Month: May 2010

A conservative Republican transgender Cuban-American from Miami. More here.

Washington responds to Iran's agreement with Brazil and Turkey on a nuclear fuel swap:

In a surprise move, the Obama administration unveiled a new draft Iran sanctions resolution to the full United Nations Security Council Tuesday that has the support of all five of its permanent members, including Russia and China. […M]ost surprising is that the U.S. was able to keep China on board for a new U.N. Iran sanctions resolution after the fuel swap deal, given that China has consistently signaled its discomfort with economic sanctions and called for continued diplomatic efforts with Iran.

Max Fisher examines the reasons why Russia and China came around. Gary Sick thinks the Brazilians and Turks have been humiliated:

Little did they know that their success in Tehran, which had been given a 0-30 percent chance just days earlier, came just as the Americans were putting the final touches on a package of sanctions to be presented to the UN Security Council. The Tehran agreement was as welcome as a pothole in the fast lane, and the Americans were not reluctant to let their displeasure be known. The five major powers had made up their minds (without consulting other members of the Security Council that currently includes both Turkey and Brazil), and these two mid-level powers were told in so many words to get out of the way.

The Leveretts bristle.

An instant classic:

Larison's take on the Democratic win in PA-12:

There are two major problems with the Republican approach to these House elections. The first is that they tend to ignore or dismiss the interests of the specific district where they are competing in order to make a statement about national party agendas. The national GOP wants these elections to be mandates against Pelosi/Reid’s agenda or Obama’s agenda, and the Democratic committees and party leadership are more concerned with winning the election contests. The second problem is that they don’t seem to understand that even in districts where Obama is not particularly popular and where most voters did not support him in 2008, such as PA-12, most voters are not interested in vindicating a pre-scripted anti-Obama narrative. So long as the Democratic candidates can present them with a more appealing message of continued government funding and the promise of economic support, they are not automatically going to rally behind the candidates of the more unpopular, discredited party.

You'd think there would be tea-party appeal in a red-state district with a departing incumbent about as earmark-laden as anyone on earth. And yet … not. I do think there's an anti-government tide out there (I just wish it had stirred these past eight years) but I'm not sure it defines the politics of this moment. The cross-currents and eddies, especially if the economy really does recover some more, may complicate a lot. People love slashing government until you explain how you have to do it. In Britain, the Tories were admirably candid about this last fall. That's one reason they are in a Liberal-Democrat coalition government today.

In other words, people are pro-tea until they actually face up to what it would mean. And because elite conservatism has not staked out a feasible, concrete plan to tackle the debt, the space is left for the primal libertarian scream. But a scream is not an argument.

Douthat asks:

What I wonder is whether the trend that Beinart describes — the diminishing bond between secular American Jews and the state of Israel — was more or less inevitable, no matter what policies were pursued in Israel and what kind of attitudes American Zionist organizations struck. Benjamin Netanyahu and Abe Foxman may have accelerated the process, but it’s hard to imagine that the more secular, more assimilated sections of the Jewish-American population wouldn’t have eventually drifted away from an intense connection with Israel anyway, in much the same way and for many of the same reasons that Italian-Americans are less attached to both Italy and Catholicism than they were in 1940 or so, or that Irish-American are far less interested in the politics of Eire and Northern Ireland than they used to be.

The difference, of course, is that Italy and Ireland are not as dependent on US aid as Israel is, or capable of wielding a lobby as powerful and as wealthy and as ruthless as AIPAC. So you end up with a foreign country supported less by its natural ethnic group (they're busy marrying gentiles and enjoying life) than vast numbers of Christianists whose end-times philo-semitism is not something I'd be too thrilled with if I were an Israeli liberal.

I don't think you can extricate Israel's existential crisis as a Western democracy from the rise of religious fundamentalism in both Israel and the United States. There is a danger of a cosmic clash here, prompting even more upping of the eschatological ante by the Iranian and Iraqi Shiites. This is a religious war we must surely do all we can to avoid. But put a president Palin behind a Netanyahu coalition and an Ahmadi Iran and … well, do I have to spell out what's potentially at stake here?

Drum is confused:

I don't get this. A compulsion not to simply parrot the conventional wisdom or pull your punches I understand. But isn't silence ever an option? There's no rule that says every passing thought has to be memorialized in a blog post, is there?

No (even though the Dish publishes almost 300 posts a week). But when a story is the story of the day and when your own immediate take – and that of almost every gay and lesbian person I know (and every Google searcher on the planet) – is: we have a lesbian! it becomes dishonest to keep pretending you are not thinking this. You think I had an option to spend last week twiddling my thumbs, nervously whistling like bi-curious Butters? Even if I were silent, that would be a statement of sorts. Remember Trig? Yeah, my initial stunned silence really threw people off that scent, didn't it?

The best columnist on this, so far, has been Maureen Dowd. She's able to convey the hapless cluelessness of the Obama Straight Boys' Club when it comes to female sexuality and the closet:

White House officials were so eager to squash any speculation that Elena Kagan was gay that they have ended up in a pre-feminist fugue, going with sad unmarried rather than fun single, spinning that she’s a spinster. You’d think that they could come up with a more inspiring narrative than old maid for a woman who may become the youngest Supreme Court justice on the bench.

At this point, they're just desperate for anything but gay. And it's that maneuver that I find offensive. Axelrod et al. couldn't even come up with a defusing Seinfeldian quip – "She's heterosexual, not that there's anything wrong with that." And, yes, Maureen, they do protest too much:

If roughly one out of nine Americans is gay, why shouldn’t one out of nine Supreme Court justices be?

But I have learned something from the way Emmanuel, Obama, Gibbs et al. have handled this: if a potential judicial nominee were openly gay, they'd have no chance of being on a short-list, let alone selected for SCOTUS.

And the lesson this administration is clearly sending to young lesbian girls is: if you want to be a Supreme Court Justice, just stay in the closet. We wouldn't dream of nominating you if you weren't.

(Photo: Jim Watson/Getty.)

I’ve been following Idol this year, even through its really dreary mid-season funk. But it has been really encouraging to see the viewers actually select the best trio for the pre-finale vote. I’m a huge Crystal Bowersox fan (and an even bigger fan of her boyfriend). She’s my vote. Casey James is sooo charming, but the poor guy cannot sing outside a very limited, if very commercial, range. Lee Dewyze has been a fave for a long time – great voice, droopy eyes, crooked smile, what’s not to like?

But last night also showed how the issue of sexual orientation can be easily folded into the general conversation. Ellen Degeneres, herself an icon of the “virtually normal” set, was able to point out that many girls and women would love Casey – and then she simply tucked in “and a few boys.” Accurate, inclusive, integrative. And then straight girl Crystal sings a song, “Maybe I’m Amazed”, that requires her to sing as a man. She doesn’t alter the lyrics. She sings “Maybe I’m a man …” with the same conviction and sincerity she has shown throughout the contest. Yes, Ellen picked the song.

A small moment in the transfomation of America into a more inclusive humane place. But on television, not in Washington, where homophobia and homophobia-phobia conspire to keep us all back.

Josh Green doesn’t think it heralds a “tea party tidal wave”:

Paul’s celebrity dad brought him money, volunteers, name recognition, and media attention, particularly on Fox News. What other Tea Party candidate can match that? … Democratic turnout was much, MUCH higher than Republican turnout.

And Grayson went to Harvard. Did I say that with enough of a tea-party snarl? But I suspect the small-government integrity of Paul won many over in this anti-government moment. Chait says Paul’s win gives the Democrats a chance at the seat:

Democrats will run Jack Conway against Rand Paul. This puts the Kentucky Senate seat in play — Rand is the favorite but Conway has a shot. I have a pet theory that a politician’s name is a major factor — I’d guess being named “Jack Conway” is worth several points more than being named “Daniel Mongiardo.”

Nate Silver:

Because of Paul’s impressive 24-point margin of victory, almost any explanation you might proffer probably contains some element of truth. But for all his libertarian and tea-party dressing, Paul in fact ran on a fairly conventional, conservative platform. He’s pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration … there are only the faintest hints of libertarianism here.

Tim Mak has a summary of Paul’s position on national defense, which is where things get interesting. I want Paul to win this seat, so we can get a fiscal conservative Republican in the Senate who can put defense spending on the table. Rand’s position on this is mostly his father’s:

Rand Paul has indicated that the possibility of an Iranian nuke doesn’t bother him; that he supports the shuttering of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility; and that he’s shaky on support for the surge in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.

While Conway has also been hesitant to support the surge in Afghanistan, he has indicated that he favors increasing terrorism prevention funding and pay for active duty personnel. Kentucky’s 344,000 veterans will take note.

Largely for this reason, Frum is distraught:

How is it that the GOP has lost its antibodies against a candidate like Rand Paul? In the past few months, we have seen GOP conservatives rally against Utah Sen. Bob Bennett. There has been no similar rallying against Rand Paul: no ads by well-funded out-of-state groups. Some senior Republicans, like former VP Dick Cheney, indicated a preference for opponent Trey Grayson. But despite Paul’s self-presentation as “anti-establishment,” the D.C. conservative establishment by and large made its peace with him. It is this acquiescence – even more than Paul’s own nomination – that is the most ominous news from tonight’s vote.

Marshall:

[During his speech, Rand Paul] came off to me as arrogant, bellicose and even a little messianic in his demeanor. To put it baldly, he sounded like a jerk…

In any case, that’s actually quite different from his father. I find Ron Paul’s politics awful and he’s a classic ideologue. But as a person he comes off as pretty humble and even unassuming, which I’ve always thought is the reason he manages to have a certain degree of crossover popularity despite his draconian and often ugly politics. 

Ambinder:

Rand Paul first attracted attention in Kentucky because he was Rand Paul. Then he married his anti-government message to his father’s economic libertarian movement. He parried against an opponent, Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who embodied the establishment. Nevermind that this establishment was doing everything in its power to thwart Barack Obama … politics doesn’t always make sense. But Paul was change. A specific kind of change. He was acceptable enough for frustrated conservative base voters. And he’s going to be a tough candidate for Democrats to beat in the fall. 

Yglesias goes further, labeling Rand Paul a “lunatic”:

The rise of Rand Paul and his securing the GOP nomination for the Kentucky Senate seat is one of the things that will spark divergent reactions in DSCC headquarters and in the minds of responsible liberals. By nominating a lunatic, Republicans have suddenly taken what should be a hopeless Senate race and turned it into something Democrats can win. At the same time, by nominating a lunatic, Republicans have suddenly raised the odds that a lunatic will represent Kentucky in the United States Senate.

Reason profiled Rand Paul earlier this month:

Unlike his father, Rand opposes civilian trials for terror detainees. He would “ultimately” close Gitmo, but not until it is determined what will be done with the prisoners, who he does not want sent to the United States. In their joint interview, when the elder Paul expressed his opposition to trying suspected terrorists before military tribunals, Rand quipped, “Now my father has only been here for 20 minutes, and you’re already making me disagree with him. We haven’t even had a chance to say hello.” Ron Paul responded, “I think Rand just proved that he’s his own man and can think for himself.”

Bernstein:

Paul may well win the general election, but I continue to think there’s a good chance that Republican gains this year will be harmed overall by the nomination of ideologically extreme nominees, and in some cases less capable candidates, and by the pressure in other districts for mainstream conservatives to act as if they were ideologically extreme.  It will be interesting to see how Paul in particular fares in a general election context; Kentucky is a good state for Republicans, and with a mainstream conservative candidate I don’t think it would have been a contest, but now I’d expect a fair amount of uncertainty.  The question is how many districts around the nation are having similar results.  Hey, reporters!  More about 2010 House nominees, please!

(Photo: A tea-party protest by Bill Pugliano/Getty.)

In Denmark, Mukhtar the bus driver had a birthday. He worked that day. His regular passengers had an idea:

"We did not accept him," – The New Republic, on would-be intern Adam Wheeler, a fabulist who faked his way into Harvard.