Category Archives: Politics

The Republican reaction to Obama on same-sex marriage

Politics, , , , , , , , ,

Yesterday, I was rendered nearly speechless (nearly; come on, you didn’t really expect actual speechlessness from me, did you?) with pleasure at President Obama’s long-awaited and extremely tardy announcement of the end of his “evolution” on same-sex marriage. (Granted, this was a completely manufactured and artificial “evolution,” since he supported gay marriage as long ago as 1996 and only changed it when he became more politically prominent — but an “evolution” nonetheless, in the same Orwellian tradition of linguistic manipulation that helped make such ludicrous things possible as “enhanced interrogation techniques” being something other than torture. OK, I’m getting way off on a tangent now. Back to Planet Earth.)

Anyway, the point is that I was extremely happy — giddy, even — over the President’s remarks. But what makes me almost happier, in a less viscerally affecting way but in a calmer and more long-term perspective, is the virtual absence of strong public opposition to this. It’s incredible how muted the response has been. It really is hard to believe how far the country has moved on this in recent years. In 2004, President Bush was campaigning on his support of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nationally. Eight years later, a sitting President just announced his support for same-sex marriage, and Republicans don’t even dare to mount a serious rebuttal. This lack of a response is, to me, even more newsworthy than the announcement itself. As the New York Times noted:

Conservative social activists and groups that oppose same-sex marriage have been vocal in their disdain for Mr. Obama’s announcement. And advisers to Mr. Romney said in television interviews on Thursday that he would campaign on the issue of his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“Sure. I think it’s an important issue for people and it engenders strong feelings on both sides,” Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to Mr. Romney, said on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown.” “I think it’s important to be respectful in how we talk about our differences, but the fact is that’s a significant difference in November.”

But Republican officials on Capitol Hill seemed eager to shift the conversation away from the social issue and back to blaming the nation’s economic struggles on Mr. Obama’s policies.

The House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, repeatedly deflected questions about Mr. Obama’s new position on same-sex marriage at his weekly news conference. He said he believed that marriage should be limited to “one man and one woman” and then quickly flicked back to the economy.

This is notable. Same-sex marriage has, quite suddenly, become a topic that Republicans are gradually realizing they don’t want to be seen publicly and vigorously opposing. They’d rather talk about just about anything else. And that is a good sign.

Related articles

Here is literally the only reality TV show element that the GOP forgot to include in its debates

Humor, Politics, , , , , , , ,

Having a former Playboy model bring out an urn with the candidates’ names in it. Best quote:

Interviewed by the Cadena Tres TV network, Orayen said the production team gave her instructions to wear a long, white dress, but she picked it up from her own closet.

“It was my only choice for a long dress. I didn’t think it would reveal as much or cause this much scandal,” she said. “I learned I like myself better when I’m covered up.”

She has a point. My only dress clothes are a jockstrap and a tie. I hate that I always forget how distracting that can be at board meetings.

Rumor mill’s going crazy

Media, Politics, , , , ,
[tweet https://twitter.com/#!/WestWingReport/status/200255518864969729] [tweet https://twitter.com/#!/marcambinder/status/200255049904033792] [tweet https://twitter.com/#!/marcambinder/status/200237187621588992] [tweet https://twitter.com/#!/samsteinhp/status/200251461798608896]

Ha:

[tweet https://twitter.com/#!/TimesPublicEdit/status/200249258782367745]

A short blast through today’s Internetz

Miscellaneous, Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There are way too many funny and crazy things to see on the Internet today, so I suppose I’ll just have to link to them all. Here goes.

First off, Rush Limbaugh is launching a “Rush Babes” campaign to counterattack the National Organization for Women’s attempts to get advertisers to boycott his program:

Rush Limbaugh is fighting back against the National Organization for Women, the progressive women’s group that has been targeting local advertisers and affiliates in an effort to get the conservative talk show host off the air.

On his program today, Limbaugh announced a new National Organizaion for Rush Babes”dedicated to the millions of conservative women who know what they believe in: family, American Values, and not being told by Faux Feminist Groups how to think.”

Beyond the immediate laughter such a mental image provokes — what is a Rush babe, after all? an overweight, pale, white Midwesterner who hates Mexicans and loves Cheetos and Jim Carrey? — the comments section below the article is absolutely hilarious. See how quickly it devolves into complete insanity from its original starting point of…well, it was basically already insane when it started. I love Internet commenters.

Then, it turns out that, as soon as Michele Bachmann was out of the political limelight, she took stock of “birtherism” and decided, hell, being something other than American isn’t so bad after all. Therefore, she is now Swiss. I smell a double standard here:

Rep. Michele Bachmann is now officially a Swiss miss.

Bachmann (R-Minn.) recently became a citizen of Switzerland, making her eligible to run for office in the tiny European nation, according to a Swiss TV report Tuesday.

Best part is when they asked her if she’d consider running for Swiss public office: “Bachmann joked that the competition ‘would be very stiff because they are very good.'” And by that she means that they make more sense in English than she does.

A lot happened yesterday at the voting booth. Republican senator Dick Lugar of Indiana lost to Tea Party favorite Richard Mourdock in the Republican primaries, signaling the further polarization of the Senate. (Of course, there is really only one “pole” here, and it is the fanatical right wing, but I digress.) Meanwhile, Wisconsin Democrats chose their candidate, Tom Barrett, to challenge Republican governor Scott Walker in the special recall election next month. But in the biggest piece of news, North Carolinians chose bigotry and homophobia over normality: yes, Amendment One passed overwhelmingly, which inscribes a prohibition of gay marriage and even civil unions into the state constitution.

Meanwhile, Democrats are worried about campaign dollars and where they’ll be going. The New York Times has more interesting backstory to the Chen Guangcheng saga. And the Underwear Bomber 2.0? Turns out he was a double agent working for the CIA. Nice work, but also a good reminder that the next terrorist attack is undoubtedly a matter of when, not if.

And lastly, because this is just too weird, I was looking through the Atlantic‘s stellar collection of Hindenburg photographs (it crashed 75 years ago last Sunday) and was actually viscerally shocked to see so much Nazi imagery in connection with the United States. It’s easy to forget that the Nazi Party existed before World War II began, and that they were fully recognized and welcomed abroad in many places, including in the United States. Anyway, worth checking out.

Slate.fr nabs a post-victory interview with François Hollande

French, Politics, , , , , , ,

François Hollande

Fairly comprehensive stuff. A few highlights:

On France’s relationship with Germany:

L’existence d’un couple «Merkozy» a été critiquée en Europe. Quelle est votre position sur ce couple franco-allemand?

Autant je crois au moteur franco-allemand, autant je conteste l’idée d’un duopole. La construction européenne repose sur une relation France-Allemagne équilibrée et respectueuse. Les couples Schmidt-Giscard, Kohl-Mitterrand,  et même Chirac-Schröder ont prouvé que les différences politiques n’empêchaient pas le travail commun. Mais ces dirigeants veillaient à conjuguer la démarche intergouvernementale avec le processus communautaire, c’était la meilleure façon d’éviter que nos partenaires éprouvent le sentiment d’être écartés, ou pire encore soumis.

Cet équilibre a été modifié ces dernières années. Le rapport franco-allemand a été exclusif. Les autorités européennes ont été négligées et certains pays, notamment les plus fragiles, ont eu la désagréable impression d’être en face d’un directoire.

On Barack Obama, and speaking English (and he couldn’t resist a jab at Sarkozy):

Justement, vous allez rencontrer Barack Obama pour la première fois au G8 de Camp David les 18 mai et 19 mai. Une première question, qui pourra vous sembler anecdotique: Mister Hollande, do you speak English?

Yes I speak English, more fluently than the former President. But a French president has to speak French!

Au-delà de la plaisanterie, est-ce que vous pensez que c’est important que le chef d’Etat français parle la langue commune de la diplomatie internationale?

Il a besoin de la comprendre et de pouvoir avoir des échanges directs avec ses interlocuteurs. Mais je suis attaché à la langue française et à la francophonie.

Lorsque je participais à des sommets de chefs de partis en Europe, il a pu m’être désagréable d’entendre des amis roumains, polonais, portugais, italiens parfois, parler anglais, mais j’admets que sur le plan informel, les contacts puissent s’établir dans cette langue. Je défendrai néanmoins partout l’usage du français.

On a nuclear Iran:

Quelle est votre position sur la crise liée au programme nucléaire iranien?

Je n’ai pas critiqué la position ferme de Nicolas Sarkozy par rapport aux risques de prolifération nucléaire. Je le confirmerai avec la même force et la même volonté. Et je n’admettrai pas que l’Iran, qui a parfaitement le droit d’accéder au nucléaire civil, puisse utiliser cette technologie à des fins militaires.

Sur ce sujet, l’administration Obama semble plus souple, plus encline à la négociation, que le gouvernement français…

Les Iraniens doivent apporter toutes les informations qui leur sont demandées et en terminer avec les faux-semblants. Les sanctions doivent être renforcées autant qu’il sera nécessaire. Mais je crois encore possible la négociation pour atteindre le but recherché.

All in all, Hollande’s triumph may signal a rocky future for Europe, especially in French-German relations but even extending beyond that to a more general backlash to the politics of austerity. As some have noted, Hollande’s victory may in fact suit the Obama administration just fine, at least on economic issues. If his election — and the rising hopes of leftists around Europe — can somehow hold back the tide of plummeting stocks and rising bond yields until at least November 6th, he may prove very useful to Obama’s reelection chances. Furthermore, his economic philosophy is, in many ways, closer to that embraced by the United States than Sarkozy’s pro-austerity administration has been. Foreign policy, however, may be a slightly different story.

Related articles

OK, I’ll say it: Jeffrey Goldberg is an assclown

Media, Politics, , , , , , , ,

This is really one too many times. Jeffrey Goldberg has perfected — nay, has transformed into an art form — a process in which he starts unfounded rumors or promotes really weak and unsubstantiated claims into prominence while simultaneously pretending to disavow them. Incidentally, he does the same thing with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process too: he’s always against the settlements generally, but by God, if you actually come up with an idea of how to combat this ongoing injustice, he’s having none of it. (See “Beinart, Peter” for more information.) And the same thing with anti-Semitism too: he has no problem implying in very unsubtly disguised statements how anti-Semitic he finds the average critic of Israel, but once confronted with abusing and misusing the term, he quickly denies it.

So today, after already playing this game before, Goldberg once again spins the “plausible deniability” wheel once more, for old times’ sake:

The prominent Israeli commentator Amnon Abramovich argues that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to go for early electons — now scheduled for September 4 — means that Netanyahu (and his defense minister, Ehud Barak), will still have plenty of time to launch a preemptive strike before the American presidential election in early November…

Seems doubtful to me, for what it’s worth. Too many moving parts, too many risks involved — Netanyahu doesn’t like risk (especially when compared to his militarily adventurous predecessors) and the timeline is very short. It’s hard to believe he would order a (cataclysmic, IMO) strike on Iran while trying to build a governing coalition for his next term.  I also tend to think he would not order a strike during Obama’s second term, should Obama win reelection. Abramovich is right that Obama would have a hard time being critical of Israel before the upcoming American election. But he would be freer to punish Israel after. What I wouldn’t rule out is a Netanyahu-ordered strike before he goes to elections. Not immediately — he needs to see what America can accomplish in the upcoming negotiations with Iran (my prediction: nothing much), but sometime after that, especially if intelligence suggests that Iran is moving centrifuges into the hardened facility at Fordow at a more rapid clip. But an October surprise? Not probable.

“Hey, America, just for the record, I’m saying it’s not probable, OK? As in, this rumor that I just created out of thin air has no basis. I repeat, no basis. I know it seems extremely credible, as it’s based on absolutely nothing (much like my advocacy of the Iraq war, interestingly enough) and was just concocted right now out of sheer boredom and my recurring warmongering itch, but don’t worry…Israel will probably not attack Iran. Israel will likely not do the thing that I just suggested it may do, even though there’s no reason to think they would in the first place. I know, I know, I just put the thought in your minds now, but seriously…just pretend I never said anything. Actually, on second thought, don’t. Because, you know, Israel might attack Iran.”

Memo to Goldberg — well, now you really look like an idiot:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposition chairman MK Shaul Mofaz (Kadima) reached a surprise agreement early Tuesday morning to form a national unity government.

The move came as the Knesset was preparing to disperse for early elections, which were expected to be scheduled for September 4.

But fear not, Goldberg has already rallied. Literally in the time it has taken me to write this part of my post, he has responded to the Haaretz article with a blog post titled, “Forget That No-October-Surprise-Iran Attack Business I Was Talking About Before:”

Bibi Netanyahu seems to have solidified his coalition through 2013 by bringing in the Kadima Party, formerly headed by his arch-foe Tzipi Livni, now headed by his not-so-arch foe Shaul Mofaz. If the reports out of Israel are true, this means no election September 4, and it means that Netanyahu can proceed apace with whatever he’s thinking about doing re: Iran’s nuclear sites. This is not to say that he brought Kadima into his coalition to clear the way for an attack; Mofaz — Iranian-born, by the way — is on record as opposing an Iran strike, though people I speak to say he would back such a strike in a crunch (namely, if he saw proof Iran was rapidly approaching the “zone of immunity,” in which it could enrich uranium in impregnable bunkers).

You see? He’s still not saying he expects an October surprise or anything. He’s just implying that that’s exactly what’s going to happen. Because it would be really, really cool if it did.

Related articles

So, about yesterday’s French presidential election

French, Media, Politics, , , , , , , , ,

Paul Krugman:

What is true is that Mr. Hollande’s victory means the end of “Merkozy,” the Franco-German axis that has enforced the austerity regime of the past two years. This would be a “dangerous” development if that strategy were working, or even had a reasonable chance of working. But it isn’t and doesn’t; it’s time to move on. Europe’s voters, it turns out, are wiser than the Continent’s best and brightest.

What’s wrong with the prescription of spending cuts as the remedy for Europe’s ills? One answer is that the confidence fairy doesn’t exist — that is, claims that slashing government spending would somehow encourage consumers and businesses to spend more have been overwhelmingly refuted by the experience of the past two years. So spending cuts in a depressed economy just make the depression deeper.

Rosecrans Baldwin:

France and America have a long history of mutual loathing and longing. Americans still dream of Paris; Parisians still dream of the America they find in the movies of David Lynch. It will take time for both countries to adjust to a new leader, a new image. For our part, we may even learn what a real Socialist is.

But the French will have it worse. They may not miss Nicolas Sarkozy now; they may never pine for him to return. They will, however, feel his absence. The temperature will drop. When an object we love to hate is removed, then love is lost, too.

The New York Times takes a broader look at the future of austerity:

In broad terms, the French vote unsettled center-right governments across Europe, while their center-left adversaries felt emboldened, hoping that the triumph of one socialist leader presaged a wider resurgence.

But the real nub of the ideological and fiscal contest lay in the continent’s traditional driving axis between Berlin and Paris, with Mr. Hollande promising to rewrite the austerity-driven pact struck between Mr. Sarkozy and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, whose own electoral fortunes are also uncertain.

And, on the French right, they are already complaining about the presence of foreign flags at François Hollande’s Bastille victory party:

Les scènes de liesse qui ont accompagné l’éléction de François Hollande ne sont pas du goût de certaines personnalités de droite. Au-delà de la défaite du candidat Sarkozy, certains membres de l’ancien gouvernement, mais aussi du Front national, ont dénoncé, lundi 7 mai, la présence de “drapeaux rouges et étrangers”lors du rassemblement pour célébrer la victoire du socialiste, la veille, place de la Bastille à Paris.

Sur France info, l’actuel vice-président du FN, qui fut le directeur de campagne deMarine Le Pen, Louis Aliot, s’est déclaré “surpris” par la présence “d’autant de drapeaux étrangers pour saluer la victoire de M. Hollande”. Et de poursuivre : “Ce sont les mêmes drapeaux étrangers que l’on a vus saluer la victoire de M. Sarkozy et [celle] de Jacques Chirac, en 2002.”

I was there at Bastille starting at 7:15 PM or so all the way until Hollande’s speech ended around 1 AM, and there were a lot of foreign flags. Granted, it doesn’t take much to rile the Front National, but it was an interesting sight nonetheless. It was an unforgettable experience, even though I thought I was going to get trampled in the crowd at several different points.

Related articles