The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘Whose Bright Idea Was It to Send Joe Biden Out to Talk About Egypt?’

Posted on | January 28, 2011 | 45 Comments

Question of the day, asked by Blake Hounshell of Foreign Policy in response to the latest eruption of Bidenism.

“Asked if he would characterize Mubarak as a dictator Biden responded: ‘Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with — with Israel. … I would not refer to him as a dictator.’ “

Remember how in 2008 we were told that Biden was such a brilliant choice as running mate and that Obama would benefit enormously from this guy’s vast experience in foreign policy?

“I can see Cairo from my house!”

Tobin Harshaw at the New York Times rounds up a number of blog reactions to the Egyptian situation, including Donald Douglas at American Power saying “this administration is the unrivaled champion of reactionary forces in the Middle East.” In regard to Egypt, I’m not entirely sure that “reactionary forces” are the worst to be feared, or whether the protesters in the streets are less “reactionary” than Mubarak’s regime. Thursday night, I voiced a note of Burkean caution toward the incipient Egyptian revolution, which will not help anyone — not the Egyptians, not the cause of Middle East peace, and certainly not the United States — if it ends up empowering Islamist radicals.

Israel reportedly is worried about “regime change” in Egypt, and I think rightly so. Yet what is better for Israel: A corrupt authoritarian regime in Egypt constantly struggling to suppress an outlaw terrorist subculture or that terrorist subculture seizing power in Egypt and declaring itself an open enemy of Israel? I trust if the latter scenario were to play out, the Israeli military would prove itself abundantly capable of meeting any attack that an Islamist Egyptian regime might make. So having the Egyptian radicals seize power might actually make matters simpler for Israel, militarily and diplomatically.

Meanwhile, much of the media commentary is less focused on what the unrest in Cairo means for Egyptians or Israelis than what it means for the prestige of the Obama administration. “Never let a crisis go to waste,” et cetera, and the administration’s sycophants in the press corps — which is to say, just about the entire press corps — seem to be interested primarily in whether the Egyptian crisis will offer them the opportunity to credit the president with a foreign-policy success.

The administration, it appears, is trying to have it both ways so as to be able to claim victory whether Mubarak maintains power or is overthrown. Thus the facing-both-ways caution of Robert Gibbs’s Friday press conference. As I said on Twitter, “If this was 1939, Gibbs would condemn violence on both sides of Germany-Poland conflict.”

UPDATE: Sharif Mansour says Friday’s protests demonstrate that Mubarak is doomed:

If the administration is smart, it will see the writing on the wall and realize that the old order in Egypt, and conceivably the rest of the Middle East, is gone forever. When the smoke clears, Washington will want to be on the right side of history. The United States must now withdraw its support, both financial and symbolic, from the Mubarak regime and avoid any further ties to its oppression.

Arguments based on being “on the right side of history” don’t necessarily persuade a Burkean. Weren’t the Soviets supposed to be “on the right side of history”?

Does the situation in Egypt evoke the distinctions Jeanne Kirkpatrick famously made in “Dictatorships & Double Standards”? If, as we are told, radical Islam is an existential threat comparable to Soviet communism, and if Mubarak has been a valuable U.S. ally in the fight against radicaL Islam, is it not in our interest to support him? But those two “ifs” represent hypotheticals that I don’t have the expertise to address.

What is certain is that the administration cannot vacillate forever. It must either decide to support Mubarak or else decide to support the Egyptian uprising. Eliot Abrams sees the uprising as vindication of Bush’s advocacy of democracy in the Middle East:

Ruling under an endless emergency law, [Mubarak] has crushed the moderate opposition while the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood has thrived underground and in the mosques. Mubarak in effect created a two-party system – his ruling National Democratic Party and the Brotherhood – and then defended the lack of democracy by saying a free election would bring the Islamists to power. . . .
[W]e do know for sure that regimes that make moderate politics impossible make extremism far more likely.

Abrams thus argues that it is Mubarak’s repression that has spurred the growth of jihadist radicalism in Egypt, which may well be true, but that doesn’t mean that ending the repression will eliminate the danger. Nevertheless, if Republicans like Abrams are making the argument against Mubarak, that makes Obama’s choice easier: Side with the Cairo protesters and tout this stance as an example of bipartisan consensus.

Of course, the “bipartisan consensus” will only last as long as the policy is successful. If Obama throws Mubarak under the bus and then Egypt descends into anarchy Somalia-style, the president won’t escape blame by saying, “But Eliot Abrams told me it was OK!”

UPDATE II: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

UPDATE III: Thanks to Reaganite Republicanan for calling attention to this interview with John Bolton: “It is not inevitable that street demonstrations lead to Jeffersonian democracy.”

UPDATE IV: The Lonely Conservative notes that Iran’s state-run media are celebrating the Egyptian uprising, a fact that would tend to reinforce Bolton’s concerns. If the mullahs in Tehran think these Cairo riots are a good idea . . .

UPDATE V: Allahpundit on the risk that democracy in Egypt might bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power: “After 9/11 and the Iranian revolution in ’79, how could any American president gamble on backing reforms that might produce a net outcome that’s more Islamist? It’s political suicide.”

Linked by Don Surber, who calls Biden “a dunderhead who cannot tell a dictator from Tater Tot,” and now a Memeorandum thread.

Category: American Power, Egypt, Israel, Joe Biden, New York Times

A Keith Olbermann ‘Sir’-Mon

Posted on | January 28, 2011 | 4 Comments

“During the run of the show, Olbermann delivered about 65 ‘Special Comments’ . . . Announced in advance, and written by Olbermann himself, each consisted of a bellowing, pseudo-intellectual rant peppered with historical references, quotes and dripping with excessive adverbs and moral vanity.
“The oft-parodied format . . . is most recognized for its generous use of the indignant salutation, ‘You, sir!’ which Olbermann used an impressive 173 times, according to transcripts, an average of almost three per essay. Olbermann usually used the words to address President Bush or Dick Cheney, in anger. The number of ‘sirs’ per comment is a pretty good gauge of the rage Olbermann felt toward a particular figure.”
— Mary Katharine Ham, The Daily Caller

Via Instapundit.

Category: MSNBC, Video

‘Civility,’ Unless It’s Sarah Palin

Posted on | January 28, 2011 | 52 Comments

“Yo, let me tell you something about Sarah Palin, man. She’s good masturbation material. Glasses and all of that — great masturbation material.”
— Tracy Morgan, TNT, Inside the NBA

You can’t make this stuff up, nor can you explain it. At Salon.com, Ethan Sherwood Strauss flounders around with an attempted intellectualization:

It takes a certain social judgment to grasp that our TV mores accept the vague objectification of famous women, but not the explicit stating of how this objectification manifests. Of course, Tracy might have known better, and cared less.
In non-televised life, I’ve heard many guys say exactly what Morgan said. And it’s undeniable that Palin is fetishized in conservative circles and that this fetishization gives her a certain political cachet. But, we’re a Puritanical culture, replete with public euphemisms. We also have modern gender sensitivities that I wouldn’t dismiss as mere “political correctness.”

This completely misses the point, although I must confess to being somewhat shocked to hear a writer for Salon proclaim that among his acquaintances it is commonplace to “say exactly what Morgan said.”

No, Mr. Strauss, what happened here was not about “the vague objectification of famous women,” nor was it about our “Puritanical culture” or “modern gender sensitivities.” Rather, what happened is the result of Tracy Morgan correctly reading signals from the liberal commissars of pop culture who have decided that Sarah Palin is the demonized Other, about whom it is permissible to say anything at all, except praise.

Remember when a reporter moved in next door to the Palin family and no liberal objected? Remember when Palin was blamed for the Tucson shooting and no liberal objected? Remember when Janeane Garofalo called Palin “small-minded and mean-spirited“? Remember what Kathy Griffin said about how Palin got the 2008 vice-presidential nomination? “That must have been some blow job.”

Liberals never raised any objections to any of that, because they fear Palin as a threat to Obama’s popularity. Sarah Palin has been made a latter-day Emmanuel Goldstein, except that her “Two-Minute Hate” has lasted more than two years.

Of course, TNT makes the perfunctory apology, but all of Tracy Morgan’s show-business friends will high-five him for those remarks. He will not lose any work as a result. He will not be made a pariah. The demonization of Sarah Palin has been made entirely acceptable by liberalism’s culture commissars, who declared open season on her in August 2008.

And yet they consider themselves the proper persons to lecture the rest of us about “civility.”

Category: Hollywood, Liberals, Sarah Palin

‘Happy New Year’ Spam Text Message Accidentally Blows Up Moscow Terrorist

Posted on | January 28, 2011 | 8 Comments

Innocent lives saved by spam:

The unnamed woman, who is thought to be part of the same group that struck Moscow’s Domodedovo airport on Monday, intended to detonate a suicide belt on a busy square near Red Square on New Year’s Eve in an attack that could have killed hundreds.
Security sources believe a spam message from her mobile phone operator wishing her a happy new year received just hours before the planned attack triggered her suicide belt, killing her but nobody else.
She was at her Moscow safe house at the time getting ready with two accomplices, both of whom survived and were seen fleeing the scene.

Hat-tip: HillBuzz.

Category: Russia, Terrorism

Palin Derangement Syndrome Prevents Bristol’s Appearance at University

Posted on | January 28, 2011 | 23 Comments

Nothing says “academic freedom” like kowtowing to a few hundred students who signed up for an anti-Palin Facebook page:

Anger over a decision to pay Bristol Palin several thousand dollars in student fees to talk to Washington University students about abstinence led to a decision Thursday night to nix Palin’s appearance on a panel here next month.
Washington University’s Student Health Advisory Committee had extended an invitation to Palin, a spokeswoman to prevent teen pregnancy, to speak on abstinence as part of the university’s Student Sexual Responsibility Week. . . .
A Facebook petition to compel the school to nix Palin’s appearance had hundreds of signatures Thursday evening. “It’s not necessarily in opposition to the ideas that are being presented,” explained Philip Thomas, the Washington U. student who initiated the petition. “People are getting so angry because of the opposition to Palin’s lack of expertise and the high cost she is charging,” especially in light of budget cuts that have adversely affected other student activities, he said.

Let us stipulate that, at any university in America, there are hundreds of students who would sign an anti-Palin petition. Washington University has 13,000 undergraduates. The student who organized the anti-Palin petition posted this last month at his blog:

The Economist on Dec. 9 2010 quotes Gallup polls that state that only 6% of scientists self-identify as Republican. It tickles me that, among those pursuing the systematic search for truth, so few align with Republican beliefs. Politically, the irrational actions of the GOP reinforce this poll quite clearly.

So a Democratic student organizes an anti-Palin petition and the university administration caves. What if there were “hundreds of signatures” on a student petition against a campus appearance by Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Al Gore or Barack Obama?

Why is it always Republican speakers whose speaking appearances are the objects of these hateful efforts to silence them?

So much for the “systematic search for truth,” eh?

(Via Memeorandum.)

Category: Bristol Palin, Education, Missouri, Sarah Palin

Get Pawlenty’s ‘Courage to Stand: An American Story’

Posted on | January 28, 2011 | 14 Comments

by Smitty
I didn’t write a novel, true, but I did just finished reading Tim Pawlenty’s book, and I must confess some mystification.
The book is a great read. Pawlenty comes off as a seasoned, sharp, dedicated leader. He reveals a deep faith, for the social conservatives. Believers in the Progressive Faith will call him ‘Huckabee Light’. The Romney fans will point out the lack of Northeast credentials. The Palin fans will attack a perceived charisma deficit. The Gingrich fan will look left and right, note the solitude, and point out that at least Newt had a title cribbed by the POTUS. WTF, indeed.
Past all that noise, Pawlenty’s book starts out as Minnesota Governor being handed a total crap sandwich of a budget from his predecessor, and doing the responsible thing despite massive opposition.
This is a prototype for the kind of yeoman work the next POTUS will have to do. The DFL is confined to Minnesota, but the Federal hydra will be an even tougher beast to fight. Some will say ‘Pawlenty who?’ and decry a lack of soaring rhetoric and charisma. Well, how has that worked out for us?  Success will come when we get past the Alinsky need to personalize everything. We don’t need a rock star, or an orator, or an entertainer. We need a competent, humble leader of the Pawlenty stripe.
I look forward to supporting Pawlenty, now that the current POTUS has kicked off the 2012 season. Pawlenty’s record answers the mail on virtually every point that the Left can bring up, with the exception of foreign policy. [Aside: pray for peace. The future seems less stable than ever.]
Tim Pawlenty totally merits consideration. Sarah fan though I am, the Left continues to pile up the negatives on her and poison the well. Sure, it’s intellectually dishonest, and we’ll support her as far as she decides to go, but there it is. The lying bastards who go on about ‘fairness’ are themselves the least fair of the lot. Did Shakespeare predict her coming triumph? I don’t think so, either, but maybe the Bard knew something we do not.
In contrasting Sarah to Tim, I’m deeply respectful of both people for their courageous stands in the face of dishonest opposition.  Pawlenty’s book recalled the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, and the media frenzy to connect conservative policy to the tragedy.  Maybe Sarah and Tim can flip a coin to see who occupies the upper portion of the ticket.

Oh, and just to pile on Stacy’s earlier post about Gentleman Jim Moran: watch out Moran, the conservatives are coming for you. I haven’t heard if Patrick Murray will run again or not, but VA-8 is ready to see the odious Moran retire.

Category: Election 2012, Minnesota

Who Is Michael Scherer?

Posted on | January 28, 2011 | 8 Comments

Among other things, Michael Scherer co-wrote the thoroughly dishonest Time magazine cover story claiming that Barack Obama admires Ronald Reagan.

In fact, Barack Obama despises Ronald Reagan and everything Reagan stood for, and so does Michael Scherer. You know who really admires Ronald Reagan? Sarah Palin. And so let’s look at what Michael Scherer thinks of Sarah Palin:

You get the drift: Michael Scherer wouldn’t vote for a Republican if you put a gun to his head — which is why he’s working for Time magazine, writing dishonest cover stories to help Democrats hijack Reagan’s centennial as an occasion to promote Obama.

UPDATE: “Sputnik Moment” for Sarah Palin: “I’m seeing up close how ‘Palin Derangement Syndrome’ can compel otherwise intelligent people to foam at the mouth and babble nonsense to prove they’re right and she’s wrong.” (Via Instapundit.)

Category: Media Bias, Republicans, Sarah Palin

In Desperation Move, Egyptian Regime Shuts Down Access to Iowahawk

Posted on | January 28, 2011 | 23 Comments

Also, the entire freaking Internet:

[I]n an action unprecedented in Internet history, the Egyptian government appears to have ordered service providers to shut down all international connections to the Internet. Critical European-Asian fiber-optic routes through Egypt appear to be unaffected for now. But every Egyptian provider, every business, bank, Internet cafe, website, school, embassy, and government office that relied on the big four Egyptian ISPs for their Internet connectivity is now cut off from the rest of the world.

No porn downloads for you! Also, no Perez Hilton, no Facebook friend requests from people you don’t actually know, and no YouTube comments from President Obama.

So, other than losing access to Iowahawk, it’s not so bad, eh?

UPDATE: The latest news:

The Egyptian capital Cairo was the scene of violent chaos Friday, when tens of thousands of anti-government protesters stoned and confronted police, who fired back with rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons.

Egyptians sure take their access to Iowahawk seriously, don’t they?

UPDATE II: Welcome, Instapundit readers!


Category: Egypt, Iowahawk
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin