Via Politico:
"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
--Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) July 2009
Via Joe Klein at Time:
"So this is not the time to let them off the ropes. This is the week to highlight every problem, every terrible provision, in the Democratic bills: from taxes and spending to government control and rationing to federal funding for abortion and government-required death-with-dignity counseling sessions for the elderly. Throw the kitchen sink at the legislation now on the table, drive a stake through its heart (I apologize for the mixed metaphors), and kill it.
Then opponents can say, of course we do want to pass sensible health reform. But to do so, we need to start over."
-- William Kristol at Weekly Standard July 20, 2009
TW: I hit health care hard and will continue to do so. But understand the Republicans could care less about actually helping Americans without care (50 million) or actually slowing the growth of health care costs (they oppose just about any initiative to do so, will get into this more later).
This is about electoral calculations. Bill Clinton had his knees nearly cut out from under him in 1994, helping set the table for the infamous 1994 Republican Gingrich led sweep of Congress in November. The Republicans would like to go back to the future. Meanwhile NOTHING would be done to address health care reform.
Kristol says we need to start over. That is cynical crap. Delay means never and these folks know it. These are the same folks (literally) that led us into Iraq and set the table for the Great Contraction (i.e. oppose any meaningful regulatory reform, cut taxes for wealthy as fast as possible etc.). Why are they even at the table?
Showing posts with label weekly standard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label weekly standard. Show all posts
Monday, July 20, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Extremism In Defense Of Security Is a Vice
TW: Some highlights from National Review and Weekly Standard on their reactions to today's speeches. These are the mainline conservative magazines, I could not force myself to go to the real hard core sites like Red State.
From William Kristol at Weekly Standard:
"Cheney vs. Obama: A Mismatch-I've read both speeches.
Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor--platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way...Cheney's is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman. He's sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices." [TW: Kristol patronizes Obama with the young senator approach, that crap got old about last May. More importantly, Kristol essentially asserts nuance equals bad, absolutism equals good. To me simple-mindedness has its uses, but the world is more complex.]
From Dana Perino (fmr. White House press secretary)
"I wish the Democrats would put half as much energy into fighting terrorists as they do in fighting Dick Cheney...Once today’s fake duel is over, let’s hope we get back to some sanity in this discussion. Meanwhile, the terrorists are still at work." [TW: in other words, Gingrich/Cheney/Boehner etc. can call our POTUS a naive surrender monkey basically but the Dems should focus on fighting the terrorists- F-you Dana]
KJ Lopez at National Review:
"It's worth noting that while we release memos and shine a spotlight on the worst that we've done, we had a prolonged debate about whether or not it was something akin to torture to show Daniel Pearl's beheading and other actual instances of brutality on television.
The American Enterprise Institute, by the way, was helpful in not hiding the actual evil of our enemy when they posted video on their website of Saddam Hussein-era torture at Abu Ghraib. That we are outraged at what our people did at Abu Ghraib is right. But that's never been a reason to lose sight of the big picture. [TW: In other words, they tortured worse than us so there, I would we could do better than this]
From Peter Kirsanow at National Review:
"A serious, important speech.
Politicians and the media seem unduly impressed by favorability polls, often drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. Since Cheney has relatively high unfavorables, it's assumed that the public dismisses his statements.
It would be interesting to see the results of a more finely calibrated poll, one that compares how well-respected, competent, and effective the subject is perceived to be relative to similarly situated individuals. As a friend succinctly puts it, "When that big asteroid finally heads toward Earth, who's the person you'd most want to be in charge?" I suspect Cheney would score at or near the top.
Conservatives can only speculate about the state of affairs had we seen more of this type of detailed, sober defense during President Bush's tenure." [TW: he speaks for some portion of our country, who think Cheney is right. Me the last guy I wanted in the WH post 9/11 or if an asteroid were this way was/is Cheney because he decisively makes bad decisions. Decisiveness and good decisions are not one and the same.]
TW: I would encourage everyone to watch or read the speeches. This stuff is important, don't rely on others to guide your opinions including yours truly especially. Our lives have changed immensely since 9/11. Our successors lives will be changed. The absolutism and never-ending waving of the bloody shirt of 9/11 puts fundamental American values at risk. This is especially crucial in a globalized world where American values remain one of our most cherished assets amidst economic malaise and malfeasance. Dick Cheney and his adherents have essentially turned their conservative forefather's famous axiom on it's head:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" has become "Extremism in the defense of security is no vice".
Certainly one can debate the various forms of liberty but generally it can be a universal concept whereby all gain. Security, however, quickly becomes a zero-sum, my country at the expense of yours. We end up going into a crouch, constructing shells and lashing out of our own self-imposed crouch at real and perceived threats. Ultimately of course leaving less not more secure.
Folks are getting lost in he said, she said about Pelosi and where the detainees are going to reside post Gitmo. The issues on the table are far larger. Ignore them at your peril.
From William Kristol at Weekly Standard:
"Cheney vs. Obama: A Mismatch-I've read both speeches.
Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor--platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way...Cheney's is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman. He's sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices." [TW: Kristol patronizes Obama with the young senator approach, that crap got old about last May. More importantly, Kristol essentially asserts nuance equals bad, absolutism equals good. To me simple-mindedness has its uses, but the world is more complex.]
From Dana Perino (fmr. White House press secretary)
"I wish the Democrats would put half as much energy into fighting terrorists as they do in fighting Dick Cheney...Once today’s fake duel is over, let’s hope we get back to some sanity in this discussion. Meanwhile, the terrorists are still at work." [TW: in other words, Gingrich/Cheney/Boehner etc. can call our POTUS a naive surrender monkey basically but the Dems should focus on fighting the terrorists- F-you Dana]
KJ Lopez at National Review:
"It's worth noting that while we release memos and shine a spotlight on the worst that we've done, we had a prolonged debate about whether or not it was something akin to torture to show Daniel Pearl's beheading and other actual instances of brutality on television.
The American Enterprise Institute, by the way, was helpful in not hiding the actual evil of our enemy when they posted video on their website of Saddam Hussein-era torture at Abu Ghraib. That we are outraged at what our people did at Abu Ghraib is right. But that's never been a reason to lose sight of the big picture. [TW: In other words, they tortured worse than us so there, I would we could do better than this]
From Peter Kirsanow at National Review:
"A serious, important speech.
Politicians and the media seem unduly impressed by favorability polls, often drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. Since Cheney has relatively high unfavorables, it's assumed that the public dismisses his statements.
It would be interesting to see the results of a more finely calibrated poll, one that compares how well-respected, competent, and effective the subject is perceived to be relative to similarly situated individuals. As a friend succinctly puts it, "When that big asteroid finally heads toward Earth, who's the person you'd most want to be in charge?" I suspect Cheney would score at or near the top.
Conservatives can only speculate about the state of affairs had we seen more of this type of detailed, sober defense during President Bush's tenure." [TW: he speaks for some portion of our country, who think Cheney is right. Me the last guy I wanted in the WH post 9/11 or if an asteroid were this way was/is Cheney because he decisively makes bad decisions. Decisiveness and good decisions are not one and the same.]
TW: I would encourage everyone to watch or read the speeches. This stuff is important, don't rely on others to guide your opinions including yours truly especially. Our lives have changed immensely since 9/11. Our successors lives will be changed. The absolutism and never-ending waving of the bloody shirt of 9/11 puts fundamental American values at risk. This is especially crucial in a globalized world where American values remain one of our most cherished assets amidst economic malaise and malfeasance. Dick Cheney and his adherents have essentially turned their conservative forefather's famous axiom on it's head:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" has become "Extremism in the defense of security is no vice".
Certainly one can debate the various forms of liberty but generally it can be a universal concept whereby all gain. Security, however, quickly becomes a zero-sum, my country at the expense of yours. We end up going into a crouch, constructing shells and lashing out of our own self-imposed crouch at real and perceived threats. Ultimately of course leaving less not more secure.
Folks are getting lost in he said, she said about Pelosi and where the detainees are going to reside post Gitmo. The issues on the table are far larger. Ignore them at your peril.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Lets See Who Thinks These Were Truly Achievements
TW: Fred Barnes would make my list of least respected right-wing pundits, he has been at it for a long time yet continues to receive compensation despite his ignorance. Here he summarizes ten "great achievements" of the Bush presidency. They are:
1) Rejection of the Kyoto accords and general skepticism towards global warming
2) Propagation of "enhanced interrogation techniques" aka torture
3) Pushing executive power to new limits
4) "Unswerving support for Israel"
5) Creating the No child left behind legislation
6) The promotion of democracy internationally
7) Supporting the medicare prescription act
8) Naming Alito and Roberts to the SCOTUS
9) Improving relations with certain Asian nations (Korea, Japan, Australia, India)
10) The surge in Iraq
I would argue #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are either exactly what we should not have done (#1, 2, 3, 4, 8) or incredibly poorly executed actions leaving us worse off than before (6 and 10, without initiating the war in Iraq there would have been no need for a surge a fact usually left off by the right-wing).
Items #5 and #7 are at best pushes. NCLB remains a highly dubious initiative and the medicare act perpetuates discriminatory benefits for elderly while digging our fiscal hole even deeper.
#9 fine, improving relations was a concept frequently left off the Bush agenda but all of those East Asian nations were eager to hedge their bets relative to an emerging China.
And lets not forget what is not on the list: economic success of any sort NONE!
Fundamentally, Barnes columns frames the yawning gap between the right-wing and where this country should be headed. Lets see the list as it could have been:
1) US ratifies Kyoto and works with other leading nations to address global warming
2) US despite 9/11 reacts with maturity reflective of the world's greatest power and upholds its cherished liberties whilst combating terrorism
3) Bush works with Congress and the courts to balance the needs of the GWOT with the Constitution
4) US engages in balanced diplomacy in the Middle East protecting Israel's fundamental right to exist and original borders while encouraging a fair settlement to the Palestinian issue
5) Creating the No child left behind legislation
6) While promoting democracy internationally where relevant the US engages in multi-lateral initiatives to promote economic success, free trade, and good governance
7) Supporting the medicare prescription act while addressing the fiscal challenges faced by the US, spending was reduced on ???.
8) Moderates were named to the SCOTUS
9) Improving relations with certain Asian nations (Korea, Japan, Australia, India) and Africa and South Asia and Europe etc.
10) The US continued to constrain Saddam Hussein while multi-laterally defeating the Taliban and capturing Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora etc.
Perhaps we will do better this time
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/986rockt.asp
1) Rejection of the Kyoto accords and general skepticism towards global warming
2) Propagation of "enhanced interrogation techniques" aka torture
3) Pushing executive power to new limits
4) "Unswerving support for Israel"
5) Creating the No child left behind legislation
6) The promotion of democracy internationally
7) Supporting the medicare prescription act
8) Naming Alito and Roberts to the SCOTUS
9) Improving relations with certain Asian nations (Korea, Japan, Australia, India)
10) The surge in Iraq
I would argue #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are either exactly what we should not have done (#1, 2, 3, 4, 8) or incredibly poorly executed actions leaving us worse off than before (6 and 10, without initiating the war in Iraq there would have been no need for a surge a fact usually left off by the right-wing).
Items #5 and #7 are at best pushes. NCLB remains a highly dubious initiative and the medicare act perpetuates discriminatory benefits for elderly while digging our fiscal hole even deeper.
#9 fine, improving relations was a concept frequently left off the Bush agenda but all of those East Asian nations were eager to hedge their bets relative to an emerging China.
And lets not forget what is not on the list: economic success of any sort NONE!
Fundamentally, Barnes columns frames the yawning gap between the right-wing and where this country should be headed. Lets see the list as it could have been:
1) US ratifies Kyoto and works with other leading nations to address global warming
2) US despite 9/11 reacts with maturity reflective of the world's greatest power and upholds its cherished liberties whilst combating terrorism
3) Bush works with Congress and the courts to balance the needs of the GWOT with the Constitution
4) US engages in balanced diplomacy in the Middle East protecting Israel's fundamental right to exist and original borders while encouraging a fair settlement to the Palestinian issue
5) Creating the No child left behind legislation
6) While promoting democracy internationally where relevant the US engages in multi-lateral initiatives to promote economic success, free trade, and good governance
7) Supporting the medicare prescription act while addressing the fiscal challenges faced by the US, spending was reduced on ???.
8) Moderates were named to the SCOTUS
9) Improving relations with certain Asian nations (Korea, Japan, Australia, India) and Africa and South Asia and Europe etc.
10) The US continued to constrain Saddam Hussein while multi-laterally defeating the Taliban and capturing Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora etc.
Perhaps we will do better this time
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/986rockt.asp
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Lest We Forget That W. Bush Used To Be Revered By Many
TW: As the debacle known as the W. Bush years winds down it is instructive to recall that he was not always reviled by many but in fact revered.
From Matt Yglesias:
"Part of the effort to pull the wagon of conservatism out of the ditch into which Bush piloted the country is going to be an effort to deny that George W. Bush was a real conservative. In reality, Bushism should be understood as the highest form of conservatism. In particular, the High Bushist years of 2001-2006 represent the only time that the post-war conservative movement has had total control over the federal government. If the practical consequences of pre-Bush conservatism were less disastrous, that’s largely because conservative political power was more constrained in those earlier eras.
Meanwhile, it’s worth recalling that at the peak of his political power, when Bush was making his most disastrous decisions, conservatives not only thought he was a good president, but a great one. There was practically a line around the block to write paens to his genius. Here’s David Gelertner’s “Bush’s Greatness” from the September 13, 2004 Weekly Standard:
From Matt Yglesias:
"Part of the effort to pull the wagon of conservatism out of the ditch into which Bush piloted the country is going to be an effort to deny that George W. Bush was a real conservative. In reality, Bushism should be understood as the highest form of conservatism. In particular, the High Bushist years of 2001-2006 represent the only time that the post-war conservative movement has had total control over the federal government. If the practical consequences of pre-Bush conservatism were less disastrous, that’s largely because conservative political power was more constrained in those earlier eras.
Meanwhile, it’s worth recalling that at the peak of his political power, when Bush was making his most disastrous decisions, conservatives not only thought he was a good president, but a great one. There was practically a line around the block to write paens to his genius. Here’s David Gelertner’s “Bush’s Greatness” from the September 13, 2004 Weekly Standard:
It’s obvious not only that George W. Bush has already earned his Great President badge (which might even outrank the Silver Star) but that much of the opposition to Bush has a remarkable and very special quality; one might be tempted to call it “lunacy.” But that’s too easy. The “special quality” of anti-Bush opposition tells a more significant, stranger story than that.
Bush’s greatness is often misunderstood. He is great not because he showed America how to react to 9/11 but because he showed us how to deal with a still bigger event–the end of the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 left us facing two related problems, one moral and one practical. Neither President Clinton nor the first Bush found solutions–but it’s not surprising that the right answers took time to discover, and an event like 9/11 to bring them into focus"
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Damn Them, Damn Them All To Hell
From the WSJ editorial page:
"The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty — a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House"
TW: Let me attempt to parse this a bit.
1) Criticism of Bush reflects our "lack of character and resolve"- I would argue the antithesis and that his re-election in '04 reflected many things on our collective electorate's part, most of them bad.
2) "The POTUS is not to blame for all these problems"- for all of the problems, no; for creating several of them (i.e. Iraq) and exacerbating many more (Katrina, the economy), ummm...yes.
3) "He never lost faith in America...and has tried his hardest"- what the fug else was he supposed to do, are we to credit him for this most basic attribute of leadership.
4) The piece de resistance- I will paraphrase, "the failure to provide W. blind loyalty is treasonous". The day anyone asks for blind loyalty your spouse, your boss or your POTUS run, run hard and do not stop ever. The executive leadership under George Walker Bush saw 9/11 as a ticket to do whatever they felt they needed to do regardless of the Constitution, Congress, our Allies or any other alternative powers. Their toadies in the press led by the Weekly Standard, the WSJ editorial board, Fox News etc. have sought to propagandize this approach. To the extent anyone has followed their lead, shame on you.
As others have pointed out we shall see how much "aid and comfort to the enemy" the same "loyal Americans" at Fox, WSJ and Weekly Standard provide once they unleash their vitriol on President Barack Obama.
"The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty — a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House"
TW: Let me attempt to parse this a bit.
1) Criticism of Bush reflects our "lack of character and resolve"- I would argue the antithesis and that his re-election in '04 reflected many things on our collective electorate's part, most of them bad.
2) "The POTUS is not to blame for all these problems"- for all of the problems, no; for creating several of them (i.e. Iraq) and exacerbating many more (Katrina, the economy), ummm...yes.
3) "He never lost faith in America...and has tried his hardest"- what the fug else was he supposed to do, are we to credit him for this most basic attribute of leadership.
4) The piece de resistance- I will paraphrase, "the failure to provide W. blind loyalty is treasonous". The day anyone asks for blind loyalty your spouse, your boss or your POTUS run, run hard and do not stop ever. The executive leadership under George Walker Bush saw 9/11 as a ticket to do whatever they felt they needed to do regardless of the Constitution, Congress, our Allies or any other alternative powers. Their toadies in the press led by the Weekly Standard, the WSJ editorial board, Fox News etc. have sought to propagandize this approach. To the extent anyone has followed their lead, shame on you.
As others have pointed out we shall see how much "aid and comfort to the enemy" the same "loyal Americans" at Fox, WSJ and Weekly Standard provide once they unleash their vitriol on President Barack Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)