“Always Be Closing” as Mamet tells us. I’ve voiced my support for Obama for some time, both for strategic reasons – I’d like to get the Democrats engaged in our foreign policy problems, rather than making them a one-party issues (“the GOP war, etc.) – and for personal ones – I believe my values are fundamentally progressive (i.e. I believe that government exists in no small part to counterbalance the powerful and wealthy) and I think Obama better represents those values.
But I’m tetchy. I keep digging into his biography, and finding places where what he says doesn’t line up with what he did. That’s not striking – welcome to politics – but since he’s selling us in no small part his own beliefs rather than his accomplishments, it would be nice to see those beliefs more deeply in the context of his biography.
I’ve suggested – and will keep suggesting – things he could do to make me more comfortable. Now I guess that makes me a “concern troll”, and means that no one on the Democratic side of the house should give a rip what I say.
Then again, maybe not.
Last weekend, we went to the Bay Area, and spent Friday night with college friends and others. The conversation, shockingly, turned to politics.
My friends – graduates of UC Santa Cruz, and residents of Santa Cruz and Silicon Valley – are reliable Democrats (except for one or two!!), people who volunteer for campaigns put bumper stickers on their cars, sometimes hand out leaflets in front of the local grocery store.
Their temperature on this election – tepid. For the women, the animosity over Hillary is not at the top, but simmers somewhere underneath. For the men, a feeling that Obama is a brilliant man, but a distrust – of what, no one could completely say.
Anecdote is not data, to be sure, but I was shocked enough to make it my project for the next week to talk to anyone handy about the election and see what they say.
I was shocked.
Among the strongest Obama supporters, the feeling was best summed up by a liberal retired high school teacher I sat with at lunch today – a woman wearing peace symbol earrings who grimly said “I really don’t think he’s going to win.”
A large number of mainstream Democrats simply confess a disquiet. The Howard Wolfson story – that Hillary would have won Iowa and hence the election if Edwards’ affair had come out – has been repeated enough that it got my attention. I can only call it buyer’s remorse.
I’m feeling it as well. I’m still a solid vote for Obama, but when I sit down and write checks, somehow I just never bring myself to write one for him.
Why? Why aren’t I solidly on his side? If I’m a doubter, why aren’t I alone in doubting him?
I’ve spent a little time online today, going through the comments at TalkLeft, Firedoglake, MyDD – the bastions of the Netroots and of support for him. Or not.
What’s the deal? And what should the Democrats do?
What should Obama do?
I’ll have to do my own campaign memo…
_”What should Obama do?”_
Be more qualified?
Your problem is the more we get to know Obama, the more the question marks solidify around him. As opposed to McCain, who is and always has been a known quality. Novelty is a like virginity, you can’t get it back once its gone.
And the question marks are legitimate. The Democratic Party, in their wisdom, went with change and charisma over track record and experience.
In retrospect its pretty obvious that unless Obama was a political prodigy it would be a race to see how much of that new car smell he could cling to before election day. The guy _has nothing to run on._ Not a voting record, not a major policy iniative of his own, not much personal history, and clearly not a strong vibrant _specific_ idealogy. Essentially he has no record and he’s running away from how he actually intends to govern as hard as he can (his very liberal views). Is it suprising that that leaves the electorate disquieted? Whats left?
Obama represents everything that is wrong with a media driven election, primarily because today’s media refuses to do what was once its job.
There would be no “buyers remorse” if he had been actually vetted in the first place. Alas, he wasn’t, and the desire to stick it to the GOP has trumped all basic common sense. Obama’s rhetoric has never matched his actions, that should have been the big red flag that the press should have picked up on, but they refused to do so.
Hillary and even Richardson for all their faults, actually had the kind of experience that might account for being qualified for the office of President. Obama has none of it.
Personally, I don’t trust Obama, I can’t put faith in a guy who has done so little that is actually worthwhile in life, and whose massive ego seems to overshadow all else. Who writes two autobiographical book before they are 50 without having done anything remotely considered exceptional by todays standards? And for this clown to even question Clarence Thomas’s qualifications? That takes a tremendous amount of chutzpah.
Lets face it, the identity politics of the left have driven this campaign. If Obama were white, he wouldn’t have gotten very far and it would have been Hillary you were hemming and hawing over now. This is the dirty little secret no one wants to confront or accept. The desire to see someone of color “succeed”, in some desperate hope that it would make up for our past sins (of which none of us should be held accountable) and make things “right” has been Obama’s trump card from the beginning, and he’s played it well. Liberal White Guilt amazingly enough, still holds a strong sway over the American left.
Reform your nominating process. Put the malignant Iowa Caucus at the end of the schedule, and start the season in a tough state like Texas.
Figure out what you want from a national leadership. It must be somewhat specific and it must appeal to non-liberal/progressives. Republicans more or less know what they want – a nation-defending, law-enforcing type who will hold the line on spending, taxes, and government growth.
Stop focusing obsessively on the Presidency. The President is not the country. The President is not the country. THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE COUNTRY …
“Who ‘Sent’ Obama”:http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-sent-obama.html
bq. Certainly Ayers’ politics remain unapologetically authoritarian. He recently traveled to Venezuela – only the most recent of several such trips – and delivered a speech in front of Hugo Chavez in which he spoke of education as the “motor force of revolution” and his interest in “overcom[ing] the failings of capitalist education” and said he thought Chavez was creating “something truly new and deeply humane.” He closed his speech by mouthing typical slogans of the authoritarian left: “Viva Mission Sucre! Viva Presidente Chavez! Viva La Revolucion Bolivariana! Hasta La Victoria Siempre!”
That BHO and the modern ‘Progressive’ Democrat Party are authoritarian despots was *never in doubt as far as I am concerned*. I have told you all my background before, who my ‘rents were. Their philosophy is such that they believe us plebes _should be ruled_. There is *no* consent of the governed for these folks. C’mon, look at what modern politics has become. Only the super rich or those backed by the super rich can have a voice on the national stage.
The only bastion of the truly free is what the Progressive Left has demonized as _right wingers_. But the real challenge is to understand what real conservatism is.
“Ten Conservative Principles”:http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html
Now McCain is _as close as we are going to get_ this election cycle. He is far cry above the supposedly unknown quantity of Obama. I say supposedly because when we dig into Obama’s roots and origins and his introduction to the public stage we get a very different picture. We get a picture of the ghost of Che, at the worst, or a picture of a useful idiot, at the best. Neither one is someone who I would vet for high public office in the US much less the highest.
@ #2 from Gabriel at 12:22 pm on Aug 18, 2008:
bq. …and even Richardson for all their faults…
Richardson is a megalomaniac of the worst sort. Here is his ego =
The “BRET (Bill Richardson’s Ego Train) Line”:http://www.nmrailrunner.com/ . It sounded good on paper and in sound bites but he lied to the people of NM to get it built. He stole state highway funds for the 1st stage when he said he would not and now he is going to raise taxes to pay for the Santa Fe extension when he said he would not. He claims to be a Hispanic when he is just another coyote. Typical ‘Progressive’.
Look, these are dangerous times on the world stage and these times call for serious people. Obama is *NOT* a serious man for dangerous times. He is either an empty vessel to be used to dupe the plebes or a man who will threaten his own country through hubris and/or ignorance.
bq. Why? Why aren’t I solidly on his side? If I’m a doubter, why aren’t I alone in doubting him?
Because you can still listen to that inner voice that speaks truth.
And you know it.
“Come to the Dark Side, We Have Cookies – Brigid”:http://mausersandmuffins.blogspot.com/
I don’t think he’s going to win either.
In a sense, it’s a sort of overreach that’s at fault. A few months ago, when _The Washington Post_ did its first poll about race in the campaign, they reported some numbers they thought were interesting or alarming. Yet none of that was what interested me.
What I thought was interesting was the question: “Is (Candidate X) a safe choice for President?” NPR seems to have “thought as I did”:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93329959 about the results of that question: they were the real story of the poll. McCain was overwhelmingly said to be “safe” to be President; Obama was found risky.
Obama hasn’t gotten less risky since then. If you read “this 2004 interview”:http://falsani.blogspot.com/2008/04/barack-obama-2004-god-factor-interview.html with Obama, he comes across as far more honest and direct than lately. He identifies his politics clearly (‘Americans show good sense normally, though sometimes they listen to FOX or talk radio and get “confused”‘), his spiritual center (Trinity), and the advisors on whom he relies (he mentions both the Rev. Mr. Wright and Father Phelger). That’s probably the honest, authentic Obama, at home in Chicago, comfortable and centered.
He’s run so hard away from that since the fall. I was never going to vote for him, but I did respect him until he reversed on Wright. It was the first of many reversals: on FISA, on so many political things, even on Iraq (now his approach is ‘conditions based,’ and essentially just the same as McCain’s) and now Georgia. He’s not obviously telling anyone what he thinks; he’s trying to tell us what he thinks we want him to think.
Yeah, he’s risky. If he has a clear, clean moral center on which he relies, what is it? You don’t have to agree with it to want him to have one, to know that such a thing makes him reliable.
The only person or thing he seems absolutely loyal to is his wife. And that’s good: good for him. I admire that. But, as fine as that is, it’s not enough to make a President.
Maybe in a few years, when he’s developed enough of a center to stand firm in rough winds. Until then, we can’t afford him.
_Why? Why aren’t I solidly on his side? If I’m a doubter, why aren’t I alone in doubting him?_
I’ll speak for myself. I voted for Obama as my Senator and was pretty happy with my choice. I am persuadable in voting for him for President, but I franly want to see his the dude roughed up. That’s how my doubts will get resolved. ‘Cause Grim is right, McCain is a safe choice, particularly with a Democratic Congress.
Obama hasn’t done anything for the State of Illinois as Senator. He didn’t do much of anything in state government either.
What is interesting is how he both played Chicago machine politics and transcended them. By the way, the Illinois state official, “Emil Jones”:http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2008/08/18/this-just-in-emil-jones-to-step-aside/#comments who proclaimed that he was goint to make himself a U.S. Senator is stepping down before he draws unwanted attention to the Obama’s links to Jones.
What is depressing is how he played Chicago machine politics while convincing people who should know better that he was transcending them.
Grim, you may as well say you respected Wallace until he reversed on segregation. I don’t understand how you can ask, “If he has a clear, clean moral center on which he relies, what is it?” just a paragraph after answering that same question: his spiritual center is Trinity, and his trusted advisers are Wright and Pfleger. That’s the “honest, authentic Obama,” and he hates you. Your greed is ruining a world in need. Your government is plotting genocide against its own black citizens. How would he be better as a President if he was firm enough to say that outright, instead of associating with, supporting, and lauding those who do?
I think Obama is going to win comfortably and although my support for him has softened a bit over time, I am genuinely fearful of a McCain presidency. Therefore, the small-bore concerns over Obama’s experience and qualifications mean even less to me than they might for most voters.
But the question is “What should Obama do?” to “close the deal”.
The answer is make sure to introduce the voters to the Real John McCain. Drive up his many many negatives, big time. Recognize, however, the inherent difficulty in doing this with all the McCain fanboys and fangirls that populate the MSM. So the problem is two-pronged, the second (media bias or incompetence or indifference, what have you) is one that is faced by all good candidates but especially those from the Left. You only need to replay the reaction to Wes Clarke’s very reasonable questioning of McCain’s foreign policy/knowledge to see what I mean.
But that shouldn’t deter Obama from doing so. The campaigns tepid approach to this so far is, in my view, one reasonable explanation for his relatively softened support at the moment.
You know, bg, I don’t really mind that he hates me — or rather, I would tend to believe, that he hates my worldview. I don’t get the sense that Obama is a secret monster. We disagree sharply on the basic keys to good government and a good society, it’s true: but I can respect a man who disagrees with me and will fight for what he believes. I want him to be honest and forthright, and a strong advocate for his cause. We’ll still fight, but that’s the kind of man I like. I’ll take the Rev. Mr. Wright over Obama any day.
The problem with Obama is just that he’s been passed along up the ladder all his life without anyone taking time to see what he was really made of, or looking back to see what he’d really done.
PD Shaw speaks fairly, I think: He didn’t do much in state government except set up to run for Congress. He hasn’t done anything of note in Congress except set up to run for President. Looking back at his work as a community organizer, we see a failed school reform project, and a housing reform project that was even worse — people had to sue to get the heat turned on in the winter, with a negative 30 wind chill.
When he was a Constitutional Law professor, he didn’t publish. Neither did he when he was the president of the Harvard Law Review.
Frankly, I just don’t see it. The guy gives a great speech, and that creates strong and positive first impressions. But there’s nothing under them: no accomplishment, no experience, no loyalty, and no obvious principles that he sticks to.
It’s a dangerous world. This isn’t the guy to lead it. He’s not the guy to _lead_ at all. Not yet.
Yeah, I haven’t been happy with all of his reversals either. However, many of the things he’s talked about heavily I also believe in strongly. Not surprisingly, energy reform is at the top of the list. Also, I’m worried about McCain’s opposition to net-neutrality, and his fiery (or should I say bomby) first response rhetoric.
Like PD Shaw voting for Obama, I voted for McCain as senator. I liked him when he spoke his mind, he seemed free with his thoughts, and shared fierce (but respectable) debates with Jon Stewart. Since he got the nomination, he seems less frank to me (similar to Obama). He seems more manipulative, more vindictive and more willing to dish out political “style” (such as celebrity or moses ads) over demonstrating his vetted substance.
With McCain’s veteran experience, he should be demolishing Obama on a range of issues. So far I’ve gotten Iraq and Oil Rigs. I’m starting to wonder if he has anything else to run on? Until he reaches out to demonstrate his veteran status on the issues, I’m going to stay in the Obama camp.
I would relax and send in the check. I think what is bothering you is the fact Iraq foreign policy issue has changed because someone competent came to the DOD and changed the situation. Other things in foreign policy have changed as well and have culminated in the Georgia/Russian fiasco that still has the potential to spread(Ukraine) and turn into a shooting war(20%). So you are possibly looking for someone whom understands a shooting war situation.
As to the economic side. The one thing I feel is the worst thing about Amecican politics is the fact that when Congress passes a bill there a multiple tax advantages(oil drilling exemptions, write-offs for capital equipment-did your accountant write off your last computer purchanse), penalities to the economy(how many people can grow peanuts)and on&on that often have nothing to do what the bill is about. Everybody hates when the other guys district does it but loves the bacon in their district. Both parties participate in this.
This disconnect, about how the economy is actually working, has allowed the political process to drive to Manachian simplicities. If you are willing to look at this critically and decide whether or not Obama’s policies can overcome this disconnect and decide he can you will be emotionally and intellectually more comfortable w/ you choice.
As an aside: the last guy running for president whom made sense economically was Steve Forbes. His flat tax ideas worked very well for me.
Scouting report
Bright – Absolutely
Charming – Absolutely
Charismatic – Absolutely
Visionary – Absolutely
Doubts remain that he can it a major league curve or layoff a high fast ball. woudl be risky to depend on him as your every day center fielder and Clean up hitter. Needs more seasoning below the Major League level.
Projection – Could wind up with a HOF career or wash out depending on whether he can ovvercome his deficiencies.
Recommendation – At least another season in AAA both to gain experience and see how he reacts to demands that he produce more.
G_Tarhune, there are high costs to Obama for going negative; it undermines what attracts people to Obama which is hope, optimism and change.
If we are going to play campaign strategist, I think we have to look at Obama’s historical deficits and how they might play in the electoral college. In Illinois, where he is presumably most known, Obama performed the poorest in his Senate race (against Keyes) and in the Presidential Primaries (against Clinton) in the “Upland South region”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Egypt_(region) This is a small demographic in Illinois, but is more important in states like Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Virginia. McCain is now “barely favored”:http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/late-nite-polls-817.html in Ohio because Obama is not winning with this largely Democratic constituency.
What can he do to win these people over? Project candor and a strong American foreign policy. Barring that, there is always Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.
First comment, for clarity’s sake:
TalkLeft, Firedoglake, MyDD – are NOT the bastions of support for Obama – very, very, far from it. While they support Obama NOW, as the Democratic nominee, these sites were VOCIFEROUSLY for Hillary Clinton – and now, are tepid in their support for Obama.
You know this. I know you know this, as you’ve written before about reading Talk Left. I even wrote a comment about responding to that post about how TalkLeft is a “serial deleter” of comments they don’t want.
So – why the misrepresentation? Did you simply forget, or is it intentional?
I hope that this campaign turns more negative. We’ve seen a lot of the positive that McCain and Obama have to offer, some of it real, much of it spin. But each candidate has immense negatives, and this is a choice between A and B, not between A and some wonderful or awful ideal.
The race obviously won’t be improved by more and more vicious schoolboy taunts. But voters ought to have a more balanced view of what the candidates’ lives to date say about who they are.
For example, much of the Presidency involves picking the people to manage the departments, agencies, and other advisory, executive, and judicial bureaucracies that comprise the Federal Government. What have McCain and Obama successfully managed thus far? A state government? A major nonprofit venture? A corporation? Anything more than a Senate office? Bueller?
Why is it more important to stay positive than to explore these issues? I think it’s okay to be surprised before the election, rather than after it.
As far as What Obama (or McCain) could do now, I don’t understand why folks would take vote-seeking panders and position changes at face value. There’s plenty of evidence that both of these guys will trim their rhetorical sails to suit the current perceived conditions. But slight evidence that they’ll feel particularly bound to hold to these particular pledges, once elected.
It would help to have Obama frankly discuss his decades-long alliances with Rev. Wright, Ayers, Pfleger, Rezko. And his record of favoring communitarian rather than market-based economics. And his view of the hardball politics that was instrumental in each of his key electoral victories. Is Today’s Obama better than the prior years’ model? If so, how? But I suspect he’s more interested in keeping the dreams of “Hope and Change” voters aloft for a few more months than in earning my grudging respect.
Obama record shows him to be a leftist not a Progessive. An I mean the European left, in many ways the anti-American left. His speech in Germany presented a post-nationalist vision where the President represents primarily, or at least equally, the interests of people who didn’t elect him.
If you think about it, that’s pretty undemocratic. Obama follows the program of the old Frankfurt School, of the hard left, of the A.N.S.W.E.R crowd.
Obama is not a Progressive; he’s an international leftist. That’s gotta’ make uneasy an American Progressive.
Conscience doth make cowards of us all.
Uh, hypo, while Big Tent Democrat at Talkleft certainly hasn’t been an Obama fan, I’ll disagree with you strongly on the party line at MyDD, Firedoglake, and once Obama had locked the nomination, TalkLeft.
And what’s interesting is that it’s not about the ‘official’ stance of those sites, but the reaction of their commenters (which are who I linked to) who are often (not always, certainly) pretty much like me.
If there was a misrepresentation, I’d acknowledge it – but I don’t see one here.
A.L.
A.L. –
You didn’t mention the Saddleback interview/debate. I know you must have been glued to it, because it was the perfect opportunity for the narrative background you’ve been looking for from Obama to show itself.
I would be interested in hearing your take on it. The view from the right says that Obama knows only two things really well: black identity politics, and white elitist politics.
There was not a lot to refute that view. It seems to me that Obama can speak decisively only when he is limited to a single choice, and the limiting factor is mostly whatever the left will put up with. For example, he must say “I support Roe V. Wade” and he can say it as passionately as anyone, but the underlying rationale he can only weakly explain.
I saw it online, and want to watch it again before I respond. I wasn’t glued to it, but got the clear impression of tone from each of the candidates, and think McCain put away the ‘old and confused’ concern, and that he was energetic and focused.
I also thought Obama did well in front of a potentially hostile audience in being measured and thoughtful in his affect. He wasn’t as articulate as I would have liked – he’s clearly an OO guy not an extemp or impromptu guy – but he was articulate enough. The “above my pay grade” comment is something he didn’t deserve to get busted for, in context.
A.L.
This thread calls for a little more time than I have at the moment, so I will settle for one nitpick. Howard Wolfson’s claim that, had Edwards quit the race earlier, Hillary would be the nominee is not buyers’ remorse. As far as one can tell exhuming pre-Iowa polls, it isn’t even true; Obama would have done even better in Iowa and NH without Edwards. Wolfson is not a disinterested party; he is a veteran of the Clinton campaign, and he has good reason to wish to obscure what will go down as the conventional narrative, that Clinton entered the race with significant advantages and squandered them.
I hadn’t seen it put that way before but that does seem like a pretty good summation of the extent and shallowness of BHO’s knowledge of the world. I find it somewhat remarkable that someone who was sold initially on his “post-partisanship†and ability to “bring us together†could demonstrate repeatedly that he really doesn’t have a clue what anyone on the other side of the ideological aisle thinks about anything or why they believe as they do.
Obama’s doing fine. He doesn’t need to close the deal now. He only needs to close it on election day.
Grim, you write as though management ability and charisma were all that mattered, and ideology was an afterthought. Surely you don’t believe that. The problem with Obama is not that he’s had insufficient opportunity to enact, as Jeff says, a hard leftist agenda. The problem is given the opportunity, that’s what he’ll do. What on earth do you mean “not yet”? If he manages to become a leader in the Senate, nationalize a few industries, and gut defense spending, that would make you more supportive of him?
To over burden the debate with sports metaphors, Obama is looking more and more like Ali in Ali-Frazier I or Sugar Ray Leonard in his first fight against Roberto Duran.
If he is shown to be unable to fight inside when an opponet is taking it to him, not only will he not be President, he doesn’t deserve to be President. Most people understand that neither politics or international relations are gentlemen’s games and that having an ability to show some flashy footwork and elegant jabs is not going to ward off adversaries that want to take the fight into your kitchen.
As far as the risks involved in going negative, this is the real Heavyweight Championship of the World he is going for If he is not ready to do what it takes to win it, he ought to go home now.
Astonishingly, I agree with David Blue [#23]. There’s an up-and-down rhythm to campaigns, and you don’t want to peak too early.
That said, I would like to see Obama take a serious swing at McCain and all the changing he has done. Maybe we’ll start to see that soon. I remember the McCain of 2000, who really was a straight-talking maverick with principles. He got clobbered, with the South Carolina primary being a particularly dirty example of Karl Rove’s genius.
I think it broke the back of his principles. Over the last eight years, McCain has tried to sell his soul to various devils, changing his mind and his marketing approach when he can’t get the price he needs.
If McCain beats Obama, which could certainly happen, it won’t be because he’s the one with principles. It will be because he’s found a buyer who wants the power of the Presidency for the next term, and who can sell McCain’s brand and can trash Obama’s brand.
Bg,
As I said, I was _never_ going to vote for him. The question is, can I respect the man as an opponent? And really, at this point, I can’t.
So when I say, “Not yet,” I don’t mean that I might vote for him someday. I mean that he might someday be able to sway the majority to do so. He might, even, someday be worthy of majority support — the fact that I disagree with him doesn’t mean I’m right, just that I believe I’m right.
Furthermore, there is this advantage to a liberal/progressive holding the Presidency once in a while: it keeps the whole of the population engaged in the political process in a positive way. If you never have power, you never have responsibility. A lot of the screaming, yelling, and waving of hands we’ve seen over the last few years is probably worse for the nation than simply letting them have a turn once in a while.
I don’t think, however, that Obama can draw majority support. He’s not worthy of the office, in terms of experience, principle, devotion to duty, or character. A strong liberal/progressive might make a good president, if only to give them a chance to try their ideas on foreign policy and take responsibility for the results. But a weak sister (as Maureen Dowd called Sen. Obama) is not going to serve as a strong advocate for their cause, or America’s, or the West’s; we’ll watch things wash away.
Americans know that. They’re considering him and giving him a chance, because we all very much would _like_ to be able to vote for him. In the end, though — as against Hillary — the longer the contest goes, the more people have to think about what he’d _really_ be like in office, the less support he will have.
Only this time there are no caucuses in which to run up an early advantage, and no superdelegates to save him and drag him over the line.
Obama needs someone to give him advise like Karl Rove as included in the Atlantic article that outlined Team Hillaryworld meltdown:
“Rove Memo”:http://www.theatlantic.com/a/green-rove.mhtml
It’s still early and most voters are not paying attention. That is because what is currently being debated about in the blogotimehole is NOISE. Only dweebs get excited by noise and completely miss the big picture. For me, the big picture is that both candidates are decent men who are professional politicians. I will vote for Obama unless he drops the ball. In either case, we will get a better president than we have now.
The Wolfson claim that Edwards’ secret love child was responsible for their loss is just a cover so some other idiot will hire him in future. Hillary showed us she is not qualified to be president because she was not qualified to run a campaign. Both Obama and McCain ran smart campaigns that speaks well for them.
Lets see who the veeps are and readjust then. Then lets see the debates to determine who has the coolest head… or not. Just continue debating the meaningless noise if it makes you feel like you are “involved”.
This is the second election in a row where the Democrats have chosen the most liberal Senator. Not just a liberal, but the MOST liberal. Clearly the process is broken, because the result is someone many people closer to the center can’t accept.
Right now Obama is trying to portray himself as centerist, causing some of the flip flop confusion, but it isn’t working; deep down he is as liberal as we thought, and it just doesn’t work.
Its not just noise- momentum in politics is very real. There is an early adopter/maven phenominon in politics- a lot of ‘ordinary’ people look to the opinions of the political junkies even if they dont follow things closely themselves.
Well, all the easy, snappy answers (“Get more experience,”) are taken, and aside from that it’s really an imponderable– I can’t tell you what Obama needs to do until you make it clear what’s bothering you… and it doesn’t sound like it’s clear to you, even.
That said, though:
He seems to have put himself in a bit of a box. He’s been so sensitive to perceived negative attacks that it’s fair (I think) to call him hypersensitive on the issue, and he’s been accused (fairly or unfairly) of playing, e.g., the race card, off the bottom of the deck in trying to pre-empt them.
So he clearly can’t run a campaign that has any hints of negativity without being labelled a complete hypocrite.
He doesn’t have a lot of achievements behind him, and he’s been given passes, in one form or another, through almost every election he’s ever stood for. So it’s hard to run a really hard-hitting positive campaign, or a campagin positive in anything but a rhetorical approach.
And he has a hard time pivotting on the issues of the day because the theme of the campaign has been an overpowering, overwhelming, “Change!” meaning, “I’m not like all those other politicians!” which in turn means that he’s not supposed to pivot.
All in all, he seems to have put himself in a box where he has very little room to manuver.
Now, to be far, McCain has the same issues, but in every case they seems somewhat, or even significantly, smaller. McCain has also made a big deal about running a fair and positive campaign. But he’s at least tried to blunt that with a sense of humor, even going so far as to appear on Saturday Night Live. (Sometimes funy… sometimes, not so much. But he tries.)
McCain’s management experience is also woefully small. (Funny, my college roommate made a big deal about Bill Clinton not having any real experience outside government, but I haven’t heard him make the same claim about McCain.) But in his case, at least he does have the whole “long term Senator” thing to fall back on. And, hey, the POW thing– that’s not management experience, but it’s experience. And he’s been prescient about some aspects of foreign policy.
And McCain, too, has problems pivotting, but while he does pivot, he doesn’t seem to do so to the same extent as Obama. Even in the recent past, he staked his political aspirations and perhaps his career on speaking out against the Administration regarding their handling of the war in Iraq, and the handling of prisoners. One simply gets the sense that there are things McCain believes in, and won’t compromise on. Obama doesn’t have that in my mind because he’s too young and his pivots take on a proportionally greater effect.
He’s in a tough spot, but he’s done it to himself.
Here’s something to think about. How does Obama respond to the Number One Book on the NY Times Bestseller List, being bulk-purchased by the Right Wing Conspiracy? Let’s take just one moment to look at the author. A 9/11 Truther. A believer that the USA is going to surrender its sovereignty to the North American Union and replace the dollar with the amero. Is he fighting “inside” or is that a Mike Tyson move to the ear?
It’s not so easy to run a campaign when you have to worry that there’s hundreds of radio stations ready to echo whatever total crap this crazy loon is going to write about Obama. Myself, I have a fair amount of confidence: not in the American electorate, because too many members of it are going to go buy this trash and trade stories with each other how Obama is a closet Kenyan Muslim, but in Obama’s campaign. He dispatched Hillary Clinton, didn’t he? Obama has lots of cash in reserve; he has field offices in places other Dems don’t dream of. In the timing of the campaign, everything looks OK to me.
Meanwhile, the MSM still loves McCain. Why, just questioning the integrity of a POW, that’s beyond the pale. (I suppose, like everything else these days, it applies to Americans only: any Al Qaeda captives who resist our torture and draw the shahada in the dust are still evil.)
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama has learned the lesson of the Kerry campaign, that rope-a-dope isn’t going to work here. Let’s see about the convention speeches, the VP pick, and the debates before we decide he can’t close the deal.
Even though I don’t think AMac and I share the same preferences, let’s remember he’s 100 percent right on when he says, “But each candidate has immense negatives, and this is a choice between A and B, not between A and some wonderful or awful ideal.”
And one other point: I’m not so sure the old and confused story is going away, from one debate where McCain’s campaign is remarkably equivocal on whether his aides were listening and passing on info from the first part, the interview with Obama.
AJL, you’re an odd mixture of thoughtful intelligence and ideological blindness. But any comment that compares McCain to our Al Quaeda prinsoners drags you _way_ over the ideological blindness line.
_He dispatched Hillary Clinton, didn’t he?_
Well… no, actually. He managed to squeak out a small delegate lead, but the question of who won the popular vote was still open. He was finally rescued by the superdelegates, for reasons not really pertaning to his management of the campaign: rather, he belonged to the constituency they could less afford to alienate.
Even now, he’s going to have to endure a convention where her name is also put into nomination, and where a substantial number of the delegates will vote for her rather than him. The Democratic party will come out of its convention having made a statement that Obama is their nominee, but only with serious reservations.
Right, because we are ganders and they are geese. Or is it the other way around? The McCain camp states for their propaganda purposes that we can’t question the man’s integrity because—did you know?—he survived a barbaric POW camp without giving in. Well, so did members of Al Qaeda, and Communists, and Nazis, and members of any other misguided group you care to name, so while this act may be commendable, it no more indicates integrity, much less fitness for high office, than having two eyes and two ears.
The point has been made (I can’t remember where; it’s probably an oldie) that the heroism of suffering can be distinguished from heroism of accomplishment.
McCain’s personal history puts him squarely in the first camp (figuratively as well as literally). I find his conduct as a POW to be noteworthy and relevant to the current race. He should be, and is, honored for his sacrifice. In my experience, enduring suffering for a worthy cause (equally, if you wish, for an unworthy cause) does not speak to most of the important traits that I’d look for in a President: sound judgment, pragmatism, even temperament, visions for the long-term future, ideology with respect to individual vs. group rights and market vs. regulated economy.
Dwight Eisenhower and George Washington are among the past Presidents whose heroism (if that’s what it was) stemmed from their accomplishments. I’d far rather see someone of their ilk win either party’s nomination. For that matter, I’d rather have seen candidates who personify the desirable relevant traits beyond any streak of heroism.
Not this time, though. Either I’m way out of step with other voters, or we’ve ended up with a system that somehow puts up second-rate candidates for the general election. Probably the former for the most part.
_Right, because we are ganders and they are geese. Or is it the other way around?_
Wrong. Because a) McCain was a uniformed combatant subject to the Geneva convention and Al Quaeda are unlawful combatants (read: murdering terrorist scum) and b)nothing we’ve done to any Al Quaeda at Guantanamo rises to nearly the level of torture McCain faced in North Viet Nam. Arguably, nothing we’ve done to them rises to the level of torture at all. It depends on your definition of torture. Those with certain ideological blinders on have an interest in defining it as broadly as possible. But hey, if you fellows on the left want to make that comparison publicly, knock yourselves out. McCain could use the help.
AMac, I don’t think anyone is arguing that merely having been a prisoner of war and suffered accordingly qualifies McCain for president. The argument is that the courage and integrity he demonstrated while he was a prisoner are qualities we want in a president. A different but related argument is that his military experience (he did hold a command position IIRC) makes him, at the very least, more qualified than Obama to be commander in chief.
That job was done for him, or so Senator Obama has been told. But apparently his minions neglected to cut off her head, stuff her mouth with garlic, and immerse her body in running water. You can’t trust Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi to do anything right.
The only way to deal with her now is a good old fashioned credentials fight at the convention. Hopefully with a lot of shoving and yelling and milling about.
Say, Fred, did you see the one about the Iraqi General whose death in our custody was a negligent homicide? There isn’t any question that, besides torturing Al Qaeda members, and besides torturing random goatherds, we’ve also mistreated members of the Iraqi Army who were obviously entitled to Geneva Conventions protection. I guess if this guy had survived being smothered he’d be the ideal President of Iraq, given that POW McCain’s imprisonment looks downright elysian by comparison.
Would you care to argue that except for that native-born American clause anyone who has stoically and heroically endured mistreatment in a prison camp is POTUS material? When the argument is put this way, it looks as silly as it is.
Nor, I must add, to I remember conservative excitement over the leadership qualities and heroism exemplified by a Silver Star.
_Wrong. Because a) McCain was a uniformed combatant subject to the Geneva convention and Al Quaeda are unlawful combatants (read: murdering terrorist scum) and b)nothing we’ve done to any Al Quaeda at Guantanamo rises to nearly the level of torture McCain faced in North Viet Nam_
-Fred
That’s rich Fred, really. First of all the term “enemy combatant” is one that Team Bush pulled completely from its collective ass, it has no force or real meaning in international law. It does, however, perfectly categorize those who resist US aggression but whom we wish to strip of protections guaranteed under the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, since the Conventions were also ratified by the US Senate they carry the force of federal law. So there you have it, Team Bush gets to make things up as it goes along while conveniently bypassing congressional, judicial, and UN/Red Cross oversight of its globe-straddling collection of gulags–of which Guantanamo is merely the crown jewel.
Finally would someone here please, pretty please tell me how John “Keating 5” McCain getting blown out of the skies of Vietnam while attempting to incinerate Vietnamese villagers qualifies him to be America’s Chief Imperial Manager?
PS: Oh yes, about geese and gander and such in the Caucasus regions, “sigh…”:http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002497.html
_First of all the term “enemy combatant” is one that Team Bush pulled completely from its collective ass . . ._
No, it came from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1942:
bq. _[T]he law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or *an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.*_
“Ex Parte Quirin”:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1
“No, it came from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1942”
-PD Shaw
PD, recognizing unilateralism when one encounters it is an essential skill. You see, Haiti if it so wished could have its Supreme Court make a similar declaration but would anyone give a Goddamn? Haiti has not the power to violate international law at will but we do–so we do.
Now for a discussion of relevant passages of the actual Geneva Conventions let’s try this:
_The protection and treatment of captured combatants during an international armed conflict is detailed in the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which defines prisoners of war (POWs) and enumerates the protections of POW status. Persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called “unlawful combatants,” are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. All detainees fall somewhere within the protections of these two Conventions; according to the authoritative *Commentary to the Geneva Conventions of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.*
There are other international legal instruments outside the Geneva Conventions that also affect the treatment of persons during armed conflict — and after the conflict. *While some human rights standards can be derogated or limited during times of war or national emergency, other human rights standards continue to apply in full force at all times. Instruments relevant to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty detainees include Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees is prohibited as a matter of customary law and treaty. Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and which the United States ratified in 1992, provides that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Also in force at all times is the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishmentand the UN Standard Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners* to which the United States became a party in 1994_
-HRW
“The rest”:http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm
If they did not come from a country that signed the Geneva conventions and do not wear the uniform of said country there is NO protection under law for said person. Coldtype’s argument has no legal basis. There is no “International Law”. That is a construct of the Marxist left.
Used to be non-uniformed combatants (SPIES) got one decision. 1 bullet.
Robohobo, the requirement that one’s home country was a signatory to the GC for individual GC protection was dropped in the 1949 version.
International humanitarian law predates Marxism.
Why your other claims are completely wrong is left as an exercise. It’s a big Internet; why make yourself look stupid even under a pseudonym?
_recognizing unilateralism when one encounters it is an essential skill._
The obligation of uniform is a feature of humanitarianism. It originates at least in its internationally accepted form in the Lieber Code. Francis Lieber was a legal scholar engaged by Abrahan Lincoln to identify the laws of war to instruct his troops. These would be executed by Lincoln as General Order 100, and would generally be recognized as the “original basis of international law of war:”:http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/110?OpenDocument
bq. _Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, *divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers — such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates.*_
“Article 82”:http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/110-20082?OpenDocument
Francis Lieber had sons fighting on both sides of the American Civil War. His main concern though was the status of the civilian. He recognized that the civilian in hostile territory is traditionally an enemy, but believed that war must fought to the extent practical to protect the unarmed civilian. The civilian would be protected by the use of uniforms are other distinguishing marks of a soldier.
The Lieber Code would be used by other European nations and would be relied on at Nuremburg.
What has John McCain ever “managed”?
He had a Navy career beyond being a POW. Returning from Vietnam, he served as CO of what is reported as the Navy’s largest squadron, of A-7 attack jets. He served during the pre-Reagan lean years, where he had to do some serious managing to keep his jets operational instead of parked in a hanger for lack of parts.
Admittedly, this was a government job, but running such a squadron is no small task — you have to do everything from pilot an aircraft to lead by example to be Father Confessor to the enlisted ranks who turn to you for help to oversea the procurement of all of the supplies and parts to keep those jet engines turning. I see this as being a bigger management job than running a Senate office.
The concept of noncombatant immunity as a feature of what people are pleased to call “international law” is much older than WWII. Its real origin is in the Peace and Truce of God movement, whereby the Catholic Church sought to enforce noncombatant immunity against the knighthood of the period.
The Bishop of Le Puy, following the council of Le Puy (A.D. 990) gathered an army to force knights to swear to abide by the principles of noncombatant immunity in their wars. This was done again in 1038; later by formal ecclesiastical threats.
The concept that enemy combatants can be treated differently from citizens who simply happen to be citizens of an enemy country is thus of early Medieval origin. It is the farthest thing from “unilateral” — rather, it is “catholic,”:http://www.answers.com/topic/catholic shall we say.
I appreciate the info on enemy combatants. The point that is trying to be made is how to handle them should never have been left up to the executive branch of the government alone. It was pretty clear that something was going to have to be done w/ AQ prisoners and the legislative branch didn’t even hold hearings to determine what to do w/ them. And according to PD Shaw’s citation a precedent was in place which makes it all the more mind boggling it has never been cited before this.
Final sentence should read “… boggling I have never heard it cited before this in any forum.”
Well, I understand the concept that Congress failed in its duty; that seems to be par for the course these days.
On the other hand, it’s also true that the executive branch didn’t make the deicision alone. The judicial branch has weighed in at various points. And even within the executive, there has been quite a bit of tension between the political part of the branch, and the career military JAG, which (to distill a complex topic to a sentence) wanted to use the Geneva Conventions as the basis instead of US law.
So, yes: Congress is a disgrace, and has been steadily getting worse for a decade or so. On the other hand, there is still a functional check-and-balance at work in this matter.
I suppose Congress could have gotten into the game on its own, but since at the pertinent time it was under GOP control, it’s not surprising that it acquiesced in the Bush/Cheney Administration’s claim to executive supremacy. We got the execrable Military Commissions Act precisely because the SCOTUS didn’t find any basis in law for the Administration’s acts. (The preferred position of the Bush Legion was, you will recall, that the 9/11 AUMF already revoked habeas corpus, established a network of secret offshore prisons where torture is conducted, and everything else Cheney’s hypoxic, fevered brain dreamed up.)
I’m worried we’re doing some threadjacking here, but to return to Obama, for some sealing of the deal, we’ll need more transparency from him on re-establishing the rule of law. Let John McCain explain why his treatment in North Vietnam should be better than our treatment of detainees. Should be very entertaining.
So many things wrong with this discussion. But just to name the first blood libel- comparing McCain’s treatment and torture, _old school, hanging from meat hooks torture_ to what is being argued about Al Qaeda is juvenile. You hold a gun to anyone reading this head and ask whether they would pick Gitmo or Hanoi and you have your answer. This equivalizing is so wrong.
And to try to steer this back on course, McCain himself has been uniformly against any kind of torture including waterboarding.
“So many things wrong with this discussion”
-Mark Buehner
Yes Mark indeed it is. There seems to be a tacit assumption that the US, when it so chooses, is immune to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions.
“I’m worried we’re doing some threadjacking here, but to return to Obama, for some sealing of the deal, we’ll need more transparency from him on re-establishing the rule of law”
-AJL
Excellent point Andrew. One way for Obama to clearly cement his rule-of-law credentials would be to work to repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006, both Patriot acts, and dissolve the FISA courts which collectively all but invalidate the Fourth Amendment. Oh, and introduce articles of impeachment against the most impeachable administration in the history of the republic.
Okay, but how are Dorothy and Toto going to get back to Kansas?
How about Abu Ghraib and the semi-secret prisons like Bagram? McCain was against all this stuff, to his credit, until he needed another vote to shore up his cred among the “conservatives” (sic) who drool over what they can do to detainees as long as Cheney has designated them unlawful combatants; then McCain decided it was OK as long as it wasn’t done by our military but only by CIA, contractors, and other pond scum on our payroll so our Uniforms were unstained.
But just the fact you called the North Vietnamese treatment “torture” instead of “enhanced interrogation” shows you aren’t giving Hanoi a fair shake. Don’t think of it as the rack, the rack is torture. Call it “stretchboarding” and it becomes OK.
Andrew, you said (#32):
“Myself, I have a fair amount of confidence: not in the American electorate, because too many members of it are going to go buy this trash and trade stories with each other how Obama is a closet Kenyan Muslim, but in Obama’s campaign.”
…Andrew, do you really believe this?
More responses later…
A.L.
AJL – Just what I expect from you – insults.
Coldtype:
bq. _First of all the term “enemy combatant” is one that Team Bush pulled completely from its collective ass,_
Coldtype’s link points to the protections Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions gives to enemy combatants. The United States did not ratify Protocol I, the reason for which was given in this Presidental address to the Senate:
bq. _Another provision would grant combatant status to irregular forces even if they do not satisfy the traditional requirements to distinguish themselves from the civilian population and otherwise comply with the laws of war. This would endanger civilians among whom terrorists and other irregulars attempt to conceal themselves. These problems are so fundamental in character that they cannot be remedied through reservations, and I therefore have decided not to submit the Protocol to the Senate in any form, and I would invite an expression of the sense of the Senate that it shares this view._
“Link”:http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/012987b.htm
It is the position of the Human Rights Watch and four members of the Supreme Court that Protocol I became binding upon the United States as customary law of war due to its ratification by numerous states like Luxembourg and the Bahamas. I can probably think of no greater reason to vote against Obama than that regardless of his thoughts on the matter, his appointees will share the same views as the four Justices.
A.L., let’s say I’m a believer in Winston Churchill’s quip about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the others. In Presidential politics, we’re confronted with low-information voters, who will make their decision with imperfect information about the candidates and their policies. These voters are going to be influenced heavily by media narratives, impression of personalities, emotional response to advertising, etc.
In recent elections, the Republicans have done much better with the white members of this class. Note, this is not something wrong with the Republicans. This is something wrong with the Democrats. Even if it were true that GOP policies was somehow less nuanced and more capable of sound-bite condensation, the Democrats weren’t even trying. To me, the single most important section of Great Orange Satan’s Crashing the Gate is his contrast of Jeb Bush’s “Banderas” ad, aimed straight at the emotional heart of the Spanish-speaking electorate, and his Democratic opponent whose ads featured a tedious laundry list of new or expanded program promises. You can tell that Kos was not surprised when Jeb cruised to re-election, and his interviews with the Democratic media consultants who insist their style works (with focus group polls to boot!) in the teeth of electoral losses is true tragicomedy.
People like Corsi aim straight at the low-information voter. Something like a a tenth of the electorate believes Obama is a stealth Muslim. Who knows what additional percentage is unsure? Corsi’s ravings on the Amero didn’t get picked up by the so-called mainstream media. Did Limbaugh et al push those books? Of course not. But they’re going to push this crap like there’s no tomorrow, hoping to keep Obama on defense over his religion, his long-ago drug use, his birth certificate.
Obama is going to win or lose the votes of high-information voters based on policy. Closing the deal with those voters means, if I had to guess, a clearer articulation of the parameters for the use of force, making sure his budget numbers sort-of add up (Republican tax plans seem to get much more generous slack in the standard media narratives), stuff like that. But Obama also needs to control the narratives that will close the deal with low-information and occasional voters. To some extent, this is on track, with his infrastructure building. Message-wise, I’m not so sure—tying McCain to the Bush Mess, clarity on the economy, radiating optimism, shrugging off charges of elitism, that’s a tall order. What does it say that the candidate calling the other elitist owns about 8 homes, wears $520 shoes, and married into huge wealth, and people aren’t rolling over laughing in the streets about the pot-kettle-black aspect?
Robohobo: Your post on international law contained (at least) two statements that looked like facts but were totally false. Yes, I insulted you. You insulted the rest of us, trying to derail discussion with your falsehoods and wasting our time in verifying them. If you wish to bloviate without making any assertions, go ahead, we all recognize BS here no matter whence it comes. But if you are going to try to ground your beliefs, do us the courtesy of getting elementary statements correct. (A cursory examination of the Geneva Conventions, which are online at multiple sites, would show that while state-to-state relations are dependent on a non-signatory’s adherence de facto to the Geneva Conventions, acts such as torture of detainees are absolutely forbidden.)
AJL:
In an earlier thread, you flew into a rage when I spoke of “a Democratic Party that is almost wholly a relic of the New Left”. You called it the most exaggerated statement in the entire thread.
It might be an exaggeration, but you’re doing your level best to make it a reality.
Maybe I should have said that the Democratic Party is a relic of 18th Century oligarchy. The Duke of Wellington would have found your view a a little old-fashioned.
Andrew, Robo had offered some links and quotes that support his position; can I ask you for the same? – ideally before we get too far into the mudslinging?
A.L.
AJL:
What you said does not follow from what he said.
Disbelief in democracy sorts poorly with a Democratic [sic] Party – some (not all) members of which have taken to expressing open scorn for democratic aspirations in other nations, and using “American-style Democracy” as a term of abuse.
Those “low-information voters” are the people who own this country, and who love it (and democracy) a great deal more than some “high-information” types do. If you think they would all be with you if they had more information, that is an assumption to which you are not entitled.
bq. A Fictional Introduction to the Gangster World of Putin’s Russia
bq. Anyone who wants to understand the emerging gangster state of Vladimir Putin would do well to read “Moscow Rules by Daniel Silva”:http://www.amazon.com/Moscow-Rules-Daniel-Silva/dp/0399155015/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219195855&sr=1-1 This New York Times bestseller is the eleventh novel this former newsman has written and is part of a long series about an Israeli spy and assassin named Gabriel Allon.
bq. Moscow Rules captures the arrogance, ruthlessness, and willingness to torture and kill that have become the trademark of a KGB inspired and trained leadership elite in the Kremlin.
bq. Silva understands the spirit of the new Russian gangster regime. It was willing to brazenly kill an émigré in a London bar by using a very obvious and easily traceable radioactive poison (as more than one observer has noted, almost as if they wanted to advertise to their enemies what they would do to anyone who dissented or threatened them). It has supported the methodical killing of reporters who are undertaking investigative and embarrassing efforts.
bq. If you want to understand the mindset which led Putin to invade Georgia and the willingness to use violence which is at the heart of that regime and is a serious threat to the stability of all its surrounding neighbors, Moscow Rules is a fascinating place to start.
AL – I ain’t gonna sling mud with AJL. That is the last I have to say to him this thread. I offered no insults to him.
As you know I am in Israel for a few more days (Yay! Home soon!). There are tons of newly minted Israelis here. Know where they come from? Yup, Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, *Russia*, etc. Know what they bring? Work ethic and a desire to not be _progromed_. Also, drugs, Russian mafia, Russian human slave trade (read whores), etc. 2nd most common language here is _not_ Arabic, it is Russian. On thread, Obama *CANNOT* bring it to the thugs of the world. Notice what just happened? Most did not. The balance of power shifted. The thugs let it be known that they rule the roost.
Putin invaded Georgia and there ain’t squat anyone will or can do about it. Europe? They would have to find their misplaced set. “Moscow’s Sinister Brilliance”:http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson081208.html
China showed it can make a whole lot of folks do the same thing, all at once. No matter how much lipstick you put on that pig… it is still oppressive.
Iran showed that no matter what they are going to keep trying to build missiles until they get it right. And kill all the infidels.
Obama is gonna talk to these guys? Otay…
Oh, and “bubble of silence gate”? What the heck? My *DOG* is more mature than that. ‘I lost ‘cuz he…he… cheated, Mommy!’
When dealing with the above mentioned thugs someone better get inside their OODA loop. ‘Cuz, guess what? They just flat violated ours. Got in it and had their way with it.
So, who ya gonna trust?
Obama – the man you can’t mention anything about at all.
McCain – the man who really doesn’t care what you say about him.
“Okay, but how are Dorothy and Toto going to get back to Kansas?”
-Glen Wishard
Please Glen, allow me my dreams at least. I think the question that should seriously concern us all is how will the US be returned to some facsimile of a constitutional republic. An actual democracy? Now that’s a fools dream.
“Coldtype’s link points to the protections Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions gives to enemy combatants. The United States did not ratify Protocol I, the reason for which was given in this Presidental address to the Senate:.. ”
-PD Shaw
Once. Again. PD, confusing unilateralism, i.e the determination of the US to go it alone regardless of preexisting international frameworks, with legal policies (with regard to the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions) is a consistent theme demonstrated not only in your own contributions to this thread but (far more troubling) in the public statements and policies of the criminals who lead us in Washington.
Yes, the US refuses to ratify the Protocol I protections of the Geneva Conventions, a position that flies in the face of virtually every nation on earth since most of the world is on board. But given our provocative foreign policy how could we?
Just to be certain that we are on the same page. When the US proclaims that the full Geneva Conventions (including Protocol I) do not apply to its actions abroad, that is a *unilateral* decision not available to say Haiti or Spain. This option is available only to powerful, a lesson Saddam Hussein forgot to his peril.
*The* powerful of course…
I don’t think Robo offered any links to suggest that International Law was a construct of the Marxist Left. I would say the links to the Lieber Code posted by others are almost enough for this absurdity. The first Geneva Convention also dates to the 1860s, long before any influence of Marxism. Please note that people like Grim could hardly be considered liberals.
Geneva Conventions Common Article Two makes clear that Robohobo’s claim that soldiers must belong to a signatory of the GC to fall under its protection is false. Some of the other claims of the Bush Clown Show in its quest for omnipotence and recognition of omniscience, that have been dismissed by every neutral party including our own Supreme Court, deserve at least some respect since they were the (both criminal and wrong-headed, IMHO) policy of the Administration—but Robo’s statement here is beyond anything they ever said, because it is a simple true-false claim that is wrong.
A.L.: Are you sure you haven’t confused Robo with PD Shaw?
Glen: I think it is quite possible that low-information voters “love” their country—whatever that means—as much as or more so than high-information voters. That doesn’t change the fact that wonkish white papers on the minutiae of tax reform will not get these voters allegiance, as you know perfectly well, but—in exactly the emotional style intended for such voters—you have attempted to confuse the issue.
AJL –
Yes, white papers on tax reform do not mesmerize the masses. But they don’t do much for the intellectual classes either, except as political ammunition. In truth, the wonks and the academics tend to be perfect rubes outside of their own narrow circles, and their political judgments can be as bigoted and mindlessly partisan as any redneck’s.
Obama supporters are taking too much comfort in the idea that their guy is too “thoughtful” and “deliberative” to be an easy sell with the proles. This is the tune the Kerry people were singing as they went down to defeat.
The country has seen these “too smart for their own good” eggheads crash and burn many times – Adlai Stevenson and Eugene McCarthy, and many lesser names. I will not count Kerry, who is an intellectual only to people who think that big hair makes you smart.
Maybe the people are too stupid to have great leaders like this. Or maybe the people have learned, over the course of their insignificant little lives, that the know-it-all is not necessarily the guy who knows it all. Maybe they’ve learned that a guy who thinks he’s above you can be a dangerous guy to trust.
BTW, you really don’t know what “love” of country means?
Sorry – did confuse Robo with PD Shaw. Could you reply to him for me on this?
A.L.
#67:
FWIW, I’m a great believer in _liberality_. Just not _liberalism_, at least not in its modern form. The Classical Liberals and I get along just fine.
As for what love of country means, it means a faith that your country is like your mother: that you should honor her and recognize the sacrifices she — in the form of your progenitors in the nation — have made for the wealth and liberty you enjoy; that you honor her name and those things that remind you of her, whether flags or songs or other things; that you defend her if she needs defense, and leap to aid her when she needs help. And, just as with a mother, you do all this with an eager and a glad heart, even if there are sometimes things about her that bother you.
OK, but… perhaps you should not expect any person running for US president to incarnate your values in any significant form. I am more of a cynical leftist than a liberal, and I am completely opposed to the neoconservative ideal of perpetual war. Obama does not always resonate with me on an emotional level. I am a big believer in accepting mush before dirt, dirt before shit, and shit before toxic waste. As far as I am concerned, McCain is an example of political shit. I support Obama’s mushy centrism as a balance against the dangerously mistaken beliefs of McCain and his supporters.
My advice is that, if you are thoughtful, you should not expect a US presidential candidate’s positions to resonate with your values, but rather, you should look at the situation strategically.
_”and I am completely opposed to the neoconservative ideal of perpetual war.”_
Is there any way to make your eyes roll through a computer screen? The term neo-con is not an argument.
Mark:
Do you doubt that perpetual war is in fact a major part of the neoconservatives’ ideology? Or do you not believe that the neoconservatives have power? What is your problem with my statement?
AJL-
bq. Yes, I insulted you. You insulted the rest of us, trying to derail discussion with your falsehoods and wasting our time in verifying them.
Well, enough. I now go silent on this forum and leave it to you …. in your echo chamber(s).
“neo-con” is the new Nazi, didn’t you get the memo? Maybe we need a revision to Godwins Law.
coldtype is not making me feel warm and fuzzy about liberals (or perhaps I should say “the Left”) wanting to bind the United States to treaties its popularly elected government thinks are ill-advised and unsound.
If Obama wants to run a campaign on ratifying Protocol I … If he wants to run on eliminating FISA (Nixon would stand up and applaud in his grave), impeachment of the President, emptying GITMO, that’s all fine. The courts making unratified treaties the law of the land, whether for liberal or conservative ends, is a big deal.
Sorry, only first paragraph s/b blockquote.
Indeed, Mr. Shaw: the moral principle being advocated there is a big deal no matter the mechanism. It amounts to, “No nation can rightly have laws that differ greatly from what other nations have decided is fair.”
If that is what “citizen of the world” means, you can keep it. I like the idea that I can appeal to my government for a redress of grievances, without being told that they have no right to give one — because the matter was decided in a different respect in other nations, elsewhere.
_”Do you doubt that perpetual war is in fact a major part of the neoconservatives’ ideology?”_
Er, yes. But doubt is hardly the word. I find it utter paranoia, if not demagoguery of the worst kind.
_”What is your problem with my statement?”_
It’s childish and unserious.
_”All of this is wide public knowledge, none of this is seriously disputed.”_
None of which proves they are advocates of endless war, which is the wildly provocative statement. I wont even bother correcting you on the level of influence or numbers, or even how many of these people have espoused the name as opposed to it being applied to them for the crime of being both hawkish and jewish. Mostly the latter.
I’m basically repeating what the Neocons themselves have always said, Mark.
Here, it’ll put it, “war for the forseeable future”, how’s that? Better?
or even how many of these people have espoused the name as opposed to it being applied to them for the crime of being both hawkish and jewish. Mostly the latter.
They’ve definitely espoused it.
And while many of them are Jewish, it ultimately has less to do with being Jewish than being very pro-Likud.
Noam Chomsky is Jewish… no-one calls him a neocon.
_”Here, it’ll put it, “war for the forseeable future”, how’s that? Better?”_
Your link is broken. You still havent provided any evidence that the Neocons, whoever they are, _idealize_ perpetual war (your words). And please dont bother kicking back links of somebody you consider a neocon stating wars may continue indefinitely. Predicting something is not espousing it. If you have some evidence that these neocons are _advocating_ perpetual war, present that.
_”They’ve definitely espoused it._
Irving Krystal. Thats ‘they’. Which cabinet position does he hold by the way?
_”And while many of them are Jewish, it ultimately has less to do with being Jewish than being very pro-Likud.”_
You can keep the shovel.
_”Noam Chomsky is Jewish… no-one calls him a neocon.”_
So long as you’re a self-loathing jew who hates Israel, you’re good to go I assume.
But lets play in your sandbox. What does a person need to be defined as a ‘neo-con’? Please start there. If you continue on the Krystalesque definition (ie, former liberal, the original definition), you already have a major problem, because none of the other names you bandied are neo anything, theyve been lifelong conservatives.
A.L.—understanding just what PD Shaw is claiming that is controversial is not clear to me. It is the case that the United States has refused to ratify the additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, perhaps with good reason. It is also true that one of the major sticking points, and indeed one of the places where compromise was necessary in the 1949 GC, is the treatment of non-state guerrillas, insurgents, irregulars or whatever one chooses to call them. I have read that the US Army cuts captives a break over the question of a uniform (our own allied militia such as the Afghan Northern Alliance did not, at least always, wear a uniform), as long as arms were carried openly.
Now, IANAL, much less trained in military and international law, so at this point we’re going to head for the links.
It has been charged that the Hamdan decision is based upon the (erroneous) application of unratified Protocols, but the Court in fact relied on Common Article Three. As you can read at that link, the US Government itself stated until 2003 that Article 75, although unratified, was our own determination of minimum standards for treatment of detainees under all circumstances. The GC and the International Convention Against Torture are full of words like “whatsoever”, which make it clear that certain provisions are unilaterally binding on signatories (that is, us) regardless of whether Al Qaeda adheres to them in turn. Why the USG stopped making the statement about minimum standards after 2003 is, I suggest, obvious: the Bush Administration shifted to a doctrine of Executive Omnipotence.
The components of this doctrine were as follows:
There is a gap in the Geneva Conventions for unlawful combatants. The ICRC Commentaries to the GC provide
Captives are POWs (3GC) or civilians (4GC). As far as I know, this is based not on something in later Protocols, but on the evident intent of the 1949 revisers to create an exhaustive characterization. I have never understood any military need of Bush’s acolytes to insist that detainees are “outside” the GC: the GC themselves provide for the trial and even execution of spies and other war criminals, so what more can we want? The answer, I suggest, is that an Omnipotent Executive must not be bound by procedural impediments, especially those arising from International Law (even if ratified, and, hence, American Law). Moreover, in Bush’s case, and I think this is generally true, the Omnipotent must also be Omniscient, so he and Rumsfeld were able to determine wholesale from Washington that the detainees were “the worst of the worst” and had, under their reading, no GC protections (which, as I said, is like suggesting Charles Manson has no Constitutional protections, rather than acknowledging a Constitutional process for depriving him of his liberty) and allowing them no access to any sort of fair process to overturn this remarkable diktat.
There is a gap in seisin. With their clever legerdemain of jurisdiction at Guantánamo, Team Bush thought that no matter how repugnant their unilateral repudiation of the GC was, no one would have standing to object. The Supreme Court did not buy that one either.
The battlefield is everywhere. The Bush Administration’s arguments have often been reducible to the syllogism: (1) Special rules prevail on the battlefield; (2) In the War on Terror, the battlefield is everywhere; so (3) the special rules about battlefield captures can be applied everywhere. For example, it was decided in WWII that a dual US-Italy citizen who had the bad luck to be in Italy when war broke out and who was captured on the battlefield whilst serving as a draftee in the Italian Army had no right to any sort of trial and would have to sit out the war as a POW. When the Decider decided that José Padilla was an enemy combatant and would spend the rest of his life (or at least, of the Bush Administration) incommunicado on Bush’s unreviewable say-so, even a sizable component of this blog’s conservative readers choked. (The part where the AUMF repealed the Magna Carta was likewise invisible to every member of SCOTUS except Clarence Thomas.) I regret that these conservative opponents of Bush’s Padilla doctrine saw only the one bizarre, anti-Constitutional claim and willfully ignored the putrid legal theory from which it emanated. Nor, I am disappointed to observe, have they broken with their fascist friends, who under cover of the ludicrous idea that “liberals” want courtrooms set up on the Normandy beaches, demand institution of executive detention, joining the millions of Germans, Russians, Argentines, etc. who don’t mind dictatorship as long as they be in the preferred class.
The existential struggle requires torture. Not only does the American system of justice have to be suspended for the duration, so too Western civilization. It is simply a fact that North Vietnamese treatment of John McCain, which we whinge is torture when applied to our servicemen, involved techniques which Bush has either authorized or which have flourished unauthorized in our own prison system.
Mark Buehner writes upthread with shock that the North Vietnamese hanged detainees from meat hooks. So what? We did too. And now we reason backwards, that Al Qaeda must be an existential threat, because otherwise our leaders are brutal perverts. Well, they are.
[Busted link format corrected. –NM]
One of the primary purposes of seeking sharp distinctions between the military and civilian, between combatant and non-combatant is *to avoid endless war.* If war is a people against a people, undiferrentiated, then war is not finished until the earth is salted and all male children are enslaved or dead.
Plato was a neocon, according to atheist.
My main claim above is that when coldtype accused Team Bush of pulling the term “enemy combatant” from its collective ass, an accusation found on all of the finest anti-war websites, that he and they were pulling that idea from their collective asses.
Also, this was not my claim: “It has been charged that the Hamdan decision is based upon the (erroneous) application of unratified Protocols” This was my claim:
bq. _It is the position of the Human Rights Watch and *four members* of the Supreme Court that Protocol I became binding upon the United States as customary law of war . . ._
Justice Stevens wrote the opinion in “Hamdan,”:http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZO.html in which he explained that the United States had not provided Hamdan with access to a “regularly constituted court:”
bq. _the phrase “regularly constituted court,” . . . is not defined in the text of the Geneva Conventions. But it must be understood to incorporate at least the barest of those trial protections that have been recognized by customary international law. Many of these are *described in Article 75 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, adopted in 1977 (Protocol I). Although the United States declined to ratify Protocol I, its objections were not to Article 75 thereof.*_
However, only Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer joined in this part of the opinion. Justice Kennedy declined:
bq. _There should be reluctance, furthermore, to reach unnecessarily the question whether, as the plurality seems to conclude, ante, at 70, *Article 75 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions is binding law notwithstanding the earlier decision by our Government not to accede to the Protocol.*_
So, no, Hamdan is not based upon a non-ratified treaty, but that’s because only four justices think so. As of now.
_the agony of long-time standing._
Not to mention exposure to high or low temperatures, and sleep deprivation. Oh my God! We made the poor things UNCOMFORTABLE! And we call ourselves CIVILIZED? The North Vietnamese beat McCain for days on end, beat him on already broken bones and broke others. After a particularly brutal four-day beating, he finally broke and signed a communist propaganda letter. He regretted it so much he endured six more occasions of brutal beating without signing any more letters. Aside from isolated incidents like the one AJL mentioned earlier, which have been exposed and punished, we have not done anything that rises to nearly that level. McCain also refused to be sent home early or accept preferential treatment because of his father’s postion. AJL and Coldtype, if you can’t see the honor, courage, and integrity in that and his refusal to sign the propaganda letters, I honestly pity you. What impoverished moral lives you must lead.
And if you can’t make the distinction between an honorable soldier like McCain and murderous animals like Al Quaeda–no let me rephrase that, I refuse to believe that anyone whose IQ exceeds his shoe size _can’t_ make that distinction–if you _won’t_ make that distinction, you are obviously too ideologically blind and fanatical to be worth arguing with. It’s a lot like arguing about evolution with a Christian fundamentalist, who, by the way, you guys resemble more closely than you’ll probably ever admit. True they’re right wing religious fanatics and you are left wing political fanatics, but the mind set is exactly the same: God (or Marx, the Left, the Democratic party or whatever) says it. I believe it. That settles it.
And I’ve never argued that McCain’s POW experience alone qualifies him to be president, only that that kind of courage and honor are qualities many voters want in a president. If Obama wants to close the deal (just call me Mr. Segueway) he should tread very lightly on attacking McCain’s military record.
AJL:
When I was a kid, I met “Leo Thorsness,”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_K._Thorsness who was tortured for 7 years in North Vietnam, and who could not raise his arms to shoulder height because he had been hung by them so long that his chest muscles had torn loose from his sternum.
Who the hell are you calling a whinger?
_”Mark Buehner writes upthread with shock that the North Vietnamese hanged detainees from meat hooks. So what? We did too.”_
AJL, when i talk about hanging people from meat hooks, I dont mean hanging people ON meat hooks. You understand the difference? Why am I asking, of course you dont. You see the difference between forcing someone to stand and taking a blowtorch to their genitals? Of course you dont.
The Dilawar case is outrageous _because_ it was outrageous. People went to prison. Any evidence this was a widescale, government sanctioned activity like McCain went through?
I imagine the phrase “enemy combatant” goes back even further than that. I don’t think Coldtype is correct, or, perhaps, he meant to say that Bush’s creation of a Type of “unlawful enemy combatant” and his authority to declare any human being, regardless of location or citizenship, such a person without any rights, ab initio, is unprecedented in American law. That would be correct.
As I wrote before, up until Iraq, Article 75, although unratified, represented the United States’ own position on the minimum universal standards for detainees, and, at least as described here [same link as before, html fixed], one could reach the same conclusion using GC Common Article Three, which we have ratified.
_”and his authority to declare any human being, regardless of location or citizenship, such a person without any rights, ab initio, is unprecedented in American law.”_
It would be if this were true.
_…one could reach the same conclusion using GC Common Article Three, which we have ratified._
Or we could look at the US. Army Field Manuals which contain most of Protocol I as rules of conduct. But rules of conduct don’t get you to the courts and that is the goal of lawfare.
But back to the issue. AJL is right:
_…one could reach the same conclusion using GC Common Article Three, which we have ratified._
Justice Kennedy wrote that opinion. The fact that four justices *unnecessarily* relied on an unratified treaty signals an agenda waiting for a fifth.
I feel a little self-indulgent; I knew what sort of reaction I would get comparing our torture to North Vietnam’s, and I did it anyway.
Once we decided to go the physical coercion route with our “enhanced interrogation”—a direct translation from a German phrase of the Gestapo, you will not be surprised to learn—any differences between our interrogations and the North Vietnamese’ were of degree, often vanishingly small, and not of kind. McCain complained of sleep deprivation and forced standing, and we authorized those forms of torture specifically. Both of these techniques, incidentally, were great favorites of the KGB because they left no marks. Blowtorch to the genitals? Not that I’m aware of.
Leo Thorsness and John McCain can’t raise their arms? I hear Maher Arar has permanent physical damage, too. Of course, Thorsness is a goose and Arar is a gander… or is it vice versa? Fred made it quite plain: our pilots shouldn’t be tortured, but Al Qaeda scum should be. I guess that’s because we’re civilized and they’re barbaric, or at least we would be civilized, if we didn’t have to torture the barbarians. Do you suppose KSM repented of the mixture of truth and nonsense he confessed to after being waterboarded? What if it took six more waterboarding sessions until he made another confession? My argument is not that McCain is like KSM. My argument is that our torture is like their torture: brutal, unreliable as a method of inquiry, perverse, and evil.
On Padilla:
Q: What right of review did the Bush Administration acknowledge, in its briefing in Padilla?
A: The Administration apparently acknowledged that Padilla had the right to file a habeas petition, but they denied he had a right to counsel, the claimed a right to keep him incommunicado for fear he would pass messages to other agents, and they denied he had a right to see the evidence against him on national security grounds. Given the impracticality of a successful habeas petition under these restrictions, I fail to see what part of arresting a US citizen on US soil and keeping him incarcerated indefinitely is not supported by the claims of the Administration itself. The fact that these claims were rejected by the courts is irrelevant.
Incidentally, is it true that torture drove Padilla insane? Whatever, he’s a goose. (Or is it a gander?)
But rules of conduct don’t get you to the courts and that is the goal of lawfare.
Another way of avoiding lawfare would be for the Bush Administration to follow the law. An even better way, I’d say. I find it hard to criticize the detainees for resorting to lawfare when they win over and over again, even in a Supreme Court not exactly swimming with liberals and radicals.
_”Once we decided to go the physical coercion route with our “enhanced interrogation”—a direct translation from a German phrase of the Gestapo, you will not be surprised to learn—any differences between our interrogations and the North Vietnamese’ were of degree, often vanishingly small, and not of kind.”_
Once we decided to lock people up for any crime, the differences between federal prison and Chateau D’If are in degree, and not of kind.
_”Q: What right of review did the Bush Administration acknowledge, in its briefing in Padilla?”_
Funny how much time they spent in federal court if they werent acknowledging any review.
_”The fact that these claims were rejected by the courts is irrelevant.”_
Hah! There you go. The courts uphold Bush’s right to detain enemy combatants per Ex Parte Qirem and teh Congressional use of force but Andrew says its irrelevant. Well heck, why bother arguing further.
_”Incidentally, is it true that torture drove Padilla insane?”_
Just like every convict in the country. Hey, theyre all innocent men and they ALL got roughed up by the cops. Amazing.
C’mon Mark: the Administration called for the dismissal of Padilla’s motions on jurisdictional issues, etc. They didn’t even feel Padilla had a right to a lawyer to file for habeas on his behalf. The fact that the Courts disagreed and that the Administration obeyed their directives (sort-of) does not say anything about what review the Administration believed Padilla should have. I suppose the Bushies get some small credit for following judicial decisions that were illegitimate in their eyes, assuming that they believed their own arguments, but not much.
You might as well argue that Southern States under Jim Crow believed in racial equality because they (very reluctantly and with great delay) acquiesced in Brown.
I am quitely waiting for the day when AL openly admits that :
1) His views on America’s greatness, the evil of radical Islam, gun ownership, etc. don’t match with most people who currently call themselves ‘liberals’.
2) The majority of people who agree with his excellent writings, tend to vote against left-wing candidates.
Sure, AL is deeply committed to reducing poverty, as many of us are. But then, the greatest force for reducing poverty has been a free market that nurtures entrepreneurs and technological innovations. The Democrats are certainly not the party that bolsters these forces. Welfare, aid to Africa, the UN, etc. have never worked.
So, I am quietly waiting for the day when AL declares himself an Independent, rather than a Democrat. I understand that the internal dialogue involved in making this change takes years, and that he is currently only 30-50% along the path. I am not pushing him, just quietly waiting.
_”I suppose the Bushies get some small credit for following judicial decisions that were illegitimate in their eyes, assuming that they believed their own arguments, but not much.”_
Andrew, that is what you dont understand here, and what stands your argument on its head. Bush _obeys_ the law when he obeys the courts. That is how the seperation of powers work. Its his _job_ to make arguments he beleives in in order to uphold his own Constitutional duties.
If Bush was the monster you make him out to be, Padilla would disapear from the face of the earth and the administration would ignore any summons or inquiry in the matter. THAT is the crux of the issue. Small credit indeed.
_”You might as well argue that Southern States under Jim Crow believed in racial equality because they (very reluctantly and with great delay) acquiesced in Brown.”_
Again you miss the point. Southern states werent required or on trial for their _beliefs._ Its about obeying the law, in this case the directives of the courts. When Wallace defied the courts, thats when force entered the picture.
In this case there would have been US Marshalls showing up to take the commander of the bases holding Padilla into custody for contempt. That obviously didnt come close to happening, because Bush _was not defying the law._
YOU may feel that taking a sabateur captured on US soil into custody is a criminal matter, but both Bush and the courts felt differently. To turn that into ‘Bush claims he can detain any living being on the earth at any time for any reason with no recourse’ is both untrue and ridiculous. A man who trained with _Al Qaeda_ has had more course cases over his status than most death row inmates- to argue John Smith from Des Moines could be next at Bushs whim and have NO recourse is inane.
_”has had more course cases”_
court cases rather
_”Second: That the writ of habeas corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prisons, or other place of confinement, by any military authority, or by the sentence of any court-martial or military commission._
_In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this Twenty-fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-seventh._
_ABRAHAM LINCOLN. By the President._
Mark, when we talk about what the Bush Administration claimed it could do with Padilla, we should look at what they presented to the Court. Just as the Southern states claimed they could legally operate segregated public schools. Neither one of these claims was approved by the Supreme Court, and in both cases the loser acquiesced. Good. This subthread started, however, when you apparently disagreed with my statement that Bush claimed the unprecedented “authority to declare any human being, regardless of location or citizenship, such a person without any rights, ab initio[.]” I slightly overstated the case: it appears—and I am not sure about even this—that Bush conceded that Padilla had a right to submit a petition for habeas corpus, although he had to do so without counsel, without knowing the specifics of the charges against him, while being held incommunicado. (How any Court was going to physically receive such a petition was left unsaid.) Given the futility of such an exercise, I don’t think I am that far off in stating Bush claimed the right to incarcerate anyone whom he stated was an enemy combatant of Al Qaeda on his own say-so.
The fact that the SCOTUS disagreed totally is very good. The fact that Bush complied with their order, eventually turning Padilla over to the regular criminal justice system (as they could have, all along) is good only in the sense the alternative would have been very bad.
The Abraham Lincoln stuff would be more relevant except that the civilian courts of the United States were functioning in perfect order.
Mark:
What’s my definition? How about using the Wikipedia definition:
Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of the social liberalism, moral relativism, and New Left counterculture of the 1960s. It influenced the presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, representing a realignment in American politics, and the transition of some liberals to the right of the political spectrum; hence the term, which refers to being ‘new’ conservatives.[1] Neoconservatism emphasizes foreign policy as the paramount responsibility of government, maintaining that America’s role as the world’s sole superpower is indispensable to establishing and maintaining global order.[2]
Mark:
As far as I am concerned, it’s quite evident that they ‘idealize’ the Long War (this is a good link).
First of all, why would they even come up with so many names for a ‘long’, i.e. effectively endless, war, if they weren’t in love with the concept? To me, it seems obvious that they are trying to sell Americans on the concept.
The Long War
World War IV
The Clash of Civilizations
Check out Norman Podhoretz in Commentary talking about “World War IV”. Note how, when he describes “The Bush Doctrine”, you can practically see his saliva oozing from the computer screen. Especially notice how he describes the years 1945-1991 as “World War III”. It seems to me that this retroactive redefinition of the Cold War years into an apocalyptic sounding term is meant to argue that, we’ve always been at war with Eastasia, our Long War is just a continuation.
Your earlier hint that Neoconservatives don’t really exist, except in my mind, is very strange to me. Type neoconservatives into google.com and you’ll get hundreds of thousands of hits. Note also that all my links are either to the neoconservatives’ mouthpiece magazines, or to sites like wikipedia. You don’t have to go to obscure sites to hear about this.
As far as evidence that they idealize the “Long War” goes, you have to ask why they:
-continually talk about it
-use it as the reason behind all their policies
–continually attack their opponents for not believing in it, or not having the courage to carry on this awesome war?
Why would they do all that if they did not idealize and love the concept?
_”Neoconservatism emphasizes foreign policy as the paramount responsibility of government, maintaining that America’s role as the world’s sole superpower is indispensable to establishing and maintaining global order.”_
Im sorry, is there any political movement of any standing in America that doesnt at least claim to believe this? Does Barack Obama not espouse this?
Are you claiming that anyone who believes foriegn policy is our most important consideration, and that the US is indespensible to global order is a NeoCon? It doesnt take anything else? Care to add any more requirements?
_”In September, 2003 James Carafano, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation published a short article entitled “The Long War Against Terrorism” [6], arguing that America is engaged in a “long war against terrorism” which is similar in scope, and will prove similar in duration, to the Cold War.”_
From your link. So the Cold War was a perpetual war? Did that make Eisenhower a Neocon? Kennedy?
_”Your earlier hint that Neoconservatives don’t really exist, except in my mind, is very strange to me”_
I make no such claim. Neoconservatism is a very specific movement of very specific people, a few of which attained semi-high positions in the Bush administration and who’s thinking undoubtedly influenced conservatism as a whole.
Your mistake is turning that into a shadowy cabal of string pullers. And gee, amazing that that description should be used against a group predominately jewish, thats new.
Your other mistake is attributing the term to everyone you disagree with, as though that in itself makes an argument. Sorry, but MOST Americans feel that foriegn policy is governments most critical responsibility, and that the US is critical to world peace and stability. I guess almost the entire country is ‘neo-con’ by your definition. Maybe _thats_ why your so upset.
_”As far as evidence that they idealize the “Long War” goes, you have to ask why they:”_
_”continually talk about it”_
Because acknowledging something as possible or probable doesnt mean you like it or champion it. Otherwise those people telling me i’m likely to die of heart disease have a lot of explaining to do. In other words, some people are willing to acknowledge hard truths.
_use it as the reason behind all their policies_
All there policies? But again- if you believe we are engaged in a war of idealogy similar to the Cold War, _like it or not,_ wouldnt be irresposible not to craft policy accordingly? You have a serious causation problem here.
_continually attack their opponents for not believing in it, or not having the courage to carry on this awesome war?_
Same point. Believe it or not we don’t always get to choose when and where we go to war. I suppose there was certainly some shmo in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis making your same point. And it made just as little sense then.
So basically, you have done NOTHING to demonstrate Neocons FAVOR perpetual war, as oppose to acknowledge it as a likelihood. I’d say a lot of thinkers besides ‘neocons’ have agreed with this, but considering the impossibly wide net you cast as Neocon that would probably be a waste of time.
We’ve had the perpetual war for 30 years, thanks to the terror-supporting regimes like Iran and Syria that are hotly defended by the anti-neocons of the right and left.
Co-belligerents? Or just geese and ganders?
Atheist says:
bq. [Y]ou can practically see his saliva oozing from the computer screen.
No, actually, what I can “practically” (==in a practical way) see is overblown rhetoric from someone whose opinion about the mental state of someone else is not going to change no matter what is said to him. And [, he said heavily,] I don’t mean Podhoretz, I mean you.
You seem to indicate that, for instance, anyone who talks about the cold war as WWIII is not merely wrong, but sick in the head. I believe that such talk is debatable, but not evidence of insanity.
I mostly see no way to sensibly communicate in this entire region of discourse with you. But then you write
bq. Why would they do all that if they did not idealize and love the concept?
Eh. Let’s assume you really are asking the question, even though it appears to be rhetorical.
A moment’s thought provides me with this: If one thinks the threat’s existential, it might justify a long war. If you think the opponent (let’s say “the class of all Salafists”, or whatever) more implacable than the average member of your society is, you might feel the need to keep reducing the “implacability gap” with writings reminding people it’s going to be a long haul.
I make no claim they are correct in those things. But contrariwise:
Can you imagine Sisyphus salivating with glee? Do you only persist in doing things that make you salivate?
You might creditably back off from that sort of talk. But I don’t expect you will. Because, perhaps, you get to salivate (self-righteously?) when you talk that way. But now I’m doing mindreading, and that’s your specialty, isn’t it?
_”Why would they do all that if they did not idealize and love the concept?”_
Why do firefighters spend all day worrying about fire if they arent arsonists at heart?
Mark: because the word “duty” makes them salivate? /sarc
This is the piece of foreign policy hypocrisy that pisses me off the worst. Yes, Iran is a terror-supporting regime– they support Hezbollah, which has attacked civilians as well as soldiers.
(Definition of “Terrorism”=
1. Violence or the threat of violence
2. vs. civilian populations
3. for a political aim)
And Assad’s regime in Syria is a terror-supporting regime– his regime has used state terror against the Muslim Brotherhood.
But the thing is, but this definition, the USA also has a terror-supporting regime. Reagan used terror against the Nicaraguans, when he trained, funded, and aided the contras. Carter and Reagan used terror by proxy against Russian civilians when they did the same for Osama bin Laden and his compatriots in Afghanistan. The US is currently using terror by proxy against Iran, by funding, training and providing an Iraqi base for the group Mujahedeen e-Khalk.
I wish everyone would just admit that they love terrorism as long as it is not directed against them, and that they want it never to stop. We would have a much more honest world, and could begin to work on the real issues.
You misunderstand my point. I am not saying that the 40-odd years of the cold war were perpetual. Nor am I saying that Eisenhower was a neoconservative.
What I am saying is that I think it is telling how this particular neoconservative, Norman Podhoretz, attempted to redefine the past in order to make it fit with his hopes for the future. It seems to me that, as part of his argument, (about the reality, necessity, and sheer awesomeness of perpetual American war against everyone else), Podhoretz is using rhetorical slight-of-hand. He is redefining the corrupt mess of the cold war years into some kind of apocalyptic struggle… the forerunner of what he’s hoping for now.
Hello… fire actually exists, and is universally considered a problem. Also, firefighters actually go into the fire, and put it out, and then go on to the next one. They don’t go on about The Eternal War On Fire, and accuse their critics of being “objectively pro-fire”.
The neocons aren’t firefighters. The neoconservatives are much more akin to faith healers, who use the weaknesses, pains and superstitions of their audience to remove their money, and give the audience a false feeling of connection. They also do nothing whatsoever to fix the problems they claim to cure, and arguably make them worse.
The neoconservatives are Sisyphus. Awesome.
Sisyphus was actually in a pit, pushing a boulder up the slope. When the boulder slipped out of his grasp, he’s go down, pick it up, and start laboring for the top again.
Sisyphus didn’t have a position in a think tank, writing papers about how we needed to have a War On Boulders. He didn’t call people boulder appeasers. He wasn’t attempting to inculcate hatred against half of the world because they were Boulder-supporting regimes.
Well played, Nortius Maximus.
In answer to your first point, the reason I take these statements by Neoconservatives as stratagems rather than actual beliefs is that they are so far from a realistic appraisal of the actual global situation.
Also, the neoconservatives always play them for maximal propaganda use, but do negative work on actually trying to fix the problem. (i.e. they make things worse)
Thanks Atheist, i think you answered all my questions. To sum up:
-The US is a terrosistic equivalent to Iran and Syria.
-The Cold War was not an apocalyptic struggle and present circumstances cannot be compared to as such.
-Our current idealogic war with terrorist totalitarism is not real, skyscrapers burning in Manhattan notwithstanding.
All of those being things i disagree with (im trying to be restrained this morning), i beleive we will have to agree to disagree. To take us full circle, the vast majority of the American people- and certainly people on this board- dont believe any of that. So any definitions you use reflexively that rely on those assumptions is always going to immediately start an argument. Thanks for your time.
Can we stop using Wikipedia as a source? It has ZERO legitimacy in the academic world. Sure it’s a good starting point for some topics, but the massive bias, and the ease at which it is perverted by factions discounts it from being used in debate.
What a surprise, we also beat prisoners.
I know, I know; he must be a terrorist and so our beatings are much, much different from the North Vietnamese beatings. And we have always been at war with Eastasia. Five years ago, most conservatives would have been overtly disgusted by our torture. Now they’ve had a chance to get used to it. I suppose Glen would say they love our country so much.
AJL: One of the epistemological problems here is related to trends. Let’s hypothesize that one possible trend might be the following:
(possible, #1) Immediately after 9/11, existential-threat fears were high, and some waterboarding and other physical brutality took place (note that your own link speaks of “those first years”); as time passed the existential fear decreased and so did the excesses.
Another possible trend might be:
(possible, #2) Immediately after 9/11, every thug-inclined person in the military started getting the news through the grapevine that they could get free torture subjects by signing up to go to GITMO. They did, and now every day there’s a painbath, with more torture being invented and imposed, gleefully, by the drooling (thanks to poster “atheist” for saliva emphasis) neocon-supported psychopaths that are running the asylum.
Consider contrasting these possible patterns with what appears to have been relatively stable VC/NVA policy during the most “vigorous” part of the Viet Nam War.
If the two cases mentioned above constitute a kind of spectrum, where does that VC/NVA history sit?
Or are we (you) really not able to do that — would even #1 above still put any comparison in the “doesn’t matter, we’s just as bad as anyone” zone for you?
My question is entirely separate from whatever the hell is actually going on. But I still think the question I ask matters. Please understand I’m not taking a side here; I’m trying to explore the matter rationally. Maybe that’s impossible.
You’re welcome, my man.
It’s not impossible. And even if it was… I would try anyway.
I applaud any and all efforts to look at war policy, torture policy, & national security policy, rationally. It seems to me that this effort has been completely absent for the past eight years. This concept is basically the kernel of what I always try to get at.
Mark finds a rational look at the world and our place in it to be insulting. I can’t help his issues, I can just keep stating the reality. If he wants to attack me, he can go right ahead.
We need to get beyond the ‘cold war’ policies, which were based on enriching certain elements, impoverishing the vast majority, creating mythology, and perpetuating armed conflict. The neoconservative policies of the past eight years, which are just a more extremist version of the same thing… we should drop them like the shitty, dangerous habit that they are. We should wake the fuck up & smell the coffee.
We keep attacking the weak for bullshit reasons about democracy, or weapons of mass destruction, or religion, and eventually even we, the ‘superpower’, will cook our own goose.
Damn right. And we should stop using that “internet” thing too. I hear it has a massive left wing bias.
There’s plenty of evidence that the VC/NVA policy was pretty much like the Guantanomo policy.
It was just slightly less in-your-face than Guantanomo, and our incurious media wasn’t forced to report on it.
How about both, and more?
The military population is basically just a somewhat more patriotic, somewhat poorer, somewhat stronger subset of the US population. A subset that the rest of the population pretends to honor, but doesn’t really care about or even understand very well.
The millitary are a group of people that will react in certain ways to certain orders and certain kinds of institutional cultures. My argument is, the orders, and the institutional cultures, of the Vietnam war era, and the present day, have encouraged torture to a great degree.
Gosh, it’s getting deep in here, and had very little to do with the topic at hand. I’ll open a “neocon” thread soon as well as a “torture” thread; in the meantime I’ll respectfully ask people to bite their tongues and use this thread as a place to discuss issues around Obama’s efforts to get elected and why they may or may not be working.
A.L.
Nort: First, I’m not privy to what the North Vietnamese thought about their torture operation. My vague recollection is that it, too, waxed and waned.
I’d like to suggest, with respect to the USA, a third torture timeline.
After 9/11, the principal brain behind our response was Dick Cheney, a man who has developed strong paranoid tendencies complementing a longstanding beliefs that (1) the United States was over-encumbered by international treaties and multilateral agreements and (2) the Executive Branch’s power to act unilaterally had been improperly reduced by liberals and Democrats during Watergate. Also involved were people like ultra-partisan John Yoo (compare Yoo on Bush and Clinton) and a cadre of tough guys who thought Jack Bauer was real life. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gen. Miller, and I suppose Bush seem to have collectively bought into the idea that torture is a powerful tool that democracies waive in peacetime out of goodness (or situational cowardice) but can resort to in extremis. The drive to torture takes on personal psychological overtones of self-aggrandizement (We’re tough enough to torture and the liberal weenies are not) that you can hear from the Administration at the top to the right-wing bloggers at the bottom. You can also read it at the archives of WWII German documents, especially those from the bitter end.
Many American military professionals were totally opposed to the torture regime. I suggest it was the leak of the Abu Ghraib photos that, for the first time, shone enough light in the corners to enable the morally correct members to restrict the anything-goes thuggery of the early parts of the war. Abu Ghraib was the sorcerers’ apprentices run wild: at various secret bases we abuse prisoners even unto death, that was nothing new, but Cpl. Graner (who seems to be a sociopath and sadist) put too much emphasis on his own perverse pleasure and not enough into the 007/24 narrative of saving the country from its own weakness. Bush and his friends did not clean up their act because a moment of panic had passed; instilling fear in the American public has been their m.o. from the start. They cleaned it up, partially, when it was too disgusting to be tenable. John McCain showed that his personal courage has been outdone by personal ambition in refusing to outlaw American-sponsored torture as long as it is not committed by uniformed personnel. That’s exalting the symbol over the substance.
I don’t know just what to do with Fred and his ilk. He ridicules my objection to our practice of sleep deprivation and forced standing; when I point out that the North Vietnamese did the same thing and that McCain complained of these tortures, he simply ignores the facts. Mark Buehner says, why, our POWs were beaten. Hunh? We beat our detainees, too. What sort of rose-colored glasses do they read the news with? And the unpleasant facts are that Abu Ghraib was indeed the responsibility of a few bad apples, but they include the President and Vice President of the United States.
I’m sorry, I didn’t refresh while composing my last comment, and I’ll be glad to move to the torture thread when it opens.
I would also suggest a new Obama closed the deal, if it isn’t subsumed in the Obama/Biden threads I’m about to start reading, because the thread is leaving the front page.
Gosh, it’s getting deep in here, and had very little to do with the topic at hand. I’ll open a “neocon” thread soon as well as a “torture” thread; in the meantime I’ll respectfully ask people to bite their tongues and use this thread as a place to discuss issues around Obama’s efforts to get elected and why they may or may not be working.
A.L.
Typically Republicans start out behind in early summer and steadily advance until election day. If Obama is in a dead heat with McCain now The odds of him closing the deal by November are slim.
The deal breaker will be all his current and former Marxist associates. In his own words (may be a paraphrase but the gist is correct) “I sought out Marxist Professors”.
How you going to win an American election with that?
And how about his promise (maybe inoperative currently) to raise taxes. But he promises to only raise them on the rich. However, Americans aspire to be rich. Who wants to raise taxes on their future selves?
Or how about this: the 10% luxury tax on yachts killed the boat building industry in America. You can’t just punish the rich. More people know this than don’t.
My guess – Obama will be lucky to break 45%. He will be lucky if the house doesn’t turn R. The Senate too.
Then there is oil drilling. The reason is strategic: reduce funds to Iran, The Soviets, and our “best friends” the Saudis. Drilling is better than war.
McCain has blunted the Obama attack. Once Obama is nominated the counter attack will begin.
BTW Biden repudiates so much of the Obama message.