Appeasing Me Off
The rhetoric of the Republican game today is so false, that I trust it will ultimately be irrelevant.
But what struck me was that this kind of game being run at Obama is something the Republicans are taking right out of the Hillary Clinton playbook… which she and hers got from Karl Rove.
Here’s the game:
1. Have a surrogate make a statement with obvious defamatory intent with clear links to your target without ever mentioning their name.
2. Watch the target’s supporters get enraged.
3. Claim they are a bunch of hotheads, intentionally misreading the statement.
4. Claim they are only upset because they know it’s true… even though you never actually said it.
5. Watch the media wet its pants discussing the event that has been denounced as a non-event by both sides.
Why would Bush & Co go there today? I can only come up with two reasons.
1. Because turning the already tender Jewish vote against Obama is the only seismic shift left, combined with crazy over coverage of White People Who Won’t Vote For Obama, to try to help Clinton get the nomination.
2. Because Israel is the land of the Jews and where else better to call Obama a Muslim-loving liar?
The reality is, I think the discussion of whether you talk directly to nations you are in a cold conflict with or not is a subject worthy of debate. I happen to land on the Obama side of it and feel that Bush’s “let them concede before we converse” policy has been terrible for the nation. But people of good conscience can disagree vigorously on this.
But backdooring someone is not a discussion. It is scummy politics. Same as it ever was
Well here’s another example on an issue on which Clinton was taking a nice, electable centrist position, but I guess that ship has sailed.
I for one am disgusted by and so tired of the right’s fearmongering. “Vote for us or you’ll be bombed tomorrow!” “Vote for us because my opponent loves terrorists!” Just really repulsive politics. Bush is a joke.
“scummy politics”
Right, like when Obama implied that McCain is a doddering old man–obviously much too senile to be President.
This stuff is always “fair game” when aimed at Republicans (see every single Countdown ever broadcast on MSNBC).
The fact is, Obama has said that he would sit at table with dictators and thugs to give them a fair hearing. I think that’s naive. Bush thinks its naive. The Israelis KNOW its naivete…from hard, bloody experience.
The UN constantly pressures Israel to negotiate with terrorists, sorry, “freedom fighters” in good faith. While everyone inside and outside the room knows what the ultimate goal of every country bordering Israel is. I don’t even have to say what this goal is. Everyone knows.
Meanwhile, the UN, the media and even so-called friends of Israel all try to pretend that this isn’t reality, or that it’s just a misunderstanding of some kind…whatever gets them through the day. They pretend. It’s John Lennon’s “Imagine” to an absurd degree.
This issue is and must continue to be on the table.
“Right, like when Obama implied that McCain is a doddering old man–obviously much too senile to be President.”
Except he never said that.
“This stuff is always “fair game” when aimed at Republicans (see every single Countdown ever broadcast on MSNBC).”
Except he never said that.
Shame on MSNBC for making those righties look like the morons they are!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/15/matthews-rips-right-wing-talkie-kevin-james-because-he-doesnt-know-neville-chamberlain/
Kidkosmic, Israel has peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, both of which border it. Hell, Hamas just offered a de facto acceptance of Israel’s right to exist, for the first time in its history.
You’re ignorant.
And Kid… I have to agree… for Israel, negotiations have not worked. But Israel is not the primary military superpower on the planet.
The downside of communicating with your enemies?
When someone makes a real case for a downside, I will listen.
But yes… I do believe that you can take that position and not be a fool or have bad intentions.
On the other hand, continuing to spin the lie that Obama was calling McCain names because McCain said he’d be playing fair and then losing his bearings on decent behavior and playing the very same ethnicity card that Bush played today… no.
Yeah, our policies of not talking to or “negotiating” with terrorists has been a real winner over the years. Stupid Obama…how dare he speak of something different. KK…you act like “sitting down and talking to” automatically means siding with or becoming amicable to the ideas of Iran, et all. Who’s to say Obama won’t sit down with them and 5 minutes in realize they’re bat shit crazy.
And also…doesn’t the whole Jewish wedge thing speak to the whole Jews -vs- Blacks thing that Spike Lee drove into our heads 20 years ago? I live in liberal (and, well, white) Northern California so I can’t speak to tensions between Jews and Blacks. Is that still a serious issue? Or a serious perceived one on bigger cities?
All of the hardcore anti-semitism in the current geo-political paradigm is coming from the left. To ignore that…to try to say that is not true is to be living in a reality that no longer exists. The modern left is still stuck in the naive 1960’s world view where America is pure evil and everyone would only love us if we could see the oppostite POV. There is a point where it does not even seem to be worth discussing. In Canada, the socialist NDP (which is where Obama would most likely fit in) is rife with anti-semitism and platforms that are stridently anti- Israel. This is not just an American issue.
Is Barack Obama naive? Dear God, yes. He is steeped in the narrow minded ideolody of the campus students who form the most facile opinions on world politics. Obama’s views – are – rooted in the “All you need is love” variety and even the NY times article that was linked to the other day noted that he initially saw the pro-Palestinian side. Of course they tried to spin it as though it was because he was complex . Not at all. He takes the most fashionable side of left- wing politics and spins it to his advantage.
Is Obama an idealist? A man of change? Dear God, no. He is one of the most cynical politicians I have ever seen. Look at the way he is trying to court Evangelicals. Do you – really – think he cares about what they believe in? Of course not; you (progressives) would not root for him if you thought did.
Obama may very well be the next president…but y’know…Sean Penn was right. He – is – cynical and will never be the messiah progressives believe him to be.
I am so sorry that all of the negatives you see in Bush is exactly what you hope to get in Obama.
Nicol, (1) being critical of certain of the Israeli government’s policies and being anti-Semitic are not the same thing; while most of the world’s _actual_ anti-Semitism can be traced to your standard racists in the Christian and Muslim worlds who wouldn’t self-identify as Liberals; (2) your complaints about ‘campus liberals’ are so much white noise at this point; (3) when you say “us” in your first paragraph, who do you mean? And (4) Bush and Obama are so incredibly far apart by every measurement that to compare them directly is very frustrating.
Campus liberals like John Yoo?
Anyway. I seem to recall that a former terrorist dubbed the “mad dog of the Middle East” by Mr. Reagan, and whose minions blew up a plane is now regarded as an ally. And off the terrorist list.
Wha’ happened?
Dude, if you’re going to post the neo-con agenda for November Nicol…***SPOILER ALERT** it. That’s just rude.
Anyone with half a brain knows that the only reasons the GOP pretends to give a shit about Israel are 1) pandering for the Jewish vote, and 2) the fundie wackos need it to survive because they believe The Rapture is coming and it’s been “foretold” that the only way it will happen is if Israel exists.
Sitting down to negotiate with your enemies in the hope of resolving your differences peacefully is what mature adults do. Bombing the crap out of entire nations for political gain is what asshole cowboys do.
It’s also what a country that has been trained to be insanely paranoid does. I can’t believe that there are people out there even suggesting that we should invade Myanmar when we haven’t even resolved our other two invasions properly.
^ If at first you don’t succeed . . .
Every politician should be forbidden from using all forms of “appease”. They should also be prohibited from making analogies to Vietnam. I don’t know about foreign policy, but foreign policy debates at least would be a lot more intelligent if that happened.
By the way, does anyone believe Obama would follow through? I am thoroughly skeptical.
“The downside of communicating with your enemies?
When someone makes a real case for a downside, I will listen.”
—
Okay, the downside of communicating with your enemies is that it gives them influence and prestige with others who are also enemies.
As don said, “Who’s to say Obama won’t sit down with them and 5 minutes in realize they’re bat shit crazy.”
That’s about 5 minutes later than he should.
There are diplomats who communicate with Iran. So, it’s not a question of communicating or not communicating, really. It’s about giving crazy people a platform. When the talks break down, the dictator screams at democratically elected President, and they go their separate ways, then the dictator has more prestige than he had previously. “Look how I stood up to the Great Satan!” he can say. The smaller countries, who also resent America, will have a leader.
So, after sitting down with the dictator, he’s still crazy, but now you have increased his stature among his peers. This is the reason that the diplomats have usually found out the major points that a leader is going to say or agree to before the ‘meeting’ ever occurs.
Right Nicol, cause John McCain really cares about what Evangelicals think. How about you refrain from posting until you have something new to say? Or, at the very least, read some new reports and documents. Sometimes it really seems like you have no idea what you are talking about.
“He is steeped in the narrow minded ideology of the campus students who form the most facile opinions on world politics.”
You don’t laugh at yourself after typing shit like this? What, you think all of his top advisers are undergraduate students? I don’t know what “reports” and “documents” you’ve been reading lately, but they certainly provide for good comedy.
ANOTHER negative blog topic, DP? Am I rubbing off on you?
“The downside of communicating with your enemies?
When someone makes a real case for a downside, I will listen.”
I’ll bite…
1. The UN is currently imposing economic sanctions on Iran. While its probably not hurting Iran much economically, it is isolating them. Ahmadinejad is marginalized.
2. Having an audience with the Leader of the Free World legitimizes Ahmadinejad as a major player. It gives him clout. This does manifest itself in significant, tangible ways.
I think the reason why some on the left can’t comprehend this strategy is because they already put the U.S. and Iran on the same level– just two nations in a big world. But that view is not simply not a geopolitical reality.
The second reason why some on the left can’t comprehend this strategy (in my opinion) is because of moral relativity– they feel Iran’s leadership really can’t be THAT bad… that somewhere, deep down, Ahmadinejad and the imams are sensible, reasonable people (after all, we’re not THAT good). This is naive. The worldviews and objectives of one nation CAN be inflexibly incompatible with the worldviews and objectives of another (and the objectives of one nation CAN be noble! While the other’s IS NOT!)
mystery, isn’t it possible that those on the left you reference above just want to avoid war? Couldn’t that be a motive? I find that much more believable than your suggestion that deep down they do not believe Iran’s leadership is that bad. To me that sounds like you’re resorting to tired stereotypes, and I certainly haven’t heard of Obama or anyone else saying, “Gee, you know, deep down I don’t think Ahmadinejad is that bad.”
Also, hasn’t the Bush administration sat down and negotiated with some of our enemies?
Plus, don’t you think fearmongering is a shameful way to get votes? Or do you approve of that tactic?
How about when Barak Obama says we are less safe?
“Senator Obama believes and asserted in the debate that America is less safe since 9/11 largely because the war in Iraq has fueled terrorism around the world.”
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/04/america_is_not_safer_since_911.php
This fear-mongering is shameful and Senator Obama should cease immediately. How dare he pander and try to get votes in this manner!
I said I don’t like fearmongering, and I don’t. However, the Republican party has made it one of their central campaign tactics, and they have done it with far more regularity. They have also said things like, “Voting for the Democrat means you are voting for a terrorist.” There’s just no comparison R Scott R. However, I always appreciate how dedicated you are to making me laugh.
Let me get this right: a bunch of dunderheads believe it’s not wise or practical to have discussions with one’s enemies when this COUNTRY USED TO DO IT ALL THE FUCKING TIME!
Excuse me for the figurative screaming, but has everyone forgotten the 80s? Have you forgotten how we used to have these summits with our most FEAR, VILLIANOUS, and absolutely HEINOUS enemy the Soviet Union in places like Helsenki? Did you forget this, or are you merely typing out of your ass?
We used to have discussions with those who opposed us. We used to have meetings with these people until dipshit the second and his thieves entered offices, and decided to break free of this policy. Apparently these geniuses reckoned that it’s only okay to talk to your friends. While emboldening your enemies by ignoring them. A strategy that has obviously worked for that whacky bastard in Iran.
That’s the thing: if you talk to them, if you bring them to your level, that could have an effect in changing them. Sure. It could go wrong. Sure. It could bite Obama on his ass, but this is the world we live in.
We are voting for the leader of the FREE WORLD. It’s about time we have a leader of acts as if he cares about the world and not only the 300+ million American citizens.
If you are too blind or too fucking brainwashed by conservative watercarriers to understand that your new and hip isolationism is bollocks. Well… luckily… you are going to vote for the OLD MAN WHO SCREAMS AT CLOUD! Dole… the remix.
R Scott R: Obama was also not describing a hypothetical. Saying that the war in Iraq has compromised our military and our security is a subjective assessment of objective facts.
That’s different than, say, Condoleezza Rice suggesting that we’ll have a mushroom cloud if we don’t wage preemptive war on Iraq.
See the difference?
Somehow I don’t think he will Eric, but at least you tried.
I would like to apologize for what I said earlier. I sometimes forget it’s impossible for some people to think outside their own box or sphere of beliefs. But before I go I will say…
What if OUR President (any of em) took a month and sat down across the globe with world leaders of all ilk. Wouldn’t they *all* be elevated in the eyes of their peers thus rendering them all equal in terms of perceived stature? Couldn’t then we, you know, start from square one and get some work done? just a though…silly…dreamland hippy stuff, I know….
Uhhhhh… for those of you who are arguing that talking to Ahmadinejad is legitimizing Ahmadinejad…
Haven’t you noticed the Bush Administration turning Ahmadinejad into The Most Important Villain In The World for a long while now?
I think the basic underlying problem is that the art of diplomacy has really fallen into decline in the last eight years of cowboy foreign policy. While there actually is a point to be made about ‘legitimizing’ foreign leaders by sitting down to them in a summit setting – especially because someone like Ahmadinejad really doesn’t exercise that much power within Iran, which is controlled by various Ayatollahs – I think US foreign policy could use a little more carrot and a little less stick.
“Haven’t you noticed the Bush Administration turning Ahmadinejad into The Most Important Villain In The World for a long while now?
So being openly and repeatedly critical of Iran’s actions (killing Americans in Iraq, developing nuclear weapons, calling for the destruction of Israel) is a form of legitimization on par with sitting down at the negotiating table? Really? Do you understand how enormous a concession that would be, and how those types of acts are perceived in the Muslim culture? The answer is no, its not the same.
“What country has the United States ever improved relations with by NOT talking to them?”
There’s the naivety rearing its head again. You’re acting as if nothing can get done without a presidential face-to-face. This is the moral equivalency I was talking about. WE have the moral high ground. Iran has to EARN a spot at the adult’s table. Stop killing our troops. Stop developing nukes. That shit is non-negotiable, and we don’t have to meet you in Helsinki to deliver the message. No asking nicely. No photo-ops. FURTHERMORE, if you DON’T stop, life gets harder for you.
“Or more clearly, look at Sun Tzu
Poland, that’s either the most tangential understanding or you read a living, breathing translation of Tzu because that is not what he says or means in pure translation or Chinese. Sizing up your enemy is about the prep done before the confrontation, not during the confrontation. Your interpretation means the meeting is a pretext to war, when Obama is saying the meeting would negate war. Go watch Wall Street if need be.
What stuns me the most is how ill-informed and cynical everyone is about the opposing side. If you want to believe W’s comments were Obama-centric, then I get to say the Dem’s blew a gasket because they need W to run against, because Obama can’t win a positive campaign against McCain. But that’s pure conjecture on both sides.
The reality is the administration and Israeli gov were fuming from Pelosi meeting with Syria, Carter with Hamas. Why? Because it legitimizes these people internationally? That’s the marketing answer. The truth is that it undermines the real moderates and pragmatists within these countries who are trying to gain a sphere of influence among the other players in-country that will extend to neighbor countries.
Example – You have a boss who’s a hothead and put in his position by Powers That Be, not his ability. You, an exec in management, have been known to get things done and are viewed favorably by other companies you’ve worked with because you know how to deal. The Boss, aware of this, marginalizes you to maintain power, but the other companies will only deal with you, so he cannot afford to remove you because that will weaken the company and make his job more tenuous. So if the other company bosses look upon your boss as inadequate, the Powers That Be will eventually have to do something about him or the company losses stock. But if the other bosses treat him as equal while the company weakens, then the Boss has the authority to make excuses and blame others for the failures. That’s what happened in Iran and Syria, and created the split within Palestine.
If Obama wins, he won’t meet with Iran, but possibly Syria via Lebanon. So, yes, he’s pandering because the ramifications go beyond a sit-down. It disrupts everything in the region and creates more wedges then builds bridges.
I think it’s fair to say that the Democrats will try to run against W. Has there been a lot of bridge building in the last 7+ years?
Good analysis, but what it misses is the divides that have already taken place. Once Hamas won the Palestinian elections, they could no longer be deemed a fringe group relative to Fatah. That cat isn’t going back into the bag, so for the U.S., through a non-official proxy like Carter, to talk to them was, unfortunately, necessary. That’s a matter of practicality.
^ The problem is that Carter is so compromised and lacking in credibility that he delegitimizes that path. He’s so out there he’s not even a non-official non-official proxy. And that makes it that much harder for a prospective Obama administration to follow along, since they have to run away from it. The last thing Obama needs is Carter setting the parameters of his Israel policy.
Bush had Carter and Pelosi in mind, certainly. I’m not so sure about Obama. Beyond that, do any of you think he was surreptitiously trying to sabotage McCain? He’s been telling all and sundry how he’s not like Bush, and perhaps this was W’s way of reminding the senator from Arizona that he can run but he can’t hide. Or am I just really, really, really cynical?