Election Choices

The political “buzz” of the day is that Mitch Daniels has decided no to run, and that his reason has to do with consideration for his family.

Attywood decried the national sentiment that prevails today where, he says, a military draft would never be politically viable because families will never allow their children to be put in harm’s way. He quotes Daniels, “I love my country, I love my family more,” and contrasts that with JFK in 1961, “Ask not what your country can do for you…”

There is an implication there, I suppose, that Daniels has concerns about the effect on his family should he run, concerns regarding attacks by media and opponents.

James Joyner is a little more direct in his thoughts along those lines,

It’s long been cliché that the process drives out all the good candidates and that anyone who would willingly subject himself and his family to their process has proven he shouldn’t be president. Neither are quite true. We continue to get outstanding people to run for high office every cycle.

Oh, yeah, name one. What “outstanding people” have run for any office of significance in this country in the last couple of decades? We thought we had one in Obama, didn’t we, but he has turned out only to be an outstanding campaigner. He was running against McCain. In California I was hoping to get rid of Barbara Boxer, a woman so arrogant that she publicly corrects a senior general for courteously calling her “ma’am” instead of the title of her choice, but was confronted with Carley Fiorina as the only alternative. For Governor we get a choice between Whitman and Brown. Where are the “outstanding people” in this past cycle?

We’ve had George Bush as President twice. Did he defeat an “outstanding person” in each of two national elections?

Joyner goes on to say that he sees no solution to what he just said was not a problem,

I haven’t the foggiest idea what to do about it. The cost of limiting free speech–let alone political speech–would be much higher than we’re paying in weakened fields.

It isn’t necessary to limit political speech, let the fringe candidates say whatever they want to say, and then simply ignore them. They problem is not what the lunatic fringe is saying, they’ve been doing that since politics was first invented. The problem is all of the attention that the media and the opposition is giving to that lunatic fringe.

New Gingrich makes one idiotic statement and, instead of ignoring it as it so richly deserves, the liberal media “discusses” and analyses it for a solid week. Chris Matthews, Lawrence O’Donnell, Ed Shultz, and Rachel Maddow will be screaming about it on their shows every evening for a solid week, causing all of the conservative media to be rebutting them for the same week and giving that one idiotic comment a life and a measure of importance orders of magnitude beyond what it deserves.

Had all of the Liberals ignored Newt’s idiotic statement it would have been heard by the handful of people who were in the audience when he made it. By prating about it on their shows for a week or more, and by making it an “issue” that conservatives feel they must defend, the idiots in the liberal media make sure that a stupid remark is heard by several millions, and they give it an undeserved sense of importance.

Limiting political speech is a breach of our constitution; ignoring stupid speech is not.

"Bin Laden Plans Revealed"

So we are now privy to the journal that Osama bin Laden was keeping. Yea.

Look. If I write in my journal that I would like some day to make a million dollars, but I have outlined no concrete steps toward making even ten dollars, let alone actually done anything pursuant to that goal, then I do not "have a plan to make a million dollars." I could write in my journal that I wanted to crash the stock market, and it would not affect the economy of this country one iota.

Osama bin Laden wanted to blow up some oil tankers so as to drive up the price of oil, but he did not have a plan to do so. He wanted to kill President Obama, but he did not have a plan to do that either. He wanted to blow up some trains in this country, but... You get the drift?

It really is time to quit freaking out about what a dead man wanted to do.

Discordant Notes

From Obama’s big Mideast policy speech last Thursday:

“After years of war in Iraq, we have removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there.” He doesn’t mention that we are negotiating to renege on removing the rest of them by the end of this year in accordance with our current agreement.

“In Afghanistan, we have broken the Taliban’s momentum,” which is why the Taliban are making a record number of attacks on us in pretty much every part of the country.

“…this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue transition to Afghan lead.” Yes indeed. Current projection is we will bring 2.5% of them home this July, and another 2.5% at the end of this year.

“In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of the few.” But not in America, of course, and not wealth either. Power and wealth in America are distributed with equality and impartiality to everyone.

“The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half century after the end of colonialism.” As opposed to the current status, which is occupation without colonialism.

“And through the moral force of non-violence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.” That’s why we are still using all of those Hellfire missiles, because they have such moral force and are so non-violent.

“…people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks.” Like America transformed Iraq perhaps. “Shock and Awe” is quicker than “moral force and non-violence.”

“The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds.” Which he then proceeds not to answer in the next several hundred words.

“For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region:” he doesn’t say whose core interests, but he doesn’t really need to, “countering terrorism,” actually, bringing Al Queda to a region where it had not previously existed, “and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons;” the ever present delusion of Iran’s nuclear weapons persists forever, “securing the free flow of commerce,” of oil to the United States, “and safe-guarding the security of the region;” by invading and destroying part of it, “standing up for Israel’s security,” thereby endangering the security of the rest of the world, “and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace” sort of like Wiley Coyote after the Roadrunner.

“We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region,” Other than Israel, who is winning the current, ongoing nuclear arms race. Assuming you believe that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, which no one other than the US does.

“we will not tolerate aggression across borders,” This is my favorite line. We will not tolerate anyone using drones with Hellfire missiles against their neighbors. Or F-18s, F-15s or Tomahawk missiles either. Not to mention SEAL teams in helicopters.

Note, too, that this statement of what we will not tolerate, along with all of those about what other nations and their leaders “must” do, are not accompanied by any consequences. What will happen to any nation who does something that we will not tolerate, or fails to do what we say they must, is unclear.

“We have embraced the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator.” By condemning the Saudis for assisting in the crackdown in Bahrain, perhaps? By saying that Mubarek must “must step down” immediately when the Egyptian protests began? By taking action to “preserve human life” in Syria and Yemen rather than merely issuing softballs about what those leaders "must do" to reform?

“In Libya…when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene…acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners…” We started a war to kill Moammar Gaddafi, using the UN as justification, sucked our NATO allies into the futile exercise of supporting one side in a civil war, and then ran like a rabbit, leaving our allies holding the bag.

“Thus far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression….the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law.” And he's not going to mention that the Bahraini government sought assistance from the government of Saudi Arabia in the “tactics of suppression” of its protestors. In fact, he's not going to mention Saudi Arabia at all in this speech, or Jordan, or Amman, all of whom wanted the “no fly zone” in Libya, and all of whom quit the coalition the minute they realized we actually intended to support the rebels.

“In Iraq, we see the promise of a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy.” We also see an increasing number of bombs, death and bloodshed as the beginnings of that democracy begin to become unraveled.

“But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress.” Very big “if” there, and getting bigger.

“Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state.” Because he's not willing to even dignify your goal of having your own state by calling your move what it is, a request to have the UN declare a Palestinian State whether Israel wants one or not, and he doesn't want you to put the US on the spot by making us vote against it.

“And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.” But Israel and the US will continue to have our independence by denying the popularly and properly elected government of Hamas the right to exist.

“And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums.” Because friends don’t let people criticize friends. Friends don’t acknowledge that friends are anything other than perfection personified. He then proceeds to criticize Israel by saying that, “The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.”

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,” And he’s hoping nobody notices the part about swaps, because what that means is that all of the arable land goes to Israel and all of the uninhabitable desert goes to the Palestinians.

“the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.” There is nothing sovereign about a “non-militarized” state, and he does not explain how the Palestinians are going to “assume security responsibility” without any military.

“how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist.” I’m sure Hamas is asking the same question, since both Israel and the US are unwilling to recognize its right to exist, notwithstanding that it was properly elected in a completely legitimate election.

Benjamin Netanyahu promptly panned Obama, saying that “the 1967 borders are indefensible.” That’s why they lost the 1967 war in seven days, no doubt.

"In My Time"

That’s the title of Dick Cheney’s new book, news and a preview picture of which was released yesterday, causing the liberal media to pretty much lose its collective mind.

Chris Matthews said that he hoped the release of the book would lead to Dick’s daughter Liz Cheney learning how to pronounce the family’s last name, as she has been pronouncing it incorrectly for years. Seriously, he actually said that. Seems she grew up bearing that name and never learned to pronounce it correctly. Matthews believes he is the only one in the country who knows the correct pronunciation, and he keeps correcting people on his show. I think he has a mental problem. He fawns over every guest he has, and then corrects them on trivia.

“You are the best in the business. I cannot tell you how much I admire you. You are the journalist of journalists. Nobody is better at this than you, but you don’t know how to pronounce Dick Cheney’s name.”

I never watch Rachel Maddow, but Bob Somerby watches her so that I don’t have to, much as I watch Hardball so that you don’t have to. I read his Daily Howler so that I can keep up to date with her insanity, and I want you to trust me on this; compared to Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews is the epitome of sanity and intelligence.

According to Somerby, Maddow is freaked out by the picture on the cover of the book, noticing that it is the identical pose that Obama struck when announcing the death of Osama bin Laden. She notes that the picture was taken in the same spot, that he is using the same stance, wearing the same color suit, shirt and tie that Obama wore on that occasion, and that he even has a flag pin in his left lapel as Obama did. Her surmise is that Cheney is trying to make us think that he is the one who killed Osama bin Laden with the publication of this picture.

Her rant is delusional on so many levels that it hardly bears debunking, but consider that Osama bin Laden’s death was announced just 19 days prior to the release of that publicity shot. Does she really think that the publisher can PhotoShop the picture, do the artwork for the cover, print the cover, and release the news item all in less than three weeks? There is absolutely no question that the dust cover for that book, including the picture that she is so freaked out about, was printed long before Obama stood on that spot announcing the death of Osama bin Laden.

The Presidential Speech

Meh. A lot of words, but color me unimpressed.

In talking about the change in Egypt, he failed to mention that Egypt is still ruled by its military, and he did not mention the $1 billion plus that we still provide to the military. Addressing democratic change in that country really requires, I think, that our financial support of their ruling military needs to be addressed in one form or another.

He made the pro forma condemnation of Iran and said that we will not tolerate a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Of course, there already is a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and Israel started it by developing its own nuclear arsenal. Minor detail.

The discussion on Bahrain about the two sides needing to have a discussion was one of the softest puffballs he has ever delivered, and completely absent was any mention of the role played by Saudi Arabia. The latter, one of the more repressive nations in the region, was absent from the speech altogether, actually. Feh.

When he finally got to the Palestinian-Israeli issue he presented it as if it was an issue divorced from the greater issue of Middle East unrest, which is nonsense. It is the newly structured Egypt which united Fatah and Hamas, and one can hardly say that is unrelated to the peace process, as much as Obama tried to ignore that in his discussion. Also glaringly missing from what he had to say was that the Israeli government is one of the players in the denial of human rights to Arabs, having kept Palestinians in a condition of statelessness for decades.

In other words, more “change you can believe in.”

Update: Thursday 2:30pm
And we notice, it didn't take long for Israel to tell President Obama rather specifically to "shove it."

Update 2: Thursday, 6:30pm
Chris Matthews spent the first thirty minutes of his show laughing at and mocking New Gingrich. It wasn't until halfway thrugh that he finally mentioned "Obama's big speech," and he only spent about ten minutes discussing it before turning the discussion to Sarah Palin. I don't know if that is a tribute to the idiocy of Chris Matthews, or to the trivial impact of Obama's speech.

That's Your Foot You Just Shot

Do Chris Matthews and Joan Walsh not realize the implication of saying that, "Only a racist would recognize the coded racial overtones in..." (fill in the Barack Obama attack statement), and then proceeding to describe the "coded racial overtones" which they themselves recognized in the statement? How are they recognizing the "coded racial overtones" which "only a racist would recognize" if they are not racists themselves?

I think therapists call that "projection." It's a process of accusing others of the faults which I possess, so that I do not have to recognize those faults in myself.

On Spending Habits

For what it's worth, I do not have the slightest interest in how much money any politician spends on jewelry for his wife. Or for whoever he's buying it for. And yes, you may consider that a snide remark with implications.