Time for yet another blogger ethics panel: the very serious Economist magazine photoshops a picture of Barack Obama (via) to make him look more alone and depressed, a la Jimmy Carter.
Politicans
Obama’s War
Here’s Michael Steele:
Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama’s choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.”…
“It was the president who was trying to be cute by half by flipping a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he’s such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan.”
Everyone knows that there was no land war in Afghanistan until 2009. Since Saddam paid for Al Qaeda’s attack on 9/11, it’s always puzzled me what Obama was doing attacking that other place.
(via)
Absence of malice
The New Yorker is the only magazine, other than various alcohol-related periodicals, I’ve ever regularly subscribed to. I don’t like it as much as I used to — there are too many favorable profiles of VSPs and CEOs and too few of weirdos, trouble-makers, fuggers, and thieves (aw, but they’re cool people). I already knew that it used to be more smart-assed many years ago, long before I started reading it, but I was struck by how much its early duels with Time magazine sounds like the blogger/establishment media arguments of today:
Time Inc. once sent out a flyer: “TIME has given such attention to the development of the best narrative English that hundreds of editors and journalists have declared it to be the greatest creative force in modern journalism.” Ford’s “The Making of a Magazine” included an exposé called “The Construction of Our Sentences”: “Before a sentence may be used in THE NEW YORKER it must be cleaned and polished. The work of brightening these sentences is accomplished by a trained editorial staff of 5,000 men named Mr. March.” The New Yorker once ran a cartoon with the caption “But, Lester, is it enough just being against everything that ‘Time’ magazine is for?”
This story about a nasty New Yorker profile of Henry Luce, who owned Time Inc. (which included Fortune and Life) really rang my bell:
[A] brutal parody of Timestyle, called “Time . . . Fortune . . . Life . . . Luce”: “Backward ran sentences until reeled the mind.” He skewered the contents of Fortune (“branch banking, hogs, glassblowing, how to live in Chicago on $25,000 a year”) and of Life (“Russian peasants in the nude, the love life of the Black Widow spider”). He made Luce ridiculous (“ambitious, gimlet-eyed, Baby Tycoon Henry Robinson Luce”), not sparing his childhood (“Very unlike the novels of Pearl Buck were his early days”), his fabulous wealth (“Described too modestly by him to Newyorkereporter as ‘smallest apartment in River House,’ Luce duplex at 435 East 52nd Street contains 15 rooms, 5 baths, a lavatory”), or his self-regard: “Before some important body he makes now at least one speech a year.” He announced the net profits of Time Inc., purported to have calculated to five decimal places the “average weekly recompense for informing fellowman,” and took a swipe at Ingersoll, “former Fortuneditor, now general manager of all Timenterprises . . . salary: $30,000; income from stock: $40,000.” In sum, “Sitting pretty are the boys.”
This led to a confrontation between Henry Luce and Harold Ross, the then-editor of the New Yorker:
“There’s not a single kind word about me in the whole Profile,” Luce said. “That’s what you get for being a baby tycoon,” Ross said. “Goddamn it, Ross, this whole goddamned piece is malicious, and you know it!” Ross paused. “You’ve put your finger on it, Luce. I believe in malice.”
Far too few media elites believe in this kind of malice anymore.
The Barber of civil
There’s been quite a lot of discussion of this whacky video Alabama Republican Rick Barber is running. If you haven’t seen it, it’s pretty damn entertaining, though I think they should have had the singer cry (they do close-ups of his watery eyes several times, but the waterworks never quite materialize):
There are images of slaves, concentration camps, and the like that flash after Barber gets an Abe Lincoln impersonator to agree that taxes are the same as slavery. Barber has been criticized, not inappropriately, for this. The general consensus seems to be that he’s too angry, that he should try to sound more like David Brooks giving a seminar at the Aspen Institute. In interviews, however, he seems, as Ruth Marcus (not my favorite, but I like that she interviewed this nut), puts it “affably extreme”.
In today’s political world, when someone says something cray, it’s treated as a “gaffe” or an example of insufficient civility. But the truth is that some candidates, especially Tea Baggers, really do believe in very crazy things. Barber and Rand Paul aren’t just mistake-prone or uncivil or angry, they’re something far worse: candidates with insane, irrational political views.
I hope this is true…
Laura Rozen–one of the decent reporters working at the dubious Politico–reports on the latest complaints concerning Barack Obama and how he approaches Israel and Middle East policy (emphasis added):
Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren is reported to have told Israeli diplomats that the U.S. and Israel are experiencing a “tectonic rift,” not a temporary crisis. [snip]
“Oren noted that contrary to Obama’s predecessors – George W. Bush and Bill Clinton – the current president is not motivated by historical-ideological sentiments toward Israel but by cold interests and considerations,” Haaretz reports.
Imagine that: a President of the United States approaching Mideast policy and the State of Israel with American interests trumping everything else.
I know that putting America first is what an American President is elected to do, but I’ve also marveled over the years at how when it comes to Israel we must follow policies that do not necessarily serve our National interest. It would be nice if that changed. Such a change would be better for the USA, Israel and Palestine.
When it comes to the decades old mess in the Middle East a little more focus on the cold interest and considerations of America would be a good thing. As I said, I hope this report turns out to be true.
Time will tell.
Cheers
He Can Do Whatever He Wants
And the nonsense continues (and I love James Fallows)…
Look, Obama doesn’t HAVE to fire McChrystal. Personally, I would, but I generally don’t trust people that arrogant with anything. Additionally, I’m sure Gates and company would like to rip out the good General’s heart and eat in front of the entire Pentagon brass. And Obama would be within his rights to fire him. Hell, he is within his rights to fire him for anything.
But Obama doesn’t have to do anything, and I hate how this constant din in the media manages to artificially place limits on the President’s ability to govern. If Obama decides the offense is forgivable and that he wants McChrystal to continue his job until the timeline is ended next year, that is well within his rights. It doesn’t make him “weak” should he do that, and firing McChrystal wouldn’t make him “strong.” Obama doesn’t “have” to do anything he doesn’t think is the right thing to do. If he decides the offense is unforgivable and would create such a bad precedent and a rift within his staff that he needs to be fired, so be it.
Can you imagine going through life with all this artificial nonsense dictating your decision making process? I like those shoes, but do they make me look “weak?” I really would like some spicy mustard on my sandwich, but is it too “elitist?” My employee is a mouthy little shit who gets the job done, but do I have to fire him to show I am “tough” even if doing so hurts my business? Sure, I’d like to go to the opera, but will that make me look like a pussy?
*** Update ***
James Joyner says I’m not reading this right:
In fairness to Fallows, he’s not arguing that Obama has to do it lest he look weak but rather because generals can’t be allowed to disrespect the chain of command.
McChrystal has committed a criminal offense in violation of Article 88 of the UCMJ, after all.
Does Obama “have” to fire McChrystal? Could he forgive this? No and yes were this happening in a vacuum. Given that there’s a pattern here, though, I think firing is the right course of action.
*** Update #2 ***
And, tucked away in the spam filter is Mr. Fallows:
Honored to be mentioned here, and appreciate the attention; but as a few of your commenters have mentioned, I didn’t say anything whatsoever about Obama needing to show his “strength” by firing McChrystal. Here are two relevant parts of the argument:
It’s about civilian control of the military, respect for the chain of command, and the concepts of disrespect and insubordination. Every officer and enlisted person in every military branch is well schooled in what those concepts mean.
If the facts are as they appear—McChrystal and his associates freely mocking their commander in chief and his possible successor (ie, Biden) and the relevant State Department officials (Holbrooke and Eikenberry)—with no contention that the quotes were invented or misconstrued, then Obama owes it to past and future presidents to draw the line and say: this is not tolerable. You must go.And
The first step is for the civilian Commander in Chief to act in accordance with Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution and demonstrate that there are consequences for showing open disrespect for the chain of command. And, yes, I would say the same thing in opposite political circumstances—if, for instance, a commander of Iraq operations had been quoted openly mocking George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Resign in protest: yes, a course of honor. But protest and mock while in uniform, no.
Just for the record: I understand the exasperation with the “Obama has to show his political strength” narrative. But that is not at all what I wrote, or is on my mind. (I take for granted that the right will attack him with equal ferocity but opposite arguments either way.) You can read it for yourself.
I think I’ve pretty clearly butchered his remarks and intent.
Woulda Shoulda Coulda, Blanche Lincoln Edition
Jon Chait and Glenn Greenwald are having an argument about Obama’s superpowers. I agree wholeheartedly with Greenwald that Obama’s detainee policy is awful, I’m open to his argument that Obama could have lobbied harder in many instances, but I’m not buying this:
Lieberman and Ben Nelson are up for re-election in 2012, and Lincoln is this year. Does anyone actually doubt that an Obama threat to support a primary challenge against any Democratic incumbent, to encourage Democratic fund-raisers to send their money elsewhere, or to refrain from playing any role in their re-election, would influence their votes on matters important to the White House?
I don’t doubt that White House supported primary challenges would influence votes of Senators like Lincoln and Nelson — it would make them even more unstable prima donnas, out to tweak the White House at every opportunity, while being ever more loyal to their corporate overlords. The Lincolns and Nelsons of the world raise funds by appeasing a bunch of corporate special interests, and they can accomplish that trick as long as their donors know they’re buying a loyal vote. At least with Obama’s support, the Lincoln/Nelson type of Senator can risk losing a donor or two on the rare occasion that they do something even slightly progressive.
Greenwald thinks that this article “proves” that Obama’s support put Blanche over the line. I’m not sure about that, but what if she had won even if Obama supported Halter? What’s Obama’s move then? He has to go back on bended knee, all apologies, and make still more compromises to get Blanche back in the tent. Better to play it the way Obama did and let Blanche make compromises to appease Halter supporters.
Also, too: Glenn makes a big deal of the begging and pleading that Arlen Specter did to keep his Judiciary Committee chairmanship under the Bush Administration, contrasting that with Obama’s treatment of Lieberman’s Homeland Security chairmanship. In the end, both of those guys kept their seat. The rest is theatrics.
Woulda Shoulda Coulda, Blanche Lincoln EditionPost + Comments (143)