With the beginning of ground operations in Gaza, Israel has not only set itself a more immediately difficult military challenge, but also locked itself into a more ambitious mission over-all. The longer the IDF stays in Gaza, the more important it becomes that the end result of the operation be both dramatic and easily defined.
If after weeks of what the mainstream media has taken to calling a “bombardment” and a “pummeling” Israel can only claim that rocket launch pads have been temporarily degraded or that “many” munitions caches have been blown up, it will come out the loser of the public relations war — no matter how many fires rage in the Gaza skyline. Israel is the only country in the world that can be excoriated for its disproportionate response one day, and then immediately criticized for its military failure in the wake of this supposedly outsized and undeserved retaliation.
Israeli leadership needs Hamas to say, even disingenuously, “We give up.” Either that or the IDF needs to degrade Hamas leadership to the point of recognizable impotence. During the next days and weeks of fighting, international sympathies will take an even sharper turn in favor of Gazans. This is unavoidable, and Israel need not concern itself with the criticism that comes its way during operations. It matters not that Israel called innocent Gazans and urged them to leave in advance of the ground fighting or that it facilitated the exit of visitors to Gaza — the Jewish state might as well write off any hope of earning the world’s compassion. But sympathy constitutes the less important half of Israel’s PR goal. It is far more important to the country’s existence that Israelis preserve – in fact, reclaim – their reputation as the most formidable fighting force in the region. This is an attainable objective, but it will only be demonstrable when the smoke clears. And then, only with the showcasing of quantifiable evidence.
Just so all of this Obama tax and spending is “fair”, I propose we create a retro-tax on the income of the “rich” going back say 15 years, so that all the wealth and income they accumulated then comes into play. After all, fair is fair. Maybe Michelle can pony up a good part of the 300k plus salary she was earning at the hospital for being married to a US Senator. Considering that a fair amount of the “rich” were created in two bubble markets, the tech bubble and the housing bubble (which have led to the current economic downturn), it is only FAIR that they be asked to pay. Let the limousine liberals give it up.
I never liked Goldwater, and I always thought there was something creepy about him. His rise was more attributable to the clear cluelessness of the Rockerfeller wing of the party, than it was due to anything worth the while about him. A party so lost as to nominate him deserves to have its head handed to them, {just like a party so stupid as to nominate a McCain deserves a thrashing, and shouldn’t be surprised when its on the receiving end of one}.
Nor did Goldwater establish a template for Reagan. Reagan was his own man, and didn’t take or need a tutorial on Conservativism from a creature like Goldwater.
As for Frum, well he’s trying to reconcile the Grand Old Party to that which the party of Lincoln can’t possibly be reconciled to, not while remaining the party of Lincoln. Frum is diligent in his efforts to remake the party of Lincoln into the party of Stephen Douglas.
Dan, that’s an intriguing speculation about DF though for my money Kevin Phillips comes more to mind than Stephen Douglas. Trouble is, what kind of populism all but excludes Right to Lifers? Sometimes I think those WH Bible study groups left DF with a permanent grudge.
Mitt: ““That puts very much in question whether foreign investors are going to keep on lending Americans money by buying our Treasury bills, and perhaps if they don’t do that we could see a dramatic rise in interest rates and enormous economic challenges down the road. ”
But Gordon on this blog keeps assuring us that the Chinese just have to buy our bonds, they have no real choice in the matter. Which is it?
How about some basics? I get the impression that a major source of income for banks is interest. And if interest rates are low, their income from that source might be lower than it could be. So if there are loan defaults, then there is less interest income to offset those losses. Is that true or not? I can understand why low interest rates are good, I guess, but don’t they also lead to riskier investments that promise greater returns? Don’t larger amounts of available capital get diverted to less safe ventures when interest rates are lower? What would happen if the fed, instead of setting interest rates, made available a pool of funds of a certain size and made member banks bid on the money in terms of interest? Anything can be auctioned, why not money?
The main dynamic that elected LBJ in 1964 by such a margin was the reaction to JFK’s assassination.
“The Obama administration doesn’t believe in changing 9000 earmarks since it was “leftover” business. Apparently change isn’t about changing Congress.”
Yesh, another principled economist, Peter Orzag, is forced to leave his principles at the door in order to work in the Obama Administration.
“David Frum goes after the “myth” of the “Goldwater triumph.” But isn’t it a myth that Goldwater’s defeat led to permanent harm to the GOP or some long-lasting catastrophe for conservatives? The Republicans won back 47 seats in 1966 and the presidency in 1968. In fact, after Lyndon Johnson it took 44 years before Americans were willing to elect another liberal (and then not even one who admitted to being one).”
David Frum is another one of those “moderates” that need to be purged from the GOP.
Dan — nice, with the Lincoln/Douglas reference. Frum & Co aren’t going to go quietly into that good night. But they’re OBE. They were wrong about Obama and they aren’t going to live that down. Their day is done.