Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Today Richard Baehr (a McCain advocate) of the American Thinker offers a corrective to the oft-repeated criticism that the Gang of 14 somehow stabbed conservatism in the back. He writes:
"To put it plainly, the critics of the deal are flat out wrong. Conservatives should thank John McCain and the other Senators who were part of the Gang of 14 for getting three Appeals Court nominees who had been held up, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen, approved quickly and Brett Kavanaugh approved a bit later, and for Samuel Alito making it onto the Supreme Court without a filibuster blocking his way. And they should thank John McCain for preserving for the Republican Party the use of the filibuster on judicial nominations that might be made by a Democratic President beginning in 2009 or later" (essay in full here is worth reading).
For the most part, I agree. Back in the late spring of 2005, I wrote an op-ed piece for the local Waco paper regarding the so-called Gang of Fourteen and the then-controversial compromise over President Bush's judicial appointments.
From May 2005:
Last week, a bipartisan collection of fourteen moderates in the United States Senate caucused together to defuse an impending showdown over the ideological composition of the federal judiciary. Striking an eleventh-hour deal on the brink of political holy war, the self-selected centrists likely averted an injurious redefinition of established practice.
"To put it plainly, the critics of the deal are flat out wrong. Conservatives should thank John McCain and the other Senators who were part of the Gang of 14 for getting three Appeals Court nominees who had been held up, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen, approved quickly and Brett Kavanaugh approved a bit later, and for Samuel Alito making it onto the Supreme Court without a filibuster blocking his way. And they should thank John McCain for preserving for the Republican Party the use of the filibuster on judicial nominations that might be made by a Democratic President beginning in 2009 or later" (essay in full here is worth reading).
For the most part, I agree. Back in the late spring of 2005, I wrote an op-ed piece for the local Waco paper regarding the so-called Gang of Fourteen and the then-controversial compromise over President Bush's judicial appointments.
From May 2005:
Last week, a bipartisan collection of fourteen moderates in the United States Senate caucused together to defuse an impending showdown over the ideological composition of the federal judiciary. Striking an eleventh-hour deal on the brink of political holy war, the self-selected centrists likely averted an injurious redefinition of established practice.
Story here.
BEIJING: When state security agents burst into his apartment on Dec. 27, Hu Jia was chatting on Skype, the Internet-based telephone system. Hu's computer was his most potent tool. He disseminated information about human rights cases, peasant protests and other politically touchy topics even though he often lived under de facto house arrest.
Hu, 34, and his wife, Zeng Jinyan, are human rights advocates who spent much of 2006 restricted to their apartment in a complex with the unlikely name of Bo Bo Freedom City. She blogged about life under detention, while he videotaped a documentary titled "Prisoner in Freedom City." Their surreal existence seemed to reflect an official uncertainty about how, and whether, to shut them up.
That ended on Dec. 27. Hu was dragged away on charges of subverting state power while Zeng was bathing their newborn daughter, Qianci. Telephone and Internet connections to the apartment were severed. Mother and daughter are now under house arrest. Qianci, barely 2 months old, is probably the youngest political prisoner in China.
For human rights advocates and Chinese dissidents, Hu's detention is the most telling example of what they describe as a broadening crackdown on dissent as Beijing prepares to stage the Olympic Games in August. In recent months, several dissidents have been jailed, including a former factory worker in northeastern China who collected 10,000 signatures after posting an online petition titled "We Want Human Rights, Not the Olympics." (a much longer article, click link above to read the rest)
Someone tell me again, why do we have such favorable trade policies for these a***o*e*?
BEIJING: When state security agents burst into his apartment on Dec. 27, Hu Jia was chatting on Skype, the Internet-based telephone system. Hu's computer was his most potent tool. He disseminated information about human rights cases, peasant protests and other politically touchy topics even though he often lived under de facto house arrest.
Hu, 34, and his wife, Zeng Jinyan, are human rights advocates who spent much of 2006 restricted to their apartment in a complex with the unlikely name of Bo Bo Freedom City. She blogged about life under detention, while he videotaped a documentary titled "Prisoner in Freedom City." Their surreal existence seemed to reflect an official uncertainty about how, and whether, to shut them up.
That ended on Dec. 27. Hu was dragged away on charges of subverting state power while Zeng was bathing their newborn daughter, Qianci. Telephone and Internet connections to the apartment were severed. Mother and daughter are now under house arrest. Qianci, barely 2 months old, is probably the youngest political prisoner in China.
For human rights advocates and Chinese dissidents, Hu's detention is the most telling example of what they describe as a broadening crackdown on dissent as Beijing prepares to stage the Olympic Games in August. In recent months, several dissidents have been jailed, including a former factory worker in northeastern China who collected 10,000 signatures after posting an online petition titled "We Want Human Rights, Not the Olympics." (a much longer article, click link above to read the rest)
Someone tell me again, why do we have such favorable trade policies for these a***o*e*?
29/01: We Are Not In This Alone
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Category: Campaign 2008.9
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Back in March of 2006, I began my first month of blogging by asking myself:
why was I so dead-set against McCain six years ago?
My answer was uncertain:
Frankly, it is hard to remember exactly, but I came to genuinely dislike him for a time.
January 2008: I am starting to remember.
McCain is a decent fellow, I continue to believe. While his opponents ruthlessly distort his political record, he is, in truth, a center-right politician, who would make a good president, especially on issues of national security.
Having said that, he does have several personality traits that I find hard to abide. I have, once again, come to see his "straight-talk express" as a gimmick. He bellows about integrity and truth telling. He inveighs against his main opponent for distorting his record on immigration to shamelessly cover the truth that he continually revises, extends, and attempts to tamp down his unpopular statements on amnesty. Then McCain turns around and despicably invents a completely erroneous attack on Mitt Romney concerning his stance on the Iraq War. When confronted, McCain raises his voice and doubles his bet. Shameless. Moreover, McCain is also thin-skinned and petulant, and he is too quick to assume the victim pose. Everybody is always out to get him. Toughen up, John. Politics is a tough business.
Having said that, from the very beginning, I have believed that the best one-on-one match-up for the GOP is Hillary Clinton vs. McCain. He will run a very competitive campaign, which he might win. Even if he does not, he is a moderate Republican, and Hillary will need to run as a moderate Democrat to win. She will run to the center, and she cannot beat McCain and win election as president without committing to finish the war in Iraq. This is the most important issue of our time.
On the other hand, McCain most likely loses big to Obama. I am convinced he cannot get past the visuals. Obama is tall, handsome, vigorous, and youthful; while McCain is short, ugly, tired, and old. McCain is unable to stand on the same stage as Barack Obama and have a prayer of winning.
On the other hand, while I think Mitt Romney has the potential of losing to Hillary in an absolutely historic fashion, I think he matches up much better against Obama. And who knows, really, Romney might continue to improve as a candidate as the year drones on; he might very well grow into a race against Hillary.
My initial reaction to Romney was lukewarm--but, as circumstances have played out, I have come to appreciate him. Perhaps that is faint praise--but we are down to some imperfect choices.
On the other hand, the biggest problem with McCain is that he is a non-starter (make that deal-breaker) for too many important components of our party.
One more positive for Romney: the new most important issue in this election is the economy. Mitt Romney exudes confidence and competence in this area.
Bottom Line: as so many thoughtful people have written this week, things are still in a pretty big mess for the GOP.
why was I so dead-set against McCain six years ago?
My answer was uncertain:
Frankly, it is hard to remember exactly, but I came to genuinely dislike him for a time.
January 2008: I am starting to remember.
McCain is a decent fellow, I continue to believe. While his opponents ruthlessly distort his political record, he is, in truth, a center-right politician, who would make a good president, especially on issues of national security.
Having said that, he does have several personality traits that I find hard to abide. I have, once again, come to see his "straight-talk express" as a gimmick. He bellows about integrity and truth telling. He inveighs against his main opponent for distorting his record on immigration to shamelessly cover the truth that he continually revises, extends, and attempts to tamp down his unpopular statements on amnesty. Then McCain turns around and despicably invents a completely erroneous attack on Mitt Romney concerning his stance on the Iraq War. When confronted, McCain raises his voice and doubles his bet. Shameless. Moreover, McCain is also thin-skinned and petulant, and he is too quick to assume the victim pose. Everybody is always out to get him. Toughen up, John. Politics is a tough business.
Having said that, from the very beginning, I have believed that the best one-on-one match-up for the GOP is Hillary Clinton vs. McCain. He will run a very competitive campaign, which he might win. Even if he does not, he is a moderate Republican, and Hillary will need to run as a moderate Democrat to win. She will run to the center, and she cannot beat McCain and win election as president without committing to finish the war in Iraq. This is the most important issue of our time.
On the other hand, McCain most likely loses big to Obama. I am convinced he cannot get past the visuals. Obama is tall, handsome, vigorous, and youthful; while McCain is short, ugly, tired, and old. McCain is unable to stand on the same stage as Barack Obama and have a prayer of winning.
On the other hand, while I think Mitt Romney has the potential of losing to Hillary in an absolutely historic fashion, I think he matches up much better against Obama. And who knows, really, Romney might continue to improve as a candidate as the year drones on; he might very well grow into a race against Hillary.
My initial reaction to Romney was lukewarm--but, as circumstances have played out, I have come to appreciate him. Perhaps that is faint praise--but we are down to some imperfect choices.
On the other hand, the biggest problem with McCain is that he is a non-starter (make that deal-breaker) for too many important components of our party.
One more positive for Romney: the new most important issue in this election is the economy. Mitt Romney exudes confidence and competence in this area.
Bottom Line: as so many thoughtful people have written this week, things are still in a pretty big mess for the GOP.
Two thoughts I have not seen in other places (probably for good reason):
1. President Bush scored big on Iraq in his State of the Union Speech. Saving his strong suit for last, Bush hammered the faint of heart and chorus of doomsayers, coming back time and again to the contrast between the despair of early 2007 and myriad hopeful signs of 2008.
Inarguably, for good or for ill, George Bush owns the "surge" in Iraq. Last night he was taking it out for a spin, driving slow down the main drag, and whistling at the girls in the Mustang convertible. For the most part, the Democrats had to sit there and take it. All in all, last night seemed a pretty good night for the President.
One more thing: I was also cheered by his leisurely exit from the chamber, shaking hands and signing autographs in his trademark good-natured manner. He is at his best yucking it up with friends and adversaries alike.
2. Bush has been incredibly responsive and adept at massaging the international economic uncertainty that threatens to throw the world into recession.
Bush moved quickly, forcefully, and confidently after the dramatic downturns in world markets last Monday. With futures trading at 500 points below the opening on Tuesday, Bush followed Ben Bernanke’s announcement of an unprecedented three-quarter point cut in the federal funds rate with an equally rare productive meeting with Congressional leadership in which he secured a stimulus package for the sputtering economy.
In truth, Presidents have little control over the economy in the short run--save some psychological leger demain--but Bush has been making the most of his bully pulpit and good political horse sense.
For the record, the death of Heath Ledger may have done as much to stave off the great market crash of 2008 as George Bush or Ben Bernanke. That is, the banner headlines reading, "HEATH LEDGER IS DEAD," and stories extolling the many virtues of the twenty-eight year-old Barrymore were much better for economic sanity than the alternative headline of "MARKETS CRASHING: RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!"
Anyhow, George Bush may have gotten the break he needed, which allowed him to finesse the rest. Of course, the great crash of 2008 may be mere hours away. Who knows? The truth is the economy probably deserves a downturn. Bush inherited a slumping economy, made worse by 9-11, and not helped by a war that turned out much more expensive than anyone imagined. Having said that, the President does not get nearly enough credit for babying this economy through some tough times, and presiding over a period of significant growth.
An Aside: if you did not know better, you would think this dumb SOB from Texas was a Harvard MBA or something.
Bottom Line: understanding well that the politics of this situation are deadly and rigged against him, for the good of his historical reputation and the electoral fortunes of his party, he is desperately trying to help the troubled economy limp off the 2008 calendar and crash on someone else's watch.
Let's hope he can pull it off.
1. President Bush scored big on Iraq in his State of the Union Speech. Saving his strong suit for last, Bush hammered the faint of heart and chorus of doomsayers, coming back time and again to the contrast between the despair of early 2007 and myriad hopeful signs of 2008.
Inarguably, for good or for ill, George Bush owns the "surge" in Iraq. Last night he was taking it out for a spin, driving slow down the main drag, and whistling at the girls in the Mustang convertible. For the most part, the Democrats had to sit there and take it. All in all, last night seemed a pretty good night for the President.
One more thing: I was also cheered by his leisurely exit from the chamber, shaking hands and signing autographs in his trademark good-natured manner. He is at his best yucking it up with friends and adversaries alike.
2. Bush has been incredibly responsive and adept at massaging the international economic uncertainty that threatens to throw the world into recession.
Bush moved quickly, forcefully, and confidently after the dramatic downturns in world markets last Monday. With futures trading at 500 points below the opening on Tuesday, Bush followed Ben Bernanke’s announcement of an unprecedented three-quarter point cut in the federal funds rate with an equally rare productive meeting with Congressional leadership in which he secured a stimulus package for the sputtering economy.
In truth, Presidents have little control over the economy in the short run--save some psychological leger demain--but Bush has been making the most of his bully pulpit and good political horse sense.
For the record, the death of Heath Ledger may have done as much to stave off the great market crash of 2008 as George Bush or Ben Bernanke. That is, the banner headlines reading, "HEATH LEDGER IS DEAD," and stories extolling the many virtues of the twenty-eight year-old Barrymore were much better for economic sanity than the alternative headline of "MARKETS CRASHING: RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!"
Anyhow, George Bush may have gotten the break he needed, which allowed him to finesse the rest. Of course, the great crash of 2008 may be mere hours away. Who knows? The truth is the economy probably deserves a downturn. Bush inherited a slumping economy, made worse by 9-11, and not helped by a war that turned out much more expensive than anyone imagined. Having said that, the President does not get nearly enough credit for babying this economy through some tough times, and presiding over a period of significant growth.
An Aside: if you did not know better, you would think this dumb SOB from Texas was a Harvard MBA or something.
Bottom Line: understanding well that the politics of this situation are deadly and rigged against him, for the good of his historical reputation and the electoral fortunes of his party, he is desperately trying to help the troubled economy limp off the 2008 calendar and crash on someone else's watch.
Let's hope he can pull it off.
My mantra, Nobody Knows Anything, stands out conspicuously as my wisest utterance this entire extended season of national decision. Although I have repeatedly sprinkled this caveat throughout my extensive writings on Campaign 2008, I am sure that I have not said it enough. Nobody Knows Anything--and that goes double for me.
Having said that, we are in the midst of another "Hillary is finished" frenzy, but I am not at all convinced that her opponent's recent overwhelming victory in the Palmetto State and/or the endorsement of Liberal Lion, Ted Kennedy, seals the deal for the man from Illinois.
Not that I am not in awe of Barack Obama. I am.
Although Hillary is surprisingly adept and polished as a candidate for president (she is much, much better than I thought she would be), Obama is a once-in-a-generation wonder. He is the charismatic new kid in town about whom we know almost nothing--but on whom we are anxious to project our most sanguine hopes for ourselves, our nation, and our future. He is electric. He is on fire. He is in "the zone" of maximized self-actualization.
In many ways, however, Barack Obama is playing a desperate (and undoubtedly frustrating) game of "beat the clock." He must take control of this race by next Tuesday. Surely, if this nomination process had unraveled week by week, one primary at a time, over a three-month period, the incredibly attractive and energetic Obama would have overcome the Clintons, who seem to be tired, cranky, and taking on water. But in one week, Democrats in twenty-five states and voting districts will choose a candidate. This may prove to be a contest in which organization and two decades of planning, cajoling, and social networking overcomes youthful enthusiasm and raw talent. We will soon see.
If not now for Obama, when? How long will this sensational ride atop the fickled American political culture last? No one can say. He is young. One might think, if he comes up short this time, there will be other subsequent chances for this developing phenom to ascend the greasy pole and claim his due. But political life is unpredictable. There is a saying in cattle country about "striking while the iron is hot."
Oftentimes fate turns on a dime. It seems unlikely that a more propitious moment awaits Mr. Barack Obama. Popularity is fleeting and seldom moves consistently forward and upward. Tomorrow is a mystery. Now is the time for Obama. Luck be a Lady Tonight.
The now is the frustration, however. He is so close he can taste it. He made the right decision to make his move for the oval office when he did. But Obama is not quite there--and the clock is ticking. He had a chance to stampede Hillary Clinton after Iowa--but, somehow, and no one yet has come up with a satisfying answer of just how, it did not quite come together in New Hamshire.
He was supposed to win Nevada--but, somehow, he came up a bit short there as well. He got the unions (a huge coup)--but he still could not quite deliver on game day. He won huge in South Carolina--but there is a lingering worry that he might have gotten "rope-a-doped" in that round. Even as the mainstream media trumpets his successes, cynical pundits warn that he has fallen into a trap of racial politics set by his wily opponents.
And the speed of the game is increasing exponentially. He is moving fast. To shore up the Latino vote in the West (and avoid Nevada writ large), he is promoting his record of favoring drivers licenses for illegal aliens. All the polls say this is long-term poison--but the long term does not matter if one dies a political death in the now. You cannot save your ace for Game Seven, if you are the verge of elimination in Game Six. Obama is pulling out all the stops. Super Tuesday, February 5, is huge; is it bigger than his grassroots movement? No one knows. He has the money. He now has the endorsements. He is better positioned than any other previous insurgent candidate. But does he have the poise, experience, and supporting cast to pull this rabbit out of the hat when the game is on the line?
We will know soon.
A thought (on the relevance of the Kennedy imprimatur):
I will be very surprised if any Latinos on the West Coast give one solitary damn about Ted Kennedy--but who knows?
One Final Thought on the endorsements: I am convinced that they mean very little in terms of votes (no reasonable person would change his mind because Ted Kennedy told him to), but they are an important barometer of the race. More and more heavyweight Democrats (no insult intended) see Team Clinton as vulnerable; they are taking the opportunity to kick the Clintons in the teeth and curry favor with the likely winner. This trend must be part of the calculus. Most of these folks are canny political operators.
Having said that, we are in the midst of another "Hillary is finished" frenzy, but I am not at all convinced that her opponent's recent overwhelming victory in the Palmetto State and/or the endorsement of Liberal Lion, Ted Kennedy, seals the deal for the man from Illinois.
Not that I am not in awe of Barack Obama. I am.
Although Hillary is surprisingly adept and polished as a candidate for president (she is much, much better than I thought she would be), Obama is a once-in-a-generation wonder. He is the charismatic new kid in town about whom we know almost nothing--but on whom we are anxious to project our most sanguine hopes for ourselves, our nation, and our future. He is electric. He is on fire. He is in "the zone" of maximized self-actualization.
In many ways, however, Barack Obama is playing a desperate (and undoubtedly frustrating) game of "beat the clock." He must take control of this race by next Tuesday. Surely, if this nomination process had unraveled week by week, one primary at a time, over a three-month period, the incredibly attractive and energetic Obama would have overcome the Clintons, who seem to be tired, cranky, and taking on water. But in one week, Democrats in twenty-five states and voting districts will choose a candidate. This may prove to be a contest in which organization and two decades of planning, cajoling, and social networking overcomes youthful enthusiasm and raw talent. We will soon see.
If not now for Obama, when? How long will this sensational ride atop the fickled American political culture last? No one can say. He is young. One might think, if he comes up short this time, there will be other subsequent chances for this developing phenom to ascend the greasy pole and claim his due. But political life is unpredictable. There is a saying in cattle country about "striking while the iron is hot."
Oftentimes fate turns on a dime. It seems unlikely that a more propitious moment awaits Mr. Barack Obama. Popularity is fleeting and seldom moves consistently forward and upward. Tomorrow is a mystery. Now is the time for Obama. Luck be a Lady Tonight.
The now is the frustration, however. He is so close he can taste it. He made the right decision to make his move for the oval office when he did. But Obama is not quite there--and the clock is ticking. He had a chance to stampede Hillary Clinton after Iowa--but, somehow, and no one yet has come up with a satisfying answer of just how, it did not quite come together in New Hamshire.
He was supposed to win Nevada--but, somehow, he came up a bit short there as well. He got the unions (a huge coup)--but he still could not quite deliver on game day. He won huge in South Carolina--but there is a lingering worry that he might have gotten "rope-a-doped" in that round. Even as the mainstream media trumpets his successes, cynical pundits warn that he has fallen into a trap of racial politics set by his wily opponents.
And the speed of the game is increasing exponentially. He is moving fast. To shore up the Latino vote in the West (and avoid Nevada writ large), he is promoting his record of favoring drivers licenses for illegal aliens. All the polls say this is long-term poison--but the long term does not matter if one dies a political death in the now. You cannot save your ace for Game Seven, if you are the verge of elimination in Game Six. Obama is pulling out all the stops. Super Tuesday, February 5, is huge; is it bigger than his grassroots movement? No one knows. He has the money. He now has the endorsements. He is better positioned than any other previous insurgent candidate. But does he have the poise, experience, and supporting cast to pull this rabbit out of the hat when the game is on the line?
We will know soon.
A thought (on the relevance of the Kennedy imprimatur):
I will be very surprised if any Latinos on the West Coast give one solitary damn about Ted Kennedy--but who knows?
One Final Thought on the endorsements: I am convinced that they mean very little in terms of votes (no reasonable person would change his mind because Ted Kennedy told him to), but they are an important barometer of the race. More and more heavyweight Democrats (no insult intended) see Team Clinton as vulnerable; they are taking the opportunity to kick the Clintons in the teeth and curry favor with the likely winner. This trend must be part of the calculus. Most of these folks are canny political operators.
Reciprocity, or, thoughts on being an idolatrous infidel
What he said.
Link from Instapundit.
Being just and righteous and even being Christian is not exactly the same thing as being "nice."
Read the Gospel of Mark straight through at a sitting (it's not that long). Now, decide just how the word "nice" applies to Jesus. For an online version click the link.
One of the common modern heresies is that Christians never should give offense, should be "nice." B*llsh*t.
What he said.
Link from Instapundit.
Being just and righteous and even being Christian is not exactly the same thing as being "nice."
Read the Gospel of Mark straight through at a sitting (it's not that long). Now, decide just how the word "nice" applies to Jesus. For an online version click the link.
One of the common modern heresies is that Christians never should give offense, should be "nice." B*llsh*t.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Story here from the Times of India.
NEW DELHI: India has told China that Beijing's steadfast refusal to clarify the Line of Actual Control (LAC) was leading to incursions into Indian territory and political disquiet. The Indian response came after China protested "Indian movements into Sikkim" recently.
The Chinese protest was made at the flag meeting of the commanders well before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's recent visit to Beijing.
It was followed up by a demarche after the visit. What is less known is the Chinese protest following a formal protest lodged by India on their movements in Arunachal Pradesh. India had complained about Chinese incursions in Arunachal Pradesh and the India-Bhutan tri-junction after repeated instances of Chinese movements which were described as "aggressive." . . .
More disquieting news, also from the Times of India:
. . . On November 8, Chinese forces demolished some unmanned Indian forward posts near two Army bunkers against which Beijing had raised objections since July. "The Chinese came, destroyed the posts and went back," said an Army officer. The incident is learned to have taken place around November 8. . . .
And,
NEW DELHI: Amid reports of intrusion by Chinese forces in Bhutan, the Army has moved more than 6,000 troops to the Sino-Indian border, close to tri-junction of India, Bhutan and China. However, Army Chief Deepak Kapoor said that reported intrusions of Chinese forces in Bhutan was 'a matter between the two countries'. The shifting of Army formations north of Nathu La comes in the wake of reports of Chinese troops coming close to the Siliguiri corridor. But Army authorities brush it aside, saying that Chinese forces have been coming close to the Dolam Plateau for over two decades as the boundary in the area is still to be defined. Army officials described the movement from Jammu and Kashmir as "routine move-back" of troops to their original locations". . . .
And,
GANGTOK: The Kunming bonhomie notwithstanding, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China is undercutting Indian Army's efforts to strengthen its presence on the border. On November 23, a week before the visit of defence minister A K Antony and chief of army staff Gen Deepak Kapoor to Sikkim, PLA soldiers unloaded boulders in an effort to wreck the construction of a metalled road at Fingertips, a strategic spot near Gurudongmar in North Sikkim. The area is close to the Kangra La pass bordering south-west Tibet.
Indian troops, however, swung into action the next morning, and removed the obstruction. The road construction — at an altitude of 18,500 feet — was completed on November 27. Chinese representatives, however, did not speak about the offensive at Fingertips during a meeting between army representatives from both sides on November 23. They also kept quiet on the bunker dispute at the trijunction of Sikkim, Bhutan and Tibet. Significantly, prior to the Fingertips manoeuvre, Chinese troops had entered Indian territory and asked Indian Army personnel manning the border post there to stop construction of the road.
Apparently, the Chinese government believes that any negotiations should be accompanied by intimidation. Which of the presidential aspirants do you think best to handle negotiations with the growing power and ambition of China?
NEW DELHI: India has told China that Beijing's steadfast refusal to clarify the Line of Actual Control (LAC) was leading to incursions into Indian territory and political disquiet. The Indian response came after China protested "Indian movements into Sikkim" recently.
The Chinese protest was made at the flag meeting of the commanders well before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's recent visit to Beijing.
It was followed up by a demarche after the visit. What is less known is the Chinese protest following a formal protest lodged by India on their movements in Arunachal Pradesh. India had complained about Chinese incursions in Arunachal Pradesh and the India-Bhutan tri-junction after repeated instances of Chinese movements which were described as "aggressive." . . .
More disquieting news, also from the Times of India:
. . . On November 8, Chinese forces demolished some unmanned Indian forward posts near two Army bunkers against which Beijing had raised objections since July. "The Chinese came, destroyed the posts and went back," said an Army officer. The incident is learned to have taken place around November 8. . . .
And,
NEW DELHI: Amid reports of intrusion by Chinese forces in Bhutan, the Army has moved more than 6,000 troops to the Sino-Indian border, close to tri-junction of India, Bhutan and China. However, Army Chief Deepak Kapoor said that reported intrusions of Chinese forces in Bhutan was 'a matter between the two countries'. The shifting of Army formations north of Nathu La comes in the wake of reports of Chinese troops coming close to the Siliguiri corridor. But Army authorities brush it aside, saying that Chinese forces have been coming close to the Dolam Plateau for over two decades as the boundary in the area is still to be defined. Army officials described the movement from Jammu and Kashmir as "routine move-back" of troops to their original locations". . . .
And,
GANGTOK: The Kunming bonhomie notwithstanding, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China is undercutting Indian Army's efforts to strengthen its presence on the border. On November 23, a week before the visit of defence minister A K Antony and chief of army staff Gen Deepak Kapoor to Sikkim, PLA soldiers unloaded boulders in an effort to wreck the construction of a metalled road at Fingertips, a strategic spot near Gurudongmar in North Sikkim. The area is close to the Kangra La pass bordering south-west Tibet.
Indian troops, however, swung into action the next morning, and removed the obstruction. The road construction — at an altitude of 18,500 feet — was completed on November 27. Chinese representatives, however, did not speak about the offensive at Fingertips during a meeting between army representatives from both sides on November 23. They also kept quiet on the bunker dispute at the trijunction of Sikkim, Bhutan and Tibet. Significantly, prior to the Fingertips manoeuvre, Chinese troops had entered Indian territory and asked Indian Army personnel manning the border post there to stop construction of the road.
Apparently, the Chinese government believes that any negotiations should be accompanied by intimidation. Which of the presidential aspirants do you think best to handle negotiations with the growing power and ambition of China?
Category: Frivolity
Posted by: an okie gardener
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Tying up a loose end from a week ago. Joseph Ellis is a marvelous historian. His numerous studies of the framers generally offer compelling and insightful analysis buttressed by careful research and tightly wound logic.
Having said that, Professor Ellis advanced a breathtakingly shaky argument in a brief op-ed piece that appeared in the troubled Los Angeles Times last Saturday morning.
His thesis: When it comes to Barack Obama, the candidate's message of hope and togetherness is rooted in our sacred past.
Ellis begins with a summary of the negative:
"Critics of Obama...have described his vision [of unity and bipartisanship] as a naive pipe dream that would be dead on arrival if he were elected president."
"From the beginning of our history, so the argument goes, an Obama-like message has been a rhetorical veneer designed to obscure the less-attractive reality of irreconcilable division and an inherently adversarial party system."
Not so, says Ellis. Obama skeptics fail to consider our early history as a nation. Employing extensive quotes from our first four American presidents, he sets out to prove "all the prominent founders regarded the bipartisan ideal as the essence of political virtue" and "would regard [partisan battles] as a perversion of all that they wished the American republic to become."
True enough. Ellis accurately conveys the words of these "founding brothers," but his argument ignores the obvious discrepancy between their words and deeds. Incredibly, Ellis seems to accept reams of tragically self-deluded and self-serving pieces of self-analysis from the pens of these eighteenth-century luminaries. Even more curious, he ignores his own findings over time, which tell a much richer story of practical reality so often overcoming the ideals and prevailing political theory of the day.
"Adams carried the ideal to such a length that he regarded his defeat in the presidential election of 1800," writes Ellis, "as evidence that he had so eschewed partisanship that he never abandoned the public interest for his own political gain."
Of course, Adams thought himself an innocent victim of partisanship. Rather pathetically, he assured himself that he had lost a national election as a result of his integrity and principles, preserving the above-quoted defense for posterity. But this is the same Adams who saw the Election of 1800 as an historic confrontation between the forces of good and evil. He viewed Jefferson and Madison as traitors to the true republican ideals of the Revolution (and Jefferson himself as a faithless former friend). Moreover, Adams allowed himself to be convinced that the two Republican Party collaborators were, indeed, dangerous Jacobins (radicals who would murder the opposition, burn churches, and cast the nation into the chaos of mob rule).
Ellis also quotes from Washington's foundational "Farewell Address" in which the Father of our Country rails against "the spirit of party." It is quite true that Washington thoroughly hated the evils of partisanship, and the verbiage of the document (mostly written by Alexander Hamilton with some previous aid from James Madison) reflects that vehemence. However, Washington's ire is directed against one party in particular: the aforementioned inchoate party of Jefferson and Madison. Ironically, even as Washington voiced his righteous indignation, he was tacitly protecting and supporting the party of Hamilton and Adams and the Washington administration, the loose political organization we refer to today as the Federalist Party. All the while, of course, Jefferson was busy denying that his organization was a party and maintaining that factional politics was anathema to him and his loyalists. All of it was quite hypocritical (or, perhaps, more charitably, completely lacking in self awareness).
Amazingly, while admitting he "is somewhat tricky on this score," Ellis even tries to shoehorn Thomas Jefferson into his thesis:
"In fact, Jefferson made two of the most eloquent statements against party politics. 'If I must go to heaven in a party,' he claimed, "I prefer not to go at all.' And in his first inaugural address, he stunned his partisan supporters by observing that 'we are all Federalists, we are all Republicans.'"
Those ought to be good laugh lines, really. Jefferson and Madison came to the Federal City in 1801 intent on taking no prisoners. Elegant words be damned, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were devastating practitioners of partisan warfare. In fact, they were so expert that they put the other side out of business--which eventually led to the so-called "Era of Good Feelings" (which it was not).
An alternate interpretation of the evidence Ellis presents? The pols of the eighteenth century took great care that their public personae (and perhaps their own self-perceptions) conformed to the demands of the political culture of their time. However, without exception, the reality of governing the evolving early republic drove its leaders to pound one another relentlessly in a fashion modern-day practitioners of hardball politics might find startling.
Politicians promising a kinder, gentler, and more bipartisan approach have been with us from the beginning. Some of these prophets of non-partisanship may have actually believed their own rhetoric (John Quincy Adams and George W. Bush come to mind), but not one has succeeded in "changing the tone in Washington."
Having said that, Professor Ellis advanced a breathtakingly shaky argument in a brief op-ed piece that appeared in the troubled Los Angeles Times last Saturday morning.
His thesis: When it comes to Barack Obama, the candidate's message of hope and togetherness is rooted in our sacred past.
Ellis begins with a summary of the negative:
"Critics of Obama...have described his vision [of unity and bipartisanship] as a naive pipe dream that would be dead on arrival if he were elected president."
"From the beginning of our history, so the argument goes, an Obama-like message has been a rhetorical veneer designed to obscure the less-attractive reality of irreconcilable division and an inherently adversarial party system."
Not so, says Ellis. Obama skeptics fail to consider our early history as a nation. Employing extensive quotes from our first four American presidents, he sets out to prove "all the prominent founders regarded the bipartisan ideal as the essence of political virtue" and "would regard [partisan battles] as a perversion of all that they wished the American republic to become."
True enough. Ellis accurately conveys the words of these "founding brothers," but his argument ignores the obvious discrepancy between their words and deeds. Incredibly, Ellis seems to accept reams of tragically self-deluded and self-serving pieces of self-analysis from the pens of these eighteenth-century luminaries. Even more curious, he ignores his own findings over time, which tell a much richer story of practical reality so often overcoming the ideals and prevailing political theory of the day.
"Adams carried the ideal to such a length that he regarded his defeat in the presidential election of 1800," writes Ellis, "as evidence that he had so eschewed partisanship that he never abandoned the public interest for his own political gain."
Of course, Adams thought himself an innocent victim of partisanship. Rather pathetically, he assured himself that he had lost a national election as a result of his integrity and principles, preserving the above-quoted defense for posterity. But this is the same Adams who saw the Election of 1800 as an historic confrontation between the forces of good and evil. He viewed Jefferson and Madison as traitors to the true republican ideals of the Revolution (and Jefferson himself as a faithless former friend). Moreover, Adams allowed himself to be convinced that the two Republican Party collaborators were, indeed, dangerous Jacobins (radicals who would murder the opposition, burn churches, and cast the nation into the chaos of mob rule).
Ellis also quotes from Washington's foundational "Farewell Address" in which the Father of our Country rails against "the spirit of party." It is quite true that Washington thoroughly hated the evils of partisanship, and the verbiage of the document (mostly written by Alexander Hamilton with some previous aid from James Madison) reflects that vehemence. However, Washington's ire is directed against one party in particular: the aforementioned inchoate party of Jefferson and Madison. Ironically, even as Washington voiced his righteous indignation, he was tacitly protecting and supporting the party of Hamilton and Adams and the Washington administration, the loose political organization we refer to today as the Federalist Party. All the while, of course, Jefferson was busy denying that his organization was a party and maintaining that factional politics was anathema to him and his loyalists. All of it was quite hypocritical (or, perhaps, more charitably, completely lacking in self awareness).
Amazingly, while admitting he "is somewhat tricky on this score," Ellis even tries to shoehorn Thomas Jefferson into his thesis:
"In fact, Jefferson made two of the most eloquent statements against party politics. 'If I must go to heaven in a party,' he claimed, "I prefer not to go at all.' And in his first inaugural address, he stunned his partisan supporters by observing that 'we are all Federalists, we are all Republicans.'"
Those ought to be good laugh lines, really. Jefferson and Madison came to the Federal City in 1801 intent on taking no prisoners. Elegant words be damned, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were devastating practitioners of partisan warfare. In fact, they were so expert that they put the other side out of business--which eventually led to the so-called "Era of Good Feelings" (which it was not).
An alternate interpretation of the evidence Ellis presents? The pols of the eighteenth century took great care that their public personae (and perhaps their own self-perceptions) conformed to the demands of the political culture of their time. However, without exception, the reality of governing the evolving early republic drove its leaders to pound one another relentlessly in a fashion modern-day practitioners of hardball politics might find startling.
Politicians promising a kinder, gentler, and more bipartisan approach have been with us from the beginning. Some of these prophets of non-partisanship may have actually believed their own rhetoric (John Quincy Adams and George W. Bush come to mind), but not one has succeeded in "changing the tone in Washington."
