Yesterday’s Iran-NIE bombshell not only has deflated White House bluster on Iran, it has thrown political campaigns into disarray. Some Republicans in particular (but not exclusively) were planning on running a let’s be afraid of Iran campaign. Well, what else have they got to run on?
Josh Marshall and Dan Froomkin have more.
Josh Marshall quotes Podhoretz:
..As the intelligence community must know, if [Bush] were to [attack Iran], it would be as a last resort, only after it had become undeniable that neither negotiations nor sanctions could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and only after being convinced that it was very close to succeeding.
Wow. This guy is advising Guliani? A clear cut case of righties believing and trusting completely in an authority figure, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. Last resort, my a$$. As I explained here Bush et al. have ignored every overture made by Iran to peaceably resolve this, and are adamantly pursuing the path of a military confrontation, as the first choice.
Chris Floyd, quoting Arthur Silber extensively, does a great job at teasing apart the NIE and the various reactions to it. Read it here:
Apparently, the administration is going with “See, we really need to be afraid of Iran now!”, counting on the fact that utter illogic has never lost them support in their base before. I expect the GOP candidates will follow suit.
NIE to Bush: Suck on this, you traitor.
Bush to NIE: Don’t confuse me with the facts.
If I were a conservative I would never vote for Rudolf Giuliani. As a liberal I cant bring myself to vote for Hillary Clinton. I cannot imagine a worse situation than having to choose between these two slimy incompetents. If I believed I’d pray.
uncledad … I remain hopeful that Obama or maybe even Edwards will be our nominee … so the issue won’t come up. But, should the worst happen and Hillary does manage to steal the thing, would you really not vote for her? Even if Giuliani is her opponent?
-me
Even if you don’t like Hillary, remember the most essential point:
You’re not just electing a President. The party that controls the White House controls appintments all through the executive and judicial branches. We’re talking thousands of people who make thousands of decisions every day on things like environmental enforcement, civil rights enforcement, foreign policy and foreign assistance, corporate regulation, etc., etc. Not to mention the Supreme Court. The damage that has been done by ideological and incompetent Republican appointees over the past seven years is staggering.
The next President must be a Democrat – this is more imporatant than any individual. If the Democratic candidate is Pee Wee Herman, I’m voting for him.
I’m pullin’ for pee wee too, Virginia!
I vote for Uncledad.
It just struck me that the NIE estimate of when Iran suspended its nuclear bomb program coincides with Iran attempting to engage in no precondition diplomacy with the US – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html
I wonder if there is any significance to this?
Comments 5 through 8 seem to assume that in a 2-party system, we will next year have to select between the annonted ones of the Democratic & Republican parties. And the worst of the Democrats is better than than best of the Republicans; no question.
But what if there was an Independent candidate whose contempt for the corruption of both parties threatened the ENTIRE way business is done inside the beltway? But such an outsider would be helpless against the K-Street regime and both parties united against him. The situation would be totally untenable, unless the Prez could and would use the ‘bully pulpit’ and the naked, bald, unvarneshed truth in regular appeals to the voters, to energize and invigorate an apathetic population who feels powerless aganist the moneyed forces that have him tied like Gulliver.
But what if there was an Independent candidate whose contempt for the corruption of both parties threatened the ENTIRE way business is done inside the beltway?
There’s no way an independent candidate could pose a serious threat to the way business is done inside the beltway. The parties wouldn’t have to unite against him; they could just ignore him.
Not if an Independent could go to the boss – the voter, and lay out the facts and issues. Apathy is the result of the feeling of helplessness. It does not matter WHO we vote for. The candidates are all going to tell us one thing and do something else to satisfy their REAL masters. Rudy answers to different bosses than Hillary, but neither has any intention of serving US, the American voter.
Congress has been deterred from ridiculous bad decisions when the outcry from the voter has been clear and loud. If the president was popular, trusted, had the ability to communicate well, lawmakers might well HAVE to change their ways, including legislation to reform the campaign bribery that’s the hallmark of the current system – and has not a hint of being changed by the Dems who shouldered aside the Republicans at the K Street pig trough.
I am opposed to the Republican ethic, but I am not for Democrats; I am for Americans. This Democratic Congress has a LOWER rating in the polls than Bush, and that’s some acomplishment. A third option IS a viable choice to effect fundamental change.
Not if an Independent could go to the boss – the voter, and lay out the facts and issues.
Like Ross Perot? Third-party candidates CANNOT win, but they can sometimes “spoil” an election by splitting the votes of larger factions. Or, as Ralph Nader did, peel off just enough votes to swing an election to the other side. This is not always helpful.
“Third-party candidates CANNOT win…”
Sounds like dualism, and you know better than that. The only constant in the politcal universe is change. Shall we agree to see what the choices are before we decide? And can we agree that the objective is to change the political landscape, and that the tool used, Democratic or Independent is less important than the change?
Sounds like dualism
No, it’s mathematics. The way we conduct elections — the Electoral College, combined with winner-take-all results — pretty much eliminates the ability of a third party to become nationally viable, and of a third-party presidential candidate to do any better than split votes. I’d love to scrap both national parties and start over with a new one, but that’s futile until we change how we conduct elections.
It’s also history. There have been myriad third parties since the 1830s, and the best any of them could do is achieve some short-term regional success. The only exception is the GOP, which stepped in to fill the void left behind after the Whig Party had disbanded. Put another way — if Teddy Roosevelt, who was revered and beloved in his day, could do no better than to split the Republican vote and elect a Democrat, how could The Unknown Candidate do any better?
“How could The Unknown Canidate do any better?”
Historically, a 3rd party candidate has been a dissatisfied spoiler who splits the vote of his party, running as an Independent or he has no popular respect or recognition. Perot or Nader come to mind. I am not sure we have EVER been so polarized politically, and the level of dislike and distrust of the professional politician been so high among Democrats AND Republicans. “None of the Above” gets high ratings in all polls. The political status quo is not acceptable, and no one in the top tier is a true advocate of change.
Doug — the Dems are doing badly not because of what they’re doing, but because of what they are not doing, which is standing up to W. The Dems’ problem is that they are Brand X; no one knows what the party stands for. But that could be viewed as an opportunity; they’re as close to being a blank slate as a party has ever been.
I am not sure we have EVER been so polarized politically
Leaving aside the election of 1860 — do you remember the late 1960s early 1970s? In some ways I think we are less polarized now than we were then. We are not nearly as polarized now as we were in 2004, in fact; it’s the Washington political-media establishment that’s breaking up. The question is, what will replace that establishment?
As long as elections are held the way they are, and unless one of the two parties completely disintegrates, the practical truth is that on a national level we’re stuck with two parties. I’d rather put my energy into flushing the dead wood out of the Dems than to waste it on some pipe dream third party.
Yes, people want change, but they’re not in a mood to buy a pig in a poke, either. IMO they’re looking for something fresh and different, but not radical or utterly unknown.