Day: October 17, 2012

… and it never ends. From the Israeli newspaper/website Ynetnews:

Much worse, liberal Jews such as US Senator Boxer, US Congressmen Henry Waxman and Barney Frank, and commentators like Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, and Roger Cohen of the NY Times have been jumping on the bandwagon as Obama henchmen to orchestrate a public campaign against the Israeli prime minister. They have publicly criticized and personally attacked Netanyahu and his request that Obama set red lines regarding the Iranian nuclear program, inadvertently raising the age old anti-Semitic libel that the Jews and their leaders are war mongers trying to push US to start a war on Israel’s behalf.

Sorry, Jeffrey, but you’re an anti-Semitic traitor to Israel now as well. I know you get lots of email telling you that, for which I am genuinely sorry. But there’s nothing like being accused of being a traitor in print in one of the largest media operations in Israel, is there? My condolences. As for the accusation that Netanyahu is a “war-monger trying to push the US to start a war on Israel’s behalf,” well, what are you gonna do? Be an anti-Semite or believe your lyin’ eyes?

"I think there was a winner in the sense that Barack Obama not only gained ground he lost but he cauterized some wounds that he inflicted on himself by seeming too diffident and disengaged. Both candidates tonight I think tip-toed right up to the point of rudeness, but stepped back. It was a very good fight. I have seen every presidential debate in American history since the four of Nixon and Kennedy in 1960. This was immeasurably the best," – George F. Will.

Middleton, Wisconsin, 10 am

Michael Moynihan makes the case against Mein Kampf bans and Holocaust denial laws:

If the goal of free-speech restrictions is to prevent the rise of right-wing extremism, such legal measures have been largely unsuccessful. In Austria, for instance, where David Irving was imprisoned for Holocaust denial, the populist Freedom Party—whose current leader recently posted a photo of a hook-nosed Jew wearing Star of David cufflinks on his Facebook page—has been hugely successful, with recent opinion polls showing their support at 21 percent. Compare that to the United States, where toxic polemics claiming to have uncovered a “Holohoax” are protected by the First Amendment, fascism is almost nonexistent as a political force, and levels of anti-Semitism are significantly lower than in European countries that criminalize Holocaust denial.

I'd also argue that Islamists have a small point when they claim that the West's boast of free speech is actually a form of disguised bias against Islam, since some countries do indeed ban vile anti-Semitic tracts, while rightly publishing Mohammed cartoons and allowing mockery of Islam. Of course, I find anti-semitic tracts, especially Holocaust denial, to be beyond degenerate. And the history of Germany is critical context. But the double standard nonetheless weakens the West in our fight against Islamist strictures against blasphemy – by believers or unbelievers. And if we truly believe in our values of free speech, we should surely be confident that fascism of all sorts is best tackled directly with speech than suppressed by government.

By the way, Michael has just joined the Beast team. Hurrah!

A reader, to my mind, nails it:

I keep coming back to a moment I think was the most important of the debate, and in some ways, Obama’s whole presidency. When he called Romney’s accusations of politicizing Libya “offensive,” I pumped my fist in the air, thrilled. Then, when I found myself going back to that moment again and again, I wondered why it was so powerful.

Yes, the language was probably planned and practiced, yes it was partly political theater, but it reinforced something about this leader that I think many of us feel, even if we’re not always aware of it. For all the complaints we have about Obama, especially in the conduct of domestic policy, one thing he demonstrates to me, and it’s the reason I revere him more than Bill Clinton, is that he makes careful, patient, principled — and practical — decisions, waits patiently for them to bear fruit, and when they do, he trusts the public to analyze and understand what he’s accomplished on their own. Libya, tellingly, happens to be high on the list.

There was no crowing about the delicately coordinated bombing campaign (and the covert actions on the ground which helped it succeed) that brought down a tyrant. No “Mission Accomplished” banners, no bold predictions about the future of a remade Middle East thanks to our military efforts. But Obama got results. For less than a thousandth of the cost of Iraq, and with no lives lost until September 11th, Obama gave us a democratically elected Arab ally, an ally whose people — not their leaders, their people — are so grateful for what America did and how we did it, that after the death of our Ambassador they poured into the streets in outrage, and attacked the Islamic militias responsible.

No the story’s not over. But name another Arab country where you’ve seen anything remotely similar. What political hay does Obama make out of all this? Very little. Then or since. (To my great frustration, frankly.) After the ambassador dies, Obama’s language is full of firmness, but also restraint and moderation, and zero politics. Mitt Romney’s language? The opposite. Obama trusts us to use our eyes and give credit where it’s due.

His anger in that moment, theatrical or not, was about something deeper. At least it was for me. There must be something horribly galling to our president about being called out for an absurdly minor offense (if it even was one) in the context of a huge foreign policy triumph. It should be galling to us too. We fail to appreciate this president’s exceptional character at our own peril.

Yesterday I blegged, "Here's a Dishhead bleg: when was the last time that a sitting president in a re-election campaign lost six percentage points in the polls in two weeks in October?" A reader responds:

Well you only need to go two elections cycles back! In 2004, RealClearPolitics had Bush leading Kerry by 6 points before the debate (9/30/04). Thirteen days later (10/13/04), that lead had shrunk to 1.5 points – a drop of 4.5. In contrast, Obama went from a pre-debate (10/03/12) lead of 3.1 points to a 0.4 deficit thirteen days later – a drop of 3.5. I'm with you on Obama having had a lackluster debate performance, but can we stop pretending that Romney's rise is without precedent?

Another adds:

Not two weeks, but in 2004, RCP's poll of polls had Bush ahead by 7.6 points on September 9. On October 11, his lead was down to 0.8 points – a drop of 6.8.

Another points to a recent Weigel post that elaborated on the fact that "Reagan dropped 7 points to Mondale after their first debate."

I will now crawl back into my blog-cave and cower. But seriously, thanks. That poll of polls map above? Ohio.

With a bonus question on the future of the two-state solution:

Peter Beinart is a long-time friend of the Dish and author of the critically needed book, The Crisis of Zionism, which I defended here, here and here. Read his latest writing at Open Zion, where he recently deconstructed Sheldon Adelson’s oped, attacking Obama for his “lack of sympathy—or even outright hostility—toward Israel”:

It’s typical of the infantile “does he really love us” conversation that overtakes the American Jewish community every four years around election time. I actually think Obama has a lot of sympathy for a particular strain of Zionism and Jewish identity (just not the strain that Adelson admires). But even if he didn’t, even if Obama finds the melody to Hatikva tedious and considers cholent gastronomically offensive, what  matters more is whether he—and we—believe that Israel is better off trying to create a viable Palestinian state or not. Whatever his flaws, Obama is forthright on the subject. Mitt Romney—and now Sheldon Adelson—are not.

Watch Peter’s previous videos here, here, here and here. “Ask Anything” archive here.

Arrested Development meets Election 2012:

Many more here.

Beinart worries that the race is still “Romney’s to lose”:

I suspect—or should I say, fear—that the reason the polls moved so much is that there were a lot of voters who had tuned Obama out as a result of the bad economy. They were ready to vote against him so long as Romney passed a reasonable threshold, which he did. We’ve seen this before in presidential campaigns: in 1980, Americans were looking for an excuse to vote against the incumbent, Jimmy Carter, and so what mattered most in the debates was that Reagan didn’t look like a right-wing maniac. In 2008, Americans were looking for an excuse to vote against the de facto incumbent, John McCain, and so what mattered most in the debates was that Obama didn’t look like a novice. If the debates are really about people disillusioned with Obama becoming comfortable with Romney, it doesn’t really matter that Obama did better than Romney tonight because Romney did well enough. He again and again reminded Americans that the economy is worse than Obama said it would be, and he offered some kind of plan to make it better.

Peter may be right in his analysis of what happened in the first debate. He may even be right that the success the Obama team had in defining Romney in the spring and summer may have enabled Romney’s surge after the first debate. But I don’t believe Romney last night presented a more positive and specific response for the future than Obama did. And last night, many of the resilient lies used against Obama in the past were finally refuted.

Where we may be now is where we were always headed: for a close Bush-Kerry style election. Bush was saved by Ohio.

I want to thank Patrick Appel and Chris Bodenner, the two pillars of the Dish, for all they did last night and well into the early morning. They were helped by Zoe Pollock, Chas Danner and Gwynn Guilford. On nights like last night, as every day, this is a team effort, honed over the months and years, to try and bring you the most efficient, fun, diverse, multi-media real-time coverage of a debate.

My live-blog is here; Romney's lie on regulations under Obama here; the "Binders Full Of Women" meme took off here; the Tumblr meme that expanded on that here; the total debunkking of Romey's Binders lie is here; the first wave of blog reactions is here; Stan Greenberg's relief here; my "bloody elated" phone call to Chris Matthews here; a full twitterverse reaction here; the instant polls summarized here.

Your reactions can be read here and the full Dish reader poll (you can still vote!) on elements of the debate here. Explore the results here. Responses from women readers on Romney's remarks are here. You can watch the rightwing try to take back Romney's Gerald Ford moment when he point-blank denied that the president described the Benghazi attack as an act of terror here. The final reaction round-up from around the blogosphere is here.

My colleagues make all this look easy. But the intensity and passion and stamina they display all the time blows me away. Given the scope of the Dish as it has expanded under the Atlantic and now Beast, one human being simply can't do it. Even now, it takes a toll. But when you have the kind of support and colleagues I have, you realize you're lucky to be able to do it at all. Oh, and thanks to you, dear readers as well. Way over a million visits in one day is quite something.