The State Department should stop digging. The decision to send Imam Rauf abroad at the American taxpayers’ expense is bad enough. But now the striped-pants guys are flacking for him, pushing the victimology meme:
The State Department’s top spokesman cautioned reporters Tuesday not to take snippets of edited remarks on the Internet by the “Ground Zero mosque” imam and use them to brand him a radical, lest they repeat the mistakes made by the media in calling former USDA official Shirley Sherrod a racist based on edited clips of her promoted on conservative websites. …
P.J. Crowley, the assistant secretary of state for public affairs, told reporters Tuesday that they shouldn’t be quick to take those remarks out of context.
“I would just caution any of you that choose to write on this, that once again you have a case where a blogger has pulled out one passage from a very lengthy speech. If you read the entire speech, you will discover exactly why we think he is rightly participating in this national speaking tour.”
The additional excerpts from the speech include many frothy generalizations about reconciliation and peace, but is the State Department really not able to find a Muslim who says those sorts of lovely things and who can manage to refrain from blaming the U.S. for 9/11? Is the administration so badly advised that it has no access to a Muslim spokesperson who specifically condemns Hamas as a terrorist group?
The episode is among the more embarrassing ones for Hillary Clinton’s State Department. That may explain, frankly, why she’s been mum on the subject. But if she hopes to salvage what splinters are left of her credibility, she might suggest that her spokesman stop flacking for the imam who thinks her country is as bad as al-Qaeda. There simply is no “context” that justifies or ameliorates such malice.
Jennifer,
To your earlier post on the “pristine” conservatives, I actually heard Mike Pence speak to Larry Kudlow about the importance of a tax holiday being a part of the compromise. Pence’s comment either shows a frightening level of ignorance, or very crass political opportunism. As John P. said earlier, failure to do something will be extreme. And, Paulson’s plan is likely to be good for Wall Street, Main Street, and even taxpayers. I just can’t believe the house Republicans don’t understand this.
Lets see. The Treasury Secretary and the head of the Federal Reserve have gone on record emphatically stating that this measure is necessary. True or not, it is against that backdrop that you have a reported Republican “rebellion” that is preventing its enactment. Somehow I’m getting flashbacks to the ill-conceived government shutdown in the 1990s.
So POLITICO tries to finger McCain for a lack of a deal.
The Dems control the House.
They probably have, or can get the votes in the Senate.
And they know Bush will sign the thing.
SO WHAT COVER do they need?
Why are they abdicating responsibility by demanding that the minority party sign up for the bill.
Paulson and the Fed guy are Dems.
They’re pushing the deal.
Pelosi can deliver the House.
So why this fixation on what McCain has done, or can do.
If the Dems believe this deal absolutely essential, then they have the obligation to push it through.
If they have the votes in the Senate, why not just pass the thing without the House Republicans? What am I missing? If the deal is such a great one for America why not just pass it anyway and let the House Republicans take the heat for opposing this sweetheart deal?
I’ve travelling and haven’t been following this closely. However, this seems like a plausible explanation for what happened:
The deal was close yesterday, but support is coming from Democrats. It can pass with a little deal making, but if the bill fails, Democrats would get teh blame. Dems are too risk averse to take responsibility, and want Republicans for cover. The announcement of a deal last night is designed to pressure Republicans to get on board and maybe derail McCain.
This morning every Congress member wakes up to raspberries from the public, who wants the deal squelched. Republican Congressmen are bolstered; votes for the bill that would have been there yesterday are gone. As a result, the plan is derailed.
Graham also said that a chunk of money is in the bill for ACORN. McCain has to get into the media’s faces about the left wing corruption of this process.
I think the deal is imperative to finish, otherwise the will be a crash. If you own stock in a great company like Boeing you know that airplanes have to be bought on credit. No credit, No airplanes. If you have a money market fund you know the consequences of a run on that fund. 10′s of millions of people, including retirees, will lose assets that they’ve built up over the years.
We cannot and should not stop this “bailout”. However, we should enact pain on the villains. ACORN, FRE, FNM and the rating agencies Moody’s S&P.
Political corruption stemming from the premise that people are entitled to have a home. And if they are refused it is due to red-lining.
But naturally, that was the started, but then everyone jumped in for second homes, etc. The exotic loans where the lendee could decide when or what to pay.
The ninja (no documentation needed to show income, job, assets) Both subprime and Alt-A were totally toxic….an stupid. As someone in the latter part of middle age, I was totally shocked to see what passed for loan screening.
This was great times for mortgage lenders, and for the people who securitized the loans, and for the rating agencies who created new credit default models to assess risk.
Oh, btw, don’t forget about leverage.
So the perfect storm starts with Clinton, Raines, Frank and others because of votes. It was continued under Bush (he said several time how great in was to have high levels of minority ownership in houses.
McCain can attack all of this, truthfully. It is political and corporate corruption. Sarah Palin maybe didn’t’ go to an elite school, but she probably knows more about mortgages than the well educated, high paid, gurus that gave us this mess.
I’d like to see a deal done, tomorrow, then McCain launch into O to correct the history, and identify the root cause, and then to ask the viewer if we want to continue giving out junk loans to people who can’t / won’t pay them back. MOve to the future, do we want to repeat this or not?
“However, we should enact pain on the villains. ACORN, FRE, FNM and the rating agencies Moody’s S&P.”
I knew ACORN was a bad seed. But how does Moody’s fit into this?
Note in this story, Obama is given the chance by the Dems to show leadership, and run their side of the meeting… and the meeting falls apart. This tells me that Obama, when/if he becomes President, will be a figurehead. No one will do what he tells them to do. He is NOT a leader. This will be a disaster, folks.
(the following is from National Review:
McCain Stays Put [Byron York]
From the McCain campaign tonight:
To address our current financial crisis, John McCain suspended his campaign and returned to Washington, D.C., today to help build a bipartisan consensus for a proposal that would protect the American taxpayer.
Despite today’s news reports, there never existed a “deal,” but merely a proposal offered by a small, select group of Members of Congress. As of right now, there exists only a series of principles, including greater oversight and measures to address CEO pay. However, these principles do not enjoy a consensus in Congress.
At today’s cabinet meeting, John McCain did not attack any proposal or endorse any plan. John McCain simply urged that for any proposal to enjoy the confidence of the American people, stressing that all sides would have to cooperate and build a bipartisan consensus for a solution that protects taxpayers.
However, the Democrats allowed Senator Obama to run their side of the meeting. That did not work as the meeting quickly devolved into a contentious shouting match that did not seek to craft a bipartisan solution.
At this moment, the plan that has been put forth by the Administration does not enjoy the confidence of the American people as it will not protect that taxpayers and will sacrifice Main Street in favor of Wall Street.
The bottom line is that as of tonight, there are not enough Republican or Democrat votes for the current plan. However, we are still optimistic that a bipartisan solution will be found. Republicans and Democrats want a deal that will protect the taxpayers.
Tomorrow, John McCain will return to Capitol Hill where he will work with all sides to build a bipartisan solution that protects taxpayers and keeps Americans in their homes.
Just from the standpoint of leadership within Washington, Obama’s problem is and will continue to be that no one is beholden to him. That is not meant as a criticism of him as a man or as a politician, but it is simply a fact that — even if he wins in November — hardly any Democrats will feel that they owe their position to him (his own Exec. branch appointees, but no one else). No loyalty, no fear. He will have no leverage to bend his own party to his will, never mind the opposition.
As always, all tactics, no strategy. Do any of you honestly still care whether this was a foolish (or brilliant) “hail mary,” or a merely a brilliant (or foolish) “gimmick”?
All of this is so fundamentally unserious that its amazing that patriotic Americans can watch their candidate act this way without total disgust.
The issue here is really quite simple. Real service, real bipartisan, real cooperation does not call for cameras, dramatic annocements or leaks to Politico.
I don’t care whether you favor the bailout or not (I personally do, in close to its original Paulson form). And let’s even concede, against all evidence, that McCain really did have some crucial role to play here that America needed him to play. Why exactly are we hearing about any of it? Why exactly all this Schimdt garbage and noise and theatrics?
As a former admirer of Senator McCain, I assure you that I do not speak in this post as a partisan Democrat (though I do not hide the fact that I am); I speak as an American. (As a pure partisan, I could have saved myself my current physical nausea and simply smiled at the absuridity that McCain is transparently making of himself — and the long-term polling damage that will likely result from it. Makes me wish I could be that cynical.)
Whether the right result is a bailout or no bailout (and whether the right bailout is the Bernie Sanders plan, or the Hank Paulson plan, or the Mike Pence plan), how are any of us supposed to tolerate the unavoidable risk imposed to sucessful reaching of that result (what ever it is) by McCain’s apparent inability to be his super-mavericky self QUIETLY AND COLLEGIALLY AND WITHOUT THEATRICS — like a responsible stateman LIKE A PRESIDENT, rather than Steve Schmidt’s dancing outrage clown.
Ironically, there is one thing this whole sad circus reminds me of more than anything: the worst narscistic excesses of Clinton years. The drama, the sanctimonious excuse-making, the politicization of absolutely everything paired with a false nobility of ME, ME, ME, ME.
All this just to push from the news cycle Palin’s painful performance with Couric and Rick Davis’s continuing equity position in $15k-a-month Davis Manafort? Hardly seems worth it, even a purely political matter.
Enough is enough. I ‘ve had Republican friends calling me today (granted all friends with a clear dog in this particular bailout fight) saying they’ve finally given up — like George Will, they are ready to elect grown-ups.
“Country First.” What a pathetic joke.
Sure, EricR, true leadership, as I’m sure all your dear, dear Republican friends told you, is boning up on debate one-liners and ignoring your senate job, while a financial meltdown occurs.
Spare me the talking point, von Knowitall. I think all of us here are smarter than all that.
I see Brooks was much less hard on him than I was, though he did seem motivated in the piece by exactly my same concerns:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26brooks.html
Brooks knows the man better than I do, of course, but as a liberal Republican, Brooks is obviously rooting for the man more than I possibly could.
And yet, even as I suspect Brooks shares my belief that yesterday will prove a terrible day politically for McCain the candidate (indeed, my sense is that Brooks’ prognosis is probably somewhat graver than my own), I read absolutely no cynicism into the piece. This despite his having obviously chosen to write a beautiful and moving tribute to the man and his story by David Brooks on a day when the candidate (and one expects, the man) will be much in need of absolution by way of a beautiful and moving tribute to the man and his story by David Brooks.
Why the confidence in Brooks’ sincerity?
First, as an American, I felt in Brooks’ piece a perfect mirror of my own sorrow at the McCain’s downfall, almost as if I was reading a Republican mirror of my Democratic rant above. As such, it resonated with me as far, far too honest to have possibly been cynical. I think it rings completely heartfelt to all of us.
Second, as a cynical partisan Democrat, I recognize that David Brooks is far too brilliant a writer and strategist to have failed to realize that the piece — dignified and elegiac as it is with respect to McCain the man — does McCain the candidate no favors. And yet he wrote it anyway.
“Amid the stupidity of this season, it seemed worth stepping back to recall the fundamentals — about McCain today and Obama on some other day in the near future.”
Almost like a panicked JPod post surveying the polling landscape, the piece asserts itself like a late stage of grief in the writer’s contemplation of McCain’s coming loss and Obama’s coming victory.
(And as he’s liberal Republican, I imagine it stings Mr. Brooks both a lot less and and a lot more that it stings Mr. Podhoretz. But what the hell do I know about Republicans anyway?)
That should read: “. . . I imagine it stings Mr. Brooks both a lot less and a lot more THAN it stings Mr. Podhoretz. . .”
Nice diary, Eric. Might I suggest Word Press?
A fair point, Mr. Applenuts.
No offense, just my ADD acting up.
Say my name without a smile, I dare ye…
I join anyone (including Eric, apparently) in wishing that contests for the American Presidency were conducted more like a seminar and less like a mashup of Oprah and the WWF. But — to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld — you go into a campaign with the media culture, and the electorate, you have. Sure, I would love it if Obama and McCain alike were waging this fight with more seriousness. They (note the plural) are not, and there’s not the slightest indication that they are going to begin doing so anytime soon. Merely one of the costs (one of the lesser costs, at that) of living in a dumbed-down, uneducated, misinformed society.
“Ironically, there is one thing this whole sad circus reminds me of more than anything: the worst narscistic excesses of Clinton years. The drama, the sanctimonious excuse-making, the politicization of absolutely everything paired with a false nobility of ME, ME, ME, ME.
…..
That second sentence is one of the most concise and accurate descriptions of the Clinton Presidency I have read. Well done. And as for our current campaign, who can doubt that the Clinton Legacy is alive and well? Things that would have been flat-out disqualifying before 1992 are now accepted without a blink. I hope someday we, as a nation, can restore some of the old standards. But I’m not holding my breath. And I am certainly not going to apologize if the Party which represents my faction seeks (as best it can) to adapt to the current standards for the purpose of trying to win a partisan campaign.
The contest is ubiquitous. It’s a big internet, so pick your battlefield. As for our society, even the finest beauty has armpits. In our case, the most uneducated and misinformed tend to get a lot of airtime. They don’t reflect the bedrock of this country. Just turn off the TV.
Turning the TV off (and keeping it off) is certainly good advice and I adhere to it as much as anyone. But even if “the most uneducated and misinformed” do not “reflect the bedrock of this country,” my point was merely that the contemporary, media-based campaign for the Presidency must inevitably cater to the fancies of such people. Hence the emphasis on “tactics” and “drama” that seems to have disturbed the sleep of our Democrat friend. It’s an emphasis that rubs me the wrong way, too.
I have to say, though, I do not think Obama’s supporters would be complaining quite so vehemently if they were really confident of his victory on 4th November. Obama might, indeed, be the one taking that oath of office next January. But he also might not. And if not, the wailing from certain quarters will make Eric’s comments of the last few hours seem, in comparison, like the very essence of equanimity and good cheer.
None taken, Johnny A (and, of course, none intended).
Certainly wish you were right, OtR, that its politics-disturbed sleep that has this Democratic commentor burning the post-midnight oil.
Think you’re absolutely right (per #21) that Barack’s far from a lock. Still many, many more rounds in this thing — and you guys continue to be a little to close for comfort in Minnesota and New Hampshire.
Per #18, though, no apology sought. This ain’t beanbag. But glad you thought well of that Clinton years bit (per #19); I meant every word.
“This ain’t beanbag.”
No, it sure isn’t. Yet some of your earlier phrases seemed to resent McCain for failing to act and speak as if it were.