Dems Choke in Red Tide

-

red tide.jpg
It’s 1:40 am, and I have just finished election night. The Republicans have gained 60 more seats than they last had in the House of Representatives and six in the US Senate.
A new era has begun. John Boehner and Eric Cantor have gone from eccentric fringe to near monarchs over night. Obama will no doubt try and reach across the aisle (again) at 2 pm Eastern and then will be heading out of town to do some distraction-designed globe-trotting, at least for him if not for the country.
Some commentators are correct that it could have been worse — and that Dems beat expectations. Now, that is spin! The Dems keep the Senate and aren’t vulnerable to a flip in control if Senators Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson designed to come out of the closet as the Republicans they seem to want to be.
But the Tea Party’s insurgency — while it mattered and put some Red Bull in the Republican get out the vote efforts — was limited. Angle did not beat Harry Reid. (Sending Schumer some anti-depressants!). Christine O’Donnell took her expected fall against Chris Coons in Delaware. Politico‘s Patrick Gavin asked me if she’d have a lot of TV contracts offered today — and I responded that AMC Channel has a new series called “The Walking Dead“. That might work.
Quick highlights — as I said, Harry Reid squeaked by. Senator John Kerry exclaimed last night that Politico and HuffPost were wrong on Reid. Kerry’s words:

Politico was wrong, Huffington Post was wrong, hell, all the pundits were wrong.
Harry Reid isn’t just Dracula, he isn’t just Lazarus, he’s our leader, and our whole caucus is just thrilled that he’s unbreakable and unbeatable.”

OK. Moving on.
Jerry Brown is back in as Governor of California. His dad was Governor, his sister California State Treasurer, and of course he was Governor decades ago. The only thing that happened last night that may be good for gay rights. Boxer won. Some high profile lefties in House, including Alan Grayson and Tom Perriello lost. Dozens of blue dog Dems lost in House. Ike Skelton, the Democrats chief anti-gay military hawk, is gone. Bye bye Ike.
Former Republican turned Independent Lincoln Chafee won the Rhode island governorship. In a meeting I hosted with him, he once called Sarah Palin a “cocky whako.”
Cuban-American Marco Rubio won Florida — and many already see him as a White House contender some day. Sestak lost in Pennsylvania. The witch lady lost in Delaware.
I predicted 53 wins in the House…so was off in my analysis just a bit. In the Senate, West Virginia stays Democrat. Russ Feingold’s loss in Wisconsin is a big loss. The nation lost part of its conscience last night — and Ron Johnson, businessman or not, often sounds to me like he doesn’t understand how checks and balances in our system work.
Marijuana stays illegal.
A last note to a few friends. I watched a number of races very closely as I saw young people working their tails off to get into representative politics. I’ve never seen people work harder and scramble more than Judd Legum, Andrei Cherny, and Tommy Sowers.
Legum is the brilliant founder of Think Progress at the Center for American Progress and a former research chief for Hillary Clinton who didn’t quite make it in his quest to become a Maryland State Delegate in the 30th District. Running as a Dem in Arizona but having former Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe as his campaign chair, Andrei Cherny didn’t win his State Treasurer race. Lastly, Tommy Sowers — an Iraq War veteran and critic of the Afghanistan War who taught new media and politics at West Point and had a campaign-friendly dog travel with him throughout Missouri’s 8th District, couldn’t beat back the red tide.
Whether Republican or Democrat, there are hard-working young people working to break their way in, and most lose trying, particularly on the first round — but I salute all of them in addition to these three guys.
On a personal note, I am happy that Republican Jeff Flake won in Arizona. I chatted with Dick Armey last night about the Pacific Island-loving, hunky Congressman — and we may try another push getting him on the House Appropriations Committee. Flake is one of the sensible Members who believes that the American right to travel is a human right and that the government ought not to interfere as it has in blocking travel to Cuba.
More later.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

23 comments on “Dems Choke in Red Tide

  1. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    People who bandy the term “Socialism” about as though it is a disease are really closet monarchists who want the return of feudlism with the poor paying all the taxes to the rich.

    Reply

  2. nadine says:

    “[Obama is] basically a liberal capitalist who recognizes the concept of market failure.” (questions)
    No, questions, that’s not what Obama is, it’s just what Obama says he is. Like I said, he talks center but governs left. Besides, every socialist recognizes the concept of market failure. It’s the concept of government failure that has gone missing.
    Obama is no capitalist. It’s not what he does, or what he has said he wants to do in unguarded moments (bankrupt the coal industry, put in single-payer, apply taxes for “fairness” even if they lower Federal revenues, add “positive rights” to the Constitution), or who he appoints for his 40+ “czars”, or even what he says in response to economic questions, where he routinely shows off massive economic illiteracy.
    Remember how Obama defended the massive pork in the Stimulus package by saying, of course the spending was justified because stimulus is spending? Stimulus may be spending, but it doesn’t follow that all spending is stimulative, and the massive, wasteful funding of every Democrat pet project around certainly wasn’t stimulative.
    But they did find that twice as much money went to Dem congressional districts as Rep districts. I mean, what a shock, who could have seen that one coming?

    Reply

  3. questions says:

    nadine,
    Obama came up in the U of C and Harvard.
    He’s basically a liberal capitalist who recognizes the concept of market failure.
    Market failure is a complex structural notion that holds that if we all do what seems locally rationally, we do a global disservice to ourselves and we actually need outside structural forces to help us not hang ourselves by the selfsame bootstraps we’re tugging on. I know it’s hard to believe that all that freedom can leave us less free — it’s abstract, complicated, hard to think through when you’re a biblical literalist or a Constitutional literalist or whatever.
    Fact is, too much freedom ends up costing us freedom, whereas just a little restraint done just right means that we can function much better.
    No one cleans up pollution voluntarily. The problems pollution causes for our health are enormous. We have to be restrained collectively regarding pollution or we shall all choke to death individually.
    Read some Plato and Kant on desire. Read Aristotle on moderation. Restraint is a crucial moral concept.
    Behavioral economics is the second leg under the Obama chair. Though we like to think we’re being totally rational, indeed there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Though we like to think we make decisions freely, in fact, decisions are made against a background that is artificial and is always already present. Hence the manipulation of the already-manipulated becomes a possible policy outcome that squares with relative liberty.
    Toss in some notion that facts matter as a third leg. Bachmann claimed 2000 people were in Obama’s entourage to India and it would cost the tax payers 200 million dollars a DAY for the trip. Today’s NYT says it’s 200 business people going, and I think that when people tag along with the pres this way, they pay their own way or reimburse the gov for a reasonable per diem…. And they are all going to India because it’s a major trading partner and the goal is to use state power to drum up private trade for the good of the capitalist class….
    So that’s three legs of the Obama chair. I’d add in non-ideology as #4. The man is serious about compromise when there’s a proven solution.
    There’s something floating around about the lack of enrollment in the high risk pools — no one is yet sure why so few are signing up, but it’s a big concern for the Republicans since high risk pools are their favorite market based way to deal with sick people. Of course, it makes no sense to have a true unregulated high risk pool. Everyone who signs up is already super expensive to care for, and the whole set up has to make a profit, so cancer patients and AIDS patients and asthmatics share costs with those who have congestive heart failure, diabetes, and lupus. Gosh, there’s some cost sharing! That’ll work for sure cuz it’s free and markety!
    ****
    And Dan nailed it on the conspiracy thing. You have outshone the most conspiratorial posters here with that last one! It’s up there with MJ, cuz he, too, knows what the AIPACKIES are — he was one himself. A closer connection has MJ than does your Bowyer guy who’s just reporting on gramps, not on himself. Beware the words, “I should know because…,” They are the words of a zealot, not the words of a scholar.
    Converts are the worst at reporting. They have bizarro emotional conflicts. One should be extra cautious.

    Reply

  4. nadine says:

    Paul, Dan, you’re very amusing.
    As I recall, Paul, I used Barack Hussein Obama’s given name to give you the vapors. It worked like a charm, as I recall.
    Now it’s ‘fever swamp’ territory to notice he’s a socialist? Really, that should be about as controversial as watching a young conservative come up in CPAC and the Reagan administration and concluding that he is a conservative, even if he happens to be calling himself a “compassionate conservative” like GW Bush did in 2000.
    Obama came up in Alinskyite “community organizing”/ACORN networks that were and are, socialist. The first time he ran for the state legislature he was endorsed by the Democats and the local Socialist party. As for his political connections with Ayers/Doehrn (communist) and Rev. Wright (Marxist black liberation theology), they should be well understood by now. This is simply where Obama comes from. Of course, as he rose and went mainstream, he talked about “social justice,” not “socialism” and “spreading the wealth” not “nationalizing industries”. Straight out of Rules for Radicals.
    And Dan, I didn’t change the subject. Bowyer was talking about the socialist rhetorical style of “bullying” to enact “redistributive” legislation (which Obama has said he believes in). As Alinsky says, pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, demonize it.
    To me, having the POTUS attack the Chrysler bondholders in public for standing in his way as he took over Chrysler was a prime example of such bullying – behavior I expect from a Hugo Chavez, not an American President. And he did the same during the health care debate, though not quite as effectively. Bur heaven knows who he he has seeded through the Health & Human Services bureaucracy or what kind of legislation they are writing. Elizabeth Warren is the just the latest of his left-wing czars who could never survive Senate scrutiny.

    Reply

  5. Dan Kervick says:

    Everybody knows that Barack Huskuld Obama is a secret Norwegian, who went to a socialist reeducation camp in Norway on an extended college holiday – a mysterious episode in his life that *the mainstream media refuses to talk about*!
    Obama plans to introduce a radical egalitarian way of life into the United States based on Jante Law.
    During his Presidency, Obama has done *nothing* to stop the incendiary radical Norwegian radio cleric Garrison Keillor, who continues to release his uniquely dangerous brand of placid and taciturn ambivalence into the American body politic, where is saps and impurifies our precious bodily spirits on a daily basis.
    And the Norwegian Settlers Memorial in Norway, Illinois continues to wave it’s victory flag of anti-American egalitarianism and humility, despite the fact that it is only 765 miles from Ground Zero!

    Reply

  6. Paul Norheim says:

    Nadine,
    since the day, almost two years ago, I think, when you used
    Obama’s middle name in a comment to suggest that he
    conspired with Ahmedinajad and the second coming of the
    Mahdi, I noticed that you’re a happy camper within the fever
    swamp crowd. Your Jerry Bowyer excerpt provides a vivid
    expression of another aspect of your Obama-socialism-
    Islamism-paranoia.
    My sincere condolences.

    Reply

  7. Dan Kervick says:

    It’s amazing how fast you change the subject when you are caught in stupidity, Nadine.
    You know who else demonized the banks over the past couple of years? The TEA PARTY did! So did my neighbor. So did granny and grandpa. So did, Annie, Oakley and Buddy. Where the hell have you been?
    Meanwhile the ominously gradual “nationalization of the means of production” has not occurred. A brief and temporary bite into the car business, and that’s all she wrote. But you’ve got a triple inverse Lutz of a conspiracy theory to explain that one: Obama secretly *wanted* to accomplish the socialist takeover of America; but he was just too fucking incompetent to pull it off!
    I’m sure you’ll find dig up those secret Protocols of the Elders of Negretude any day now.
    How can you even post that silliness from Mr. Bowyer without blushing? Just look how embarrassing his argument is. It goes something like this: “My parents were socialists; Barack Obama reminds me of them somehow; so here is Barack Obama’s dastardly plan for the socialist takeover of America!”
    Next up: Barack Obama’s secret agenda to spank all Americans and ground us!
    What a nitwit you are. Get out of the fever swamps. Seriously, you seem to be having some sort of breakdown. Maybe you’re having a post-election reality crash due to the partisan hyperventilation wearing off.
    You need to start reading some actual thinkers instead of the diet of screwball pundits and paranoid screamers you are feeding your brain with.

    Reply

  8. nadine says:

    Dan, apparently you missed the health care debate and Obama’s repeated attempts to demonize the greedy health insurance industry. At other times, he demonized the banks. At other times he demonized the Chrysler bondholders. When there was nobody else handy, he demonized Rush Limbaugh and John Boehner.
    Obama tried to implement the Alinsky playbook. He’s just a lousy salesman, much worse than anybody anticipated. Certainly much worse than his supporters anticipated! But he sure did try.

    Reply

  9. Dan Kervick says:

    Nadine,
    Until now I didn’t realize the degree of conspiracy lunacy you had immersed yourself in. You’ve gone as dotty as the truthers and birthers.
    Not only was Bowers not on the money. He has turned out to be almost completely wrong. You’ve really lost it.

    Reply

  10. nadine says:

    “Socialism” is not a “silly unmeaningful empty word”, questions. It has a precise meaning: nationalization of the means of production. It comes in violent (revolutionary) and non-violent (Fabian) flavors.
    Here is a prediction of Obama’s socialism from Jerry Bowyer of Forbes dated November 2008, back when our punditry was still praising Obama’s temperament and trying to figure out if he was a closet moderate. I’d say Bowyer is pretty much on the money, and would have been even closer if the Tea Party movement had not arisen to throw a spanner into the engines of nationalization.
    _________________________________________________
    Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist
    Jerry Bowyer, 11.03.08, 12:32 PM EST
    Who needs Molotov when we’ve got Alinski?
    Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist for Ingersoll Rand (nyse: IR – news – people ) during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnold’s The Folklore of Capitalism. This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists.
    Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect “fundamental change” and “social justice” was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites. Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior “realist” playwrights dedicated to social change. John Cusack’s character in Woody Allen’s “Bullets Over Broadway” captures the movement rather well.
    Arnold taught me to question everyone–my president, my priest and my parents. Well, almost everyone. I wasn’t supposed to question the Fabian intellectuals themselves. That’s the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be.
    That’s Obama’s world.
    He’s telling the truth when he says that he doesn’t agree with Bill Ayers’ violent bombing tactics, but it’s a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better? Who needs Molotov when you’ve got Saul Alinski?
    So here is the playbook: The left will identify, freeze, personalize and polarize an industry, probably health care. It will attempt to nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy through legislative action. They will focus, as Lenin did, on the “commanding heights” of the economy, not the little guy.
    As Obama said, “the smallest” businesses will be exempt from fines for not “doing the right thing” in offering employer-based health care coverage. Health will not be nationalized in one fell swoop; they have been studying the failures of Hillary Care. Instead, a parallel system will be created, funded by surcharges on business payroll, which will be superior to many private plans.
    The old system will be forced to subsidize the new system and there will be a gradual shift from the former to the latter. The only coercion will be the fines, not the participation. A middle-class entitlement will have been created.
    It may not be health care first; it might be energy, though I suspect that energy will be nationalized much more gradually. The offshore drilling ban that was allowed to lapse legislatively will be reinstated through executive means. It may be an executive order, but might just as well be a permit reviewing system that theoretically allows drilling but with endless levels of objection and appeal from anti-growth groups. Wind and solar, on the other hand, will have no permitting problems at all, and a heavy taxpayer subsidy at their backs.
    The banking system has already been partially nationalized. Bush and Paulson intend for their share purchases to be only non-voting preferred shares, but the law does not specify that. How hard will it be for Obama, new holder of $700 billion in bank equity, to demand “accountability” and a “voice” for the taxpayers?
    The capital markets are not freezing up now, mostly because of what has happened, although community organizers’ multidecade push for affirmative-action mortgages has done enormous harm to the credit system. Markets are forward looking.
    A quick review of the socialist takeovers in Venezuela in 1999, Spain in 2004 and Italy in 2006 show the same pattern–equity markets do most of their plummeting before the Chavez’s of the world take power. Investors anticipate the policy shift in advance; that’s their job.
    It’s not just equity markets, though; debt markets do the same thing. Everywhere I turn I hear complaints about bankers “hoarding” capital. “Hoarding” is a word we’ve heard often from violent socialists like Lenin and Mao. We also hear it from the democratic left as we did during the 1930s in America. The banks, we’re told, are greedy and miserly, holding onto capital that should be deployed into the marketplace.
    Well, which is it, miserly or greedy? They’re not the same thing. Banks make money borrowing low and lending high. In fact, they can borrow very, very low right now, as they could during the Great Depression.
    So why don’t they lend? Because socialism is a very unkind environment for lenders. Some of the most powerful members of Congress are speaking openly about repudiating mortgage covenants. Local officials have already done so by simply refusing to foreclose on highly delinquent borrowers. Then, there’s the oldest form of debt repudiation, inflation. Even if you get your money back, it will not be worth anything. Who would want to lend in an environment like this?
    Will Obama’s be the strong-man socialism of a Chavez, or the soft socialism that Clement Atlee used to defeat Churchill after WWII? I don’t know, but I suspect something kind of in between. Despite right-wing predictions that we won’t see Rush shut down by Fairness Doctrine fascists. We won’t see Baptist ministers hauled off in handcuffs for anti-sodomy sermons. It will more likely be a matter of paperwork. Strong worded letters from powerful lawyers in and out of government to program directors and general mangers of radio stations. Ominous references to license renewal.
    The psychic propaganda assault will be powerful. The cyber-brown-shirts will spew hate, the union guys will flood talk shows with switchboard-collapsing swarms of complaint calls aimed at those hosts who “go beyond the pale” in their criticisms of Obama. In concert with pop culture outlets like The Daily Show and SNL, Obama will use his podium to humiliate and demonize those of us who don’t want to come together and heal the planet.
    You’ve heard of the bully pulpit, right? Well, then get ready, because you’re about to see the bully part.
    Jerry Bowyer is chief economist of Benchmark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor.
    http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/obama-fabian-socialist-oped-cx_jb_1103bowyer.html

    Reply

  11. nadine says:

    “The banks got little or no interference, but they got a bunch of money. The car companies were restructured and seem to be profitable at this point near as I can tell from headlines. The debts will be repaid and they will be private enterprises once again.
    Fact is, Obama boosted private capital by using public money. He didn’t boost public good by seizing private capital.” (questions)
    That just not true, questions. The Government owns Chrysler now. It owns GM. It owns Fannie and Freddie. Obama used borrowed public money to bailout and BUY private entities. He followed no laws but simply shafted the bondholders and taxpayers to give benefits to the UAW. GM has just been excused from paying its share of corporate taxes for years, a benefit estimated worth $45 billion. Think about that. Ford will pay corporate taxes; GM won’t. That’s a thank-you note to the UAW for their efforts in the election. That’s artificially tarting up GM for its eventual IPO.
    And let’s not even get into Obamacare, a system designed to destroy the private insurance industry to force eventual acceptance of single-payer on a public that doesn’t want it. Obamacare will remain a front and center issue through 2012.

    Reply

  12. questions says:

    nadine, I already noted the extra interference in the car companies. As for Rattner, the book is in my pile of to-be-read books now. So I’ll get to that when I’m done with…..
    The banks got little or no interference, but they got a bunch of money. The car companies were restructured and seem to be profitable at this point near as I can tell from headlines. The debts will be repaid and they will be private enterprises once again.
    Fact is, Obama boosted private capital by using public money. He didn’t boost public good by seizing private capital.
    You have the tail and the dog backwards. Really really backwards. Believe me, I’m not the only one making this argument.
    Obama’s goal is to have a well-functioning private market dealing with just about everything, while reserving government power for the variety of market failures and game theoretic situations that pop up relatively frequently when we have limited communication and absolutely no cooperation or coercion.
    It seems to me that within this scheme of things, there’s room for more lefty and more righty lines to be drawn, and what we should be arguing about is the particulars of regulations and their consequences for particular industries or tax payers.
    Using silly unmeaningful empty words like “socialist” does nothing to help us know if we should be mandating scrubbers on smokestacks, asking for scrubbers on smokestacks, paying for those scrubbers, hoping for them, or not having any at all as scrubbers seem to introduce some other curious side effects.
    We need science, research, informed debate, thoughtfulness.
    We need to dump the kneejerk reactions, the epithets, and the emotional reactions to buzz words like “freedom” (to pollute and cause cancer?), “liberty” (to carry guns into bars and shoot people?), “The Constitution” (get a law degree and a Ph.D. in history first please)….
    We have an enormously complex society at this point. Our actions are BIG. The consequences of our actions ripple out far wider than they did when there were fewer people, cities were smaller, finances were less linked, air travel didn’t move diseases quite as quickly, and money couldn’t be moved every 7 seconds.
    With complexity and ripple effects comes a far greater need to be responsible for the effects of one’s actions. The structure itself is less free at some level.
    But really, whatever. You FEEL “socialism” despite not really being able to justify the claim, and we’re certainly in an age of “feeling” that the political system is alien. Under Bush it wasn’t, and under the next very white male corpulent southern pres, it’ll feel all familiar again. More than anything else, this is the Rove effect. Corpulent, southern, white, male.
    I kind of get the feeling the country might be done with “diversity” and thinness for a while!
    Pres. Barbour, anyone?!

    Reply

  13. Dan Kervick says:

    http://www.rrstar.com/archive/x303487643/Belvidere-Chrysler-workers-vote-on-concessions
    But lying about America’s working people and blaming them for everything has become a routine occupation for both the right and for the professional class “liberals” in the Democratic Party who put the maintenance of the class status quo ahead of the job of putting Americans back to work.

    Reply

  14. nadine says:

    The gov’t didn’t take over the banks and car companies.
    Oh yes it did. Obama fired the CEO of GM, remember? He hired that guy Rattner to reorganize GM and Chrysler? The government big-footed the restructuring of Chrysler, in defiance of the bankruptcy laws so Obama could screw the bondholders to save his buddies in the UAW, who weren’t asked to give up a penny. Similarly in the banks, where banks were forced to take TARP money who didn’t even want it, so the government could ‘oversee’ their executive compensation and tell them how run their business. And the whole student loan business has been nationalized completely.
    Obama talks center but he governs left.
    There’s nothing that Obama thinks the government should stay out of owning or stay out of running, which will do for a working definition of ‘socialist’, which he is. Check out Stanley Kurtz’ new book “Radical in Chief”. Obama has always been a socialist; he came up in socialist organizations. They just hid their intentions under the name “community organizers”. They had to; you can’t get Americans to vote for socialism when it’s out in the open.

    Reply

  15. DonS says:

    “Please define “socialism.””
    Good question indeed, questions. Those who throw this word around do it with mainly perjorative intent, and with astounding ignorance. But what does it matter to the ignorant. Close as I can figure its just another way of saying government is “too big”, also an ignorant-ism.

    Reply

  16. questions says:

    nadine, define “socialist” please.
    Obama took tax money, public money, the money of individual people and dumped it into banks and car companies.
    The gov’t didn’t take over the banks and car companies. The gov’t didn’t run production facilities, set prices, or even really interfere with salaries of the banksters. There was a little more push on some auto execs as I recall (to avoid looking biased towards car companies and unions would be my guess.)
    The gov’t isn’t running these businesses or demanding much of them, and there is an ongoing process of selling off the gov’t interest.
    This was a bail out of capitalism, NOT AT ALL an imposition of state control over the means of production.
    Obama wants a small increase in income tax rates on top earners. That ain’t socialism. Going from 35% to 39% on top dollars just isn’t confiscatory.
    Please define “socialism.”
    The ACA uses private companies, not a government run system. The gov’t will transfer tax money to wealthy corporate insurance interests. That’s not socialism, that’s capitalism.
    All sorts of public money is going private.
    Where in heaven’s name is this “socialism?”

    Reply

  17. Dan Kervick says:

    WigWag, hardly cares about that stuff any more, except for a few zealots whose votes aren;t in play. China was an issue in this election; but Afghanistan wasn’t; Iraq wasn’t; terrorism wasn’t.
    Americans have moved on. The late and unlamented Era of the Great Middle East Obsession is over. A lot of the foreign policy class still doesn’t get it, because they are in a dead-ender business addicted to the debates of the past and oversupplied with a glut of Middle East expertise. But pretty soon they are going to realize they are like one of my friends: he studied Russian and Eastern European history and languages back in the 80’s, preparing for a career as a highly sought Sovietologist. But then the bottom fell out of the Godless Communism industry.
    But of course the Washington Note discussions will continue relatively insignificant foreign policy questions in marginally significant countries.

    Reply

  18. nadine says:

    I rarely bother to read Raimondo, and still less often do I agree with anything he says, but he’s right about this “he upending of the Republican establishment by the Tea Partiers in the 2010 primaries has restored conservatives

    Reply

  19. samuelburke says:

    wig, with friends like israel we don’t need enemies.
    now your enemies are our enemies…hey what are friends for if not for helping us make enemies out of the rest of the world.

    Reply

  20. John Waring says:

    Here’s some great analysis from Justin Raimondo. “The anitwar left made Obama; Obama has umade the anitwar left.” This is a must read.
    http://www.amconmag.com/blog/peace-out/

    Reply

  21. Cee says:

    I was glad I was hafl way into my martini when the
    Feingold results came in.
    The cretins who voted for the other cretins can’t
    blame Obama or “the left” any longer.
    We can just sit back and watch.

    Reply

  22. DakotabornKansan says:

    Yesterday, waiting in line with many others to vote, I was struck by what diverse thoughts lay hidden in my fellow voters; and also, when I read the many opinions expressed on this blog. Some of their thoughts may be trivial, but these trivialities are precisely what matter.

    Reply

  23. WigWag says:

    Everyone seems to agree that last night’s Democratic electoral disaster was a referendum on Barack Obama’s performance. Obviously domestic issues were paramount, especially the economy. But I think that there are some things Obama could do pertinent to foreign policy that might encourage people to like him better.
    Here are five things Obama could do which might motivate the majority of Americans to feel better about him:
    1. Stop genuflecting to foreign leaders. I don’t mean this figuratively; he needs to literally stop the bowing.
    2. Stop telling Americans who think putting a mosque at Ground Zero is in poor taste that they’re contemptible bigots.
    3. Stop giving prestigious awards like the Medal of Freedom to people like the former President of Ireland, who hate Jews. Unlike Mary Robinson, Americans like their Jewish neighbors.
    4. Stop dithering about Afghanistan. Fight to win or pull out. Don’t massively increase the number of American troops while at the same time announcing that whatever happens, they won’t be there long.
    5. Stop treating America’s friends like they’re enemies and America’s enemies like their friends.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *