Max, I’m agnostic on the agreement. But it is curious that the administration, only in an effort to secure a deal, would offer an $80 billion modernization program. If this is needed why is the administration waiting until now to propose it, and if it’s not why are we puffing up the Defense Department budget at the time Robert Gates is supposed to be slashing it? I suspect it is the former, and the treaty ratification process has confirmed what many conservatives have long argued: we need more spending on national security, not less.
Contentions
0 Responses to “RE RE: New START Treaty”
May 2013
-
Articles
-
"My Negro Problem-and Ours" at 50
Norman Podhoretz -
Gay Marriage, the Court, and Federalism
Tara Helfman -
The Spirit of '75?
Algis ValiunasAn audacious, and wrong, argument about the American Revolution.
-
In Praise of Sheryl Sandberg
Christine RosenThe controversial Facebook executive's book is exactly the right kind of self-help.
Fiction
-
Onto a Good Thing
Joseph Epstein
Politics & Ideas
-
The Bureaucrat-Driven Life
Heather Wilhelm -
The Making of an Education Reformer
Sohrab Ahmari -
Bork's Watergate
James Rosen -
Dear Prudence
Paul O. Carrese -
Whose Accomplishments?
Mona Charen
Culture & Civilization
-
The Parenting Trap
Dana Mack -
George Saunders, Anti-Minimalist
Fernanda Moore -
A Chekhov in Training
Terry Teachout -
What Ailes the Liberal Media?
Andrew Ferguson
John Podhoretz
-
Taking Obama's Foreign Policy Seriously
John Podhoretz
Threat Assessment
-
More Genocide Threats from Iran
Jonathan S. Tobin
Letters
-
Denying Jewish Peoplehood-and Reality
Our ReadersResponses to Robert S. Wistrich's "The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism"
-
Gun Laws, Crime, and Freedom
Our ReadersResponses to Benjamin Domenech's "The Truth About Mass Shootings and Gun Control"
-
Don't Confuse Principle and Pose
Our ReadersResponses to Matthew Continetti's "Poseur Politics in the Era of Obama"
-
Jews and Sports
Our Readers
Enter Laughing
-
Get Our Free Newsletter
Ahhh, but you’re ignoring the multiple personalities of the spinster cat lady from Brooklyn, Peggy Noonan
Registered Democrats vastly out number Registered Republicans this year though. Combine that with your showing obama with a lead in independents. And then add in that Obama supporters poll as much more enthusiastic about their candidate and you have the makings of about a 5-7 point win.. which means winning the majority of battle ground states and a huge lead in the electoral count. That is about as overwhelming a victory as you get in general elections for the presidency in the united states these days, with both parties more adept at dropping unsustainable positions and shifting views to gain enough votes.
I think this race was over since the 2nd debate.
Palin looks damaged enough to be a non factor in 4 years as well too.
This is the best thing for the republican party in my opinion. They need time to distance themselves from the Bush years anyhow. The evangelical candidates look foolish (always a good thing). And Ron Paul is gaining enough steam to force the party to shift back to its more sustainable and honorable roots.
There is progress. At least Noah Pollak isn’t launching a Nutcase hit job on the poll or its sponsor, like he did against CNN after the vice-presidential debate. This provides an example that the Nutcases need to consider, which is to send their Crazy Uncle back up to the attic for a few years and, however hard it is to do, once again adopt the pose of the “Reasonable Republican.”
These things aren’t easy, but you’ll have to do it, Nutcases, or you’ll be ground into the dust by an American electorate that is sick and tired of your strategy of re-fighting the cultural divisions of 1965-1975 every four years. We’ve moved on, so you should too.
IF there is an Obamacon effect, then we PUMAs will do our best to make up for it.
I also don’t believe the “more Democrats this year than Republicans by 5-7 percentage points” argument.
#4
Nutcases?
What do you call someone who spends his Sunday writing comments on a blog representing the “nutcase” point-of-view? Why do you think Pollak is a nutcase? Looks to me like he’s got very impressive credentials. Is it because he’s such a strong supporter of Israel?
Oh, and, yeah, Republicans should do exactly as you say because you have their best interests at heart!
Why do you think Pollak is a nutcase? Looks to me like he’s got very impressive credentials. Is it because he’s such a strong supporter of Israel?
After the vice-presidential debate, Pollak decided that he would launch a proto-typical Commentary Nutcase hit job on CNN for its reporting of polls showing that Biden had beaten Palin that night. It was right, smack out of the wingnut playbook.
Reposting link to Pollak’s Nutcase hit job on CNN.
The “conservatives” that have come out for Obama or who are uneasy with McCain/Palin are just not that conservative. But they don’t want to say, “actually, I’m more liberal on some issues.” I would say that for most of the prominent “Obamacons”, the biggest fear is that Roe v. Wade might finally be overturned with one or two more Republican appointments.
The fact that they are getting flak for supporting a left/liberal is not an indication of the shrinking of the “House of Conservatism”. It’s like someone saying “I’m a Red Sox fan, but this year I’m rooting for the Yankees. But please don’t say I’m not a Red Sox fan anymore.”
Chris,
The republicans made the democrats a better party by forcing the dems to shift views to something more sustainable. This scenario, and vice versa, has happened many times in our political history. It is happening again.
I’d like to stay but my mom is calling me up from the basement to eat supper … I’ll try to be back before my bedtime, assuming my medication doesn’t put me asleep before then.
Oh Dem,
Someone was moved enough by your words to pull the ol commentary, fake post in your name trick.
Oh yeah, this again.
Hank:
Somehow I’m missing that part about the Democrats shifting their views to something more “sustainable”. Like free abortions on demand, ending secret ballots for unions, silencing their enemies on talk radio, establishing a “truth” commission to try members of the Bush administration, Gorean transition to complete alternative energy for utilities within 10 years??
I think we disagree about what’s “sustainable”. Just call me a “nutcase”. If you know anything about energy, that last item is truly crazy.
My favorite is “silencing their enemies on talk radio,” i.e., reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. This is the one I want to see the Democrats float. I’m not sure I want it to win or anything, but I want to watch the Republicans be placed in the position of arguing against fairness, and to see FauxNews do the same on their fair ‘n balanced networks. I truly hope some leading Democrats have enough of a sense of humor to stick this one on the docket, just for the hell of it.
Democrat:
From what I understand, Pelosi and Reid are pretty serious about reinstituting the fairness doctrine. It makes it easier for Dems to be re-elected if there’s no on air criticism from Limbaugh et al. It’s no joke. Fox News also. They’re uh, politicians, if you hadn’t noticed, and they don’t like criticism. With respect, you are naive if you think otherwise. And president Obama would have no choice but to sign it. After all, his base supports it and that’s something easy he can satisfy them with.
“I want to watch the Republicans be placed in the position of arguing against fairness, ”
“Life is not fair; get used to it.”
Bill Gates
I think Obama would disagree with you and Bill Gates. He’s all about fairness. That’s his justification for his tax proposals – not economic growth or generating additional revenue.
Chris, I think it would be hard to put the genie back in the bottle. But who knows, maybe an equal-time requirement for radio and TV wouldn’t be the worst thing. I could go either way on it. But I think it would be loads of fun to hear Nutcases arguing that unfairness is okay with them.
Think of it. There’d be these hearings, and the Democrats would highlight all kinds of outrages from Rushbo and Sean Hannity and O’Lielly and the rest of the Nucase Freak Show (TM), and all these people and their corporate sponsors and their loafer-lickers in Congress would be chattering away like monkeys in the monkey house.
At the very least, this would be just hilarious to watch, and the vast majority of the hilarity would come at the expense of the wingnuts. It’s not exactly one of the vital issues, but a lot of people would pay attention, and it would make your side look bad, and it would be fun. Therefore, I’m in favor of pushing it, just to see what happens.
p.s.: Chris, it’s so unfair, isn’t? The other party grabs the presidency, the House and the Senate, and by big margins. And what do they do? The unfairly argue for fairness, forcing you guys to fairly argue for unfairness. Admit it: This is straight out of Monty Python. It’s no worse than any stunt Newt ever pulled is it?
“There’d be these hearings, and the Democrats would highlight all kinds of outrages from Rushbo and Sean Hannity and O’Lielly and the rest of the Nucase Freak Show (TM),”
Well Air America has some tasty sound bites in rebuttal. And NPR.
“There’d be these hearings, and the Democrats would highlight all kinds of outrages from Rushbo and Sean Hannity and O’Lielly and the rest of the Nucase Freak Show (TM),”
Demorat
Name 3 outrages and don’t screw with the context.
#7: The demon rat got at least one thing right: that Pollak’s comment on CNN “was right.” (Even in paranoid rants punctuation matters.)
#10: So JennyG’s rag’n'bone thinks that The One’s doubletalk is “sustainable?” Good for it.
Well, Noah, you don’t make much of a case. If you look at the internals of many polls, they show a breakout by ideology, not just party. In most of those I’ve seen, you get almost double the number of self-identified conservatives crossing over to back Obama as you do liberals supporting McCain. For example, take a look at the most recent SurveyUSA poll of PA. Of those supporting McCain, 12% self-identify as liberals. By contrast, 19% of Obama supporters in PA call themselves conservatives. In VA, only 9% of McCain supporters are liberal, while 17% of Obama supporters are conservative.
So, Obamacons appear to be a real phenomenon, and while not an “overwhelming” trend, certainly a significant one.
Harry and Nancy and their cohorts are a little more knowledgeable on this issue than their base. Radio stations are in business to make a profit (dirty word, I know). Liberal radio is a $$ loser. Kept up with Air America lately? Clear channel and the rest will just drop talk radio entirely to keep from having to broadcast hours of unprofitable radio, and switch to a different format. That’s why there was no Limbaugh before Reagan (or the FCC, I should say) dropped the fairness doctrine in the 80′s. Voila, you achieve your goal. Hey, maybe DEms can regulate speech on the internet to get rid of these nutcases like the Contentions blog! Sounds like a good idea to you, doesn’t it?
Yes, that right wing freak show is outrageous, I agree. We have to silence them for the good of the country, comrade.
#20: the demon rat takes Monty P’s name in vain: it’s straight out of Lewis Carroll.
Hank in MI – you lost me. If there are more registered Democrats (of which McCain is taking 10%) than registered Republicans (of which Obama is taking 11%), doesn’t this give a higher number of the “crossing the aisle” vote to McCain? If there are 100 registered Democrats out there, and McCain takes 10%, that’s 10 Democrats for McCain. If there are only 90 registered Republicans, and Obama takes about 10%, that’s 9 Republicans for Obama. (These numbers, obviously, only increase as the sample gets larger.) What am I missing here?
It is astounding how powerful naming an activity is. It doesn’t matter if the fairness doctrine is, in fact, fair. The MSM will, of course, adopt the name and ignore the issue.
The issue is freedom of speech. The last time we had Congressional hearings on freedom of speech, we had the McCarthy hearings. You remember those, Democrat, don’t you? All those martyrs, burned at the stake by the then right-wing Hollywood establishment. Lest we ever forget, the tale of the hearings are recycled on MSM Sunday nightg docudramas every year so so. George Clooney and all that.
So now we are to have the likes of Henry Wexler lecturing us on fair speech, and on devisive speech, and on plain old anti-Democrat speech. To say nothing of racist speech, which will be whenever anyone criticizes Obama.
I have a prediction. The Botoxed One will impose the fairness doctrine. In response, the Rush Limbaugh program will become The Rush Limbaugh Show — a little song, a little humorous dialogue, and a few calls from Democrats and Republicans alike. Sort of like The Daily Show, only with a few non-elites calling in. Naturally, the Daily Show will not be subjected to the Botox Doctrine. It’s entertainment, don’t you know. And so cutting-edge!
If we are lucky, the D’s will move quickly to impose the fairness doctrine. And Rush will be able to get his case to the Supreme Court before Obama can appoint Bernadine Dohrn to the Court.
If we are even luckier, the doctrine will be imposed quickly, and we will find a way — probably through the Internet — around it. And, for once, the people will really arise. And the extraordinary popular delusion that is currently sweeping the land will come to an end.
In addition to being a means of just harassing the wingnuts, I think the introduction of Fairness Doctrine legislation would be a good springboard for highlighting Republican media manipulation in general: White House propaganda operations and their coordination with the military, the wingnut blogs, FauxNews, and right-wing talk radio.
I genuinely think there is quite a story to be uncovered here. I think you’d find links between Republican Party operatives, the White House, FauxNews, the Pentagon, and senior field commanders in Iraq. This is something I think needs to be dug out and put on display.
Noah,
Look at the latest TIPP poll breakdown. There’s an interesting discrepancy between Party Identification: people who identify Democrat/Republican on the one hand, where 89% if Rs are supporting McCain, as opposed to 85% of Dems supporting Obama, and the Ideology category – where 88% of liberals are supporting Obama, as compared to 71% of Conservatives supporting McCain.
Maybe not all Conservatives are self identifying as Republicans. It wouldn’t be the first time.
Hey, maybe DEms can regulate speech on the internet to get rid of these nutcases like the Contentions blog! Sounds like a good idea to you, doesn’t it?
There isn’t any legal basis for it. “The Internet” refers to the links between millions of privately owned computers via the telecommunications network. To impose a “Fairness Doctrine” on “the Internet” would be a direct regulation of speech. It would as if the government required equal time in telephone calls.
The legal theory behind a “Fairness Doctrine” for broadcasters is that they receive an exclusive license to a public assets, i.e., radio spectrum, and therefore their content can be regulated to achieve a public purpose: in this case, the dissemination of opposing viewpoints.
There is a technological answer. It comes in the form of approaches to broadcasting that allow many millions of broadcasters to share the same frequencies. But none of that will happen anytime soon — and never, if the broadcasters have their way — so the legal theory that allows the government to exercise a public-purpose regulatory scheme in return for exclusive use of spectrum will stand.
Wank in Michigan/Meathead Substitute,
“Registered Democrats vastly out number Registered Republicans this year though.”
According to whom? The Democrat party, of course. There’s a reliable source for you.
Real statistics on this subject are impossible to compile. That’s why polling organizations don’t even try. Not because they cant, but because they know they’ll be exposed as fraudulent.
You’re utterly ineffective as a troll. The sad thing is that you aren’t even paid to promote your false Messiah.
Troll on, loser.
There have always been a significant number of dems, mostly educationally challenged folks, who self-identify as conservatives but are sufficiently clueless that they vote for democrats. Howard Stern had little trouble finding a few dems who supported Obama “because of his stong stand against abortion.”
Re the coming democrat blow-out that has been the subject of so many gloating posts on this thread, some of us prefer to wait until he votes are counted before conceding, and have had more than one opportunity to laugh at the arrogant blow-hards who count their money before the lasl deal. Remember those luscious exit polls, Kerry fans?
#31
My friend, I’m afraid your legal analysis of the fairness doctrine is a little bit simplistic. (It’s always a good idea to leave legal analysis to the lawyers!). No less of an authority than Prof. Larry Lessig of Stanford Law School believes that the Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional. That doesn’t mean that Obama won’t appoint compliant judges to the Supreme Court who might approve its reimposition. You see, in the 1940′s when the doctrine was imposed, there were few media outlets, especially in rural areas, to air competing views. Today, there’s an explosion of technology to air lots of differing views – radio, satellite radio, cable, satellite, internet, etc. etc. The fairness doctrine no longer makes sense.
I genuinely think there is quite a story to be uncovered here. I think you’d find links between Republican Party operatives, the White House, FauxNews, the Pentagon, and senior field commanders in Iraq. This is something I think needs to be dug out and put on display.
I’m sure you also genuinely think Bush can be prosecuted by the Democrat kangaroo court of John Conyers. And links between the White House and reporters would certainly be a scandal. The left really hates Fox News because it broke the monopoly but cable and satellite networks are probably out of your reach, at least until Obama’s third term, when he suspends elections for the emergency.
If the “Fairness Doctrine” is really pushed, and I don’t rule out anything with this arrogant and stupid bunch, it would be time to buy stock in satellite radio. Of course, the Civil Rights Tribunals might require the stations to be located in another country, sort of like the Serbian opposition radio station in 1995.
I would put nothing past the Obama/Axelrod fascists.
You see, in the 1940’s when the doctrine was imposed, there were few media outlets, especially in rural areas, to air competing views. Today, there’s an explosion of technology to air lots of differing views – radio, satellite radio, cable, satellite, internet, etc. etc. The fairness doctrine no longer makes sense.
Like I wrote, I think it’ll be tough to put the genie back in the bottle. That’s why I’d view legislation tio reimpose the Fairness Doctrine as mainly a vehicle by which to embarrass the Republican Party. I hssten to add, however, that like dogs, it’s hard to embarrass Republicans.
If the “Fairness Doctrine” is really pushed, and I don’t rule out anything with this arrogant and stupid bunch, it would be time to buy stock in satellite radio.
There is nothing special about “satellite radio.” It’s a matter of who uses which frequencies, not where the transmitters are located.
Mike K:
I thought about that, too. By its terms, the fairness doctrine does not apply to satellite radio. However, satellite spectrum is auctioned, so Congress would extend the doctrine to satellite spectrum in any law it passed.
Democrat:
As Chairman Mao would say, those Republicans are nothing but capitalist running dogs!
I don’t specifically remember anyone saying large swaths of conservative voters are voting for Obama. (It’s the moderates/independents who are switching over). What’s undeniable, however, is that there are a truly surprising number of conservative politicians and intellectuals who are supporting Obama — Fried, Buckley, Adleman, Powell, Duberstein — see here for more:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/fullpage/the-palin-effec.php
I don’t think this is a statistical artifact. I have three possible explanations: 1) (obviously) the extent to which Bush has obviously screwed up the country, 2) the anti-intellectualism of the contemporary Republican party (and the disastrous choice of Sarah Palin) and, importantly, 3) the extent to which the Republican party is turning into a local, Southern/rural party without a national reach — since these intellectuals and politicians live in urban areas (mostly outside the deep south; mostly DC or NY), they’re bound to be affected by this.
Kara Touby:
You are probably an intellectual (since you linked to TPM). Pray, please explain to us (your inferiors) how the contemporary Republican party is anti-intellectual?
Woohoo, 5 alleged conservatives go public with their support of Obama! Frankly, I don’t think you can call those people very conservative, certainly Powell has been at best a ‘moderate’ Republican. Since there is absolutely nothing in the least conservative about Obama’s proposals, I have to think these folks have decided to no longer be conservative.
Those of you who think Palin has been disastrous and is all washed up with a McCain loss (Hank in Michigan) are obviously clueless with respect to the Republican base–she has fired them up tremendously, and frankly I think McCain would be polling much worse without her. I’m inclined to believe she would be better off if McCain loses; she’s already been vetted by the drive-by media, and can go back to Alaska and govern (some more!) while preparing to run for the whole shebang in 4 years. On the other hand, if they win the next Obama wannabe will try to hang McCain’s presidential policies around her neck when she runs for te presidency after him.
Hank in Michigan has it partially right and “Democrat” is, once again, playing the obstinate partisan.
The electorate has changed with a full two generations of our youth (now adults) brainwashed with anti-American drivel from kindergarten through graduate school. Still, the Dems will barely cross the majority 50% mark and they are experiencing an endorphin rush the likes of which they haven’t experienced since 1992. And, as any man can tell you, that’s a lot of pent-up tension. So, enjoy Dems.
The claims of mandate and “giant win” are overstated. Five points, while comfortable, is hardly Reaganesque, Hank. Remember, Reagan beat Mondale 49 states to 1. Democrats haven’t had a year like that since 1964. Americans may want change (they usually do every 8 years or so) but not the far Left change Obama, Reid and Pelosi represent.
Obama will be the first Dem in THIRTY-TWO YEARS to actually get a majority of the vote! But, the last lib who did so, Carter, was so miserable that the Republicans gained the upper hand for 25 years. Now, Obama wants to repeat the failed policies of the Israel-hating Carter: Appeasement abroad and stagflation/high taxes at home.
As for Palin being damaged: We’ll see. If not for McCain, she wouldn’t be a national figure now. I seriously doubt she will do what idiot Johnny Edwards did and self-destruct. She, more than any other viable Republican (save for Romney can’t win because of the Christian Right) stands for and with small business and a sensible energy policy.
Sure, Palin was green this year. But, if she could survive the viscious Lefty attack (she did) and get some training in Foreign policy (like the Dear Leader has) look out. Do not underestimate her appeal, Dems.
Wouldn’t it be a hoot to see Obama facing off against Palin in ’12? The Libs, having helped to drag the first (half) Black candidate across the finish line just might be tempted to see to it that a female became president. Especially, after four long years of Thugocracy.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/
check out the post by ABC jake Tapper. Rep. Nadler (D) questioned Obama’s courage! this can be huge…he is a Obama supporter.
I meant the “Lib media” pulling O across the finish line. Of course, Obama has to actually win the election first. The funniest thing would be a Trumanesque victory for McCain.
#36: “I’d view legislation tio reimpose the Fairness Doctrine as mainly a vehicle by which to embarrass the Republican Party”
There must be a typo above: surely “embarrass the Democratic Party” is meant?
The party whose anti-free-speech legislation turns out to be unconstitutional?
The Republican Party would emerge as the knight in shining armor
defending 1st Amendment rights.
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would have a field day, should
such an attempt be made! The issue would reverberate for long to
embarrass any Democrat foolish enough to vote for such an abomination.
NorthernLightL:
Not a bad analysis, but I would point out (1) Sarah has equaled or outdrawn ‘the messiah” in most comparable venues, without his uber-bringums such as the bussed-in leftoids and union goons; (2) Sarah has also seriously outdrawn McCain. If he wins (as I think he will) will he remember that? somehow doubt it.
Palin v. Obama in 2012? BRING IT ON!
I believe it was Rudy Guiliani who said, “Democrats win polls. Republicans win elections.” It’s easy to see why.
When young people register to vote, they usually register as Democrats. As they get older, they vote Republican because now that they’re earning their own money, they want to keep it.
Most voters don’t bother switching political parties because of the paper work.
Thus, there are more Dems than Pubbies on the rolls, although the vote is split down the middle election after election.
Still, the Dems will barely cross the majority 50% mark and they are experiencing an endorphin rush the likes of which they haven’t experienced since 1992.
Yes to the endorphin rush — this is going to be one hell of a party — but I’m not so sure about the “barely cross the majority 50% mark.” For the past three weeks, I’ve been thinking 53%. Gallup is more optimistic, and thinks it’ll wind up being 55%.
Of course, the Nutcases will be telling themselves that this is really a victory. Ha ha ha!
Democrats, like radical terrorists, should be considered the enemy of any freedom loving American. Democrat cities and products produced by Democrat Union Thugs should be avoided. Let the Democrat parasites buy the Union made American junk cars. The card check system will complete the destruction of American business–small and large. So, enjoy your freedom while you can. Soon the Obama/Democrat Brown Shirt Police force with thier local informants will control America.
NorthernLight Says: Couldn’t have said it better myself.
There is no intellectual examination of Obama and his policies. His support is purely emotional. I will admit that color is the reason that I will not vote for him. Not the color of his skin but the Brilliant Red of his Marxist Philosophy. Any one who has looked at him rationally would have to come to the conclusion that he is a Marxist.
Don’t worry, Jack. McCain has a secret weapon at his disposal!