I’m catching up on my reading, and I realized I missed this gem from Young Conor Fridersdorf on Kucinich’s Libya resolution:
If the resolution passes, it’ll be partly because House Republicans, who rely on the Tea Party for their majority, cannot defend supporting a president of the opposite party through a costly, constitutionally dubious war. It isn’t so long ago that parts of the GOP rebelled against President Clinton’s war-making. Is the post-9/11 dominance of hawks in the GOP finally coming to an end?
I’m sure it’s merely narrow-minded, shrill partisanship on my part to point out that the surfacing of principled GOP anti-war sentiment coincides with the party affiliation of the chief executive, but it’s an obvious point that Conor goes out of his way to avoid. Does anyone seriously doubt that Ron Paul would be the only Republican voting for the Kucinich amendment if a Republican were in charge of the Libyan imbroglio?
I swore off Sully a few weeks ago and have been reading Conor and OTB regularly. Generally, I think both have a lot of good posts, but one of the recurring themes in both blogs is that their smart, incisive writers often play dumb about Republican partisanship. (John caught another good example on Friday from OTB). In a political era where Republicans have consistently pushed partisanship to a point that we haven’t seen in modern history (prime example: the debt ceiling), that failing is a fatal flaw.
Villago Delenda Est
No.
This has been another simple answer to a simple question.
Amanda in the South Bay
Yeah, its precisely that both sides do it bullshit why I don’t even try to bother with supposedly sane conservatives.
I suppose in an ideal world, I could possibly find myself agreeing with sane conservatives some of the time, but I have yet to find these magical unicorn conservatives.
tomvox1
Even Larison has a blind spot on this particular motivation for the sudden surge in GOP “doves.”
Riiight. If it were Bush authorizing the bombing, I’m sure those Republicans would still be voting against it out of conscience and respect for the War Powers Act.
Ghanima Atreides
meh. Obama is trying to be on the right side of an Arab Spring revolution for once.
The US has lost Mubarak, is losing Assad in Syria, is losing Saleh in Yemen, and will eventually lose Abdullah II in Jordan.
The three largest foreign airbases ever built by the US will pass permanently into Iraqi hands in December according to the SOFA. And we may wind up leaving A-stan with helos from the rooftops of Kabul.
Obama is just trying to build a good relationship with the eventual government of Libya while we can.
;)
Amanda in the South Bay
@tomvox1:
Larison has a blind spot for a lot of things.
Joel
We didn’t even need to consult the charts for an answer to that one!
Mark S.
Conor quotes Larison:
No, they counted on a quick surrender from Gadhafi. What they didn’t realize was that the rebels were a completely incompetent force. It was a huge miscalculation on the part of the administration.
It would also seem that our NATO allies can’t do shit without us. This is another problem.
Ghanima Atreides
Tunisia’s once banned ennahda party is predicted to take the government in the upcoming elections.
Makes all the conservos saying it couldn’t happen look pretty stupid.
;)
ahh, conservative magical thinking.
Ghanima Atreides
@Amanda in the South Bay: Larison is a card carrying white supremicist and a libertarian. Why link him except to mock him?
@mistermix
Conor is just as evil as all the rest. He wants divided goverment and he will tell any lie, perform any spin to keep the stupid a’ coming by mainsteaming it and pretending it is “reasonable”. Conor’s other schtick is the libertarian reacharound where he attacks extremist conservos like Levin, Rush and Palin for symathy from the left. Hes done that since Culture 11.
Libertarians believe in equal rights for the stupid, the racists, the ignorant, and the befuddled. Just not in equal rights for blacks, browns, women, children, and intellectual and cultural elites.
;)
cat48
Corner Stone
Ahh, the eternal search for the redeemable Republican writer.
Corner Stone
@Mark S.:
You could look at it that way.
Ghanima Atreides
@Mark S.: nope. Obama knows that Qaddafi will eventually be forced out, and he is trying to be on the right side of history for once. He also saw an oppo to make common cause with the new government of Egypt and mend some fences there.
Ghanima Atreides
@Corner Stone: I think its extreme clever gamesmanship.
There is a 95% probability that Qaddafi will fall before the 2012 election.
And that will be as good as whacking OBL for Obama’s pre-election PR.
Americans want to be loved.
Think of the video of tripoli residents embracing NATO and publically thanking Obama.
December and the SOFA are going to be a simply brutal rejection of American ideals and values, but the Iraq war is indelibly tied to Bush and the GOP.
If Qaddafi falls after that it will go a long way to boost Obama’s popularity.
Its like HCR. Republicans are obligated to fight the Libya event tooth and nail because if it succeeds it is another harbinger of their doom.
cat48
These were good Headlines, too!
“House scolds Obama on Libya”;
“Huntsman says he backs House’s scolding on Libya”
“House rebukes Obama on Libya mission, but does not demand withdrawal”
Just another way for the House to say that they hate the president since no withdrawal was demanded.
Sentient Puddle
Let’s not forget the end result…Boehner offered up a different Libya resolution that was far weaker, and got that passed instead of Kucinich’s resolution. There was nothing at all that resembles a principled stand, and business as usual continues.
sneezy
@tomvox1:
“Even Larison,” as if this were some kind of surprise? The guy is a racist motherfucker. His whole life is one giant blind spot.
Corner Stone
@Ghanima Atreides:
You think this about everything President Obama does. I believe you also thought Qaddafi would abdicate in two weeks from the start of NATO’s involvement.
There are many things going on here. One is that we will not be liked nor well regarded in MENA for a couple generations, no matter how many Libyan tanks NATO kills. Whatever actual semblance of govt forms after Qaddafi dies/leaves is still several iterations away. We will not have much influence with them but they will still sell their oil to Italy.
It should be pretty evident that the average US Citizen doesn’t give a good god damn what’s happening in Libya, and whether Qaddafi stays or goes will not realize to .0001% more of a vote for Obama in 2012.
The Republicans are doing what’s expected of them, using any stick to beat a dog.
Clark Stooksbury
Don’t forget my congressman, Jimmy Duncan who voted against the Iraq War and Walter Jones.
Corner Stone
I’m not sure why people keep trying to sell Larison as the last sane conservative.
jrg
I’d take that a step further. Not only would they voting against Kucinich, they’d be calling him a traitor.
It’s the same reason the GOP spends money hog wild whenever they get the chance, then get really concerned about spending when Dems are in office.
They don’t give a fuck about spending or war. They’re nihilists. They will use every tactic available to them to hurt their political opponents. They don’t care how hypocritical, expensive, or destructive those tactics are.
Common cause with Kucinich is nothing more than a reflection of this nihilism. It’s a way to gum up the works, and make things more difficult. Rest assured, if they take the White House again, they’ll be bombing the shit out of some third-world dictator within 6 months.
WereBear
I’m extraordinarily uninterested in the last sane conservative. He or she should turn out the lights, and move on.
The binary has shifted. Real intellects should be figuring out what they are now.
Corner Stone
It’s kind of on topic speaking to being credulous, but anyone who has not seen Yves excellent couple posts about the rightwing buying influence with nominally “left” foundations should skip over and check them out:
On Fauxgressive Rationalizations of Selling Out to Powerful, Moneyed Backers
For me, this gets to the heart of all the “Pragmatists” here, and why their actions and arguments are so damaging to a long term “left” movement.
tomvox1
@Amanda in the South Bay: @sneezy:
Maybe so. But not usually to blatant Republican perfidy.
Corner Stone
@jrg:
Like…say…Qaddafi mayhap?
bob_is_boring
to which mrmix replies:
“I’m sure it’s merely narrow-minded, shrill partisanship on my part to point out that the surfacing of principled GOP anti-war sentiment coincides with the party affiliation of the chief executive, but it’s an obvious point that Conor goes out of his way to avoid.”
I don’t understand. That’s exactly what he says. I don’t like him, either, but his words say the thing that you say they don’t say.
No, that could not have been more confusing; you’re welcome.
les
@Corner Stone:
It does seem to be a desperate search, doesn’t it. And to pick Larison–the last society he approved of was Tsarist Russia, dominated by the Orthodox Church. He may be racist, but he really thinks most all of us should be peasants, tied to the land and ruled by “benevolent” authority.
jrg
@Corner Stone:
That’s the thing… I don’t think it will matter for them. Anyone would do, provided they could use the state of military action do declare special war time powers.
Qaddafi might work, sure.
I’m not trying to make a statement about Kucinich or Libya. I’m suggesting that they are both incidental.
We’re talking about the same people who supported “spreading Democracy” in Iraq. If that were really a principle they supported, rather than a pile of monkey shit they could throw, what on earth are they doing supporting Kucinich now?
The answer is that their “principles” ARE the monkey shit they throw.
Bruce S
Waiting for Michele Bachmann and Allen West to appear on Libyan state television on the heels of Cynthia McKinney to condemn Obama…
Corner Stone
@jrg: No, I understood your point. My point was why imagine what they would do when we can see clearly what is being done now?
How is it different for us to engage in military action against a pissant like Libya, and then turn around and tell the world how the other side would bomb a pissant tyrant given the opportunity?
techno
While you have EVERY right to be cynical about all this, the idea that Republicans cannot be anti-imperial and anti-war is historically goofy.
Fact: The Kellogg of the Kellogg-Briand Pact–the legal basis for the War Crimes trials in Nuremberg–was a Republican Senator from Rochester Minnesota and trust me on this, the Republicans around Rochester are the real thing.
Fact: Eisenhower gave perhaps the most accurate critique of the military-industrial complex and that speech was written by the VERY Republican Malcolm Moos who would become the president of the University of Minnesota for his party affiliation.
Fact: The America-First movement, the largest antiwar movement in USA history, was overwhelmingly Republican and was funded in large part by McCormick, the right-wing publisher from Chicago.
Fact: Justin Raimondo over at antiwar.com is such a Republican / Libertard he is actually quite annoying.
ETC!
trollhattan
Let’s hop into the Wayback Machine(tm) for a quick ride to the 2000 preznital campaign.
So, how’d that work out for all involved?
pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/2000debates/2ndebate2.html
OzoneR
@techno: And Republicans also killed the League of Nations, yeah, they were isolationists back then, they also supported civil rights, created the EPA and were founded on opposition of slavery.
Then came 1980.
James E. Powell
In the parlance of the corporate press/media, the term “partisan” is used to describe anything done or advocated by any Democrat. This term is applied even in those cases where several Democrats oppose the thing done or advocated.
When every single Republican does or advocates a policy, even or perhaps especially when that policy is disfavored by a majority of the electorate, the term “principled” is applied.
Kay
I love this, because all independent thought stops right there.
Quick! On the conclusion! Before what that might mean sneaks in.
Bruce S
techno – mentioning Dwight Eisenhower in the context of today’s GOP (much less as analog to the ultra-left/right, Nader/Buchanan-supporting, anti-gay marriage/gay, “the Israelis knew about 9/11” loon J. Raimondo) doesn’t make any sense – and maybe “historically goofy.”
The moderate, measured, strategically-saavy, UN-friendly Eisenhower wouldn’t be acceptable to today’s radicalized party. Nor to the old party’s nativist and isolationist wing – whose “America First” canon has been superceded by gun-totin’ “American Exceptionalism.” They may not have any patience for “nation-building” but they’ve come to love kicking ass and calling names.
fasteddie9318
This is OT, but I’m not a tennis player so maybe somebody who is can help me understand why an obviously talented, apparently smart guy like Federer has never figured out how to beat Nadal even occasionally since Nadal’s game matured. Is it just a bad matchup for him or what?
ornery
@techno: Fact: The America-First movement, the largest antiwar movement in USA history, was overwhelmingly Republican and was funded in large part by McCormick, the right-wing publisher from Chicago.”
Yes. Yes it was. Small additional fact: Republicans of that era were Conservatives making common cause with fascism. The ‘America-First’ insistence we not help our allies in Europe, nor arm ourselves for resistance, made the death toll and destruction in WWII much, much worse.
Interesting that after Rightwing Conservatives set the world on fire in WWII in a bid to anoint a ‘pure’ master race, their surviving ideologues were removed from political power and influence … we never got rid of America’s Conservatives, however.
Corner Stone
@fasteddie9318: Men’s tennis? Who watches that?
TG Chicago
Sort of like how you avoid pointing out that the party affiliation of the chief executive has coincided with the abandonment of principled Democratic anti-war and anti-“War on Terror” policies, right?
Oh, no. I must be a firebagger for pointing out that, in this case, both sides DO do it.
Corner Stone
@TG Chicago: Firebagger!!
Villago Delenda Est
@techno:
Every one of the Republicans you cited would be tossed out of today’s GOP head first as some sort of commie.
Mike G
Reading this, you’d get the impression that Clinton was the last President before Obama, and that the Repukes were continuing a consistent principle.
It’s almost like the 00s, with the revolting “Support Bush’s warmongering or you’re a terrist-loving traitor” demand for wartime conformity, never existed.
Ghanima Atreides
@Corner Stone: truedat. Obama passed HCR, and passed Finreg. If he forces a Palestinian state on Bibi, and passes some kind of immigration reform in his second term, will you admit im right?
And i was wrong about Col. Q running for Chad in two weeks. The GOP is holding out hope for Qaddafi.
they are traitors to human rights.
Consider how Libya helps us with the MB. Isn’t that a good move, considering the severely limited set of moves we now have in MENA?
Corner Stone
@Ghanima Atreides: You shouldn’t join immigration and the I/P peace together.
Obama is not forcing anything on Bibi.
Nothing will help us with the Muslim Brotherhood. They have their own agenda and it’s less Western-centric than Mubby.
We have few moves in MENA except brute force. Hence why we now have 100,000+ troops + mercs still in Afghanistan. That projection of power is our only trump card. We’ve been paying billions, every year, to dicks who damaged and suppressed their populace. We’re not going to dig out of that in one generation, much less one democratic election in that region.
Corner Stone
@Ghanima Atreides: Oh, and FinReg is a joke and ACA is weak until it sees the light of day in 2014. Which may not ever happen. Until then it’s masturbatory theatrics.
Ghanima Atreides
@jrg: no, the neocons are gunning for Iran.
Just wait until Iraq kicks our ass out in December, and the Qom/Karbala axis becomes the hub of the new shia’ia virtual caliphate.
Iraq is already getting cozy with Tehran.
America built the three largest airbases on foreign soil in history at a horrific cost in taxpayer dollahs, built up the Iraqi infrastructure with a false hope of sukking up their oil, and we dont get to keep the airbases, lol. According to the SOFA we can only leave 150 trainers in Iraq.
Maliki can nationalize all the american companies oil opps and give every drop to Iran, and there aint a damn thing we can do about it short of declaring war on them…
again.
and that sure worked out well the last time.
;)
Mark S.
@fasteddie9318:
Here are some interesting numbers. Rafa’s won 9 of the last 11. However, they have played over half of their matches on clay, which Rafa’s the greatest player ever on and has a 12-2 record over Roger on.
Ghanima Atreides
@Corner Stone: but right now we are engaged in joint training ops with egyptian special forces.
To train the Libyan rebels how to fire Katyusha rockets.
Its a start.
At a memorial day picnic i was talking with a soldier just back from the sharp edge of the A-stan theater.
He says the drawdown has already started.
Corner Stone
@Ghanima Atreides: Well then. That’s irrefutable I guess.
jheartney
@Ghanima Atreides:
Assuming it all happens under Obama then it’s all the perfidious Dems’ fault. The GOP’s role in attacking Iraq on a pretext and building the bases in an indefensible location will be forgotten.
My Truth Hurts
It is not a failing or a flaw. It is a deliberate lie of omission.
Ghanima Atreides
@jheartney: Iraq is welded onto Bush. The conservative elites did that as part of their strat to scrape him off their shoe.
Ghanima Atreides
@Corner Stone: do you think the start of the drawdown is going to be in the news?
Not unless theres another Bradley Manning behind the doors right now, and i betcha the security protocols got mad-stepped up anyways.
Its classified.
LOL
numbskull
“fatal flaw”
Fatal to whom? The wingnut pundit? Hardly. Making sense, acknowledging reality, knowing history, now THOSE would be a fatal flaws for a wingnut pundit.
numbskull
@OzoneR: Uh, don’t you mean “And then came 1933…”
A Humble Lurker
@Corner Stone:
Like Jane Hamsher and the whole Grover Norquist thing?
Corner Stone
@A Humble Lurker: Your question doesn’t make any sense. Rephrase or fuck off.
Fred
What has Kucinich ever done? Seriously, all his resolutions and proposals in committee. Have any even made it out of committee much less become law? Has he ever accomplished a single thing?
I’m no expert but last I heard he hasn’t had a single successful bill in his entire career. That’s quite a record.
techno
To all those who pointed out that my list of Republicans who were historically anti-war would be thrown out of today’s party are absolutely correct. The Republicans I grew up around were so progressive, they would be thrown out of the Obama administration.
Malcolm Moos (the guy who wrote Eisenhower’s speech on the military-industrial complex) was president of the University of Minnesota every day I attended there and because of my anti-Vietnam War activities, I got to meet him a few times. If Republicans were still like Moos, I would probably be one today. And there is NO WAY a thoughtful man like Moos could EVER serve in an administration dominated by moronic bullies like Larry Summers.
As for whether the America-First movement prolonged WW II, I cannot buy that AT ALL. I have spent many long evenings reading what the America-Firsters actually had to say and have come to the conclusion that no group of Americans was more falsely vilified than they. Besides, WW II ended in Europe when the Red Army captured Berlin. In what possible way was that event delayed by an American anti-war movement concentrated in the Midwest?
Bruce S
Techno – just read up on Malcolm Moos. He was obviously a communist and/or dirty-f..king-hippie.
“During his presidency, the university established programs in African American Studies, Native American Studies, Chicano Studies, Women’s Studies, and the Center for Urban and Regional Studies.”
WTF? We don’t need no education!
But the America-Firsters were a more complicated lot…Didn’t D-Day have SOMETHING to do with the Red Army making it to Berlin when they did?
A Humble Lurker
@Corner Stone:
Okay. (Though you’re probably long gone by now…) My post actually was supposed to look like this but I couldn’t figure out how to get the link in there in time.
I was just comparing the article’s title to the whole Jane Hamsher teaming up with ‘government so small we can drawn it in a bathtub’ Grover Norquist to try to get rid of Rahm Emmanuel thing. Do you think she qualifies along with the rest of us pragmatists as selling out and damaging the long term left? I would just think that was interesting, considering she’s regarded more as an ideologue, but the whole idea of teaming up with unsavory characters for long term goals fits right in with more pragmatic tactics.