We Want War! More More War!

I realize that I've been linking to Ezra Klein a lot, but here's another good post from him on John McCain. As readers of this blog are aware, St. McCain hates war. Ezra points out:

Between 1995 and 2008, McCain has advocated full-scale war in Kosovo, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. He has repeatedly sought to ratchet up tensions with Russia and China, and has advisers who've called for air strikes on Syria. And those are only the instance I can remember offhand. His horror of war has led him to advocate no fewer than four full-scale wars in the past decade or so. And his recognition of its dangers has spurred him towards an aggressive, threatening stance against two of the largest, most powerful countries on earth.

Good point. These are interesting stands for an individual to take, especially when that same individual seeks to reassure voters of their hatred of war. Ezra also links to a great column by Spencer Ackerman that's currently up on the Washington Independent site. Spencer articulates how McCain's foreign policy is basically the same as W's, except for one little caveat, IT'S WORSE!!!

Huh?

Everyday I always wander over to the New Republic website to see what's up. I often find a number of good articles, but I also usually find a lot of crap from Marty Peretz, Jamie Kirchick, and a bunch of other wankers. Today, I read a truly puzzling piece by Sacha Zimmerman. Zimmerman's little ditty is one part lament and one part diatribe. Bascially Sacha is all worked up that MSNBC canceled Tucker. I know, boo hoo, right? This is, of course, the lament portion of her article. Her argument for Tucker goes like this:

Whatever bad memories you may have of Tucker Carlson's "Crossfire" days, the most recent iteration of his show on MSNBC allowed him to return to expressing the kind of nuanced insight that first got him noticed as a young conservative writer. Carlson has certainly inflamed his share of liberals (among other things, he called the NAACP "a sad joke that should be shut down" and called Bill Clinton a "sanctimonious jerk"), but then he's not exactly reliably conservative, either. In the olio of dependably left- or right-wing voices on cable television, Carlson went his own way-and it's too bad the audience didn't go there with him. He retracted his initial support for the Iraq war, believes gay marriage is good because the institution of marriage is good, is pro-life, anti-death penalty, and won't abide any discussion of the sexual peccadilloes of politicians no matter what their side of the aisle. In the Obama parlance of our times, Carlson was "post-partisan." It made him an excellent choice to exchange blows with opinion leaders on the topics of the day. Of course, this is also exactly why the iconoclastic Carlson doesn't fit into MSNBC's left-wing makeover.

Touching. But wait, MSNBC is going left-wing? That's news to me! Zimmerman accuses MSNBC of having no conservative pundits. Pat Buchanan isn't a conservative? What about Joe Scarborough? Buchanan is as right-wing as they come. I'll admit that Scarborough is fairly independent and criticizes Republicans from time to time, but he's definately a conservative. Also, MSNBC is certainly not a liberal news outlet. Stroll on over to Media Matters and you'll find plenty of evidence that challenges Zimmerman's claim. Anyways, now that we've thoroughly debunked MSNBC's "liberal bona fides", let's move on to the subject of the supposedly liberal David Gregory.

Here's Zimmerman's analysis of Gregory:

After cutting his teeth on the O.J. Simpson circuit, Gregory began his White House press corps duties with the kind of gusto and drama rarely seen in the stuffy halls of power. Zachary Roth depicted a classic Gregory "hissy fit" in an otherwise flattering profile in this magazine last year in which Gregory famously called White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan a "jerk." But Gregory has also initiated shouting matches in almost every exchange he had with White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and generally allowed histrionics to set the tone for his coverage. Despite his often piercing and on-point questions, this behavior has cemented David Gregory as a liberal-media-conspiracy incarnate in the eyes of conservatives and a kind of tough-questioning hero to many on the anti-Bush left. The conservative Accuracy In Media even started a letter-writing campaign aimed at shunning Gregory. But no matter your view--and no matter Gregory's personal political beliefs--the decision to use the journalistic lightning rod further distances MSNBC from the cause of good political analysis.

First, to be fair, let's also give credit where credit is due. I agree with Zimmerman when she states that his true talents lie in the art of the interview. Gregory asks pointed questions and he doesn't back down. I'll also agree that his weakness is in reporting. He often rushes through crucial elements of a story and repeats claims from politicians without context. However, he's no liberal. Gregory has repeatedly allowed Republican talking points to filter through his reports and interviews. Whether this is a function of an agenda or ignorance on Gregory's part is subject to debate. I suspect a combination of both, but admittedly, that's the safe, PC choice.

I guess what puzzles me the most about Zimmerman's piece is I don't understand what she's going for with it. It's not all rant, and it's not all lament. It's just a crazy hodge podge of both. What do you want Sacha? I guess maybe she wants more connies on MSNBC because she feels that will lead to smarter political analysis. As I stated above, MSNBC has plenty. Keith Olbermann is basically the only liberal on the channel, because I don't know what Dan Abrams is other than all over the place. There's nothing wrong with pointing out a lack of diversity in viewpoint, just make sure that your aware which side isn't being represented.

War...What is it good for?

Ezra Klein has a great post in response to McCain's new assertion that he "hates war."

McCain may hate war, but like your buddy who professes to hate his ex-girlfriend, he sure does fall back into its arms a lot. He supported the grievously misguided war in Iraq, continually advocates its escalation, and professes comfort with a literally endless occupation. He wanted ground troops in Kosovo and an attack on North Korea. And however much he proclaims his hatred of war, his dip into song -- "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..." -- certainly wasn't a somber treatment of life's most detestable outcome. At a moment of high tensions with Iran, asked whether he would support a catastrophic war with a major Middle Eastern nation based on fearmongering about their nuclear ambitions that turned out to be false, McCain not only agreed that he would, but he broke into song over the idea. McCain may say he "hates" war. But that's different than having an aversion, or even a reluctance, to go to war. As it is, what McCain has is a statesman's political persona and crazed hawk's policy positions. And that's, if anything, more dangerous.

The Dynamic Duo

Yay! St. McCain and Holy Joe to the rescue! Yay! Alright. Anyways, via the great Ezra Klein, I was lead to this amazing column by Harold Meyerson in today's Washington Post. I really can't add any commentary to this because Meyerson's piece is exquisitely well-written and I couldn't possibly convey this argument anywhere near as effective as he can. Please read it, it's an important take on a man that is running for a very important position.

Hillary, PLEASE STOP!

The picture is becoming clearer everyday: Hillary Clinton does not care about the Democratic party. She's jumping on the meida bandwagon trying to condemn Barack Obama over his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. Josh Marshall has a great post about all of this. Clinton is turning to her sworn enemies to help her smear Obama. I mean the American Spectator, come on Hillary! She's granting interviews to right-wing rags now!?! It's baffling that Hillary Clinton is either completely ignorant of, or apathetic towards the damage she's doing to the Democratic Party. If she somehow manages to steal to the nomination by convincing the superdelegates that she is the more electable candidate, she will have suceeded only in shrinking the Democratic coalition that she will need to win the general election. There is a lot of resentment out there between Obama and Clinton supporters. I'm personally considering staying home, or writing in "Wolverine" or "Batman" if she's the nominee. This has ceased being a matter of convenience and transformed into a matter of political survival. Clinton needs to realize that the longer John McCain has to consolidate his base, the smaller our chances become of gaining the presidency. Howard Dean, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi need to get off their asses and take action. It would also help if Al Gore and John Edwards would just endorse someone already. It seems to me that each would most likely endorse Obama, but I've heard otherwise from some. Either way, their endorsements would lend huge credibility to either candidate and would also likely be accompanied by renewed or additional support. I think we should look into starting a fund to purchase a Wrap It Up Box for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton: McCain Cheerleader?

Jonathan Chait has interesting post up at the Plank examining whether or not Clinton would prefer a general election victory for John McCain over Barack Obama. I guess I'd like to think that Clinton wouldn't want this, and I doubt she does, but you never know. Chait makes a good point that Clinton would be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2012 if Obama were to lose the general, but I think that her chances would be even more lackluster then than they are now. Granted, that assumes that McCain would have a successful first term. I doubt that would be the case, since McCain has shown recently that he has little expertise in pretty much any policy area, leadership included. However, as I've mentioned countless times, the media's love affair with the Saint would likely result in them painting a lovely portrait of a McCain presidency.

Anways, I digress, Chait also hammers on the fact that Clinton really has no shot at picking up the nomination. If she does (somehow) get the nomination, she will have gained it by convincing the superdelegates that Obama is a wanker. If she does that, I really think its safe to say that the Democratic Party will fall into civil war. Clinton has damaged herself in the eyes of many Democrats that would've otherwise supported her had she won the nomination fair and square. It should also be noted that independents and Republicans find Clinton more or less radioactive. It has to suck to be Hillary Clinton, I do still have some sympathy for her as there is no way to determine how much damage the media's coverage of her has done to her campaign. That being said, what's done is done and we have to move forward. Hillary needs to realize that her continued presence in this primary is damaging the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. In short, she just got reelected to another term in the Senate, she should look to the best interests of the people of New York and return to her duties as one of their elected voices.

Bacevich on Obama and McCain

Via Matt Yglesias, I found this great article by Andrew Bacevich. Bacevich, a conservative, argues that Barack Obama would be a better president for the conservative movement than George W. Bush has been, or John McCain ever could be. It's really very intriguing, I wouldn't mind Bacevich's wing of the conservative movement returning to prominence in the Republican party. The article goes into how true conservatism has been slowly dying since 1980. He argues that the Republican Party's devotion to corporate excess and American empire has brought about it's doom. Bacevich believes that as the common sense candidate, a Barack Obama presidency would bring about a political climate ripe for the destruction of neo- and corporate- conservatism.

I concur, and while I certainly have little sympathy for coservatism in any guise, it seems like the paleocons or traditional conservatives, if you will, are the more inherently reasonable people in the tent. These are the guys that are against premptive war, the police state, and corporate excess. They certainly have a number of disturbing cultural and economic beliefs, but they are much more open to compromise than those that currently dominate the Republican Party. Bacevich certainly is a reasonable fellow. His book, The New American Militarism should be widely read by conservatives and liberals alike.