Very amusing, Pithy. I especially like your idea that it was all Obama's fault that the voters thought Sara Palin was "dumber and crazier" than John McCain.
I'll get back to you on this. I'm still crashing after having wrapped up a project of mine, - but here, a question on the fly-by, re your claim that Obama's "realist" response to the Iranian "fracas" shows he's a "calculating pol:"
I'm not arguing the "calculating pol" label for Obama, Pithy, but if his response to what you term a "fracas" in Iran is a "realist" response, then what does that make the response of the U.S. House of Congress, which has just voted 405 to one to condemn "the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication..." Democrat and House Foreign Affairs committee chair said "...we cannot remain silent when cherished universal principles are under attack."
What would you call that resolution by the U.S. House of Congress, Pithy? Is that a "realist" response, too?
P.S. Re your: "Everyone thinks that people that agree with them or are otherwise like them are more moral than people who disagree with them or are different."
- You and I often don't agree, Pithy. I don't think you're less moral than I am. (Of course, I also think that you're a closet idealist in denial.)
Denouncing violence against peaceful protesters is pretty easy, and I believe Obama has done some of that too. I am not against saying "Shooting at unarmed crowds is wrong." It is also OK to complain about shutting down the media, or banning foreign reporters.
The US Government should not, however, take a position on the elections themselves.
Okay, but Obama's spokesman has just done so, hasn't he? Just a couple of hours ago, he said there's "no justice in Iran."
Would you say that makes him a 'new convert to idealism?'
Or, is he a 'calculating pol' - who has calculated that the American public is expecting a show of idealism from him on Iran's account, right about now?
The latter.
So, the Americans were expecting Obama to be more idealistic than he was originally planning to be?
Aha, you appear to have me in a contradiction!
Public opinion is always confused, especially about foreign policy. The public wants inconsistent things.
I don't think most pols pay much of a price for ignoring the suffering of foreigners. It makes sense to do so when there are real diplomatic advantages to be had by dealing with whoever it is (China, apartheid South Africa, etc.)
OTOH, the public also doesn't understand what these diplomatic advantages might be, so there is some demand for the cheap symbolism involved in denouncing some atrocity or other.
This is especially so if the atrocity happened a long time ago to an ethnic group which is prominent domestically. That's why we get things like Parliament or Congress denouncing the Armenian genocide, much to the dismay of foreign affairs bureaucrats.
re "The public wants inconsistent things."
If, as you say, the public is inconsistent, then, does that fact of the matter allow for the possibility that, sometimes, the public may want a president who appears to be an 'idealist,' rather than one who appears to be a'realist?'
Sometimes. The only time that desire swung a presidential election, IMHO, was 1976.
(Arguably, in 2000, many in Red America were looking for a more "moral" man than William Jefferson Clinton. But Bush didn't get the overall popular vote, and the Red State vision of morality wasn't shared by the Democratic coalition. I can't think of any other modern example where the US public went for what they perceived to be the more moralistic choice for president. They gave their biggest majorities to LBJ and Nixon after all)
Okay.
We agree that sometimes, the public wants a president who appears to be an idealist, rather than one who appears to be a realist.
We agree that the desire for a president who appeared to be an idealist was strong enough to elect Jimmy Carter to the presidency.
In your opinion, then, was Carter elected on the strength of a desire that was for the appearance of idealism only, and not for the reality?
In other words, did the voters want and expect to get a moral hypocrite when they elected Carter?
I was too young to remember it, but from what I can tell, Nixon kind of overdid the Machiavellian thing from the median voter's point-of-view, and they wanted to punish the Republicans. However, Carter always seemed like too much of a goody-two-shoes, which is why Ford came back from a two-digit deficit and almost won.
The lesson is to be a better person than Nixon, but don't overdo it.
"The lesson is to be a better person than Nixon, but don't overdo it."
So, are you saying that Carter was not in fact elected solely on the strength of a desire for the appearance of idealism; but that, rather, there was evidently at least some desire for genuine idealism in the forces that catapaulted a virtual unknown to the Presidency?
The fact of Obama's Fourth of July BBQ party invite to the Iranians, - and, this just in, its withdrawal:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/n...8924/
story.html
strongly suggests to me that in fact, Obama is highly idealistic, but really green in matters of state; and he trusts his own judgment far too much. He needs better advisors, and he needs to listen to them.
The party invite was a huge mistake.
Jimmy Carter did things like that, which really damaged his credibility.
Why was it a mistake? It seems like a good idea to me, so long as he served halal hot dogs.
Pithy, would you indulge me for a moment, by allowing me to turn the question back onto you:
Why does inviting Iranian diplomats to U.S. embassies' 2009 Independence Day celebrations seem like a good idea to you?
Because there are mutual gains available to Iran and the United States if they would normalize their relationship, and it is easier to normalize a relationship over a halal hot dog.
Thank you, Pithy. Could I trouble you to expand upon what you mean by "mutual gains" and what "a normalized relationship" would look like?
Thanks.
BTW: Is there really such a thing as a "halal" hot dog? I've never seen that here in Edmonton, even in stores that cater to Arabs - just chicken dogs, turkey dogs, and all-beef dogs.
The US would be better off if it could verify that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon (so would Iran, although its leaders might not agree). Iran would be better off if the sanctions against it were dropped. Both would be better off if Iraq and Afghanistan stabilized somewhat. These possibilities have not been realized because no enforceable bargain between the two has been struck.
Of course, the election has made it very unlikely tht any such bargain will be struck in the short term, so cancelling the barbecue.
I don't know if there are halal hot dogs, but I have seen kosher dogs, and I understand they are basically the same.
Okay, so those are the benefits, yes?
What would a "normalized" relationship look like? Exchange of ambassadors? trade agreements? High-level visits and assurances of friendship?
Pithy, if you grow tired of this conversation, especially in light of recent events:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/n...1680/
story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/...ref=global-
home
which render active international intervention in Iran more likely than "normalized relations" in the foreseeable future,
we can just let it go, eh?
Same goes for any other line of comments between me and thee, (since I can't speak for other commentators).
Any time you want to just move on without further ado or comment, I promise you I won't take it amiss.
No worries. I agree that events, particularly the treatment of the British embassy employees, have overtaken this particular debate.
Then, again, and just as all hope for Iran seems to be lost, "Leading Clerics Defy Ayatollah on Disputed Iran Election:"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/0...ref=global-
home
The 'analysis' of how the general election turned out the way it did is just plain odd. He won because he was the Democrat.
The analysis of the primary is not quite as far off the mark.
Somewhere I sort of lost what this had to do with Iran.
@ MSS re your "somewhere I sort of lost what this had to do with Iran:"
I can see you like answers to be simple: "He won because he was the Democrat" - so, since I'm more simple-minded than Pithy is, I'll take the liberty of offering a simple reply:
First, to get the connection on your own, you had to start with Pithy's post previous to this one, "Obama's Cairo Speech."
Second, from that 'Cairo' post, a debate ensued between Pithy and me, as to whether or not Americans expected Obama to more idealistic than Bush.
To over-simplify our positions on that score, I said "yes," and Pithy said, "no."
Third, that debate on idealism then turned to a consideration of whether or not the House and Senate resolutions to condemn the Iranian govt's response to the protestors supported my position or not, that Americans are expecting this President to manifest more idealism than the last one did.
I cheered slammed Obama for being a wimp and cheered the July 4 barbecue disinvite.
Ever the realist, Pithy worried that the barbecue disinvite might kiss off any chance of normalized relations with Iran and further talks on their nuclear ambitions.
At that point, Iran made it clear things weren't going to be normal anytime soon in any case, and we agreed to let go of the debate.
Since then, Joe Biden has hinted that Obama would be willing to let Israel blow up Iran if need be; and a leading group of imams in Iran has just cast their lot in with the protestors, who are in deadly peril - so, all bets are off as to what the response from the world is going to be or should be, IMO.
Did that clear up the connections for you?
I realize Joe Biden was the Democrat, but he was also the dumber candidate for vice-president.
Joe Biden was the dumber... okay, that's a joke, right, Pithy?
I'm just saying in the warring Couric interviews, I preferred Miss Wisilla.
You "preferred Miss Wisilla" to Katie Couric in those interviews?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...in4476173.shtml
"Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?
Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.
Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.
Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?
Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.
Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.
Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
ar...ow_we_9234.html
""In one part of the interview, I asked her what newspapers and magazines she read before being asked to be John McCain's running mate," Couric said. "And she couldn't name any. So again, I turned to the crew and I said, 'Hold it, guys,' and I went to the Governor privately and said, 'Governor Palin, did you not understand the question? I'm asking you to name some newspapers or magazines you read. You can't come up with any? I'm just trying to make sure you're clear and to give you a fair shake here.' And she said, 'Okay. Nightline? Is that a magazine?' I said, 'No, that's a television show.' She said, 'What about Lou Dobbs? Isn't that a newspaper?' And I said, 'No, that's a man. Lou Dobbs is a man.' And there wasn't much more I could do. I'm not a miracle worker."
- And you thought Palin came off sounding more brillant than Couric or Joe Biden, Pithy?
Sounds to me like sombebody "prefers" beauty to brains.
Did you recently get whupped in court by a female lawyer, or something, Pithy?
I'm not a big Palin defender, but most politicians find financial regulation really boring, and magazines are crap. I occasionally read the Economist, but it's mostly crap too.
And for a fair comparison, you'd have to quote something from Biden.
You're the one who made the assertion that Palin was smarter - the burden is on you to "quote something from Biden." I don't have to prove he's smarter. I've already shown she's dumb. You think he's dumber? Prove it.
Commenting by HaloScan
