Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss)
 

Re: Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss)
 

Mr. Dougherty writes for The American Conservative? Yucky. From his demeanor here I am very surprised.

Edit: My apologies to Mr. Dougherty and The American Conservative (Which I am not familiar with). I was confusing The American Conservative and The American Thinker.

Huntmenum in '12 - He's the Anti-Newt !
 

Despite a very good performance in the debate I still have a very hard time seeing Newt going all the way so if there is to be Yet Another Anti-Romney candidate it is gonna be Huntsman and not a Perry rematch. This time around the Anti-Romney candidate is going to have a weaker Romney to deal with and with the possible narrative of Huntsman coming back from %1 he gets an Easter Bump.

I don't have any quibbles about the diavlog which I thought was good. Dougherty's take on the Obama speech was thoughtful and nothing like the pearl-clutching going on on the Right side of the aisle. I do have to say that it is still early in the game for 2012 and I believe that Obama has a few tricks up his sleeve with the incentives for Republican congress[wo]men maybe changing as events in their party's nominations take shape.

Re: Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss)
 

I always like diavlogs with Michael, and I enjoyed this one with Daniel. One thing that struck me was their conversation about the state of the US, inequality, etc., and their apparent feeling that nothing could be done about it. They might be right but young men like them shouldn't feel that way, because they are the ones who could make a difference. They seem too old for their age. C'mon guys! There have been many times in history when that might have seemed the case, even far more so than now, but people overcame far bigger challenges.

I watched the Republican debate tonight, so much better than the other two I watched, on foreign policy. Huntsman and Gingrich really had a chance to present their ideas in a meaningful way. Although I have always thought it would be better to have political candidates, like these two, in more of a conversation, interacting with each other, with a moderator just moving them on to different topics.

I, personally, don't like the politics of any of the Republican candidates and I really don't like the party, but, putting that aside, I thought they both did very well, but Huntsman clearly outclassed Gingrich by a long shot, IMO. Gingrich was good but he seemed from the past.

Huntsman was particularly impressive when he talked about China, not just because he was the ambassador, but because he showed some real insight. I think the relationship between US and China is the most important in the world and will become more so. The idea of a president who knows it the way he does, who can even speak their language, really impressed me.

BTW, something that came up in the diavlog was the fact that Huntsman didn't use his position as ambassador to attack Obama based on inside info. That shows integrity. If, while he was ambassador, he saw something being done that was illegal or unethical he should have spoken up. To drag such things up after he leaves public service, for political gain, would be wrong, and likely against conflict of interest guidelines, or should be.

Huntsman has some of the same ability to be moving as Obama. At times I felt like I was watching an old Jimmy Stewart movie. Politics aside, I like him, as a person. I think he would have the best chance against Obama but I hope, for Obama's sake, he wont be the nominee.

Re: Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss)
 

I missed the first part of the debate, but my biggest disappointment in Huntsman was his statements about Israel. I think anybody who would accuse someone like Obama of not being pro-Israel enough is playing a divisive type of politics with an important issue. I care about Israel and I don't think they do.

I liked Gingrich except for when he went off on his rant about Islam, in which he always draws comparisons between radical Islamists and communists or Nazis. I consider that ridiculous and offensive. Also his talk about regime change in Iran. Huntsman was quite clever in sounding aggressive on Iran, for the sake of Republicans, I suppose, but, as far as substance is concerned, I think his position is probably no worse than Obama's.

PS: I didn't get Huntsman's recent waffling on climate change. I don't see how that would have helped him with either side, because it seemed to me that he ended up with a position that made no sense from any point of view. I wish Michael had talked about that.

Another PS, on Israel: There's another thing I didn't like about Huntsman on that. He really knows foreign policy and he gave me a creepy impression of the opposite of what so many people claim, i.e. that Israel and Jewish Americans are causing US foreign policy to be against US interest, which I think is absurd and offensive. He gave me the impression of the US using Israel, and its understandable fears, as a kind of pawn for the purpose of furthering US interest, which is worse.

"These people are terrorists"
 

Gingrich is really stirring up a lot of anti-Israeli and anti-American hatred with his inflammatory (and stupid and inaccurate) comments on Palestinians.

It's hard to walk back these remarks down the road if he is the candidate or (God forbid!) the president. First, he said the Palestinians were "an invented people" and followed up with "These people are terrorists."

The negation of Palestinian existence is a staple of the extreme right wing Settler movement in Israel (people that make Netanyahu look like a liberal peacenik), so the Gingrich rant is getting a lot of press in the region as an example of how the American presidency could once again turn very ugly and dangerous.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

Definitely horrible. I heard that, but forgot which one said it.

To be honest, I actually don't understand why thoughtful, intelligent and decent seeming people like Michael and Daniel, and others who appear here, support these people or this party or this awful movement. I wish one of them would explain it some time.

I get that they hate the Democrats for supporting big social programs like health care and what not, but actually most liberals have moved pretty far away from being wedded to really big government programs to help people, recognizing the problems that can be associated with that, or really intrusive intervention on behalf of the public, also recognizing that this can also have unintended negative consequences.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

Stupid and inaccurate? Why don't you indulge us by providing some historical evidence.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

Gingrich's comment (on the reality of Palestinian identity) may have been stupid in that it is unnecessarily provocative and serves little purpose, but in point of fact, it isn't inaccurate. Gasp?

Shall we go through Fatimid/Abbasid/Seljik/Ottoman history on the matter?

Re: Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss)
 

Gingrich is great when you don't know that much about him. He sounds impressive up front; that certainly worked on me a couple years ago. But I wasn't fooled for long. As far as the Nazi comments, he does like to throw those around freely. However, with regard to radical Islamists, that's the one situation it seems reasonable to use. Ahmedinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" comment, regardless of how you interpret the original quote, is about as close to Hitler as you can get, rhetorically speaking.

Re: Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss)
 

The reason President Obama can't coherently give a vision for saving or broading the middle class is because he doesn't have one nor have the previous 3 or 4 men who have occupied the presidency. It's been eroding for 30 years now and with the country in a quasi economic depression it can no longer be hid.

Michael's vision of middle class made up of government employees may be the direction we are headed in - albeit not a good one but probably the best both political parties have to offer, especially the democrats. The republican trickle down theory of "helping lift all boats" is a joke.

Re: Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss)
 

yet another area in which our experience of the world overlaps significantly.

;-)

Re: Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss)
 

Really ? How about Ahmedinejad saying I want to kill every jew on the planet, every week or so. As for one state threatening another how about "We will bury you"

What about Newt Hari Seldon Gingrich had you fooled ? Not taking a pot shot just interested. Was it domestic policy or foreign policy or both ?

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

Agreed, but it is certainly suggestive that there's an audience for that kind of thing on the right, and this is related to my ongoing discussion with ledocs elsewhere, I think.

There was a weird exchange in the debate where Romney seemed to be trying to rebuke Gingrich for this but then they end up arguing over who is closer with Bibi.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

Yes, I thought that was an adequate answer by Romney, except NONE of them disputed the idea that Palestinians were in fact terrorists AND invented people. They just disputed the prudence of asserting it gratuitously.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

Or perhaps whether Bibi wanted them to be saying it.

But, yeah, I think the underlying point Romney was trying to make -- not prudent! -- was okay, or as okay as seems to be possible within the constraints that he obviously sees as limiting him.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

It was a weird exchange. It seemed to me that Romney looked a bit weak here in terms of "leadership". Asking Bibi if it was OK for The President to do or say X could be seen as weakness. Obviously they were all smitten with Bibi and wanted his blessing and all that yet for a candidate like Romney who has been banging on Obama for his bowing angle with a Japanese PM to be nervously jabbering about what another country wants the president to do strikes me as a little odd. I think a lot of conservatives want a leader who says what he wants as opposed to worrying about what other leaders want ( even Bibi the Great !! )

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

There was one guy. I wonder who? Video.

Re: Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss)
 

I kept wondering what debate you were talking about. I discovered today that you were talking about the Lincoln-Douglas debate in New Hampshire.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

You're mischaracterizing Paul again, like you were doing last week.

When Paul was asked if he agreed with Gingrich's characterization, he initially said "no," but then followed up by saying: "... technically and historically, yes, under the Ottoman Empire the Palestinians didn't have a state, but neither did Israel..."

And then, "historically, under the Ottoman Empire that is technically correct."

Wonderment observed that "NONE of them disputed the idea that Palestinians were in fact terrorists AND invented people." Paul said nothing about the terrorist claim, and twice confirmed that Palestinians were an invented people.

The facts are the opposite of what you claim - once again.

Re: Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss)
 

You're offended because Gingrich 'insulted' radical Islamist throat-slitters?

It would be more reasonable to consider this offensive to communists and Nazis.

Re: Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss)
 

I don't recall Hitler saying that he wanted to kill every Jew in the world, either.*

* And I'm sure I'll be called a holocaust denier for this comment by people who can't read.

That was obviously not a threat. He was speaking metaphorically.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

Diane1976's worldview: radical Islamists good, Republicans bad.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

Uhh, what?


It's amazing that you come up with these conclusions.

What did he say before "technically and historically"? Do you not feel ashamed for your out-of-context cherry picking? When asked directly about whether he thought Palestinians were an invented people, he flat out said, "NO! and it's just stirring up trouble."

Why leave that part out? That was the essence of the answer.

No shame.

I'm sure you don't believe me. Why should you? It's just right in the damn video with his own words. So, here's what Forbes says. But you can't trust them either because they're, like, part of the Koch conspiracy or something, man.

Re: Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss)
 

Actually it matters a great deal what the actual translation was, which is now several years old, made by a man who has neither the means not authority to determine any such foreign policy and whose term in office will end in a two years I think. The fact that he himself was misquoting a decades old statement of Khomeni's, should give an insight into how flimsy the claims of immediate malice are.

Furthermore, Iran happens to have a significant Jewish population of it's own. But I'm sure when Ahmedinejad is gone, there will be a new new Hitler following in the footsteps of Nasser, Arafat, Sadam, Ghadaffi etc. Meanwhile comments like this, which sound rather similar to those of Ahmedinejad, get ignored, as do assassinations, bombings, and a multi-million dollar black ops campaign:

"the regime in Tehran should face a dilemma -- whether to have a bomb or to survive," - Moshe Yaalon, Strategic Affairs Minister for Israel (12/12/11)

"the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from/wiped from] the page of time and this was a very wise statement." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , President of Iran (26/10/05)

While the opening paragraph of Abbas' speech to the UN is listed as the Number 1 most Anti-semitic/anti-Israeli statement of last year according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/what-a...r-of-2011.html

Re: Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss)
 

Well, Ahmadinejad appears to be a relative moderate in Iranian politics, so I guess we're lucky.

How could anyone think that a Holocaust denier, 9/11 truther, woman stoner who sponsored a "World Without Zionism" conference could have malice in his heart is beyond me.

Do you oppose comments directed against the Iranian regime?

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

According to the GOP candidates, Palestine is now a land without a people, instead it has an invented people. But furthermore, it is also now an invented people without a land, as Rick Santorum in the debate repeated the claim that the West Bank belongs to Israel.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

In cases like this, I find it instructive to see people arguing around the point, acting as if the assumption is obvious. Twinswords and Wonderment are exorcized by what should be a truisim.

In what way is what Gingrich said about the historicity of Palestinian identity in error?

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

Ron Paul did refute Gingrich's idiocy, but he ruined the answer by meandering around and conceding some "technical" correctness to the original Islamophobe assertion.

That said, I do trust Ron Paul on Israel-Palestine. As with everything else related to US militarism, he is consistent and admirable.

Given that Ron Paul can't get elected, however, I would trust only Romney and Huntsman among Repubs. to continue Obama's (terrible but not insanely reckless) policies toward Israel.

The rest of this group --- Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann and Perry -- are all worse than Bush-Cheney and at least as dangerous to some semblance of peace and stability in the Middle East.

Of course, we have to factor in that Gingrich will say anything now to toss red meat to the base and out-Zionist Perry and Bachmann. In that sense, he's not so idiotic, but actually shrewd and calculating. Either way, it's disgusting.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

Demonstrate its idiocy, please.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

For a start he said 'Palestinian did not become a common term until after 1977' despite it being mentioned twice in the rather short Balfour Deceleration some 60 years earlier, and both Jews and Arabs having passports and the like with British Palestine stamped on them.

He also said the right of return was based on a false claim, goodness knows how he arrived at that position.

But does wonder what the response be if he made similar claims about Jewish Israelis being invented, which seems closer to the truth seeing as they had to travel across continents and adopt a new language and forge a totally new identity.

But put all that to one side, I think it reveals the colonial attitudes underpinning the Israel/Palestinian debate in America which is fueled by the Israel lobby. There is footage out there somewhere of an Israel supporter wearing an Native American head dress outside the White House during some kind of rally in support of Israel.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

"Consistent and admirable" is not my view of his positions, but I would certainly support his voice being more prominent on these issues.

I mostly agree with this. Romney worries me only because I'm not sure how much he believes he has to kowtow to the extremists -- as Larison (not to mention Dan Drezner) has pointed out, his actual statements have been nutty at times, but his general temperament, a few examples like the one I quoted, and what one assumes about him makes one believe that he'd basically be a continuation of the Obama (and Bush) policy here. And I admit that's what I think.

Yep.

Yep again.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

You've mistaken the point. There has long been a place called Palestine. It is based on a Greek word. The Romans also had a variation of the word. There have not, on the other hand, been an ethnic group which considered itself to be "Palestinian". The Jews didn't. The Arabs didn't. Now, on the other hand, there have long been Arabs who considered themselves to be "Egyptians" or "Syrians", or even Jordanians, though that last one is a little dicier.

The Israeli identity is entirely invented. It does, however, have a clear origin point that has nothing to do with Arabs, and whose narrative of ethnic joining is pretty clear.

No one would deny that. What is amusing to see is the religious left pulling their hair out by the roots at the suggestion that the Palestinian identity is invented. Which it is.

This is about the hyper sensitivity of Palestinians, not any realistic discussion about history. This is catechism.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

Most of British Palestine is called Jordan today. If Palestinian national identity is based on the British mandate, don't Palestinians already have a state?

If you abandon your home, don't expect to be able to return 73 years after.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

Now making comments about a faux people is considered Islamophobic? According to Diane1976, criticizing radical Islamists is offensive and ridiculous. That provides new insight into what liberals consider to be "Islamophobic".

Re: Values Added: The Vision Thing (Michael B. Dougherty & Daniel Strauss)
 

I'm open to the possibility that Ahmadinejad was just engaging in political rhetoric. My point was that even the friendliest interpretation carries with it an intent to see Israel gone, regardless of the means used to achieve that purpose. Unless you meant that Ahmadinejad wants a peaceful one-state, integrated Palestine?

Generally speaking, I won't comment on history because I don't know enough. I was clearing up the record on what Ron Paul said and nothing more. I dislike Newt overall, but neutral in my assessment of him on this specific issue.

IMO, that's what makes his answer strong. He was saying that the technicality shouldn't trump common sense.

Joe Scarborough and Glenn Beck, who are opposed on many issues, both intimated that they'd back a third party Ron Paul as a no-confidence vote against Newt. Someone like TwinSwords would be unable to distinguish between Scarborough and Beck, but this is a big deal because they represent different constituencies within the GOP. I think Scarborough actually referred to himself as a Ron Paul small-gov conservative.

Between Romney and Huntsman, I'd say Huntsman is much closer to what you'd like to see with regard to Afghanistan/Pakistan. He's on record at a debate advocating 90% troop reduction in Afghanistan. I don't know specifics on the Israel issue with these two, but Romney sounds pretty hawkish, at least rhetorically.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

Obviously Arthur Balfour disagrees with you, as within the deceleration he specifically mentions the non-Jewish communities of Palestine. That suggests that the British recognized some Palestinian communities, ie Palestinians. While the people of the region might closer identify with their tribe, town, religion, whatever, the British obviously constructed another parallel identity long before 1977.


I'm not entirely sure what you mean, are you referring to a quasi-European origin, which supplanted Sephardic/Arab Jewish identity?

I can only imagine figures like Abe Foxman would soon be reduced to tweezers and leg hair such claims be made about Israel being invented. Only today the
Simon Wiesenthal Center cited Abbas' opening paragraph to the UN the number 1 most Anti-semitic/Anti-Israel moment of last year.

People are right to be alarmed about Newts comments, when it is accompanied with talk about all the land in the West Bank belonging to Israel and an Israel which is both banning loud speakers on mosques and burning them down, along with new settlements every week. If the people are an supposed invention of our hand, then we owe them an additional duty of care not less.

His comments where not because of his love of historical accuracy, but to try and devalue the Palestinians. During his answer at the debate, he said there was no difference between Hamas and Fatah - Americans Presidential Candidates, the mother's of invention.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

It is idiotic to negate another person's identity based on one's own political bigotry.

A Palestinian is a person whose heritage is the land of Palestine. They are the dispossessed inhabitants of the Palestinian diaspora, the refugees who have lived in camps for 60-odd years and the Israeli Arabs who live as second-class citizens within the "invented" land of Israel.

Of course, any idiot can assert that there's no such thing as a Jew or an Israeli or an American for various specious reasons. Example: the so-called United States is "really" Indian land taken by European interlopers; thus, "America" is an "invented people."

Such assertions are not "technically" correct or correct in any other way. They are just stupid, irrelevant, anachronistic and reprehensible.

In Gingrich's case his ulterior motives are transparent: he wants to stir up and exploit latent Islamophobia, appeal to voters with supernatural beliefs about the future of the region, and portray himself as an über-hawk (in contrast to "wimpy" Obama).

Furthermore, it is incredibly stupid as a message of hatred and hostility to Israel's neighbors. The Gingrich view is rightly interpreted in the Arab world as crackpot because everyone there knows what a Palestinian is.

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

That isn't what happened. Newt didn't say that it "didn't exist", or that there are "no Palestinians". He said that it is new.

And it is. No where do you even deny this.

Palestine was properly understood in the Arab mind as part of a larger Arabic entity. And that was either Syria, or Syria and Lebanon, or Jordan and "Palestine" (IE: Transjordan), or Egypt.

Always.

You yourself cite them as the "dispossessed inhabitants", meaning that you recognize both their newness and their invention. Indeed, the identity is obviously political.

You throw out that "invented" land of Israel. Israel isn't "invented", but the Israeli national identity is. It's about 70 years old, give or take. The Palestinians aren't that old, but maybe one day.

No, Americans are a unique cultural and social amalgamation that is distinct in the world. You could argue with some merit that, say, someone who considered himself an American in the 17th century would be part of an "invented people" since he would essentially be an Englishman, or at best British.

Instead the analogy you are actually making is if the Chinese were to occupy the Western United States, and I declared myself a member of the Nevadan people, and in need of my own Nevadan sovereign nation. The creation of my "Nevadan" identity would be a political affair to use against the Chinese, since I would obviously be an American. With a history of being an American. With no legitimate history of sovereignty.

Now, if we were to exchange my state name with the random longitudinal coordinates of Clark County, then we're even more accurately talking about Palestine. Because neither the Arab Caliphate, the Fatimids, or the Turks had a "Palestinian" provincial designation.

It is correct, and it isn't stupid. It might be irrelevant.

(Shrug) I enjoy historical debate in politics. I don't mind it at all.

Look....you cannot possibly believe that in, lets say, 1949, the Jordanians or Egyptians or Syrians believed in "Palestinians". Be honest. If the Arabs had won in 1947, what would have happened to the land? Do you really, honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that some sovereign state called "Palestine" would have been created?

Re: "These people are terrorists"
 

Where are you reading any of this? The Balfour declaration speaks about "Jews and non-Jews" in a territorial designation called Palestine. The declaration isn't even aimed at indigenous Jews. So he's speaking to European Jewry. So according to you, English Jews are "Palestinians" as well?

Obviously not. Balfour is making no statement about Palestinians, as people. He's making promises about Palestine, as land.

Again, no one denies there were human beings in Palestine prior to 1967. The argument is about the conception of national identity. And "Palestinian" was a non-existent political concept.

I doubt it.

Are you arguing that facts aren't to be spoken because you disagree with the outcomes of their extrapolation? I'm a member of the reality based community, so I don't share that view.