I noted the other day that the Democrat Party and American Jews are like a wife beater and the wife. Roger Simon says it's time to take the kids and move out.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/10327
36 Comments
JJS wrote:
What Would Moses Do? Let my people go...
Bob wrote:
Rand, a protest agasint the Iranian regime by Iranians in Tehran would have had meaning, but a protest against the Iranian regime in America by American Jews wasn't worth the protesters time. If you consider the protest againt Iran essentially meaningless, the whole beaten wife analogy falls apart. Jews who already favor democrats aren't going to be offended if Palin isn't given a leg up. Jews who favor democrats would have to either just be completely appalled by the tactics, or by outcome. The tactics are par for the course, and despite the exageration, they were hardly Mafia-style - no legs were ever going to be broken, no lives were ever going to be destroyed. The outcome was fine by me: Palin wasn't given a foreign policy platform that even a foreign policy novice couldn't screw up, and the Iranian regime was given the raspberry, for all the good that's going to do. As a Democrat who happens to be Jewish, I don't feel the least bit like a beaten spouse. Why should I?
There is also the weird presumption by all concerned that Iran is a Jewish problem, as if Israel's problems only concern Jews, and as if any two countries engaging in a nucelar war isn't a world-wide problem, but that's an off-topic matter.
Rand Simberg wrote:
So, Bob, you see no thuggery involved in threatening a non-profit's IRS status? You're completely OK with that?
Bob wrote:
Lets put it this way: I don't have any special sympathy for the organizations in question, just because I'm Jewish. Jews are decentralized. Naturallly, organizations pop-up, but there is no presumption on my part that they are going to get it right. I'll be outraged if they are discriminated against because their membership is Jewish, but otherwise, I'm not especially interested in them.
I don't know much about the rules regarding non-profits, but I gather that the deal is that they stay out of politics. If so, then sure, having one of the only four people running for national office at an event so close to the election does indeed sound political, and whatever rules that pertain should apply. I don't really see the thuggery in pointing out the rules. But lets imagine non-violent political dirty-tricks did take place. My team would be the thugs, not the victims. Maybe that's my whole point: if the protest is meaningless for the Jews as a whole, then Jewish Democrats root for the Democrats, not some particular group of Jews who are in some random Jewish organization.
Rand Simberg wrote:
I'll take that as a long-winded "yes."
You have no problem with Democrats telling a Jewish (or any other, for that matter) group, "Nice little non-profit you have here...shame if anything were to happen to it..."
I also see that your party identification trumps all (not just your Judaism, but common decency). You apparently didn't read Roger Simon's piece.
One other thought. "First they came for the Jews..."
Bob wrote:
Of course I read Simon's piece. He puts great stock in the meaningfulness of the protest. I don't. He (Of course I think Iran's nuclear program should be stopped, but a protest by Jews in America won't do it - it is just domestic politics.) If the protest is meaningless, then the Jews weren't hurt (or at least, all those who believe Iran presents a threat, Jewish or otherwise, weren't hurt.)
I have no interest associating with thugs. I don't see any thuggery here.
But my central point remains: if the protest is meaningless, the typical Jewish Democrat is not a beaten spouse. This is true whether or not thuggery occurred.
Rand Simberg wrote:
I'm (sort of) in awe at your ability to rationalize your party's willingness to exercise brute force over principle. It's a reason that I left it long ago, but you seem impervious to it.
Bob, I think we have a winner for how much wrong you can get in one post.
...a protest against the Iranian regime in America by American Jews wasn't worth the protesters time.
That's pure opinion not shared by thousands of Jews in NYC.
>If you consider the protest againt Iran essentially meaningless, the whole beaten wife analogy falls apart.
Since obvious everybody involved considered it meaningful since they went to such lengths to stop it (why bother if it isn't meaningful?) you might want to take a second look at that analogy.
Jews who already favor democrats aren't going to be offended if Palin isn't given a leg up.
Jews who favor democrats would have to either just be completely appalled by the tactics...
They are. You have to read the link Bob.
...or by outcome.
That too.
The tactics are par for the course
For democrats that would be true. Others having honor sometimes assume the other side has it too. That's an assumption they have to wake up from and actively address.
...and despite the exageration, they were hardly Mafia-style - no legs were ever going to be broken, no lives were ever going to be destroyed.
WOW. This shows a level of ignorance that's hard to imagine. Do you know anything about the mafia? I was born in Brooklyn. I have mafia in my family. When you have respect, which in their neighborhoods they do, all it takes is a word. The mafia is not interested in destroying lives. They are interested mainly in their own families and financial security. They are a lot more subtle than the democrats. They aren't seeking power, they already have it.
The outcome was fine by me: Palin wasn't given a foreign policy platform that even a foreign policy novice couldn't screw up
Typical unscrupulous worm. The ends justifies the means.
As a Democrat who happens to be Jewish, I don't feel the least bit like a beaten spouse.
That's because you're a democrat first. Many Jews worked with Hitler to exterminate other Jews. How's it feel to be a modern member of that gang?
Why should I?
Decency, which you apparently don't have a shred of.
There is also the weird presumption by all concerned that Iran is a Jewish problem
So nuking them off the face of the Earth is not a Jewish problem?
...as if Israel's problems only concern Jews, and as if any two countries engaging in a nucelar war isn't a world-wide problem
Straw-man.
...but that's an off-topic matter
So, you set up a straw-man and it's too tough to knock down. That's worth a laugh.
Too bad you won't give any of this the thought it deserves. (That's the straight line, I'm setting you up for the punch line.) Go ahead, make my day.
Bob wrote:
Sigh. You can be assured that if there was a "Polite Democratic Party" and a "Hardball Democratic Party", I would vote for the polite guys. (They would probably lose, but I'd vote for them anyway.)
Please note that there are two different issues here.
Issue 1) There was or was not thuggery that Bob supports
Issue 2) Jews are or are not foolish vicitms.
Regarding Issue 1: In the story of why Palin was disinvited, it sounds to me like rules were cited. That's not thuggery. If you're interested in explaining why it was thuggery, I'll listen, of course.
I'm more interested in the issue 2: whether Jews are fools, as one of your commenters said in response to your "Thuggery" post; and whether Jews are beaten spouses, as you are arguing. I can't make you listen to me, of course, but I tried to show, above, why Jews are not fools or victims. You're not presenting arguments to the contrary, so I'm not sure what else to say, but I bet I haven't changed your mind on the beaten spouse analogy, and I'm not sure why not.
Bill Maron wrote:
I'm curious if anyone thinks Obama won't throw Israel under the bus? Look at his "foreign policy" team. He's had to toss 2 already for their Israel positions, Malley and Power. His current main advisor, Kurtzer, called Palestinian terrorists "guerillas" and blames Israel's response to terrorism for making it worse and this guy was an Ambassador to Israel. Imagine that, it's your fault for defending yourself. If I was jewish and saw how anti-Israel his foreign policy advisors are, I would wonder how long before that spilled into domestic policy.
ken anthony wrote:
In the story of why Palin was disinvited, it sounds to me like rules were cited.
It's called spin Bob. It is incredibly awe inspiring that you refuse to see the thuggery involved.
I did present a counter argument... if meaningless, why the thuggery?
Others have made another counter argument: that it's meaningful because it sends one of two messages... American are united or not regarding Iran's ambitions. If not united, this may puff up Iran to act on their bluster. Acting could mean firing nuclear missiles at Israel. Even if connecting these dots is a long shot, the result is so extreme that even a little possible alteration to Iran's course may be meaningful. Even if the protest has no direct influence on Iran, it might influence other that do have an influence on Iran.
This is an example of soft power, like sanctions and such. We might both agree that soft power will have no effect on Iran.
If you are 100% certain that soft power will have no effect, you are gambling with other peoples lives. You do not have that right; although you do have the right to believe any idiotic thing you like even when thousands of others see things 180 degrees apart from your view. Yes, they could all be wrong.
If you continue to claim no thuggery involved, then you and your argument are irrelevant. Others will and do get the point.
If you think this is just some kind of mental exercise, you are morally bankrupt and an ally to the thugs.
Take your pick, but your choice may be irrelevant.
Bob wrote:
Ken, My comment was addressed to Rand. When I wrote it, Rand and I were going back and forth, and I hadn't seen your comment yet.
On the protest itself: The protest is meaningless because there is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind, here or abroad, about the United State's stance toward the Iranian regime. There is no doubt that we find an Iranian nuclear weapon unacceptable. This stance has clearly been expressed by both presidential candidates, as well by President Bush, and by large majorities in Congress. The whole thing reminds me of a Soveit-era joke: The American guy says "We are free to protest American policy", and the KGB guy says "We too are free to protest American policy". Americans protesting against a visit by the Iranian leader is about as meaningless as Soviets protesting in red square about the US. In a different thread, I recently mentioned how I thought taking to the streets to protest was usually pretty worthless, except in extraordinary circumstances like the Velvet Revolution in 1989 (or the Russian coup in 1991). Marching around in the US saying "stop the war, stop the killing" seems pretty worthless compared to other political activities (like writing to a congressman or working on an election), and at least protesting the war in Iraq is protesting against US policy. Protesting in support of US policy really seems like a waste of breath.
Dismissing the importance of the protest is very different from dismissing the importance of Iran. So no need to lecture me on Iran or say that I'm a modern-day Hitler sympathizer. The protest was just an exercise in domestic politics, and the organizers got called on it.
I don't think Iran is a Jewish Issue. I think it is a world issue. If Iran uses a nucelar weapon against Israel, there will be world-wide consequences. The United States has an appropriate policy which recognizes that.
On the so-called thuggery: I'm saying that the thuggery is simply a case of one party citing the rules to another party. Obviously, rules will be interpreted differently by different parties, and in such cases, a judge will decide. It all sounds quite civilized to me.
On the Mafia: Ken, you comment about the Mafia left me confused. You said that Mafia members need only say a word, they needn't actually break bones. What's the relevance of this to our conversation?
On Jews who are Democrats: Rand says that Jews who are Democrats are like abused spouses. I'm saying that there was no harm to the Jewish people here, just some legal civilized domestic politics.
Bob wrote:
Ken, just a quick clarification. I asked what relevance your comment about the mafia had to the conversation, but I suppose you could ask the same question of me!
My reference to the Mafia was in response to a quote in Rand's "Thuggery" post. Rand noted that Meryl Yourish said "That's not a political party pressuring groups to do something. That's outright break-your-kneecap, Mafia-style blackmail threats." (See Rand's post for the greater context). So, while I am quite ignorant of the Mafia, no need to castigate me - I was referring to Merl Yourish's comment, as passed on by Rand.
Bill Maron wrote:
So the Democrats refuse to appear with Palin, cite their absence as the reason it is now political and then threaten the sponsors if they go ahead with only one party represented. Sounds like Democrats to me. Blame someone else for their own stupidity and threaten others to go along.
ken anthony wrote:
Bob,
I do apologize in case I've crossed any lines. Being both of Swedish and Italian descent the blood tends to run both hot and cold. Understand that intentionally or not, you've pushed some buttons that really piss me off.
the protest is meaningless
So if you are wrong about this you have an invalid argument. The points you've chosen to support this premise may all be true. By ignoring addition points that disprove this argument you leave us with an impression.
When you deny any thuggery is involve you reinforce that impression ten fold.
That impression is very uncomplementary to you. I don't want to list the possibilities because I've done enough bashing and I'm not really in a beat up Bob mood. You did however ask me one direct question and I'd like to respectfully answer it.
On the Mafia: Ken, you comment about the Mafia left me confused. You said that Mafia members need only say a word, they needn't actually break bones. What's the relevance of this to our conversation?
The relevance is because the dems actions have been compared to a mafia action and this is fair and accurate as far as it goes.
The accusation has been made (and the truthfulness well supported) that a threat of tax exemption revocation was used as an arm twisting tactic. This isn't just a harmless discussion of rules. This is arm twisting. Note that arm twisting doesn't mean actually twisting of anybodies arm!!!
The relevance is I've personally witnessed the mafia version of arm twisting. Again, this did not involve any actual arm.
Now if you had ever had this type of pressure apply to you, there would be no doubt in your mind what-so-ever that you were dealing with dangerous thugs. It would be undeniable.
But here you are denying that it happened to others.
Andy Freeman wrote:
> Sigh. You can be assured that if there was a "Polite Democratic Party" and a "Hardball Democratic Party", I would vote for the polite guys.
But, since there isn't, you'll vote for the hardball Dems.
The polite dems have the interesting property that they'll occasionally tut-tut the hardball dems, but when it matters, they support. There isn't a principle that they won't abandon to suck up to the hardball dems. They proudly wear the label "useful idiot".
Bob wrote:
If you don't mind a moment of levity, the New York Times, which has come in for a lot of criticism on this blog, ran a story on this controversy, and the article took a rather lighthearted approach. Just the first three sentences are enough for you to appreciate the style of the article:
"Once a year, the Israel-threatening, Holocaust-denying, nuke-building and child-hanging president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, comes to New York for the opening ceremonies of the United Nations General Assembly.
"Many New Yorkers don’t like having him around. But they have no choice. Foreign leaders must be allowed to attend these sessions, no matter how Israel-threatening, Holocaust-denying, nuke-building and child-hanging they may be."
New York Times haters will appreciate how the arm-twisting thuggery is covered. :-)
Daveon wrote:
I'm sorry, and this relationship (jews and the democrats) differs from fiscal conservatives and the Republican party how exactly?
One could argue that perhaps the later is more sado-masochistic but it's still dysfunctional.
Bob wrote:
Daveon, at the risk of dulling your sharp-witted snark, I'd like to point out that Jews who vote for the Democrafts, in general, don't have a disfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party. This latest flap is not the deal breaker that the Republicans (and Rand) wish it was, since primarily it was Jewish Republicans who got upset.
Yes, the Republicans use the fiscal conservatives to build majorities, and then betray them, and then the fiscal conservatives come back for more. But no analogous betrayal happens to Jewish Democrats.
Are you responding to Andy? The proper response to Andy is to quote from the UK's greatest work of art, the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy trilogy, whose fourth book, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish, explained everything Andy needs to know: We vote for a lizard so that the wrong lizard won't get in.
Seriously: I don't think either party has acted against the interests of Jewish Americans, insofar as specific universal interests can be identified.
allan sharperton wrote:
bob said, " seriously: i don't think either party has acted against the interests of Jewish Americans, insofar as specific universal interests can be identified." wtf does that mean?
How about community specific interests? When I was in crown heights bklyn. a few years back I heard hundreds of people shouting about the injustices done by the Hassidim against others. I even witnessed the bloodletting of Jews that coincidently followed.
You're right, there were no specific universal interests involved. I might hasten to add that such successful community organizing by myself helped paved the way for me to be onstage to participate in the debates that would decide who was to be standard bearer of the democrat party in their pursuit of the White House.
Leland wrote:
Once again Andy, my thoughts exactly. If one is willing to support the heavy handed Democrats eventhough they claim preference to polite Democrats, then why would the heavy handed Democrats change their tactics?
Jonathan wrote:
Bob wrote: On the protest itself: The protest is meaningless because there is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind, here or abroad, about the United State's stance toward the Iranian regime. There is no doubt that we find an Iranian nuclear weapon unacceptable.
That there is "absolutely no doubt" is your assertion, not a fact. It is a fact that many people disagree with you on this point, else why have a rally.
If we really find the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapon unacceptable, why have we taken no effective measures to stop it? The answer is that many members of the American policy establishment, not all but primarily Democrats, are quite prepared to accept Iranian nukes. That's the point. That's the main reason to have a rally.
Bob wrote:
The answer to your question is "primaries". That's when you support the polite guy. But now we're in the general election. Pointing out that a non-profit might have to obey the law regarding the IRS is not sufficiently hardball to make most people switch political parties, since most people pick their party on the basis of a political ideology, not a preference for polite tactics.
Fran Porretto has today an apropos quote from Friedrich Hayek, on the very subject of people who espouse the kind of things Bob is espousing. It's long, so I'll excerpt only a bit of it.
The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it necessarily becomes the supreme rule; there is literally nothing the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves "the good of the whole," because "the good of the whole" is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done....There can be no limit to what its citizen is prepared to do, no act which his conscience must prevent him from committing, if it is necessary for an end which the community has set or which his superiors order him to achieve....
Where there is one common overriding end, there is no room for any general morals or rules. To a limited extent we ourselves experience this in wartime....But where a few specific ends dominate the whole of society, it is inevitable that occasional cruelty may become a duty; that acts which revolt all our feelings, such as the shooting of hostages or the killing of the old or sick, should be treated as mere matters of expediency; that the compulsory uprooting and transportation of hundreds of thousands should become an instrument of policy approved by almost everybody except the victims; or that suggestions like that of a "conscription of woman for breeding purposes" can be seriously contemplated. There is always in the eyes of a collectivist a greater goal which these acts serve, and which to him justifies them because to him the pursuit of a common end of society can know no limits in any rights or values of any individual.
"Useful idiot" is indeed the right appellation. You see, Bob, what you are saying is not new or uncommon. Throughout human history and society, the vast majority of people want to go along with what seems to them to be the highest attainable ideal. They want human behavior to be nice, orderly, and aimed to a common end. They want community.
It is just that, throughout history, every experience with the attempt to build a single community of a large and diverse population has always driven the immoral and power-hungry to the top, using the amoral and hate-filled as their thugs to force the rest into line with the "proper" direction of society and community. And if a few million have to be killed to that end, well, that's a shame, but omelets require broken eggs, yes? What hath Rousseau wrought, in all his adherents' manifestations, other then death, destruction, waste, misery and barbarity?
You seem decent, Bob, and there is still time to turn away from this communitarian impulse. Knowing where that road leads (and if you don't, you really should read Hayek), is it really where you want to go?
Anonymous wrote:
> The answer to your question is "primaries".
Actually, it isn't.
In the primaries, the hardball dems tend to win. When a polite dem happens to get elected, he then gets rolled in office by hardball dems.
Habitat Hermit wrote:
Who was the polite one(s) in the DP primaries? And how/why is that particular one deemed more polite?
Bob wrote:
HH,
This sort of choice happens more often on the local level, but in the presidential primaries: Clinton micharacterized, over and over, Obama's statements on Ronald Reagan. It may not have been wise for voters to switch from Clinton to Obama on that basis alone, but since the two candidates had very similar position on all the important issues anyway, people could punish Clinton and reward Obama. Obama wasn't an angel, but I think Clinton ran a less truthful campaign, and perhaps it hurt her campaign.
The most polite moment in the Democratic primary came when the moderator in the Iowa debate questioned Biden's record on race relations. Biden defended himself, but was put in an awkward position. Obama jumped in, and said that he wanted to add that Biden was beyond reproach on racial issues. Clinton then jumped in and exclaimed, in a very senatorial way, "hear hear!" Of course, there is room for cynicism here, but later this was cited as one of the most memorable and moving moments in all of the debates.
There is also the story of Obama helping Richardson when Richardson spaced out during a debate and didn't pay attention to a question. Obama whispered a helpful hint to Richardson, who later told that story in his endorsement of Obama. If the story is true, I think there is no room for cynicism on this one.
The comical thing about this thread is that I believe many readers here actually think that the Democrats are somehow different from the Republicans with respect to political hardball. It would change the topic if I started listing examples of Republican hardball, lies, and dirty tricks, but it is funny to think that Republicans are innocent or even less guilty. (Truthfully, I feel they are worse, but I'm very skeptical of my feelings, because I'm a partisan.) It is also amusing to think that telling someone they are going to have to pay attention to tax codes and obey the law is example of hardball.
ken anthony wrote:
The outcome was fine by me: Palin wasn't given a foreign policy platform that even a foreign policy novice couldn't screw up
The outcome was fine by you?
That's all it boils down to. The ends justifies the means is morally bankrupt. She's been smeared, but you're down with that. You're defending an indefensible position and you're down with that.
There is no rule that says a politician can't speak at these rallies, they've been doing it for years. It's only political because a popular republican vp candidate was invited and you're down with that. You'd be down with the media having a total blackout on any positive coverage of the governor. Along with a total blackout of anything negative about your guy.
Because you support the results.
Truth is an acceptable casualty and your down with that. Because you support the results.
> The comical thing about this thread is that I believe many readers here actually think that the Democrats are somehow different from the Republicans with respect to political hardball.
Feel free to provide an example comparable to demanding that a media outlet not carry a story.
How about something comparable to screaming racist at the drop of a hat?
How about the relative scrutiny of Palin and Obama?
Anything comparable to the "it was her grandchild" or "she molests teenage boys"?
Oh yes, some folks keep asking about Ayers and the Annenberg project - that's "hardball"....
ken anthony wrote:
Like the Biden rally I saw on the tube the other day. The camera kept so tight on just the surrounding stage that I knew nobody must have shown up. The media is so in the tank for these guys. With the supporters and apologists having not the least sense of proportion, perspective or morals.
Habitat Hermit wrote:
Ok Bob so according to your interpretation of things they're pretty much all polite.
Yet you wrote: "You can be assured that if there was a "Polite Democratic Party" and a "Hardball Democratic Party", I would vote for the polite guys. (They would probably lose, but I'd vote for them anyway.)"
Hey wait the top DP contenders are all polite according to you so where is your "Hardball Democratic Party"? You know, the ones who don't lose?
If your a genuine person Bob (and I think you are) then you've got my genuine sympathy because by now your brain ought to genuinely hurt.
Bob wrote:
Dear Mr. H. Hermit,
I don't follow your logic. I'm not sure I should invite further explanation from you, because I have no desire for my brain to hurt. But I am indeed genuine, so I'll press on.
I said that the hardball party was hypothetical, but to the extent that voters want to choose between polite or hardball behavior, they can do so during the primaries.
I ponted out that Clinton mischaracterized Obama's position so insistently and so repeatedly that voters may have found that reason enough to change their support from Clinton to Obama. The general public was most exposed to this behavior by Clinton in one of the debates. I then pointed out two examples of Obama being a gentleman during the debates.
My guess is that you're referring to something else entirely.
Yours Genuinely,
Bob
Habitat Hermit wrote:
Hi dear ^_^ (sorry couldn't resist --all in good fun, blame British influence if you must).
Ok ok so you're saying the "Hardballs" were fictional yet Hillary Clinton was one of them?
I'm referring to how you're contradicting yourself and while I hope your head doesn't hurt I'm getting slightly worried why it isn't hurting ^_^ (please don't read too much snark into that, divide it by two or something).
Bob wrote:
HH,
As you know, the degree to which someone plays hardball comes along a continuum. First I was suggesting two hypothetical parties, to make the choice stark. But real politicians in the united states have not formed such parties, so we must look for patterns in their behavior. (And we must also decide the degree to which ideology is more important than politeness. Since ideology is usually more important, I suggested paying attention to politeness in the primaries, where ideological differencs are fewer. I also said the differences are also more noticeable at the local level because politicians are less professional there, and their real character is often more apparent, but since you're looking at this from overseas, I picked politicians you're familiar with, and of those, I think Obama plays a more polite sort of politics than Clinton. I hope this makes sense now.
Habitat Hermit wrote:
Thank you that was clarifying however we've come full circle now and I still don't see just why you think Obama is in fact more polite than Clinton or anyone else.
I guess we see things far too differently. Sure he started out all "holy" and refreshing (I gave him the benefit of the doubt and preferred him to Clinton on the Democrat side for a good while) but his campaign degenerated and kept degenerating far below the "normal" level of mud-slinging everyone is so used to seeing in US politics. Maybe he truly was "innocent" at some point and it's his campaign and core supporters dragging him down to such depths but the difference is nonexistent at this point because he has hardly struggled against it happening. He has barely spoken out against some of the worst stuff and is on the record encouraging other parts.
Such an old story: self-asserted good intentions spurned effortlessly by bland reality and turned into justifying increasingly worse excesses from continued denial, making it all increasingly harder to admit to and stop.
I know there are worse historic examples but I've personally never seen the like of it before in the US or anywhere else in comparably democratic systems (not even the ever-ongoing "ousted by sodomy charges" political assassination in Malaysia comes close).
Anyway we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thank you for your time.
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on September 22, 2008 6:15 AM.
What Would Moses Do? Let my people go...
Rand, a protest agasint the Iranian regime by Iranians in Tehran would have had meaning, but a protest against the Iranian regime in America by American Jews wasn't worth the protesters time. If you consider the protest againt Iran essentially meaningless, the whole beaten wife analogy falls apart. Jews who already favor democrats aren't going to be offended if Palin isn't given a leg up. Jews who favor democrats would have to either just be completely appalled by the tactics, or by outcome. The tactics are par for the course, and despite the exageration, they were hardly Mafia-style - no legs were ever going to be broken, no lives were ever going to be destroyed. The outcome was fine by me: Palin wasn't given a foreign policy platform that even a foreign policy novice couldn't screw up, and the Iranian regime was given the raspberry, for all the good that's going to do. As a Democrat who happens to be Jewish, I don't feel the least bit like a beaten spouse. Why should I?
There is also the weird presumption by all concerned that Iran is a Jewish problem, as if Israel's problems only concern Jews, and as if any two countries engaging in a nucelar war isn't a world-wide problem, but that's an off-topic matter.
So, Bob, you see no thuggery involved in threatening a non-profit's IRS status? You're completely OK with that?
Lets put it this way: I don't have any special sympathy for the organizations in question, just because I'm Jewish. Jews are decentralized. Naturallly, organizations pop-up, but there is no presumption on my part that they are going to get it right. I'll be outraged if they are discriminated against because their membership is Jewish, but otherwise, I'm not especially interested in them.
I don't know much about the rules regarding non-profits, but I gather that the deal is that they stay out of politics. If so, then sure, having one of the only four people running for national office at an event so close to the election does indeed sound political, and whatever rules that pertain should apply. I don't really see the thuggery in pointing out the rules. But lets imagine non-violent political dirty-tricks did take place. My team would be the thugs, not the victims. Maybe that's my whole point: if the protest is meaningless for the Jews as a whole, then Jewish Democrats root for the Democrats, not some particular group of Jews who are in some random Jewish organization.
I'll take that as a long-winded "yes."
You have no problem with Democrats telling a Jewish (or any other, for that matter) group, "Nice little non-profit you have here...shame if anything were to happen to it..."
I also see that your party identification trumps all (not just your Judaism, but common decency). You apparently didn't read Roger Simon's piece.
One other thought. "First they came for the Jews..."
Of course I read Simon's piece. He puts great stock in the meaningfulness of the protest. I don't. He (Of course I think Iran's nuclear program should be stopped, but a protest by Jews in America won't do it - it is just domestic politics.) If the protest is meaningless, then the Jews weren't hurt (or at least, all those who believe Iran presents a threat, Jewish or otherwise, weren't hurt.)
I have no interest associating with thugs. I don't see any thuggery here.
But my central point remains: if the protest is meaningless, the typical Jewish Democrat is not a beaten spouse. This is true whether or not thuggery occurred.
I'm (sort of) in awe at your ability to rationalize your party's willingness to exercise brute force over principle. It's a reason that I left it long ago, but you seem impervious to it.
Bob, I think we have a winner for how much wrong you can get in one post.
...a protest against the Iranian regime in America by American Jews wasn't worth the protesters time.
That's pure opinion not shared by thousands of Jews in NYC.
>If you consider the protest againt Iran essentially meaningless, the whole beaten wife analogy falls apart.
Since obvious everybody involved considered it meaningful since they went to such lengths to stop it (why bother if it isn't meaningful?) you might want to take a second look at that analogy.
Jews who already favor democrats aren't going to be offended if Palin isn't given a leg up.
You say. Here's what they say...
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/palin-snub-rocks-jewish-community-and-the-presidential-race/
Jews who favor democrats would have to either just be completely appalled by the tactics...
They are. You have to read the link Bob.
...or by outcome.
That too.
The tactics are par for the course
For democrats that would be true. Others having honor sometimes assume the other side has it too. That's an assumption they have to wake up from and actively address.
...and despite the exageration, they were hardly Mafia-style - no legs were ever going to be broken, no lives were ever going to be destroyed.
WOW. This shows a level of ignorance that's hard to imagine. Do you know anything about the mafia? I was born in Brooklyn. I have mafia in my family. When you have respect, which in their neighborhoods they do, all it takes is a word. The mafia is not interested in destroying lives. They are interested mainly in their own families and financial security. They are a lot more subtle than the democrats. They aren't seeking power, they already have it.
The outcome was fine by me: Palin wasn't given a foreign policy platform that even a foreign policy novice couldn't screw up
Typical unscrupulous worm. The ends justifies the means.
As a Democrat who happens to be Jewish, I don't feel the least bit like a beaten spouse.
That's because you're a democrat first. Many Jews worked with Hitler to exterminate other Jews. How's it feel to be a modern member of that gang?
Why should I?
Decency, which you apparently don't have a shred of.
There is also the weird presumption by all concerned that Iran is a Jewish problem
So nuking them off the face of the Earth is not a Jewish problem?
...as if Israel's problems only concern Jews, and as if any two countries engaging in a nucelar war isn't a world-wide problem
Straw-man.
...but that's an off-topic matter
So, you set up a straw-man and it's too tough to knock down. That's worth a laugh.
Too bad you won't give any of this the thought it deserves. (That's the straight line, I'm setting you up for the punch line.) Go ahead, make my day.
Sigh. You can be assured that if there was a "Polite Democratic Party" and a "Hardball Democratic Party", I would vote for the polite guys. (They would probably lose, but I'd vote for them anyway.)
Please note that there are two different issues here.
Issue 1) There was or was not thuggery that Bob supports
Issue 2) Jews are or are not foolish vicitms.
Regarding Issue 1: In the story of why Palin was disinvited, it sounds to me like rules were cited. That's not thuggery. If you're interested in explaining why it was thuggery, I'll listen, of course.
I'm more interested in the issue 2: whether Jews are fools, as one of your commenters said in response to your "Thuggery" post; and whether Jews are beaten spouses, as you are arguing. I can't make you listen to me, of course, but I tried to show, above, why Jews are not fools or victims. You're not presenting arguments to the contrary, so I'm not sure what else to say, but I bet I haven't changed your mind on the beaten spouse analogy, and I'm not sure why not.
I'm curious if anyone thinks Obama won't throw Israel under the bus? Look at his "foreign policy" team. He's had to toss 2 already for their Israel positions, Malley and Power. His current main advisor, Kurtzer, called Palestinian terrorists "guerillas" and blames Israel's response to terrorism for making it worse and this guy was an Ambassador to Israel. Imagine that, it's your fault for defending yourself. If I was jewish and saw how anti-Israel his foreign policy advisors are, I would wonder how long before that spilled into domestic policy.
In the story of why Palin was disinvited, it sounds to me like rules were cited.
It's called spin Bob. It is incredibly awe inspiring that you refuse to see the thuggery involved.
I tried to show, above, why Jews are not fools or victims. You're not presenting arguments to the contrary
Your argument is that the protest is meaningless.
I did present a counter argument... if meaningless, why the thuggery?
Others have made another counter argument: that it's meaningful because it sends one of two messages... American are united or not regarding Iran's ambitions. If not united, this may puff up Iran to act on their bluster. Acting could mean firing nuclear missiles at Israel. Even if connecting these dots is a long shot, the result is so extreme that even a little possible alteration to Iran's course may be meaningful. Even if the protest has no direct influence on Iran, it might influence other that do have an influence on Iran.
This is an example of soft power, like sanctions and such. We might both agree that soft power will have no effect on Iran.
If you are 100% certain that soft power will have no effect, you are gambling with other peoples lives. You do not have that right; although you do have the right to believe any idiotic thing you like even when thousands of others see things 180 degrees apart from your view. Yes, they could all be wrong.
If you continue to claim no thuggery involved, then you and your argument are irrelevant. Others will and do get the point.
If you think this is just some kind of mental exercise, you are morally bankrupt and an ally to the thugs.
Take your pick, but your choice may be irrelevant.
Ken, My comment was addressed to Rand. When I wrote it, Rand and I were going back and forth, and I hadn't seen your comment yet.
On the protest itself: The protest is meaningless because there is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind, here or abroad, about the United State's stance toward the Iranian regime. There is no doubt that we find an Iranian nuclear weapon unacceptable. This stance has clearly been expressed by both presidential candidates, as well by President Bush, and by large majorities in Congress. The whole thing reminds me of a Soveit-era joke: The American guy says "We are free to protest American policy", and the KGB guy says "We too are free to protest American policy". Americans protesting against a visit by the Iranian leader is about as meaningless as Soviets protesting in red square about the US. In a different thread, I recently mentioned how I thought taking to the streets to protest was usually pretty worthless, except in extraordinary circumstances like the Velvet Revolution in 1989 (or the Russian coup in 1991). Marching around in the US saying "stop the war, stop the killing" seems pretty worthless compared to other political activities (like writing to a congressman or working on an election), and at least protesting the war in Iraq is protesting against US policy. Protesting in support of US policy really seems like a waste of breath.
Dismissing the importance of the protest is very different from dismissing the importance of Iran. So no need to lecture me on Iran or say that I'm a modern-day Hitler sympathizer. The protest was just an exercise in domestic politics, and the organizers got called on it.
I don't think Iran is a Jewish Issue. I think it is a world issue. If Iran uses a nucelar weapon against Israel, there will be world-wide consequences. The United States has an appropriate policy which recognizes that.
On the so-called thuggery: I'm saying that the thuggery is simply a case of one party citing the rules to another party. Obviously, rules will be interpreted differently by different parties, and in such cases, a judge will decide. It all sounds quite civilized to me.
On the Mafia: Ken, you comment about the Mafia left me confused. You said that Mafia members need only say a word, they needn't actually break bones. What's the relevance of this to our conversation?
On Jews who are Democrats: Rand says that Jews who are Democrats are like abused spouses. I'm saying that there was no harm to the Jewish people here, just some legal civilized domestic politics.
Ken, just a quick clarification. I asked what relevance your comment about the mafia had to the conversation, but I suppose you could ask the same question of me!
My reference to the Mafia was in response to a quote in Rand's "Thuggery" post. Rand noted that Meryl Yourish said "That's not a political party pressuring groups to do something. That's outright break-your-kneecap, Mafia-style blackmail threats." (See Rand's post for the greater context). So, while I am quite ignorant of the Mafia, no need to castigate me - I was referring to Merl Yourish's comment, as passed on by Rand.
So the Democrats refuse to appear with Palin, cite their absence as the reason it is now political and then threaten the sponsors if they go ahead with only one party represented. Sounds like Democrats to me. Blame someone else for their own stupidity and threaten others to go along.
Bob,
I do apologize in case I've crossed any lines. Being both of Swedish and Italian descent the blood tends to run both hot and cold. Understand that intentionally or not, you've pushed some buttons that really piss me off.
the protest is meaningless
So if you are wrong about this you have an invalid argument. The points you've chosen to support this premise may all be true. By ignoring addition points that disprove this argument you leave us with an impression.
When you deny any thuggery is involve you reinforce that impression ten fold.
That impression is very uncomplementary to you. I don't want to list the possibilities because I've done enough bashing and I'm not really in a beat up Bob mood. You did however ask me one direct question and I'd like to respectfully answer it.
On the Mafia: Ken, you comment about the Mafia left me confused. You said that Mafia members need only say a word, they needn't actually break bones. What's the relevance of this to our conversation?
The relevance is because the dems actions have been compared to a mafia action and this is fair and accurate as far as it goes.
The accusation has been made (and the truthfulness well supported) that a threat of tax exemption revocation was used as an arm twisting tactic. This isn't just a harmless discussion of rules. This is arm twisting. Note that arm twisting doesn't mean actually twisting of anybodies arm!!!
The relevance is I've personally witnessed the mafia version of arm twisting. Again, this did not involve any actual arm.
Now if you had ever had this type of pressure apply to you, there would be no doubt in your mind what-so-ever that you were dealing with dangerous thugs. It would be undeniable.
But here you are denying that it happened to others.
> Sigh. You can be assured that if there was a "Polite Democratic Party" and a "Hardball Democratic Party", I would vote for the polite guys.
But, since there isn't, you'll vote for the hardball Dems.
The polite dems have the interesting property that they'll occasionally tut-tut the hardball dems, but when it matters, they support. There isn't a principle that they won't abandon to suck up to the hardball dems. They proudly wear the label "useful idiot".
If you don't mind a moment of levity, the New York Times, which has come in for a lot of criticism on this blog, ran a story on this controversy, and the article took a rather lighthearted approach. Just the first three sentences are enough for you to appreciate the style of the article:
"Once a year, the Israel-threatening, Holocaust-denying, nuke-building and child-hanging president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, comes to New York for the opening ceremonies of the United Nations General Assembly.
"Many New Yorkers don’t like having him around. But they have no choice. Foreign leaders must be allowed to attend these sessions, no matter how Israel-threatening, Holocaust-denying, nuke-building and child-hanging they may be."
The whole article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/nyregion/23nyc.html?ref=nyregion
New York Times haters will appreciate how the arm-twisting thuggery is covered. :-)
I'm sorry, and this relationship (jews and the democrats) differs from fiscal conservatives and the Republican party how exactly?
One could argue that perhaps the later is more sado-masochistic but it's still dysfunctional.
Daveon, at the risk of dulling your sharp-witted snark, I'd like to point out that Jews who vote for the Democrafts, in general, don't have a disfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party. This latest flap is not the deal breaker that the Republicans (and Rand) wish it was, since primarily it was Jewish Republicans who got upset.
Yes, the Republicans use the fiscal conservatives to build majorities, and then betray them, and then the fiscal conservatives come back for more. But no analogous betrayal happens to Jewish Democrats.
Are you responding to Andy? The proper response to Andy is to quote from the UK's greatest work of art, the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy trilogy, whose fourth book, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish, explained everything Andy needs to know: We vote for a lizard so that the wrong lizard won't get in.
Seriously: I don't think either party has acted against the interests of Jewish Americans, insofar as specific universal interests can be identified.
bob said, " seriously: i don't think either party has acted against the interests of Jewish Americans, insofar as specific universal interests can be identified." wtf does that mean?
How about community specific interests? When I was in crown heights bklyn. a few years back I heard hundreds of people shouting about the injustices done by the Hassidim against others. I even witnessed the bloodletting of Jews that coincidently followed.
You're right, there were no specific universal interests involved. I might hasten to add that such successful community organizing by myself helped paved the way for me to be onstage to participate in the debates that would decide who was to be standard bearer of the democrat party in their pursuit of the White House.
Once again Andy, my thoughts exactly. If one is willing to support the heavy handed Democrats eventhough they claim preference to polite Democrats, then why would the heavy handed Democrats change their tactics?
Bob wrote:
On the protest itself: The protest is meaningless because there is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind, here or abroad, about the United State's stance toward the Iranian regime. There is no doubt that we find an Iranian nuclear weapon unacceptable.
That there is "absolutely no doubt" is your assertion, not a fact. It is a fact that many people disagree with you on this point, else why have a rally.
If we really find the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapon unacceptable, why have we taken no effective measures to stop it? The answer is that many members of the American policy establishment, not all but primarily Democrats, are quite prepared to accept Iranian nukes. That's the point. That's the main reason to have a rally.
The answer to your question is "primaries". That's when you support the polite guy. But now we're in the general election. Pointing out that a non-profit might have to obey the law regarding the IRS is not sufficiently hardball to make most people switch political parties, since most people pick their party on the basis of a political ideology, not a preference for polite tactics.
Fran Porretto has today an apropos quote from Friedrich Hayek, on the very subject of people who espouse the kind of things Bob is espousing. It's long, so I'll excerpt only a bit of it.
Where there is one common overriding end, there is no room for any general morals or rules. To a limited extent we ourselves experience this in wartime....But where a few specific ends dominate the whole of society, it is inevitable that occasional cruelty may become a duty; that acts which revolt all our feelings, such as the shooting of hostages or the killing of the old or sick, should be treated as mere matters of expediency; that the compulsory uprooting and transportation of hundreds of thousands should become an instrument of policy approved by almost everybody except the victims; or that suggestions like that of a "conscription of woman for breeding purposes" can be seriously contemplated. There is always in the eyes of a collectivist a greater goal which these acts serve, and which to him justifies them because to him the pursuit of a common end of society can know no limits in any rights or values of any individual.
"Useful idiot" is indeed the right appellation. You see, Bob, what you are saying is not new or uncommon. Throughout human history and society, the vast majority of people want to go along with what seems to them to be the highest attainable ideal. They want human behavior to be nice, orderly, and aimed to a common end. They want community.
It is just that, throughout history, every experience with the attempt to build a single community of a large and diverse population has always driven the immoral and power-hungry to the top, using the amoral and hate-filled as their thugs to force the rest into line with the "proper" direction of society and community. And if a few million have to be killed to that end, well, that's a shame, but omelets require broken eggs, yes? What hath Rousseau wrought, in all his adherents' manifestations, other then death, destruction, waste, misery and barbarity?
You seem decent, Bob, and there is still time to turn away from this communitarian impulse. Knowing where that road leads (and if you don't, you really should read Hayek), is it really where you want to go?
> The answer to your question is "primaries".
Actually, it isn't.
In the primaries, the hardball dems tend to win. When a polite dem happens to get elected, he then gets rolled in office by hardball dems.
Who was the polite one(s) in the DP primaries? And how/why is that particular one deemed more polite?
HH,
This sort of choice happens more often on the local level, but in the presidential primaries: Clinton micharacterized, over and over, Obama's statements on Ronald Reagan. It may not have been wise for voters to switch from Clinton to Obama on that basis alone, but since the two candidates had very similar position on all the important issues anyway, people could punish Clinton and reward Obama. Obama wasn't an angel, but I think Clinton ran a less truthful campaign, and perhaps it hurt her campaign.
The most polite moment in the Democratic primary came when the moderator in the Iowa debate questioned Biden's record on race relations. Biden defended himself, but was put in an awkward position. Obama jumped in, and said that he wanted to add that Biden was beyond reproach on racial issues. Clinton then jumped in and exclaimed, in a very senatorial way, "hear hear!" Of course, there is room for cynicism here, but later this was cited as one of the most memorable and moving moments in all of the debates.
There is also the story of Obama helping Richardson when Richardson spaced out during a debate and didn't pay attention to a question. Obama whispered a helpful hint to Richardson, who later told that story in his endorsement of Obama. If the story is true, I think there is no room for cynicism on this one.
The comical thing about this thread is that I believe many readers here actually think that the Democrats are somehow different from the Republicans with respect to political hardball. It would change the topic if I started listing examples of Republican hardball, lies, and dirty tricks, but it is funny to think that Republicans are innocent or even less guilty. (Truthfully, I feel they are worse, but I'm very skeptical of my feelings, because I'm a partisan.) It is also amusing to think that telling someone they are going to have to pay attention to tax codes and obey the law is example of hardball.
The outcome was fine by me: Palin wasn't given a foreign policy platform that even a foreign policy novice couldn't screw up
The outcome was fine by you?
That's all it boils down to. The ends justifies the means is morally bankrupt. She's been smeared, but you're down with that. You're defending an indefensible position and you're down with that.
There is no rule that says a politician can't speak at these rallies, they've been doing it for years. It's only political because a popular republican vp candidate was invited and you're down with that. You'd be down with the media having a total blackout on any positive coverage of the governor. Along with a total blackout of anything negative about your guy.
Because you support the results.
Truth is an acceptable casualty and your down with that. Because you support the results.
I am absolutely, totally disgusted.
You lose Bob...
http://stopahmadinejadrally.wordpress.com/
> The comical thing about this thread is that I believe many readers here actually think that the Democrats are somehow different from the Republicans with respect to political hardball.
Feel free to provide an example comparable to demanding that a media outlet not carry a story.
How about something comparable to screaming racist at the drop of a hat?
How about the relative scrutiny of Palin and Obama?
Anything comparable to the "it was her grandchild" or "she molests teenage boys"?
Oh yes, some folks keep asking about Ayers and the Annenberg project - that's "hardball"....
Like the Biden rally I saw on the tube the other day. The camera kept so tight on just the surrounding stage that I knew nobody must have shown up. The media is so in the tank for these guys. With the supporters and apologists having not the least sense of proportion, perspective or morals.
Ok Bob so according to your interpretation of things they're pretty much all polite.
Yet you wrote:
"You can be assured that if there was a "Polite Democratic Party" and a "Hardball Democratic Party", I would vote for the polite guys. (They would probably lose, but I'd vote for them anyway.)"
Hey wait the top DP contenders are all polite according to you so where is your "Hardball Democratic Party"? You know, the ones who don't lose?
If your a genuine person Bob (and I think you are) then you've got my genuine sympathy because by now your brain ought to genuinely hurt.
Dear Mr. H. Hermit,
I don't follow your logic. I'm not sure I should invite further explanation from you, because I have no desire for my brain to hurt. But I am indeed genuine, so I'll press on.
I said that the hardball party was hypothetical, but to the extent that voters want to choose between polite or hardball behavior, they can do so during the primaries.
I ponted out that Clinton mischaracterized Obama's position so insistently and so repeatedly that voters may have found that reason enough to change their support from Clinton to Obama. The general public was most exposed to this behavior by Clinton in one of the debates. I then pointed out two examples of Obama being a gentleman during the debates.
My guess is that you're referring to something else entirely.
Yours Genuinely,
Bob
Hi dear ^_^ (sorry couldn't resist --all in good fun, blame British influence if you must).
Ok ok so you're saying the "Hardballs" were fictional yet Hillary Clinton was one of them?
I'm referring to how you're contradicting yourself and while I hope your head doesn't hurt I'm getting slightly worried why it isn't hurting ^_^ (please don't read too much snark into that, divide it by two or something).
HH,
As you know, the degree to which someone plays hardball comes along a continuum. First I was suggesting two hypothetical parties, to make the choice stark. But real politicians in the united states have not formed such parties, so we must look for patterns in their behavior. (And we must also decide the degree to which ideology is more important than politeness. Since ideology is usually more important, I suggested paying attention to politeness in the primaries, where ideological differencs are fewer. I also said the differences are also more noticeable at the local level because politicians are less professional there, and their real character is often more apparent, but since you're looking at this from overseas, I picked politicians you're familiar with, and of those, I think Obama plays a more polite sort of politics than Clinton. I hope this makes sense now.
Thank you that was clarifying however we've come full circle now and I still don't see just why you think Obama is in fact more polite than Clinton or anyone else.
I guess we see things far too differently. Sure he started out all "holy" and refreshing (I gave him the benefit of the doubt and preferred him to Clinton on the Democrat side for a good while) but his campaign degenerated and kept degenerating far below the "normal" level of mud-slinging everyone is so used to seeing in US politics. Maybe he truly was "innocent" at some point and it's his campaign and core supporters dragging him down to such depths but the difference is nonexistent at this point because he has hardly struggled against it happening. He has barely spoken out against some of the worst stuff and is on the record encouraging other parts.
Such an old story: self-asserted good intentions spurned effortlessly by bland reality and turned into justifying increasingly worse excesses from continued denial, making it all increasingly harder to admit to and stop.
I know there are worse historic examples but I've personally never seen the like of it before in the US or anywhere else in comparably democratic systems (not even the ever-ongoing "ousted by sodomy charges" political assassination in Malaysia comes close).
Anyway we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thank you for your time.