, if he didn't want to continue the drawdown, that's fine with me, in order to make sure we succeed, see. I said to the General, if you want to slow her down, fine; it's up to you.
Note that the policy decisions about Iraq have been completely delegated to a general -- yet any criticism of that general is declared off-limits. Bush's language is also strangely casual ("slow her down"), as if the general is driving a car. Or playing a video game.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Parallel diplomacy
A now traditional Friday news dump by the White House, this one executed from Kuwait City --
President George W. Bush today announced that C. Boyden Gray will serve as Special Envoy for European Union Affairs. Gray served with distinction as the United States Ambassador to the European Union from January 2006 until his appointment expired on December 31, 2007. In order that the United States may continue to benefit from his experience and expertise at a time of great importance in U.S.-EU relations, the President has asked him to serve in this new role.
Nowhere in there is the word "recess appointment": because the Senate never approved Gray's nomination as Ambassador to the EU, Bush placed him the position without Senate approval which expired with the last Congressional term. Last week saw the wheeze of keeping a recess appointee in the job as "Acting" but this even more brazen, as the "Special Envoy" tag does an end-run around the entire system of ambassadors.
Crises get special envoys, not the EU. Although with his new mandate including "promoting European understanding of the Administration's climate change policies", maybe that is a crisis.
President George W. Bush today announced that C. Boyden Gray will serve as Special Envoy for European Union Affairs. Gray served with distinction as the United States Ambassador to the European Union from January 2006 until his appointment expired on December 31, 2007. In order that the United States may continue to benefit from his experience and expertise at a time of great importance in U.S.-EU relations, the President has asked him to serve in this new role.
Nowhere in there is the word "recess appointment": because the Senate never approved Gray's nomination as Ambassador to the EU, Bush placed him the position without Senate approval which expired with the last Congressional term. Last week saw the wheeze of keeping a recess appointee in the job as "Acting" but this even more brazen, as the "Special Envoy" tag does an end-run around the entire system of ambassadors.
Crises get special envoys, not the EU. Although with his new mandate including "promoting European understanding of the Administration's climate change policies", maybe that is a crisis.
Permanent government
The only question about an opening passage like this from the Wall Street Journal (subs. req'd) today (the usually sane, news side of the paper, article by Siobhan Gorman) is whether it'll bother Ron Paul even more than it should bother any other person waiting for January 20, 2009 --
As the presidential campaign accelerates, Homeland Security has begun an unusual -- and potentially controversial -- effort to smooth the transition to a new administration, a time in which the country has traditionally been vulnerable.
The department is already beginning to position career staffers to move into some of the key jobs held by political appointees set to depart with President Bush in January 2009. The change in power will mark the first time since the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks that the reins of government will change hands.
So whoever comes in will have people who moved up the system through 8 years of Bush sitting at security desks on the first day. And there until they can get their own people installed, which takes time.
What's the rationale? That elections are a time of vulnerability --
Transitions can be highly partisan, even childish, affairs. In 2001, staffers damaged or removed "w" keys from White House computer keyboards. Frequently, outgoing officials leave little more than empty desks for their successors, particularly when another party comes to power. That period is "an area where traditionally there's a danger," Mr. Chertoff said.
President Clinton faced the 1993 World Trade Center bombing within his first two months in office, and Sept. 11 came within President Bush's first eight months. Mr. Light estimates that half the political appointees relating to terrorism were not in place that day. The 2004 Madrid bombings and the botched car bombings in the United Kingdom last summer occurred within days of national elections.
The facts: The Madrid 11-M bombings occurred with Jose Maria Aznar's PP government still in power, and thus with zero transition in the security apparatus. And there was no election in the UK last summer. There was the transition from Blair to Brown, the only candidate to replace Blair. And the entire apparatus below the Cabinet in the UK remained unchanged (unlike in the USA, where the top civil service spots are political appointments).
But worst of all, note the free pass given to Bush. 8 months is not just after an election. It's a long time. And some of the instability was caused by Bush himself, when he dumped Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan because it "wasn't part of a strategy". The phrase was ABC -- anything but Clinton.
And now it's the excuse to keep the Bush hacks sitting in homeland security into the next administration. Or else a set up to blame the next administration for "instability" if something bad does happen.
As the presidential campaign accelerates, Homeland Security has begun an unusual -- and potentially controversial -- effort to smooth the transition to a new administration, a time in which the country has traditionally been vulnerable.
The department is already beginning to position career staffers to move into some of the key jobs held by political appointees set to depart with President Bush in January 2009. The change in power will mark the first time since the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks that the reins of government will change hands.
So whoever comes in will have people who moved up the system through 8 years of Bush sitting at security desks on the first day. And there until they can get their own people installed, which takes time.
What's the rationale? That elections are a time of vulnerability --
Transitions can be highly partisan, even childish, affairs. In 2001, staffers damaged or removed "w" keys from White House computer keyboards. Frequently, outgoing officials leave little more than empty desks for their successors, particularly when another party comes to power. That period is "an area where traditionally there's a danger," Mr. Chertoff said.
President Clinton faced the 1993 World Trade Center bombing within his first two months in office, and Sept. 11 came within President Bush's first eight months. Mr. Light estimates that half the political appointees relating to terrorism were not in place that day. The 2004 Madrid bombings and the botched car bombings in the United Kingdom last summer occurred within days of national elections.
The facts: The Madrid 11-M bombings occurred with Jose Maria Aznar's PP government still in power, and thus with zero transition in the security apparatus. And there was no election in the UK last summer. There was the transition from Blair to Brown, the only candidate to replace Blair. And the entire apparatus below the Cabinet in the UK remained unchanged (unlike in the USA, where the top civil service spots are political appointments).
But worst of all, note the free pass given to Bush. 8 months is not just after an election. It's a long time. And some of the instability was caused by Bush himself, when he dumped Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan because it "wasn't part of a strategy". The phrase was ABC -- anything but Clinton.
And now it's the excuse to keep the Bush hacks sitting in homeland security into the next administration. Or else a set up to blame the next administration for "instability" if something bad does happen.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
It will take 100 years
From a Multi-National Force Iraq press release reporting the capture of a senior bad guy --
[Mullah] Jasim is believed to have numerous contacts within the Iraqi Security Forces that help facilitate his operations by providing him with information on the presence of Coalition forces in an area.
Those would the same Iraqi security forces who are supposed to be taking up the burden so that US troops can "return on success". The good news is that it doesn't matter that they don't have secure communications equipment, since they're riddled with spies anyway.
[Mullah] Jasim is believed to have numerous contacts within the Iraqi Security Forces that help facilitate his operations by providing him with information on the presence of Coalition forces in an area.
Those would the same Iraqi security forces who are supposed to be taking up the burden so that US troops can "return on success". The good news is that it doesn't matter that they don't have secure communications equipment, since they're riddled with spies anyway.
First coming
George Bush in Bethlehem --
It's been a -- it's been a moving moment for me and the delegation to be here at the Church of the Nativity. For those of us who practice the Christian faith, there's really no more holy site than the place where our Savior was born.
Elementary theology question: which is the more important festival, Christmas or Easter?
Easter, because that's when Jesus rose from the dead. The miracle of the Resurrection and all that. God became human, suffered as a result, and then defeated death. The essence of the Christian faith.
It didn't happen in Bethlehem.
It's been a -- it's been a moving moment for me and the delegation to be here at the Church of the Nativity. For those of us who practice the Christian faith, there's really no more holy site than the place where our Savior was born.
Elementary theology question: which is the more important festival, Christmas or Easter?
Easter, because that's when Jesus rose from the dead. The miracle of the Resurrection and all that. God became human, suffered as a result, and then defeated death. The essence of the Christian faith.
It didn't happen in Bethlehem.
Wall to the left
AP Photo
In a land with a history of divine intervention, severe fog forced George Bush to change his original plan to treat the West Bank like he did Lousiana when Katrina hit -- as flyover country. Hence his 45 car motorcade en route to Ramallah got to see the road and barrier carve-up of the West Bank up close, albeit without the endless delays at checkpoints. It may actually have made an impression as Bush brought it up several times at his news conference with Mahmoud Abbas.
Don't mention the last war
John McCain and Joe Lieberman (previewing their 2008 presidential campaign stump speech?) in the Wall Street Journal --
The war for Iraq is not over. The gains we have made can be lost. But thanks to the courage of our troops, the skill and intellect of their battlefield commander, and the steadfastness of our commander in chief, we have at last begun to see the contours of what must remain our objective in this long, hard and absolutely necessary war -- victory.
That would the same commander-in-chief in charge of they call "the mismanagement of the Iraq war from 2003 to 2006". The schizophrenia about Bush encapsulates what is going to be the fatal flaw of any McCain presidential run.
The war for Iraq is not over. The gains we have made can be lost. But thanks to the courage of our troops, the skill and intellect of their battlefield commander, and the steadfastness of our commander in chief, we have at last begun to see the contours of what must remain our objective in this long, hard and absolutely necessary war -- victory.
That would the same commander-in-chief in charge of they call "the mismanagement of the Iraq war from 2003 to 2006". The schizophrenia about Bush encapsulates what is going to be the fatal flaw of any McCain presidential run.
Some of us are sole proprietors
Is it still a "blog", not least an eponymous one, if you have a research assistant and 4 interns in addition to oneself, as Andrew Sullivan says he has? And those interns count even if the blog is only part of their job description. One advantage of Glenn Reynolds' trademark phrases of Heh, Indeed, Jeez, and Ouch is that it's at least clear who's written every post.
UPDATE 28 JAN: For future reference, note this claim from Sully --
I write around half a million words a year on this blog. On a pain-per-word basis, books are harder. But at least there is a point at which they are over, at least in the writing. A blog never stops. The deadline is always with you. Yes, even on a Sunday evening.
FINAL UPDATE 1 FEB: Further insights into the editorial system --
The Atlantic has allowed me to have a home with real support, fellow-bloggers and writers to cavort with, wonderful editorial guidance with no editorial veto, a now full-time assistant, and a bevy of interns tracking down and highlighting a variety of new blogs, sources, and sites to mine for bloggy nuggets and insight.
THE CONFESSION: Announcing that Patrick Appel will sub for him for a week --
Patrick knows the Dish as well as anyone apart from myself, reads and catches the emails I miss, and finds some of the weirdest, smartest stuff online there is. If you keep sending him links and emails and photos, he'll keep providing as much campaign crack and other web-goodies as he can. (I'm a little nervous I'll be busted and you won't notice much of a difference, in fact).
UPDATE 28 JAN: For future reference, note this claim from Sully --
I write around half a million words a year on this blog. On a pain-per-word basis, books are harder. But at least there is a point at which they are over, at least in the writing. A blog never stops. The deadline is always with you. Yes, even on a Sunday evening.
FINAL UPDATE 1 FEB: Further insights into the editorial system --
The Atlantic has allowed me to have a home with real support, fellow-bloggers and writers to cavort with, wonderful editorial guidance with no editorial veto, a now full-time assistant, and a bevy of interns tracking down and highlighting a variety of new blogs, sources, and sites to mine for bloggy nuggets and insight.
THE CONFESSION: Announcing that Patrick Appel will sub for him for a week --
Patrick knows the Dish as well as anyone apart from myself, reads and catches the emails I miss, and finds some of the weirdest, smartest stuff online there is. If you keep sending him links and emails and photos, he'll keep providing as much campaign crack and other web-goodies as he can. (I'm a little nervous I'll be busted and you won't notice much of a difference, in fact).
Noted in Murdoch land
The Wall Street Journal used to have a stand-alone website, www.opinionjournal.com, which made available selected editorials and op-eds for free (perhaps reflecting the willingness to pay). The site is now gone and redirects to a new opinion page that will apparently make all the editorials and op-eds freely available. One wonders if this is the first step of the roll-out of a subscription free WSJ. Sadly, it probably also means that a lot of old links to the opinionjournal pages are busted. Tracking down exactly who said what during the years of Bush lunacy just got more difficult. To the webmaster's credit, it seems that the old links still work.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Priorities
In the details of the six HBIED deaths in Iraq and how the insurgents seem to have been prepared for a joint US-Iraqi military sweep --
Maj. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, told reporters in Baghdad ..."Operational security in Iraq is a problem," he said, noting that the Iraqi army uses unsecured cell phones and radios. "I'm sure there is active leaking of communication."
With all the hundreds of billions spent, they can't provide secure communications for the Iraqi army?
Maj. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, told reporters in Baghdad ..."Operational security in Iraq is a problem," he said, noting that the Iraqi army uses unsecured cell phones and radios. "I'm sure there is active leaking of communication."
With all the hundreds of billions spent, they can't provide secure communications for the Iraqi army?
The Eleanor Rigby theory of Hillary
On the day after the pundit debacle, Andrew Sullivan tries to figure out why his surfboard fell off the Obama wave --
There may well have been something about Clinton implying that she was an older woman who was being passed over by a less experienced man for a job. That may well have resonated with some women, especially after she seemed actually human in the last two days.
As a bit of amateur pop sociology, fine. But remember who this is coming from. His hero, Mrs T, famously said that "There's no such thing as society". Politics is supposed to be about high Burkean principles of time-tested institutions interacting with a rational populace. We're not supposed to be playing identity politics. Everyone's an individual who can't be slotted into simple group categories.
But all of a sudden, Hillary's base becomes the spinsters (in John Derbyshire's words), seething with resentment about life and work. When in fact it's Sullivan that seethes with resentment ("She is the Bush of the Democrats") about Clinton.
UPDATE 11 JANUARY: A later post provides a nice example of Sully's self-styled philosophy of political analysis --
My libertarian-conservative approach to gay politics was laid out in Virtually Normal. It's one reason I don't fit in with the Human Rights Campaign people either. I'm happy to live my life, and let others live theirs'. I don't want or need the government to love me, make me feel better or tell me how to live. My deep difference with Hillary Clinton is precisely this. In my view, it takes an individual.
"It takes an individual" -- except when he's invented a whole category of voters to explain why the hated Hillary wins elections.
[post title changed to more standard but less Google-ranked Beatles reference]
There may well have been something about Clinton implying that she was an older woman who was being passed over by a less experienced man for a job. That may well have resonated with some women, especially after she seemed actually human in the last two days.
As a bit of amateur pop sociology, fine. But remember who this is coming from. His hero, Mrs T, famously said that "There's no such thing as society". Politics is supposed to be about high Burkean principles of time-tested institutions interacting with a rational populace. We're not supposed to be playing identity politics. Everyone's an individual who can't be slotted into simple group categories.
But all of a sudden, Hillary's base becomes the spinsters (in John Derbyshire's words), seething with resentment about life and work. When in fact it's Sullivan that seethes with resentment ("She is the Bush of the Democrats") about Clinton.
UPDATE 11 JANUARY: A later post provides a nice example of Sully's self-styled philosophy of political analysis --
My libertarian-conservative approach to gay politics was laid out in Virtually Normal. It's one reason I don't fit in with the Human Rights Campaign people either. I'm happy to live my life, and let others live theirs'. I don't want or need the government to love me, make me feel better or tell me how to live. My deep difference with Hillary Clinton is precisely this. In my view, it takes an individual.
"It takes an individual" -- except when he's invented a whole category of voters to explain why the hated Hillary wins elections.
[post title changed to more standard but less Google-ranked Beatles reference]
Seamless transfer
Expecting that George Bush's visit to Israel would feature a dogwhistle "gaffe" in which Jerusalem would be formally treated as the capital city (which no country recognises until the city's final status is resolved), the first press release from his trip is intriguingly titled --
President Bush Arrives in Jerusalem
Ben Gurion International Airport
Tel Aviv, Israel
Which leaves open the possibility that they've up with some trickery whereby when one arrives in Tel Aviv, the officially recognised capital, it's actually an arrival in Jerusalem.
President Bush Arrives in Jerusalem
Ben Gurion International Airport
Tel Aviv, Israel
Which leaves open the possibility that they've up with some trickery whereby when one arrives in Tel Aviv, the officially recognised capital, it's actually an arrival in Jerusalem.
New Hampshire says no
Andrew Sullivan, who like much of the media establishment had written off Hillary Clinton, has a theory for why the polls were so wrong --
They [voters] may have told the pollsters one thing about voting for a black man, but in the privacy of the voting booth, something else happens.
It's amazing how quickly people who were proclaiming the end of identity politics with Obama reach for such unreconstructed explanations when it all goes wrong. If poll responders were picking up any media narrative in the last week, it was not that they had to vote for the black guy, but that it was silly to vote for the harpie Hillary who only got where she was because of Bill and everyone was sick of 1990s anyway.
But when they got their ballot paper, the person with the experience and the ruthlessness to win looked a lot better.
UPDATE: The issue of unreliable polling gets a more balanced consideration from the Washington Post, but one underlying issue -- the media establishment's hatred of Hillary Clinton, shown by Maureen Dowd's column today, is not mentioned.
They [voters] may have told the pollsters one thing about voting for a black man, but in the privacy of the voting booth, something else happens.
It's amazing how quickly people who were proclaiming the end of identity politics with Obama reach for such unreconstructed explanations when it all goes wrong. If poll responders were picking up any media narrative in the last week, it was not that they had to vote for the black guy, but that it was silly to vote for the harpie Hillary who only got where she was because of Bill and everyone was sick of 1990s anyway.
But when they got their ballot paper, the person with the experience and the ruthlessness to win looked a lot better.
UPDATE: The issue of unreliable polling gets a more balanced consideration from the Washington Post, but one underlying issue -- the media establishment's hatred of Hillary Clinton, shown by Maureen Dowd's column today, is not mentioned.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Talk to Bertie
The New York Times on the tricky issues with Nicolas Sarkozy bringing his apparent fiance but not wife on international visits --
With Mr. Sarkozy set to visit India in two and a half weeks, some of the news media there are predicting a protocol crisis if Ms. Bruni goes along. “The top model cannot receive the same consideration as the president because a girlfriend is not treated like a wife,” the daily newspaper Indian Express quoted an anonymous Foreign Affairs Ministry official as saying.
In fact there is a protocol crisis with Saudi Arabia brewing sooner than that --
The Saudi diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Sarkozy should leave Bruni behind for "religious reasons" when he visits the kingdom on Sunday.
One thing that Sarko should know is that the expert on official visits with a non-spouse companion is Bertie Ahern, from his time with Celia Larkin as his "life partner". Even if Bertie can't provide tips on which countries are OK with it, he could always offer an official visit to Ireland to the happy couple.
With Mr. Sarkozy set to visit India in two and a half weeks, some of the news media there are predicting a protocol crisis if Ms. Bruni goes along. “The top model cannot receive the same consideration as the president because a girlfriend is not treated like a wife,” the daily newspaper Indian Express quoted an anonymous Foreign Affairs Ministry official as saying.
In fact there is a protocol crisis with Saudi Arabia brewing sooner than that --
The Saudi diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Sarkozy should leave Bruni behind for "religious reasons" when he visits the kingdom on Sunday.
One thing that Sarko should know is that the expert on official visits with a non-spouse companion is Bertie Ahern, from his time with Celia Larkin as his "life partner". Even if Bertie can't provide tips on which countries are OK with it, he could always offer an official visit to Ireland to the happy couple.
The kingdom, the power, and the glory
Taking the cult of Bush to new heights ("Bush of Arabia"), at least for someone who should know better, just one sentence from Fouad Ajami in the Wall Street Journal (subs. req'd; alt. free link) --
In his stoic acceptance of the burdens after 9/11, we were offered a reminder of how nations shelter behind leaders willing to take on great challenges.
And yes, that's the actual illustration with the article [UPDATE 16 DEC 2008: it gets reused!].
And yes, we're probably doing too much Wall Street Journal blogging. But the post-Bush political landscape seems to be driving them nuts.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Holy war
Terminology from Multi-National Force Iraq --
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Multi-National Force-Iraq condemns the attacks today by al-Qaeda Iraq (AQI) against the Sunni Endowment and Concerned Local Citizens. The barbaric nature of AQI continues to find new depths of depravity in killing courageous Iraqi citizens who reject the terrorists and their Taliban ideology.
The brave Iraqi martyrs killed today sought to bring security to families and neighborhoods that had been hijacked and tormented by AQI’s indiscriminate violence.
Two things. AQI is being branded as a Taliban organization. Also, the dead Iraqis who worked with the US military are now martyrs. The word which already has religious overtones in English will have them even moreso in Arabic since it will translate as shahid. While it makes sense for the Iraqi government to do this, it's surely a risky move for the US military to get drawn into religious interpretations of casualties.
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Multi-National Force-Iraq condemns the attacks today by al-Qaeda Iraq (AQI) against the Sunni Endowment and Concerned Local Citizens. The barbaric nature of AQI continues to find new depths of depravity in killing courageous Iraqi citizens who reject the terrorists and their Taliban ideology.
The brave Iraqi martyrs killed today sought to bring security to families and neighborhoods that had been hijacked and tormented by AQI’s indiscriminate violence.
Two things. AQI is being branded as a Taliban organization. Also, the dead Iraqis who worked with the US military are now martyrs. The word which already has religious overtones in English will have them even moreso in Arabic since it will translate as shahid. While it makes sense for the Iraqi government to do this, it's surely a risky move for the US military to get drawn into religious interpretations of casualties.
Daydream
The following is currently posted at National Review's The Corner --
Katyushas, from guess where [Noah Pollak]
The long-range Katyusha missile that last week was fired from Gaza and landed over 10 miles inside of Israel was made — you'll never guess — in Iran: [text of news story]
One weird thing. He changed the title of the post without acknowledgment. It used to be called "Nukes, from guess where".
Katyushas, from guess where [Noah Pollak]
The long-range Katyusha missile that last week was fired from Gaza and landed over 10 miles inside of Israel was made — you'll never guess — in Iran: [text of news story]
One weird thing. He changed the title of the post without acknowledgment. It used to be called "Nukes, from guess where".
Faraway country of which he knows nothing
National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru relates an incident on board the John McCain bus, the Straight Talk (sic) Express (sic) --
I asked whether Middle Easterners might react negatively to his speculation that we could stay in Iraq for 100 years. He got a little testy. “I have never heard of an uprising of Kuwaitis, have you?”
A little Googling of Kuwait --
(CNN) -- Kuwait's parliament has confirmed Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah as its new emir, ending the political crisis that erupted after the parliament removed Sheikh Saad al-Abdullah al-Sabah last week for health reasons.
The 50 members of the parliament, along with the 14 members of the cabinet -- excluding the 77-year-old al-Sabah, who is the prime minister -- voted unanimously on Sunday.
Parliament voted Tuesday to remove the ailing Saad, 75, who came to power briefly after the recent death of the country's long-ruling emir. The cabinet then recommended al-Sabah for the position.
Kuwait (like Bahrain) has real politics in which public unrest bubbles up right to the top. It would be a primary candidate for attitudes towards a long-term American occupation in the region to sour -- which would be another remarkable achievement for George W. Bush, given the esteem with which his father and the 1991 liberation is held in Kuwait. But as Bush discovering, by the end, you've alienated everybody.
I asked whether Middle Easterners might react negatively to his speculation that we could stay in Iraq for 100 years. He got a little testy. “I have never heard of an uprising of Kuwaitis, have you?”
A little Googling of Kuwait --
(CNN) -- Kuwait's parliament has confirmed Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah as its new emir, ending the political crisis that erupted after the parliament removed Sheikh Saad al-Abdullah al-Sabah last week for health reasons.
The 50 members of the parliament, along with the 14 members of the cabinet -- excluding the 77-year-old al-Sabah, who is the prime minister -- voted unanimously on Sunday.
Parliament voted Tuesday to remove the ailing Saad, 75, who came to power briefly after the recent death of the country's long-ruling emir. The cabinet then recommended al-Sabah for the position.
Kuwait (like Bahrain) has real politics in which public unrest bubbles up right to the top. It would be a primary candidate for attitudes towards a long-term American occupation in the region to sour -- which would be another remarkable achievement for George W. Bush, given the esteem with which his father and the 1991 liberation is held in Kuwait. But as Bush discovering, by the end, you've alienated everybody.
One third of a lot is still a lot
Michael O'Hanlon, Iraq surge enthusiast, tells Wall Street Journal readers (subs. req'd) that Barack Obama is being too partisan about Iraq --
Strategically, it makes little sense to rush for the exits in Iraq when violence has declined by two-thirds over the last year -- a remarkable accomplishment that Mr. Obama belittled in Manchester, N.H., during the Democratic debate on Saturday when he claimed that such a development only brought Iraq back to 2006 levels of lethality (which is probably not true).
Above, the most recent charts from Multi-National Force Iraq which clearly show that all the surge has done is reduce violence back to its, er, January 2006 level. That's just under 600 attacks a week, and a lot of dead people. O'Hanlon does allow that Obama has "a melodic message of hope", though.
UPDATE: There's an extra line to O'Hanlon's bio for the article -- Mr. O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He advised Hillary Clinton until last summer, when his support for the surge led to a cutting of ties by mutual consent.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Eurolabels
There's a strange attempt by various people to brand one future path of the Republican party as similar to Christian Democratic parties in continental Europe. Some of the people pushing this, like George Bush's former speechwriter Michael Gerson, embrace the supposed characteristics of Christian Democracy -- a market economy but with a substantial safety net and Christian values as an animating source of policy -- as something that the post-Bush Republican party should embrace. Others, clearly alarmed by the rise of Mike Huckabee in the primaries, use the term as a pejorative for the direction in which he would take the party.
The latest round in the debate comes from the pejorative side, in Saturday's Wall Street Journal (subs. req'd; alt. free link) by Henry Olsen of the American Enterprise Institute (a set of institutions that nicely captures the nervous custodians of Bush Republicanism). Here's one bit of his context-setting --
While virtually no one on the American right explicitly calls for the adoption of Christian Democracy, others besides Mr. Huckabee admire and advocate similar principles. For example, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum's book, "It Takes a Family," echoed the Christian Democratic emphasis on placing the health of the family ahead of the health of the economy as a political principle.
The mention of Santorum is interesting because the European politician with whom Santorum has most eagerly pursued a collaborative enterprise is Iain Duncan-Smith, whose brand of Tory Catholicism is a very different animal from continental Christian Democracy. In particular, it's more conservative economically and socially than what you'd find on the Continent, although also more pragmatic than Santorum-type conservatism (as Margaret Thatcher was) about the laws that 1960s and 1970s social liberalisation had left on the books.
But anyway, the crux of Olsen's analysis is a comparison of the economic and social outcomes of the USA under 4 European predominantly CD-governed countries. This ends up being a strange group, especially when one is trying to attribute the nature of government as the sole determinant of these outcomes --
Every country which has been primarily governed by Christian Democrats since World War II (Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands) is poorer than the United States, with substantially higher unemployment rates and slower economic growth. The differences aren't even close.
The per capita, purchasing-power-adjusted GDP of the richest of these countries--Holland--is 15% lower than that of the U.S. The GDP of every other country is at least 20% lower. The U.S. unemployment rate in 2006 was 4.6%; the average of the Christian Democratic four was over 7%, and it was that low only because the Netherlands diverts many of its unemployed to a disability program that enrolls nearly 10% of the workforce.
Incomes are more equally distributed: America's Gini coefficient, a widely used measure of income inequality, is much higher than in any of these countries. But that is simply the flip side of the other statistics. Christian Democratic countries choose lower incomes and higher unemployment as the price for their commitment to social welfare.
But these countries also fare worse on common measures of family well-being. German and Belgian divorce rates are higher than those in America, and the Netherlands' rate is roughly comparable. The 2005 out-of-wedlock birth rate was slightly lower in Germany (29%) than the U.S. (37%), but it was higher in Belgium (49%) and about the same in the Netherlands (35%). The overall birth rate in the U.S. is about 2.1 children per woman in her lifetime, about the level needed to keep the population stable. None of the Christian Democrat countries come close to that; Italy's is a meager 1.2.
It is not the case that Christian Democrat-led countries fare better at sustaining faith. According to a 2006 Harris poll, 73% of Americans believe in God. Similar polls taken in 2005 and 2006 show only 62% of Italians, 43% of Belgians, 41% of Germans and 34% of Dutch believe. A 2003 Harris poll found that 44% of Americans attend religious services at least once a week. According to the 2004 European Social Survey, fewer than 15% of Dutch and Belgians, and 10% of Germans, attend services that frequently.
But you could just as easily take other European countries outside the 4 and generate similar findings. Parties are as much as a consequence as a cause of social preferences and there is a common European aspect to those preferences. This issue comes to the fore when Olsen is trying to explain the electoral dynamics of CD governments --
Christian Democratic victories, which are largely due to Europe's proportional-representation electoral systems. The most successful parties win between 25% and 40% of the vote and form a government because a majority coalition cannot be formed without them.
But America's first-past-the-post system encourages factions to combine into a single party so that they are likelier to get over 50% of the vote, a level of support that an American Christian Democratic party is unlikely to attain.
So he's trying to have it both ways: attributing the outcomes to the fact of having CD governments, but then saying that we only get CD governments because they have to form coalitions with other parties. It's in those coalition compromises that key policies will be determined, making it much harder to see a distinctive CD component to them. Trying to map that very different process into the US system requires too many strained analogies to be workable. At least as a blog post.
The latest round in the debate comes from the pejorative side, in Saturday's Wall Street Journal (subs. req'd; alt. free link) by Henry Olsen of the American Enterprise Institute (a set of institutions that nicely captures the nervous custodians of Bush Republicanism). Here's one bit of his context-setting --
While virtually no one on the American right explicitly calls for the adoption of Christian Democracy, others besides Mr. Huckabee admire and advocate similar principles. For example, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum's book, "It Takes a Family," echoed the Christian Democratic emphasis on placing the health of the family ahead of the health of the economy as a political principle.
The mention of Santorum is interesting because the European politician with whom Santorum has most eagerly pursued a collaborative enterprise is Iain Duncan-Smith, whose brand of Tory Catholicism is a very different animal from continental Christian Democracy. In particular, it's more conservative economically and socially than what you'd find on the Continent, although also more pragmatic than Santorum-type conservatism (as Margaret Thatcher was) about the laws that 1960s and 1970s social liberalisation had left on the books.
But anyway, the crux of Olsen's analysis is a comparison of the economic and social outcomes of the USA under 4 European predominantly CD-governed countries. This ends up being a strange group, especially when one is trying to attribute the nature of government as the sole determinant of these outcomes --
Every country which has been primarily governed by Christian Democrats since World War II (Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands) is poorer than the United States, with substantially higher unemployment rates and slower economic growth. The differences aren't even close.
The per capita, purchasing-power-adjusted GDP of the richest of these countries--Holland--is 15% lower than that of the U.S. The GDP of every other country is at least 20% lower. The U.S. unemployment rate in 2006 was 4.6%; the average of the Christian Democratic four was over 7%, and it was that low only because the Netherlands diverts many of its unemployed to a disability program that enrolls nearly 10% of the workforce.
Incomes are more equally distributed: America's Gini coefficient, a widely used measure of income inequality, is much higher than in any of these countries. But that is simply the flip side of the other statistics. Christian Democratic countries choose lower incomes and higher unemployment as the price for their commitment to social welfare.
But these countries also fare worse on common measures of family well-being. German and Belgian divorce rates are higher than those in America, and the Netherlands' rate is roughly comparable. The 2005 out-of-wedlock birth rate was slightly lower in Germany (29%) than the U.S. (37%), but it was higher in Belgium (49%) and about the same in the Netherlands (35%). The overall birth rate in the U.S. is about 2.1 children per woman in her lifetime, about the level needed to keep the population stable. None of the Christian Democrat countries come close to that; Italy's is a meager 1.2.
It is not the case that Christian Democrat-led countries fare better at sustaining faith. According to a 2006 Harris poll, 73% of Americans believe in God. Similar polls taken in 2005 and 2006 show only 62% of Italians, 43% of Belgians, 41% of Germans and 34% of Dutch believe. A 2003 Harris poll found that 44% of Americans attend religious services at least once a week. According to the 2004 European Social Survey, fewer than 15% of Dutch and Belgians, and 10% of Germans, attend services that frequently.
But you could just as easily take other European countries outside the 4 and generate similar findings. Parties are as much as a consequence as a cause of social preferences and there is a common European aspect to those preferences. This issue comes to the fore when Olsen is trying to explain the electoral dynamics of CD governments --
Christian Democratic victories, which are largely due to Europe's proportional-representation electoral systems. The most successful parties win between 25% and 40% of the vote and form a government because a majority coalition cannot be formed without them.
But America's first-past-the-post system encourages factions to combine into a single party so that they are likelier to get over 50% of the vote, a level of support that an American Christian Democratic party is unlikely to attain.
So he's trying to have it both ways: attributing the outcomes to the fact of having CD governments, but then saying that we only get CD governments because they have to form coalitions with other parties. It's in those coalition compromises that key policies will be determined, making it much harder to see a distinctive CD component to them. Trying to map that very different process into the US system requires too many strained analogies to be workable. At least as a blog post.
The problem of American politics in microcosm
It's not just the politicians. It's the pundits. ABC's Charlie Gibson (who is almost certainly on an upper 6 figure if not 7 figure salary) -- moderating the Democratic debate on the campus of St Anselm's college -- thinks that professors at a small college in New Hampshire, or public school teachers in New York City, make $100,000 a year and are among the people who gain the most from George Bush's tax cuts.
UPDATE: Commenters at Atrios point out that Gibson went to Princeton and is on its Board of Trustees, which explains, if not justifies, his assumption about the earnings of college professors.
FINAL UPDATE: The exact quote --
SEN. CLINTON: Yeah, but Charlie, the tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans, not the middle-class tax cuts. One of the problems with George Bush's tax policy has been the way he has tilted it toward the wealthy and the well-connected.
GIBSON: If you take a family of -- if you take a family of two professors here at Saint Anselm, they're going to be in the $200,000 category that you're talking about lifting the taxes on. And -- (laughter).
EDWARDS: I don't think they agree with you.
SEN. OBAMA: I'm not sure that that's -- (laughter) --
SEN. CLINTON: That may be NYU, Charlie.
I don't think it's -- (laughter) -- Saint Anselm.
GIBSON: Two public school teachers in New York? (Laughter.)
But that is -- you're in a situation where you're taking money out of the economy is what I'm saying.
It's important to note that much of the laughter was coming from the audience.
UPDATE: Commenters at Atrios point out that Gibson went to Princeton and is on its Board of Trustees, which explains, if not justifies, his assumption about the earnings of college professors.
FINAL UPDATE: The exact quote --
SEN. CLINTON: Yeah, but Charlie, the tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans, not the middle-class tax cuts. One of the problems with George Bush's tax policy has been the way he has tilted it toward the wealthy and the well-connected.
GIBSON: If you take a family of -- if you take a family of two professors here at Saint Anselm, they're going to be in the $200,000 category that you're talking about lifting the taxes on. And -- (laughter).
EDWARDS: I don't think they agree with you.
SEN. OBAMA: I'm not sure that that's -- (laughter) --
SEN. CLINTON: That may be NYU, Charlie.
I don't think it's -- (laughter) -- Saint Anselm.
GIBSON: Two public school teachers in New York? (Laughter.)
But that is -- you're in a situation where you're taking money out of the economy is what I'm saying.
It's important to note that much of the laughter was coming from the audience.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Colonised by wankers
In Saturday's Wall Street Journal (subs. req'd; alt. free link), the man who got into military history to make excuses for George W. Bush, Max Boot, argues that George W. Bush is wasting his time on the Israel-Palestine crisis because they've only been fighting since 1948 whereas the English and the Scots fought from 1296-1745 so there's still centuries to go in the former struggle.
That's really the argument:
Scotland was too small and poor to defeat England. And English monarchs lacked the resources or the will to pacify the prickly Scots. So the war ground on, century after century, interrupted occasionally by truces and treaties.
The accession of a Scottish monarch to the throne of England in 1603 as King James I might have been expected to end the strife. Yet the two realms clashed again during the English Civil War in the 1640s. The conflict did not truly end until 1745, when a revolt by mainly Scottish supporters of the Stuarts (descendants of James I), was put down -- 449 years after the start of Anglo-Scottish hostilities.
It is instructive to contemplate the virulence and length of the English struggles with the Scots (and also the similar, more recent battles with the Irish), given that their cultural and religious differences are trivial compared to those separating Israelis and Arabs. Attempts to end such conflicts before both sides are thoroughly exhausted are likely to have no more success than the Treaty of Northampton, which was supposed to end the Anglo-Scottish dispute in 1328. The only exception is if outside powers commit massive military force to bring peace, as happened in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. But that's unlikely to happen in the Holy Land.
Put aside minor issues such as the misdating of the battle of Culloden (it was 1746). What kind of historian pulls out one strand of the very complex history of the UK and argues that it's informative about the likely timeline of a current crisis? At the very least, some of the themes have to be gotten right. So for example it will come as news to many Scots that they always shared a common language and religion with their English foes -- especially the notion that kirk Presbyterianism and the Anglican Church had "trivial" differences. It will come as news to the Irish that their conflict with England came after the Scottish wars. Tell that to the people at 1169 and counting. And he somehow manages to tell a quick history of the 17th century without ever mentioning the word "Catholic".
The underlying fact is that the neocons are not at all keen about Bush's peace initiative, as half-hearted and late as it is. So it's useful to portray the conflict as irreconcilable. But there's no reason to think that some combination of security gains already achieved by Israel coupled with mitigation of the some of the major grievances of the Palestinians (e.g. settlement activity and destruction of civilian infrastructure) would get things down well below a level of violence that the neocons are quite willing to accept as par for the course in Iraq.
It's funny that Boot has the headline Of Braveheart and Bush, since Braveheart does about as a good job of actual history as Boot does.
That's really the argument:
Scotland was too small and poor to defeat England. And English monarchs lacked the resources or the will to pacify the prickly Scots. So the war ground on, century after century, interrupted occasionally by truces and treaties.
The accession of a Scottish monarch to the throne of England in 1603 as King James I might have been expected to end the strife. Yet the two realms clashed again during the English Civil War in the 1640s. The conflict did not truly end until 1745, when a revolt by mainly Scottish supporters of the Stuarts (descendants of James I), was put down -- 449 years after the start of Anglo-Scottish hostilities.
It is instructive to contemplate the virulence and length of the English struggles with the Scots (and also the similar, more recent battles with the Irish), given that their cultural and religious differences are trivial compared to those separating Israelis and Arabs. Attempts to end such conflicts before both sides are thoroughly exhausted are likely to have no more success than the Treaty of Northampton, which was supposed to end the Anglo-Scottish dispute in 1328. The only exception is if outside powers commit massive military force to bring peace, as happened in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. But that's unlikely to happen in the Holy Land.
Put aside minor issues such as the misdating of the battle of Culloden (it was 1746). What kind of historian pulls out one strand of the very complex history of the UK and argues that it's informative about the likely timeline of a current crisis? At the very least, some of the themes have to be gotten right. So for example it will come as news to many Scots that they always shared a common language and religion with their English foes -- especially the notion that kirk Presbyterianism and the Anglican Church had "trivial" differences. It will come as news to the Irish that their conflict with England came after the Scottish wars. Tell that to the people at 1169 and counting. And he somehow manages to tell a quick history of the 17th century without ever mentioning the word "Catholic".
The underlying fact is that the neocons are not at all keen about Bush's peace initiative, as half-hearted and late as it is. So it's useful to portray the conflict as irreconcilable. But there's no reason to think that some combination of security gains already achieved by Israel coupled with mitigation of the some of the major grievances of the Palestinians (e.g. settlement activity and destruction of civilian infrastructure) would get things down well below a level of violence that the neocons are quite willing to accept as par for the course in Iraq.
It's funny that Boot has the headline Of Braveheart and Bush, since Braveheart does about as a good job of actual history as Boot does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)