Month: July 2010

A new wrinkle in the distinction between British and American conservatism. The full context:

“Turkey's relationships in the [Middle East] region, both with Israel and with the Arab world, are of incalculable value. No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world. I know that Gaza has led to real strains in Turkey's relationship with Israel. But Turkey is a friend of Israel. And I urge Turkey, and Israel, not to give up on that friendship.

Let me be clear.

The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. And I have told PM Netanyahu, we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous. Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp. But as, hopefully, we move in the coming weeks to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians so it's Turkey that can make the case for peace and Turkey that can help to press the parties to come together, and point the way to a just and viable solution.“

The speech is not without controversy on the British right, but many Tories have welcomed it. Here's Mary Riddell in the Telegraph:

Good for David Cameron. Gaza is indeed a prison camp, and the PM is right to say so. Naturally, his remark will be seen as inflammatory, particularly given its context. To put down a firm marker against Israel’s disgraceful siege of Gaza is one thing. To do so side-by-side with Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyik Erdogan sends an even stronger signal, given the stand-off after the Israelis killed Turkish citizens in their raid on an aid flotilla.

Relations between the countries are at an all-time low, and Mr Cameron was also right to urge a reconciliation. But more importantly, he has indicated that Britain will not humour the Netanyahu government over Gaza. There are some encouraging signs that Mr Cameron, oppportunistic and Europhobic in opposition, may evolve a firmer and more creditable foreign policy than many supposed.

(Photo: Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron and Turkey's Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan pose for media in Ankara on July 27, 2010. Cameron pledged to remain Turkey's 'strongest possible advocate for EU membership' and urged Ankara to 'push forward aggressively' with reform. By Adem Altam/AFP/Getty.)

A glimpse from the campaign trail:

A start at understanding how two minds can "click" when they converse.

A reader writes:

Since when do any of us "send our sons" to America's wars? I don't think any parent of a soldier or Marine ever uses the phrase, or even once thinks in the terms of "I sent my son (daughter) to war."  (In a way, we all "send" them.)  Please stop using this thoughtless phrase today!

My son, by the way, is at an FOB (that's Forward Operating Base for you civvies) in Afghanistan. I did not send him, any more than the other thousands of soldiers and Marines in harm's way had their parents send them. He volunteered just like all the rest, on his own volition. And the honor of that choice is all his – not to be worn on my chest like a medal to be ogled.

 

This is a poster from Maggie Gallagher's National Organization For Marriage's bus-tour campaign in Indiana, as reported by Bil Browning and photo by Alice Hoenigman. I have to say that at least this protester is being consistent with literalist fundamentalism. The Bible is clear about homosexuality: we gays should all be condemned to death. That part of the GOP that wants America to follow Biblical principles in the law are just being consistent. There's a video interview with the dude here. Yes, he's a senior. So was most of the crowd apparently.

I’ve been highly critical of some of the emails on Journo-List, especially those that seem to be speaking as “we” and suggesting collective management of various story lines, such as the Palin pregnancy and birth controversy. I’ve also qualified my posts by 1) insisting that these emails were probably swamped by many many others that list-members did not read, or care about, or that had nothing to do with a “line” of any kind, and 2) that while there’s some collective direction here, and some collusion, there is nothing resembling a conspiracy to set an agenda.

I am always distressed when I over-hear or encounter journalists who simply argue that a story should not be pursued because it would hurt “the cause” especially when that “cause” is the election of a candidate. However, after hearing from many Journo-List members, many of whom I deeply respect as journalists, I want to stress that my qualifications should have been more prominent in the Dish’s coverage. The vast majority of the list’s content, I am convinced, was harmless, even helpful to general discourse. I remain skeptical of the subtle dangers of groupthink that such a list can generate, especially in election campaigns, and when I read explicit exhortations to “leave this be”, my hackles rise. But these were, for the most part, un-coordinated exhortations, not regimented orders; this was a list-serv, not a conspiracy.

I do not withdraw my criticisms, but I should withdraw some of the hyperbole that I garnished them with. And so I do.

Elizabeth Warren – exactly the kind of figure the Obama administration should be putting front and center – looks likely to be confirmed, according to Noam Scheiber's reporting.

On the first anniversary of Palin's departure from her half-term governorship, Mudflats checks in on her promise “to chart a new course to advance the state.” Right now, she's camping with Kate Gosselin for TV.

Well, you could see this coming:

Newt Gingrich will deliver a major national security address at the conservative American Enterprise Institute on Thursday in which he will reprimand the Obama administration's "willful blindness" to the threat of extremist Islam…

Gingrich "will warn," according to a synopsis of the event, "that now is the time to awaken from self-deception about the nature of our enemies and rebuild a bipartisan commitment, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to defend America." Never one to shy away from his somewhat professorial reputation, Gingrich plans to draw on "the lessons of Camus and Orwell" to explain "the dangers of a wartime government that uses language and misleading labels to obscure reality."

No word, one supposes, of "enhanced interrogation techniques". No grasp that fighting Jihadist terror may take more than polarizing rhetoric – or that polarizing rhetoric might actually make things worse. Notice too the "wilfull" blindness. That means the president is knowingly aiding and abetting the enemy. You can see the crude Cheneyism of all this: set up a fall campaign premised on the absurdity that the Obama administration is targeting white Americans for discrimination, run against the mosque blocks away from Ground Zero, and then accuse the president in code of being a traitor to his country.

It's all so Weimar, isn't it?

Reihan takes issue with the substance and tone of this Bruce Bartlett interview:

My central disagreement with Bartlett is that I don’t think it’s very sensible to interpret political history as a series of psychodramas. One could present the same facts in a very different matter, e.g., noble congressional Republicans only passed the Medicare prescription drug benefit because they feared demagogic attacks from the left, which threatened a massive political defeat that would impair their ability to pursue pro-growth policies. This is a specious and self-serving narrative. But is it any less specious and self-serving than congressional Democrats who blame demagogic attacks from the right for their own failures on the fiscal policy front? For those who believe that we need to sharply increase taxes on middle income households, this view is a commonplace. Democrats would take precisely this step, the narrative goes, if only they didn’t have to fear ferocious attacks from the Republican spin machine.