The Dish

A Christianist fore-runner?

Is he the least worst candidate for the GOP? Some think so:

He is a flip-flopper. To me that means he does not believe the rightwing garbage he puts out with such abandon. Am I really to believe that he used to be accepting of gays but, with time, learned to be a bigot? Or that he used to be pro-choice but stem cell research (stem cell research!) made him favor back alley abortions? Or that a guy who never fired a gun in his life is now a die-hard gun nut.

Nope. I don’t believe it. I think he is lying through his teeth to get the GOP nomination and that, as President, could well flip flop again.

That’s my feeling too. He will do and say anything that helps him at the moment. For example: he’s very pro-gay, but as soon as he saw the chance to advance his own career by demonizing our relationships, he seized it. At his core, he’s an old-style Rockefeller Republican, trying to adapt to the religious fanatics who now control the GOP base. Will he screw them over in office? Not if it isn’t in his interest. I think of him as a shrewd, principle-free Clinton-style pol. And I don’t think the evangelicals in the GOP base will tolerate an infidel as their nominee. Steve Benen has more.

After this example, a reader directs me to another animated editorial cartoon from the Economist’s wonderful caricaturist, Kal. More info here. Flash video, YouTube and imaging technology could lead to a whole new genre of visual parody and comment. Anyway, it’s a little self-referential, but you get the point:

A reader responds to this riveting exchange:

Although watching the debate was maddening – I am squeamish when it comes to two respected men arguing over one another – it was revealing.  A viewer could easily see the place where these arguments currently live.  This may best be illustrated towards the end when Webb gives the clear evidence (polling) of military personnel’s unhappiness with the policy and war in general.  Graham’s only response – "Why do they keep going back?"  My jaw nearly hit the floor! Nevermind that desertion rates have skyrocketed or that enrollment in antiwar groups for both soldiers and their families over the last few months has boomed, the sheer misunderstanding that a soldier simply knows what his duty/orders are and he reports is mind boggling.  It does not matter what his personal feelings are, he follows orders. However, as these orders become more and more unreasonable (or just plain beyond understanding), soldiers and their families are speaking out in droves. Another very telling point in the debate occurs when Graham says that Iranians are in Iraq killing Americans.

Which, no doubt, is true. However, you can hear Webb say that there are more Saudis in Iraq than Iranians.  This is an inconvenient fact for the administration, which passed without comment from both Graham (who had no retort) and Russert (who is spineless). As the debate continued, it was very telling to see Graham fall back on many of the old tired one liners that have, in many cases, been completely discredited and Webb who was frequently looking at his notes so he would not get his facts wrong.  To me, that may be what this is boiling down to: an emotional argument that is constantly changing, crafted to get an immediate and forceful emotional response vs. a much less exciting, sober argument that is based on the continual stream of facts that shows the fallacy of the emotional argument. Unfortunately, the emotion is digested so much easier than the facts.

She’s trying to get Obama to knuckle under to the Clinton machine. Puke-worthy comment:

He would have to decide he would be willing to coexist with a strong woman. But it seems as though he already does that at home. You would have to be willing to let a charismatic man steal some of your thunder, but you do that at home, too. This would be a political marriage of convenience, sure, but one that could excite the country.

It would excite Maya Angelou perhaps.

Philip Giraldi in the National Interest:

What poses the greater threat to the survival of Israel: Iran or neoconservatism?

His longer answer can be found here.

The other source of Jhad in Iraq is from Egypt, another "ally". Juan Cole:

The LA Times reported yesterday that nearly half of the detainees in US military custody are Saudis. Not so for the suspected jihadis held by the Iraqis. They have only 9 Saudis. About half of their detainees are **Egyptian**, and a fifth are Sudanese. The Iraqi security services clearly think their biggest problem is jihadi volunteers from the Nile Valley. But the picture emerging from the two sets of detainees is that the publics of the two main US allies in the Middle East, Saudia and Egypt, are the most likely to fall under suspicion of supporting the insurgency.

Two words: Michelle Obama. Few know yet what she has to offer. Here’s a glimpse below. Another glimpse here and here. Money quote: "I am married to the answer."

Arianna eavesdrops on the Acela. I take the quiet car myself. Less neocon blather.