Malkin Award Nominee

"In changing his position from that of senator/candidate Obama, President Obama has, in my view, shaken his fist at the same God who created and defined marriage. It grieves me that our president would now affirm same-sex marriage, though I believe it grieves God even more," – Franklin Graham.

Hewitt Award Nominee

"This reaffirms my conviction that Mr. Obama is by far the most left-wing person to ever hold the office of the American presidency. He believes in an ever-expanding state, irrespective of debt; he believes in using presidential power through unaccountable “czars” to carry out his wishes; he does not believe in American exceptionalism (the left-wing FDR did); and he supports same-sex marriage, the most radical social experiment in modern history," – Dennis Prager, NRO. 

Hewitt Award Nominee

“I look at what happened between President Obama and President Karzai as a 1930s, Chamberlain, Hitler moment. There is not going to be peace in our time,” – Congressman Allen West.

West has already accused many Democrats of being closet communists (with no reprimand from the GOP). The question here is who exactly is Hitler and who is Chamberlain? Or when you're dealing with someone whose grasp on reality is as fragile as West's, does it really matter?

Hewitt Award Nominee

"The conclusion I’ve come to is that [Obama] is doing this purposefully because he believes that the U.S. needs to be punished for being a racist nation. He is out to punish the United States for being racist," – Bryan Fischer, an increasingly marginal figure the Romneyites are scared of.

Malkin Award Nominee, Ctd

A reader writes:

I am very much a sympathizer to the Palestinian cause, and an ardent supporter of the two-state solution. Yet I do want to defend Moshe Arens, the Haaretz columnist and former Israeli Defense Minister you gave a Malkin Award. Yes, for Arens to analogize the evacuation of Jewish settlers to the internment of Japanese-Americans is off-base. But his basic point is correct – the settlers in Gush Katif violated no law. 

And there is some important context here: Arens is a "Greater Israel" supporter, who favors annexing the West Bank. Unlike most of the Israeli Right, however – and unlike most AIPAC-types in the U.S. – he's intellectually honest about it. He favors granting Palestinians full citizenship rights, and concedes that successive Israeli governments have failed to adequately provide for their existing Muslim population, something he says needs to change. (See more discussion here and here.)

The qualifier here is that he seems to favor Gaza reverting to Egypt, and argues that the Palestinian population of the West Bank is only 1.5 million (the actual WB population is a figure of some dispute), meaning his vision would still leave Jews the majority. But give him credit for at least embracing citizenship for Palestinians under Israeli-controlled territory.

Another is on the same page:

I'm a lefty in both American and Israeli matters, but I can't agree with lumping Moshe Arens in with Malkin and company. He was a former Defense Minister of the Israel government, and Ha'Aretz is the NYT of Israel – the national, center-left, intellectually serious paper. Moshe Arens is a right-winger, but not an ideological extremist by any means.  In other words, when Moshe Arens says something, an intelligent leftist pays attention, just as most center-left Democrats in the US pay attention when Colin Powell or William Cohen or Robert Gates says something important.

Arens is saying something important here: that how Israel disengages from the territories has to be factored into the peace process. The government has to talk with the settlers – most of whom are non-ideological – to make its case, ask for support, and resort to force as a last resort, so that the whole process doesn't implode when the Israeli political center can't stomach the sight of the IDF forcing Jews from their homes. That image – forcing Jews from their homes – is complicated, powerful and full of history. You might want the settlers gone from the West Bank (I do, too), but how it happens is just as important as that it happen.

Sometimes we do well to pay attention to those on the other side of the political spectrum; they might be saying something we need to hear.

Malkin Award Nominee

"In retrospect, the massive uprooting of so many Israeli citizens from their homes, by force, is now seen by many as a gross miscarriage of justice, similar to the case of the expulsion of U.S. citizens of Japanese origin from their homes in World War II. That government decision was also upheld by a supreme court and regretted in later years. In both cases, force was used against citizens who had violated no laws," – Moshe Arens, Ha'aretz, on the Gaza withdrawal.

Von Hoffmanns All Round! Ctd

A reader quotes me:

A friend told me last night over a Jager that I romanticized politics. I'm not sure I do. But predictions and narratives and personalities are integral to readable political journalism. It is a theater at times, and the performances require aesthetic and human judgments as well as technical and policy ones.

I don't know that you romanticise politics as a whole. But you do need your dragons to slay. There are many topics in which you are measured and consistent, pleased with incremental progress and able to recognise setbacks and their significance.

But when you recognise a dragon – a person you perceive to be a dangerous threat to the ideals you hold dear or to the body politic – well, you tend to kick the spurs in and charge, sword in one hand, lance in the other and the shield of common sense left behind. Palin is one; Hillary Clinton another, for large bits of the '90s and portions of the '08 campaign. Radical Islam was another, in the wake of 9/11. I wouldn't quite call it pure romance.

You are far more cognizant of the flaws in your heroes than the virtues of your enemies, and you seem to admit of other, neutral persons or institutions to which you attitude can be mixed and measured (the Church is your curate's egg of the moment). But for your dragons – there seems to be no madness they might not drive us, no annihilation they might not wreak, and thus any attack is permitted to defend against their depredations. Having a dragon to destroy seems to give you the vim needed to run your treadmill everyday. You can't quite work Robot Romney into one – he's too sane and bland, and it seems to depress you. I think that was part of your soft spot for Santorum – now there was an authentic nutter who could be counted on to breathe fire when provoked.

That's always been about the size of it, to me. Me with my PhD in Knowing Fuck All About Psychology. But nobody loves reading you for your cold logic, Andrew. All your fans are fans of your passion. Vim-less political writers all turn into Tom Friedman after a while, and thanks be praised, there's never a worry of that with you.