Category: The Dish

A reader writes:

Your Republican writer deserves the Sullivan Award for complete conservative nonsense.  We didn’t like Goldwater, nor Reagan.  We see them as the obvious antecedents to Bush, and think it’s a big joke that you all are so surprised by the last eight years’ turn of events. That said, we are not trying to punish anyone, and we are aware that Mrs. Clinton is profoundly, if irrationally, divisive.  What’s worse for many of us is that she is a bit of a centrist, especially on issues of foreign policy. Most of us really wish there were more there there to Mr. Obama, both ideologically–in that he sounds like the same old centrist same old–except for his rhetoric on Iraq, not really a change and not even a change when it comes to politics–in that he doesn’t seem to provide much leadership when it comes to his colleagues; he doesn’t appear effective.  He never votes or takes a stand when it counts, and how many initiatives has he taken.

Say what you will about Mrs. Clinton, she does seem effective, and maybe that’s what scares the bejesus out of all you right wing ideologues.

The Clintons win elections, work their asses off, and get a lot done, for the most part hire good people, actually get along with coworkers from the other party, even if they’re a pair of triangulatin’ fools.

If Dodd or Biden had a chance, we’d lean that way.  If it came down to ideology, we’d probably prefer Edwards, an old fashioned Dem, and among the farther left, Kucinich.  We all wish Richardson, especially those of us from the west, appeared a stronger candidate too.  But no matter how much you and the conservatives who say they’d like a Black man by the name of Barack Obama wish to believe otherwise, for most Democrats, it’s been his nomination to win or lose, because that’s what we would most want too.  However, beyond symbolism, what we want to see is real world leadership, hands on, and so far he’s been second best at best to just about everyone else running.

The real key to understanding the difference between Republicans and Democrats is in their reactions to the previous two Presidents.  In fact, Bill Clinton was the best damned Republican policy President of the past half century.  Republicans hated his slippery personality, the way he played fast and loose with the truth, and his personal approach to life.  Democrats hate what George Bush has done to the country.  There’s a real difference, and Republicans as well as so-called (conservative) independents, project their feelings about the Clintons on ours about George Bush. To analogize, Michael Moore is not Michelle Malkin, but people like you can’t see the difference.

It really makes me like him more. Full remarks here.

Republican presidential candidate U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) hugs supporter Dorothy Innis at a campaign event December 27, 2007 in Des Moines, Iowa. By Eric Thayer/Getty Images.

A reader writes:

Obama’s biggest problem with the Boomers I’ve spoken with is that they are truly a narcissistic bunch who, yes, rebelled against their parents’ ways but so often did it on their parents dime and also still looked at their parents as "real adults." They still don’t see themselves as "real adults."

And they have never, ever, voted for a Presidential candidate who was younger than them.  And when you bring that up to them, bring up how you think they might be afraid of supporting Obama not because he’s young, but because he’s younger than them (and not a father figure), it really freaks their shit out.

I’m sure there’s some kind of truth here, but it’s surely not decisive. Still, a generational struggle is an interesting dynamic of the Clinton-Obama race. Remember: Clinton’s only five years older younger than Obama’s mother.

"It’s gone. The breakup of what was the Reagan coalition — social conservatives, defense conservatives, antitax conservatives — it doesn’t mean a whole lot to people anymore," –  Ed Rollins, Ronald Reagan’s political director and Mike Huckabee’s national campaign chairman.

A really useful piece with an obvious conclusion:

Conned and frightened, our nation demands not actual security, but security spectacle.

Perhaps the funniest Catherine Tate sketch ever. When you’re prejudiced against everyone, are you prejudiced against anyone? Derb will love it:

"I think it is an open question whether the Times itself should be prosecuted for this totally gratuitous revealing of an ongoing secret classified program that is part of the war on terror," – Bill Kristol, July 7, 2006. Matt sighs. Isaac thinks he’s better in a partisan publication like the Weekly Standard:

The beauty of Kristol’s Weekly Standard editorials is that his thuggish side is allowed to shine; at Time it was constricted.

Steve Benen:

This is an embarrassment from which the paper of record will not soon recover.

That strikes me as too excitable. It’s just a missed opportunity. I guess they did have Tierney for a while. But balancing Kristol with a paleocon or libertarian would be a good idea. Why not stir the pot and add Brookhiser or Ponnuru or Chapman once a week? Or a younger blogger like Larison or Douthat or Balko?

"America’s friends abroad have felt more despair this past five years than in the previous 50. To turn a phrase once applied to Britain by the American diplomatist Dean Acheson, America has acquired an empire but not found a role," – Simon Jenkins, The Times.

In some ways, this is one of the most important issues in this election after the astonishing power-grab by Bush and Cheney. The Boston Globe sent out a questionnaire on executive power to all the candidates. Unsurprisingly, Giuliani didn’t respond, except with bland mush from Ted Olson. Only McCain and Paul among Republicans repudiated the notion that the president is above the law, can ignore treaties at will, and has the inherent power to seize, imprison and torture anyone on the planet he deems an "enemy combatant" without due process. But the most interesting responses were from Romney and Clinton. Clinton – as always – hedged. She left some space for signing statements. But she is admirably candid in some respects:

The Bush Administration has acted unconstitutionally in failing to comply with FISA, failing to adhere to Congress’s prohibitions on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and attempting to hold enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo without review, to name a few examples. More fundamentally, I reject the basic premise of the Bush Administration’s view that Executive Power is not subject to the rule of law or to constitutional checks and balances.

Romney, however, clearly represents the continuation of the de facto protectorate of the Bush-Cheney administration. He backs the use of signing statements, the right of the president to ignore treaties if he wishes, and only supports "some type of habeas corpus relief" for US citizens seized by the government. On torture, he believes that the president can torture and is under no obligation even to answer questions about it:

A President should decline to reveal the method and duration of interrogation techniques to be used against high value terrorists who are likely to have counter-interrogation training. This discretion should extend to declining to provide an opinion as to whether Congress may validly limit his power as to the use of a particular technique, especially given Congress’s current plans to try to do exactly that.

It seems to me that that kind of power is monarchical not presidential, secret and dangerous rather than open and legal. According to Romney, the president doesn’t even have to say if he believes Congress can ban, say, waterboarding? A vote for Romney is a vote to continue the unprecedented and indefinite powers that Bush and Cheney have seized for themselves.