Methinks that the normally astute Ben Smith of Politico is trying a little too hard to parse supposed disagreement on the right concerning Iran. He writes:
The Iranian election has produced a deep division on the American right, clarifying a rift between those forcefully backing the opposition and those who view the election as a sham and its outcome as an irrelevance in a irremediable conflict between the U.S. and Iran.
The split has elements of the old neoconservative/realist divide, but it doesn’t break down that simply. Congressional Iran hawks like Joe Lieberman, Eric Cantor, John McCain, and Mike Pence are arguing for, if anything, more vocal American support for the Mousavi-led opposition. Pat Buchanan is with Obama. Michael Ledeen is out-and-out hopemongering. Instapundit turned his website green.
The group United Against Nuclear Iran — which also has neocon credentials — by contrast, sees the election as just a symptom of the country’s deeper problems, and is taking the opportunity to make that public point. Max Boot is in that camp. John Bolton dismisses the election, and its “‘moderates,’” as a “sham,” and Dan Pipes was “rooting for Ahmadinejad.”
Rather than a split, this is an example of different analysts offering slightly different shades of analysis. I very much doubt that anyone on this list — other than possibly Pat Buchanan, who isn’t a conservative at all in the American sense (more like a populist reactionary a la William Jennings Bryan or Father Coughlin) — is against “forcefully backing the opposition.” I certainly am not. I think we should do a lot more to help the opposition and that Obama should speak out forcefully on its behalf. But I am against holding up Mousavi as a “reformer” or a “moderate,” because I don’t think he is. (Eric Trager makes the point well.)
Despite my doubts about Mousavi, I very much admire the people of Iran and hope that they will succeed — not in changing the face of the theocratic dictatorship but in overthrowing the dictatorship altogether. Unfortunately I think that’s unlikely, so my second-best choice is that at least they will succeed in undermining and discrediting the system, especially among Western lefties who thought, for reasons escaping me, that Iran was a “democracy.” As I’ve noted before, watching the back-flips among Iran’s apologists, has been grimly satisfying.
I’m not as optimistic that there will be much senatorial “cooling.” Maybe it will lead to cap and trade getting nixed. But I think there is enough consensus in the Senate, when one throws in Republican squishes, to do “something” on health care. And who is opposed to more education spending “for the children?”
PBO will leave the messy details to Congress, and we’ll end up with Porkulus II.
I think we’ve generally come to expect conservatives to have a dubious grasp of the Constitution, but, in any event, there’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster, unlimited debate, etc. “The framers” have nothing to do with it.
I’ve come to expect sloppy reading habit from leftist trolls, but where does the post say anything about the Constitutional roots of the filibuster or any other specific practice? The reference to the framers regards the rationale for the Senate, part of which was to help slow down legislation rushed through the more populist, impetuous House. So, the framers have something to do with it, and with everything, for those of us who think about government and liberty in terms of of Constitution. We know that the Left only thinks about the Constitution in terms of the latest judicial invention of some “right,” but for some of us it is a philosophical framework.
The only saucer that is going to help us is one that flies down from the heavens, scoops up Washington, DC, and flies away.
I’m glad Byrd is sounding the bell on this….But I also wish he had done so with the humongous stimulus bill…. I sure surely expect my Senators to READ the bills and offer alternative ideas before signing them.
Not to act like sheep in a herd…
Sheep travel in flocks.
And lemmings travel in?
A political enemy of this administration and the Democratic Party might dare them to try jamming this program down the country’s throat.
#7 – “change we can believe in” shirts?
Ah, it’s not really reading comprehension that is at issue, it’s hijacking discussion threads. The Left, always desirous of controlling the narrative, simply changes the subject when the topic is inconvenient to their agenda.
I wonder if a constitutional case could be made about the process followed with the stimulus bill and these other threats to jam stuff into bills in reconciliation conference committee. Somebody has to stop this stuff which looks more and more like 1934 Berlin. I suspect the people who might do this are laying low until public opinion catches up. Obama’s numbers are already fairly low for a new president.
Overall, 55% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance so far. Forty-four percent (44%) disapprove. For more, see Obama By the Numbers or recent demographic highlights.
It’s very noticeable that Obama’s MO is to steamroller his agenda through, by hyping the problem the bills should solve, so our Congressioal lapdogs pass it without reading it, or by an executive order “because I won”, or by attempting to appoint another “czar” to act independent of oversight. More importantly, Obam does not want his agenda questioned, because he doesn’t like having to be the one to back it if it proves unpopular, nor does he want to take the time to explain his agenda or to justify it, or to try to convince the opposition why his plan is the best one.
Once opposed, he appears to lack the courage of his convictions in a stand-up debate, and then appears willing to use executive powers to circumvent what should be a legislative process.
#12: You write: “Once opposed, he appears to lack the courage of his convictions in a stand-up debate, and then appears willing to use executive powers to circumvent what should be a legislative process.”
While I agree that there is some truth to this observation, since Number One is, to put it bluntly, sneaky in the extreme, we should not ignore the fact that this Administration’s approach — inflame the mob and rush, rush, rush through the legislation — is classic machine politics.
Obama = Chicago = the ultimate in corruption and dependence on the machine’s handouts. I’d say that America’s choice of Obama was, to use Number One’s own word, “boneheaded.”
“The Left, always desirous of controlling the narrative, simply changes the subject when the topic is inconvenient to their agenda.”
Always, and forever.
Of which, we are never surprised.
We’re also never surprised at the back-door installation attempts of contentious agenda items by Team Hope ‘n Change’s smoke and mirrors routine.