Not a bigot… but a person who doesn’t care about bigotry & thinks bigots make some valid points regardless of context

Michael Tomasky takes on “hipsters” who like Ron Paul:

Hilariously, he said on CNN that King and Rosa Parks were heroes of his because they “practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience,” which meant that they were “trying to get the burden of government off their backs.” Putting aside the question of what exactly it is about civil disobedience that’s libertarian, it is quite true that King wanted Bull Connor off his back, but he rather strongly wanted the federal government to be the instrument of Connor’s removal. So even if Paul is not a racist, he is on this point a complete idiot or propagandist or both.

Meanwhile, Paul now says that his newsletters, having supposedly read them for the first time, contain only “a total of about 8 or 10 sentences” of “bad stuff.” He is on this point a propagandistic liar or a complete idiot about radicalism and racialism and various kinds of bigotry.

This lack of understanding of the dehumanizing and illiberal things put in the newspapers portrays a man not only unfit to lead this country, or any country, but unfit for the congressional seat he now holds.

And yet the Daily Dish continues to maintain that these newsletters were from “years ago” and represent the words of Lew Rockwell et al, a fact which Paul only needs to make explicit to regain Andrew Sullivan’s full-throated endorsement.

Even worse: Andrew is cynically suppressing the accounts of Ron Paul having read over all the newsletters as he made constant additions via fax machine, and the names of the former aids who can corroborate or deny this.

If he does allude to staff accounts, Andrew will have to acknowledge in conditionally backing Ron Paul, for the regaining of the “conservative soul” by the Republican Party, the Dish delibertely set aside the plausible allegations by former Ron Paul aid Eric Dondero–and the responsibility to fact check them–

(1) that Paul is against the United States entry into WW2 with the declaration of war against the Germans;

(2) that Paul wishes the Jewish state did not exist in the Middle East and thinks its absorption by Arab powers is sensible;

(3) that Paul believed the United States should not have struck back against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11 and caved into vote at the last minute

(4) that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Paul insisted on the strong possibility that the CIA committed the atrocity and not radical Islamists

(5) that it took the implicit threat of resignation by all his staff and the indignant urgings of his own family members for Paul to change his mind at the last minute and vote for military action in Afghanistan.

The author of The Conservative Soul, the defender of the conservative disposition as an important quality in politicians (to be lauded in Barack Obama), vouches for the usefulness of Ron Paul to modern conservatism and the American political landscape.  Andrew is a charlatan, whose political values are clay sculpted by his resentments.

Not a bigot… but a person who doesn’t care about bigotry & thinks bigots make some valid points regardless of context

Michael Tomasky takes on “hipsters” who like Ron Paul:

Hilariously, he said on CNN that King and Rosa Parks were heroes of his because they “practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience,” which meant that they were “trying to get the burden of government off their backs.” Putting aside the question of what exactly it is about civil disobedience that’s libertarian, it is quite true that King wanted Bull Connor off his back, but he rather strongly wanted the federal government to be the instrument of Connor’s removal. So even if Paul is not a racist, he is on this point a complete idiot or propagandist or both.

Quote of the Day

“The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim — frequently a victim of his own lifestyle — but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care.”  — Ron Paul

Hitchens on Orwell

LAMB: What did you like about George Orwell?

HITCHENS: Again, nothing so unconventional about it. I think he really would follow logic and honesty to their full conclusion. He would not be deflected by the fact that this might offend someone he knew or some cause with which he was associated or, more important, wouldn’t even discompose himself. In other words, he thought, okay, if I don’t like this conclusion, I’m still sticking with it if it’s been arrived at honorably.

It sounds like an easy thing to do or to say, but it’s actually very hard to live by and I think he really did live by it.

From a 1998 C-SPAN interview with Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is speaking of Orwell as one of his models for intellectual heroism. Orwell is the man whose quote the Dish misused or misread and then put on its masthead, to glean from Orwell’s reputation for intellectual heroism.

Quote of the day

No [other] Republican candidate could get even a handful of the under-30s to stand up and cheer them. — Andrew Sullivan, 12/17/11, on Ron Paul’s appearance on the Tonight Show

Dish judeoparanoia watch … plus, blog threats!

Today, in a post called Krauthammer Threatens, Andrew sees either a threat or a promised ultimatum from an American Jewish pundit, who must somehow be powerful or in-the-know with the Israeli military establishment:

Here’s a passage to make you stop in your tracks:

Everything is going to have a price. It is true that if we cut off Iran’s economy entirely or if we impose, as the Europeans, or some of the Europeans, are suggesting, an embargo on Iranian oil you might get an increase in the oil price. But think how the cost will pale compared to the cost of what is inevitably going to happen if nothing is done, which is an Israeli airstrike, which would cause the outbreak of a regional war, which could cause the closing of the Straits of Hormuz, which would cause a doubling of [oil] prices.

Does Krauthammer know something we don’t? Or is this some kind of blackmail message?

Or… maybe … is this the same analysis that many people all over the world, gentile and non-gentile (including perhaps Obama, in his behind-the-scenes diplomacy), are making regarding the power of sanctions and Israel’s fear that the United States won’t be able to get China and Russia, and some Western European countries, to condone the sanctions that could effectively stop a nuclear program and/or bring down a tyrannical regime?

Here’s Andrew condoning (– maybe putting it forward wistfully –) an actual threat, which seems to imply that Obama will work against Netanyahu’s leadership with some kind of negative stimulus toward Israel — from May 20, 2011:

Don’t push your luck, Bibi. Others have with Obama and they have learned that he is often more canny than they are with political jujitsu. Obama’s usual tactic: gently and subtly prompting his foes to self-destruct. I just hope that in this critical juncture in the Middle East, Netanyahu doesn’t take his country with him.

Now, Andrew has noted how people in the administration read his blog, and he has buttonholed them at times (as with the HIV ban), and he has spoken to Obama, who reached out to Andrew after he won the election to thank Andrew and promise not to give up with a reversal of Bush policy directions.  If people in the blogosphere asked whether Andrew “know[s] something we don’t? Or is this some kind of blackmail message?”, wouldn’t he accuse them of paranoia, and underscore the accusation with one of his favorite epithets to use when he diagnoses a form of mental illness in people who disagree with him? — “clinical.”

I should point out that Krauthaummer’s remarks which Andrew labels as a threat were made in a National-Review-magazine sponsored discussion panel … apparently an orthodox source of Israeli-sponsored ultimata to the United States, in Andrew’s mind.

Bizarre view of organizational responsibilities

Statement on Kathleen Peratis’ visit to Gaza

 by Lloyd Cotler

J Street strongly regrets the recent meetings by its Board member Kathleen Peratis with members of Hamas and the articles that she has written about her visit to Gaza.

An echo of past traumas

In a post called “The echo of past traumas” Andrew quotes a bit too selectively:

Israeli novelist David Grossman assesses the danger Netanyahu presents for Israel:

[Netanyahu] is so trapped within his paranoid way of seeing reality. Don’t get me wrong: there are dangers to Israel. We are surrounded by countries who are hostile to us, and until today most countries—not most, all Arab countries I can say—have not accepted our right to be here and they absolutely do not understand the deep affinity and belonging that we feel toward this country. So some of our fears are true and concrete. But Netanyahu is unable to distinguish between the real dangers and the echoes of his fears and the echoes of past traumas. This is not a leader who can change reality, who can generate a new reality. If he continues to act like this and to think like this, he can only doom us to repeat our tragedies and bring to life our worst fears.

Perhaps Grossman is right about Netanyahu’s tendencies, but its interesting in this context is that Sullivan wants to get across a certain point through Grossman, not represent his beliefs about the struggle between Netanyahu’s worldview and that of (various) Palestinians.

The interview is not focused on the “echo of past traumas”; it’s about a range of things. And directly attached to the ideas contained in Sullivan’s excerpt is this comment, just a few sentences away:

I must add that the performance of Mahmoud Abbas was not inspiring, to say the least. You saw here two leaders who really advocate anxieties and hostilities. Neither has the vision that would allow their people to transcend to a new way, to a new future.

So this post does seem to indicate the echo of past trauma — not a socio-cultural trauma, but one of a more personal nature.

Bloggerati watch

I don’t think Norm Geras would mind if I quote a brief post of his in its entirety:

November 06, 2011

Sharing your polity

The blogger who blogs at the Economist under the name ‘Democracy in America’ writes:

I find… that this whole issue keeps directing my attention back towards a fundamental problem: I have to share my polity with large numbers of silly people who are not equipped to make reasonable decisions about political issues. Even after Mr Cain loses the nomination, I must live with the awareness that the people who voted for him are out there, waiting to vote for some even more ridiculous clown down the line. I am aware that they feel the same way about me. However, they are wrong, and I am right. As evidence, I present the fact that they say they support Herman Cain for president. (Italics in the original.)

I wonder if he should change his blogging name to ‘Enlightened Oligarchy’ or some such, and then blog about the fecund principle ‘I am right’.

The blogger in question is, I believe, Matt Steinglass, whom the Dish has quoted, in his mode of glib, connate expertise.

Quote of the day

Only in Washington could such a half-baked, narcissistic, know-nothing blowhard be regarded as an intellectual. — Andrew Sullivan, 11/15/11, referring to Newt Gingrich