Irish Trojan in Tennessee

A floor fight over the veep spot?

By Brendan Loy

Bob Beckel argues that, if Hillary Clinton really wants to be Obama's running mate, she can force her way onto the ticket in a convention roll-call vote -- or get herself picked in advance by threatening to force a roll-call vote. We're talking about a roll-call vote for the vice-presidential nominee, mind you; yes, the delegates pick the veep, too. And Hillary will have almost half of the delegates in her corner anyway, and Beckel thinks she'd be able to bring along enough of Obama's superdelegates (many of whom have residual loyalty to the Clintons) to secure the #2 spot. I doubt it will shake out this way, but it's an interesting possibility.

Clinching

By Brendan Loy

If you include Michigan's "Uncommitted" delegates in Obama's column, as well as the Edwards delegates who have announced their intention to switch to Obama in the wake of Johnny Boy's endorsement, it now appears that Obama will clinch the pledged delegate majority -- including Michigan and Florida -- on Tuesday. So, that's one rhetorical weapon removed from Hillary's arsenal, in terms of rebutting his anticipated argument that, after Tuesday's results come in, he will have effectively "won" the primaries and caucuses and now it's up to the superdelegates whether to validate or overturn that result.

Diplomacy is not appeasement

By Brendan Loy

Since I keep referencing it, but I haven't actually stated my position on it, I figured I should probably weigh in on yesterday's controversial statement by President Bush at the Israeli Knesset:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Now, let me begin by pointing out that I myself have made the "appeasement" argument before. Specifically, in response to posters that were plastered around USC's campus in the immediate wake of 9/11 by anti-war activists (against the Afghanistan war, mind you), which stated "WAR IS ALSO TERRORISM," I made some rebuttal signs that stated, "APPEASEMENT IS ALSO SURRENDER." When I chose those words, I was responding to the then-common far-left credo that our reaction to 9/11 should involve withdrawing from the Middle East, closing our bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, etc. -- in other words, making specific, substantive concessions to Al Qaeda's demands.

Similarly, in 2005, I wrote on the blog that we should not withdraw from Iraq simply because the terrorists want us to:

The Islamist radicals don’t just want us out of their backyards — they want to take over ours. Just like we were foolish to ignore Hitler’s long-term goals for “Greater Germany” and pretend that he would be satisfied with a few incremental concessions here and there, we are foolish to ignore the Islamists’ long-term goal of a worldwide Islamic state.

Withdrawing from Iraq for fear of further attacks would not stop them — it would not even slow them down. On the contrary, it would encourage them, because it would show them that they can convince us to change our policies by terrorizing us. It would give them reason to hope that, with a few more attacks and a few more surrenders, maybe they really will be able to see the Islamic flag flying over the whole world. We must not feed that fantasy.

That’s not to say the Iraq war is necessarily justified — that’s a separate debate, but the debate must be conducted on our terms, not theirs. Whatever else might be said about Iraq, the terrorists’ ire is NOT a valid reason to consider withdrawing. Appeasement is not the answer.

Again, in raising the specter of "appeasement" and World War II, I was addressing a specific substantive concession that I believed we should not make, at least not for the reason stated. Now, you can argue the merits of my point, but it is at least within the realm of rationality to claim that such an action would indeed be "appeasement."

President Bush's comment, by contrast, is not within the realm of rationality. He is claiming that the mere act of sitting down and negotiating with an enemy is tantamount to "appeasement." That is absolutely absurd. Bush needs to look up a dictionary definition of the damn word he's talking about. American Heritage defines "appeasement" as "the policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace." Concessions. Not negotiations. In no version of reality is the mere act of negotiating "appeasement."

Now, it's perfectly fair to debate whether Obama's stated willingness to meet with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions is a good idea. I'm not at all sure it is, and my uncertainty on that point is one reason (among many) that I'm undecided between Obama and McCain. The mere act of engaging in negotiations does have certain potential negative consequences, particularly when you're the world's unipolar power -- it tends to bestow a certain veneer of legitimacy to the other side, it can be a propaganda coup, etc. These factors need to be considered, and weighed against the potential positive consequences. That is an important debate to have.

But regardless of where you come down in that debate, calling the simple act of negotiating "appeasement" is clearly incorrect. It's not "appeasement" unless you concede something. Period.

If you want to argue that merely negotiating with one's enemies is itself inherently a "concession," then what do you make of the many times throughout our history that U.S. presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, have met with our enemies, sometimes with great success? Remember "only Nixon can go to China"? How about Reagan's meetings with Gorbachev, which helped end the Cold War? (Hat tip: David K.) Were those revered Republican presidents "appeasing" China and Russia, merely by meeting with them? Or does the substance of the negotiations determine whether they engaged in "appeasement"?

The answer is head-smackingly obvious, to the point that anyone who responds incorrectly is either an idiot or a liar. It is substantive concessions that matter. Thus, for instance, it is fair to argue -- not necessarily correct, but plausibly arguable -- that President Clinton "appeased" North Korea by essentially paying them off to halt (or pretend to halt) their nuclear ambitions. It is not, however, fair to argue that a President Obama would inherently be "appeasing" them merely by re-opening direct talks. You can't make any kind of judgment on the issue of "appeasement" without getting into the substance of the potential talks.

The last time I checked, neither Barack Obama nor any other major Democratic figure is promising any specific substantive concessions to Iran, nor to any other "terrorists [or] radicals." Bush himself actually acknowledged this point, unintentionally no doubt, when he mockingly described the Dems' position as a belief that "some ingenious argument will persuade [the terrorists and radicals] they have been wrong all along." If that were really the Dems' goal, as Bush asserts, then it would be foolish and naive, but it would not be "appeasement." Even if we credit Bush's own straw-man version of the Democrats' position, he's still wrong. Trying to convince someone they're wrong is not the same thing as "appeasing" them!

Of course, in reality, the goals of diplomacy are varied and complex, and again, we can and should debate what those goals should be, whether direct negotiation is worth the costs, etc. But dismissing the whole project as, by its very nature, "appeasement," is simply a lie.

Nor is this just some minor semantic debate. The word "appeasement" has a very specific and loaded historical meaning in geopolitical discourse, as Bush knows perfectly well. He made this explicit with his reference to Hitler, but he didn't need to. Everybody knows, when you're talking about "appeasement," that you're referring to Neville Chamberlain and his decision to give Hitler the Sudetenland, in hopes of achieving "peace in our time." That foolish action was, of course, a textbook case of "granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace." That was appeasement.

But the mere fact that Chamberlain talked to Hitler wasn't "appeasement"! What made it "appeasement" is what he did at those talks: he made a concession that he shouldn't have made. Bush has offered no evidence, nor even an argument, that the Democrats would follow the same course as Chamberlain in that regard. He therefore has no business invoking Chamberlain and Hitler to make his point.

What's really sad about this whole kerfuffle is that, as I said, there is actually a very serious and important issue that underlies all this bulls**t and malarkey. But now that's all become obscured by Bush's despicable rhetoric and the Democrats' justifiably angry rebuttals. Basically, what's now happening to our political discourse on the important issue of how we should approach diplomacy with our enemies is precisely what happens on the Internet whenever somebody breaks Godwin's Law and inappropriately invokes Hitler. Our president yesterday became a glorified message-board troll.

One other point: I don't personally get too riled up about the whole "politics stops at the water's edge" thing. I'm not saying it isn't a good principle, necessarily, but it's just not something that personally makes my blood boil. However, it is something that Republicans and conservatives tend to get very worked up over. God forbid a liberal public figure should ever say anything critical of our foreign policy overseas! Any time they do so, even arguably, the right wing predictably erupts in a paroxysm of rage. For heaven's sake, Natalie Manies of the Dixie Chicks was pilloried for the fact that she dared speak ill of President Bush in England, and she's a freakin' singer. And I know there are examples of even more righteous outrage when it's an actual Democratic politician who does this, though I can't remember details off hand. The point is, this is very much a sore spot on the Right.

So, against that backdrop, it is totally hypocritical for anyone who has ever invoked the "politics stops at the water's edge" principle to in any way condone Bush's remarks yesterday. He went before the legislature of a foreign nation and, acting in his capacity as head of state, made a clearly political argument designed to attack the other party and its presumptive nominee. (And don't even start with the "he wasn't referring to Obama" nonsense, or the "Obama doth protest too much" absurdity. Just don't. That's beyond Hillaryesque in its disregard for the truth. Of course he was talking about Obama, you nitwits. And acknowledging that obvious fact in no way acknowledges the truth of the criticism. Go back to third grade art class and rejoin the discussion when you have something meaningful to contribute.) As such, he has specifically validated the practice of taking our internal political debates overseas, in the most ostentatious way imaginable. If you're okay with that, fine. But don't you dare ever criticize any Democrat or liberal ever again for doing the same thing in reverse.

Invade Burma?

By Brendan Loy

Last weekend, there was an interesting discussion in comments here on the blog about the merits of forcably bringing humanitarian aid to the people of Burma/Myanmar, the junta be damned. Now the New Yorker's George Packer ponders the same question, asking, "Should Burma Be Saved from Itself?" He writes:

Forcing the regime to let the rest of the world save its people would have a devastating effect on morale. Burma’s leaders are so isolated and irrational that they actually believe their own propaganda about being the only group that can hold the country together. It’s possible that the junta would collapse out of sheer humiliation. It’s also possible, though it seems unlikely to me, that Burmese military units would be ordered to engage the foreigners. Shots might be fired, people might be killed. No one knows what will happen if British sailors and American airmen arrive on soggy Burmese soil. Hanging over the question is, of course, Iraq. No one expects an intervention to go smoothly anymore; now we expect it to go terribly wrong. I doubt the American, British, French, Australian, and other governments, with or without U.N. consent, will decide to invade Burma with boxes of oral rehydration kits and high-energy biscuits. But if the fear of Baghdad and Falluja is what keeps foreign powers from saving huge numbers of Burmese from their own government’s callousness, that will be one more tragic consequence of the Iraq war.

On the other hand, if it’s going to be done, it should be done quickly. I know all the arguments why we shouldn’t. But there are at least a million counterarguments why we should.

Andrew Sullivan links to Packer's piece, and explicitly jumps on the bandwagon with the title, "Invade Burma, Please." He writes: "A brief, decisive international effort to reach the starving and sick seems important to me. If it helps demystify this vile regime, great. But in its demonstration of humanity, it is also a great way for the US to enhance its soft power in the developing world."

Discuss.

P.S. Meanwhile, Dr. Jeff Masters notes that the seasonal monsoon rains are rapidly approaching the Irrawaddy Delta.

A superdelegate map, and Michigan math

By Brendan Loy

The indispensable DemConWatch has a cool map of where each candidate is getting superdelegate support from. With a few notable exceptions, it's fairly similar to the primary map.

Meanwhile, The Jed Report argues that Edwards's endorsement of Obama "shatters Clinton's Michigan and Florida dreams," because "now that Edwards has endorsed Obama, there's really no fair argument to deny Obama" the 55 "Uncommitted" delegates from Michigan. Jed then does the math, and concludes that, even if Michigan and Florida are seated with full voting rights (but with Obama getting all 55 Uncommitteds), Obama only needs 22% of the remaining undeclared supers to clinch the nomination (this is using the Clintons' preferred "magic number" of 2,210).

An orgy of post-partisanship?

By Brendan Loy

McCain-Lieberman vs. Obama-Snowe?

Talk about "historic": we'd have candidates competing to be first black, first female, first Jewish, and oldest first-term president or vice-president, with the winning ticket guaranteed to be the first "bipartisan" administration since Adams-Jefferson.

(Lieberman, I should note in passing, is increasingly pissing me off lately. I don't have any problem with him supporting McCain -- I myself, as I keep saying, am thoroughly undecided between Obama and McCain at this point, and I don't think Lieberman owes some mythical duty of "loyalty" to support the Democratic nominee -- nor do I mind him drawing honest, substantive contrasts between McCain and Obama, even if he does so vigorously. But some of these deceptive partisan smears are beneath him... or I thought they were. Unlike Joe Klein, I'm not prepared at this point to say that I was wrong in 2006. But I'm disappointed in ol' Joementum. I'll probably have more to say about that at some point fairly soon.)

Another possibility: what if McCain picks Lieberman and Obama picks Gore, leading to a Gore vs. Lieberman grudge match for the veep spot? They'd be running against each other, eight years after they ran with each other! LOL! Can you imagine the vice-presidential debate? 

Okay, so it won't happen, for like a million reasons, but it's still something for political junkies to salivate over. :)

Here's something that might happen, though: you know how Obama unveiled the Edwards endorsement -- in Michigan -- on the day after his big loss in West Virginia? Well, Obama will be in Tampa next Wednesday, the day after his big loss in Kentucky (and his big win in Oregon, after which he will sorta-kinda-not-really declare victory). Can you think of anyone who Obama might try to convince to join him there -- in Florida, of all places -- for another big splashy post-election endorsement? Just saying!

The Ragin' Cajun in Knoxville

By Brendan Loy

As I mentioned previously, Becky and I went to the Knox County Democrats' Truman Day Dinner last night at the Knoxville Convention Center, where we were treated to a keynote address by none other than than the Ragin' Cajun himself, James Carville, described in the event's program as "the most famous political consultant in America" (something I think Karl Rove might take issue with).

Carville was as advertised: bombastic, outrageous, and hilarious. He was also, despite his well-known LSU fandom, dressed in a Tennessee football jersey throughout his remarks:

It was a Peyton Manning jersey, presented to him by the Knox County Democratic Party chairman, and he wore it proudly because, as Carville pointed out, Manning was born and raised in Louisiana. "He was our gift to your state," the native Louisianan said. "Don't expect any more."

A press release in advance of Carville's speech said he "will be giving his analysis of the primary campaign of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama," but in fact, he mostly steered clear of that topic, except to mock the hand-wringers who believe the battle is killing the party. "Don't worry," he said. "We'll be united." He added, "I'd much rather be in the party that's got two good candidates than in the party with one bad one."

The Republicans, Carville said, are the ones who are imploding (a theme echoed today by Peggy Noonan, who I'm guessing doesn't agree with Carville all that often). He then summoned his political strategy expertise and offered some free advice to the Republicans: "PANIC!!!"

But his most memorable jabs were reserved for a former Republican candidate for president, Tennessee's own Fred Thompson. Carville quipped that Thompson was "the only presidential candidate in history to test positive for ambien." (The audience roared.) Carville also said, to uproarious laughter, that Thompson is a big supporter of President Bush's education policy: "He wanted to make sure no child was left behind, so he married her." Heh.

I think my favorite line, though, was his reference to the topic that made this blog famous. Carville mentioned that he'll be giving the commencement address at Tulane this weekend. "I left Louisiana in 1986, and it took me 22 years to get back," he said. "That means I'm getting to Louisiana faster than FEMA got there."

You can read local news coverage of Carville's visit from the Knoxville News-Sentinel and Volunteer TV, and a bloggy interview at KnoxViews. Also, via Knoxville Talks, here is the local NBC affiliate's interview with Carville before the dinner:

As always with these sorts of events, you have to sit through all kinds of warm-up acts before the main event, and those included speeches by U.S. Senate candidates Bob Tuke and Mike Padgett, both of whom are vying to take on Lamar Alexander in November. (The primary is August 7; there are six Democrats on the ballot, but Tuke and Padgett are considered the front-runners.)

Both men spoke a little too long, I'd say, mostly repeating similar talking points: the Republicans are to blame for everything that's wrong with the country, Lamar Alexander has been in Washington for too long and is out of touch with ordinary Tennesseans, etc. Becky thought Tuke was the better speaker by far; personally, I thought Padgett was just about as good, but suffered from the fact that he spoke second, and by that point the audience was getting bored, having already heard all the good anti-GOP lines, and was ready for Carville to speak. Even so, it's odd that Tuke seemed to connect better with the audience, given that he's from Nashville whereas Padgett is a local boy.

Regardless, in all likelihood, Tuke and Padgett are fighting for the right to be a sacrificial lamb in November. According to a Rasmussen poll last month, Alexander leads 59% to 30% over Tuke and 58% to 31% over Padgett. But don't tell that to anyone at last night's event. It was basically a big pep rally for the Democratic Party, and although one speaker acknowledged that it can be "tough to be a Democrat in East Tennessee," folks at this shindig were incredibly upbeat about their chances in November. Of course, political self-delusion is a well-practiced art (just ask Carville's favored presidential candidate!), but I can see why there'd be some optimism: between the general national mood (Tuesday's special election in Mississippi was mentioned numerous times) and the recent scandals in the Republican-dominated Knox County government, it seems like, if there's ever a year when Democrats have a chance in East Tennessee, this would be the year.

The latest California couple

By David K.

Gays aren't the only new couples in California. USC and the Coliseum have patched up their differences and worked out a deal to keep the Trojans playing at the Coliseum for another 25 years, about the same time Coach Carroll will be ready to retire.