Despite her best efforts to exact revenge, Dede Scozzafava, it seems, has been unable to convince very many voters to follow her advice. A new poll shows Doug Hoffman leading by 5 percent. I am not one to place much weight on endorsements. By and large, voters ignore them. But occasionally they can backfire on the endorser and the endorsee.
Those Republicans who gave her the nod, most visibly Newt Gingrich, are now going to be lambasted for poor judgment. And the good-housekeeping stamp of approval from an establishment candidate who first swore her allegiance to the GOP and then to the GOP’s opponents isn’t, I suspect, going to move a lot of votes, unless it gets the last outraged conservative out to the polls tomorrow.
We will see tomorrow what this swing district (which, we are reminded, was carried by Obama by 5 points in 2008) tells us about the political mood of the country. And perhaps we’ll learn that endorsements can be more trouble than they are worth.
Speaking of Bubbe, where’s Bubba?
Btw, “slack-jawed” usually goes with “yokel”, doesn’t it?
This photo of Hamas listening to BHO says it all: http://tinyurl.com/qd9ruj
The blurbs coming out on German TV about the Dresden visit and talks with Merkel are 1) that Germany continues to be an important US partner and 2) that Germany will work with the US on the problems of Israel-Palestine peace and Iran. Details at 10– but they neglected to give a year for the follow-up report.
Obama’s approach is exactly what one would expect from a man who is on the far left of the Democrat Party and completely inexperienced and full of himself.
It reminds me of the World War II skit in Beyond the Fringe. Chamberlain’s wife: “When I heard that war had broken out I tried to ring up Adolf and Eva, because they had been so kind to us on our last visit. But the line was engaged, and there was nothing I could do to avert the carnage of the next six years.
Obama administration blocks sale of 6 AH-64D helicopters to Israel – approves 12 to Egypt
Exactly. Obama is not reaching out to the Muslim world, he is slowly mainstreaming their most extreme ideas.
In Obama World, any country that will not negotiate, will not recognize, and pursue nuclear warheads gets New Years Greetings, and an apology from the US. The democracy that is open to the above list can expect an inordinate amount of pressure to stop “natural growth”
I couldn’t think of a more potent formula for creating total chaos in the Middle East.
#7 “Exactly. Obama is not reaching out to the Muslim world, he is slowly mainstreaming their most extreme ideas.”
Well stated. The only way to peace is for American Jews to move to Israel – 2 Million would make a difference.
#8 — Excellent point. This is the real crisis facing Zionism.
Wilders Big Winner of Dutch EU Elections
Some 40% of the Dutch population agree with many of anti-Islam MP Geert Wilder’s statements
“It is perverse to make this the center point of the peace process ”
no see that’s the thing. it makes perfect sense and everyone gets it but you guys.
figure it out soon because come July 31 when Obamas deadline to Bibi runs out you are going to hear murmors of stopping payment on israels 3 bills a year.
Yuo dont’ want it to get that far.
#11 Lester keep those 3bills and show it up your …. How many US workers will not save their jobs?
what?
If it makes perfect sense, #11, it should be easy to explain. So, could you please explain why a teacher in the Jewish Quarter adding a room for her grandchildren, or a new house in Ma’ale Adumim makes it impossible for the Palestinians to negotiate with Israel? ‘Everyone” might “get” things wrong–it’s happened before. You can hide behind “everyone” or you can argue and make a case–it’s up to you. If you’re here for the conversation and contention, why not the latter?
the administration refuses to announce whether it will abide by the 2004 U.S. letter of understanding confirming this would be a final status issue.
So if he refuses to to honor agreements made by previous Administrations why should anybody get uptight when Hamas refuses to accept any PLO/Fatah agreements signed with Israel and the US?
adam- I don’t think the settlement issue is QUITE as innocent as you make it out to be. admit it, you are a little biased.
#8 Well stated. The only way to peace is for American Jews to move to Israel – 2 Million would make a difference.
But that will require settlement of those people; so more House Additions.
Bad, bad.
!7 Do not need to build much, it will open up room for 2 Mill arabs to come to US (that would the whole arab population from Israel including Judia and Samaria). And then Lester can live in peace with them in US.
18 I’d rather have the jews move here.
also
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/06/max-blumenthal-feeling-the-hate-in-jerusalem-on-eve-of-obamas-cairo-address.html
the jewish street
Any US aid reductions will obviously affect US workers as the money is mostly spent here. The object of military-related sanctions like that linked above by sigma is not merely to pressure Israel generally but to drive a wedge between Barak and Netanyahu. Of course Barak cannot improve his personal prospects without a serviceable IDF so any US attempts to hobble or impugn the latter will be largely self-defeating.
Bibi’s survival depends more on how he handles Barak and Lieberman than on anything O does. My guess is he will continue to be effusively tolerant and accommodating of both.
“Any US aid reductions will obviously affect US workers as the money is mostly spent here”
good. foiling keynesian schemes like that are why god invented corrections
Lester, the distinction between “natural growth” and “illegal settlements” or “outposts” is meant to distinguish, in your terms, between the “innocent” and the “guilty.” There are full scale communities, which grow like any town or city as children are born or the economy attracts new people. And there are new settlements established in defiance of the status quo presupposed for the sake of negotiation. Of course there are many places you can draw the line, but Krauthammer’s example and my own were meant to point to communities undoubtedly on the “innocent” side of the line. If you say these “settlements” are “guilty,” you are essentially rejecting the whole distinction. Why? It’s really the same question I asked before. Obviously you’re not obliged to answer, but if this is a site for exploring thse issues freely, and not merely for various “gotcha!” games, I hope you or someone else will.
well I’ll cede to your knowledge of settlement ology for the time being. But I’m not going along personally with “natural growth” till I get the full story
Lester sais ” I’d rather have the jews move here.”
From this statement I can say that Lestet is against jews living in Israel. So here we are – another hater.
“till I get the full story” Ok, so, research first, then post.
The notion that the “natural growth” concept can be reduced to a yente in the basement or a crazy aunt in the attic is a clever attempt at a reductio ad absurdum but misses the point completely.
The settlement program is to create “facts on the ground” to render a Palestinian state, or for that matter, return of the West Bank to Jordan, impossible. In Jerusalem, it is to “Judaize” the Arab areas, or at least to surround them, to make the taski of partition, essential to the survival of any Palestinian interlocutor, difficult or impossible.
So-called “natural growth” simply means stealing Palestinain land adjacent to existing settlements as opposed to starting new ones–which the “hilltop youth” are managing to do, with the connivance of the IDF, in any case.
Lip-service to negotiations to pacify Washington, while “facts on the ground:” continually make the two-state solution less and less plausible has been the unvarying policy of all governments, “left” and “right.”
“Bubbe” may be a bit player, but she is part of the ensemble. The theme of the opera is robbery.
24- well yeah. I love jews so much that I hate israel because it takes them away from us!!
I’m also against stealing land. So, Grumpy, if the Jews in East Jerusalem, Givat Ze’ev or Ma’ale Adumim buy the land, or if it was previously owned by the Jordanian state and now by the Israeli state that’s OK? Or will you insist on the right of the Palestinian Authority to execute anyone who sells land to Jews? The settlements were, indeed, meant to put facts on the ground and improve Israel’s bargaining position, at first with Jordan. So what? The land was always disputed–Jordan had no more right to it than Israel–indeed, I think only the British and Pakistan recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank. You can’t control land, waiting for its final disposition, without altering it in some way–things happen, populations grow and shift. Why should Israel have been obliged to maintain an absolute status quo waiting for the Arabs to deign to negotiate? Why not alter conditions favorably for itself? Indeed, it may very well be that only Israeli settlement policy ever prodded the Arabs to negotiate in the first place. The Labor party initiated settlements more for security reasons–to control land that they felt it wouldn’t be safe to return in any event. Likud had more nationalistic and religious goals–but the vast majority of the settlers are still in what are essentially suburbs around Jerusalem. If the Palestinians can’t bring themselves to accept that as the price for a state, that’s just one more sign of their political imbecility. Maybe more settlements will force them to realize that time is against them.
Having said all this, the US is obviously free to support whoever it wants and to make whatever demands it wants, with whatever consequences upon refusal of those demands, etc., etc. But the point is that if you say the settlements make negotiation impossible, that’s another way of saying they weren’t possible in the first place–the Palestinians don’t want to get started building a country on whatever land they can control right now; they want to keep holding out for it all. You acknowledge this when you reference the “survival of any Palestinian leader”–yes, that’s precisely the point–any Palestinain leader who proceeds reasonably and realistically, with the facts as they are now would not be able to survive.
#28
Thanks for addressing the issue at hand. It seems we don’t have vast disagreements about the facts, so much as the interpretation.
For starters, here’s a map that suggests the settlements aren’t just suburbs of Jerusalem. This one is more argumentative. It supports the same conclusion.
Two states and continued settlement–inconsistent.
One state and no vote for Palestinians–inconsistent.
A Jewish state and democracy–inconsistent if you accept the conventional wisdom on demography (I question it).
The real question–why should the US proviide money and arms for this enterprise?
As far as I can see, the maps don’t give population figures–there are certainly plenty of small settlements all over the place. If there is to be a Palestinian state in those areas, why not leave it up to the settlers if they want to stay; and why not ask of a Palestinian state that it accept them? Like Israel accepts far more Arabs within its borders. The US should give money if it thinks Israel is a valauble ally–the settlements don’t seem central to that issue.