Decision ‘08

No Jimmy Carter, He!

In contrast to our increasingly embarrassing ex-President Jimmah, who advocates the strangest strategic position I have ever seen (the idea that it is wrong to choose sides - how novel! - and insipid), Rudy G. knows damn well that there is only one faction in the Palestinian territories that even offers a remote chance for a peace partner, and it damn sure ain’t named Hamas. Not that he’s starry-eyed over Fatah, either:

Rudolph W. Giuliani addressed Israeli-Palestinian discord on Tuesday, saying it was pointless for the United States to negotiate with Hamas, the Islamic group that has seized control of the Gaza Strip, and that Washington should work with Egypt and Jordan to bolster Fatah and its control over the West Bank.

As he advocated active American engagement, Mr. Giuliani urged caution and broadly criticized the Clinton administration’s approach in the 1990s, trying to broker peace with Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader.

“Let’s not become like starry romantics like we were with Arafat, where he was leading us down the primrose path and we were helping him get the Nobel Peace Prize,” Mr. Giuliani said in a speech here at Regent University, which Pat Robertson, the evangelist, founded.

Setting out a position that largely tracked Bush administration policy and the positions of Egypt, Israel and Jordan, Mr. Giuliani suggested that the best course was to bolster Fatah, which Mr. Arafat controlled until he died and is now run by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president

“Let’s see if we can’t get Jordan and Egypt to help us try and create something with Abbas in the West Bank,” Mr. Giuliani said.

And - I’m talking to you, Ryan! - he took a stand (a partial one, at any rate) against torture, to boot:

He affirmed his commitment to keep American soldiers in Iraq, emphasized the danger Iran poses and, for the first time, distanced himself from certain interrogation methods that the Bush administration backs. He said he did not think that waterboarding, in which a detainee or prisoner is strapped with his feet above his head, gagged and made to think he is drowning, was necessary.

First used in the Spanish Inquisition, the method is widely considered torture by human rights groups. The procedure had been on a list of approved “enhanced interrogation techniques” used by the United States on terror suspects, although the Central Intelligence Agency has left it off a proposal for an updated set of rules on permissible techniques. Mr. Giuliani, who did not directly answer the question when it came up at a recent Republican debate, told reporters at a news conference that information could be gathered without going to such extremes.

“I think you can do it without something like waterboarding,” he said after being pressed. He was quick to say he thought that interrogation needed to be aggressive, but likened what he meant to more traditional means of obtaining information.

In other Middle East news, it’s official: Tony Blair is the new envoy for the Quartet.

Tony Blair, who stepped down today as the prime minister of Britain, has been appointed a new senior peace envoy for the Middle East, working on building the framework for a Palestinian state, officials said today.

…Mr. Blair, who handed his office over to Gordon Brown in London, becomes a senior envoy for the “quartet,” diplomatic shorthand for the four leading outside forces working on peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinians — the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.

A State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said Mr. Blair would spend significant time in the region “working with the parties and others to help viable and lasting government institutions representing all Palestinians, a robust economy and a climate of law and order for the Palestinian people.”

The announcement was widely expected today, in the middle of a week of renewed diplomatic activity following the seizure of control in the Gaza Strip by Hamas about two weeks ago. The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas of the rival Fatah party, responded by dissolving the Hamas-led multiparty Palestinian cabinet and installing an emergency government that excluded the Islamist group.

With Hamas out, Western nations have pledged to resume financial aid to the Palestinian government. Mr. Abbas met Israeli, Egyptian and Jordanian leaders in Egypt on Monday to work on the next steps for the Palestinian government. And on Tuesday, the quartet held talks in Jerusalem to discuss the recent developments, including the proposal to name Mr. Blair as envoy.

Good luck, Mr. Prime Minister - it’s a tough job, but he’s a good man, and I expect some progress to be made - whether that progress results in any true breakthroughs, well, let’s borrow the old medical advice and “hope for the best while preparing for the worst”…

24 Responses to “No Jimmy Carter, He!”

1 Peter Says:
June 27th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Let’s see. Rudy Giuliani gives a speech next to Pat Robertson, who said that 9/11 was caused by “gays, lesbians, and the ACLU;” who urged the assassination; who said Islam was “satanic;” and so forth.

How would you react if a Democratic candidate gave a speech next to Ward Churchill or Cindy Sheehan?
2 Peter Says:
June 27th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
sorry, urged the assassination of Hugo Chavez (as well as stating the Yitzah Rabin was assassinated because he gave land to the Palestinians, that Ariel Sharon got a stroke as punishment from a vengeful God for doing the same thing, etc.)
3 Mark Says:
June 27th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Peter, I’m far more interested in the message than the locale; everyone knows Rudy has to make nice with so-cons to overcome his abortion stand…so he makes a speech. Did RUDY say anything like what Pat Robertson said? Did he endorse the comments in any way? McCain went to Liberty University to make nice with Falwell before he died - does that mean he also is to be tarred and feathered?

I didn’t think so…
4 Mark Says:
June 27th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Also, I might remind you that Jimmy Carter made his deplorable statement of apologetics for the terrorists of Hamas at a human rights conference - that’s far, far worse in my view, and Carter’s message was his own…
5 Ryan Bonneville Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 5:18 am
I’m glad I warrant mention directly in the post! I’m also glad to hear Giuliani stepping away from torture. If he gets the Republican nomination, it’ll be interesting to watch him tack to the center - he’s clearly left enough room open to do it credibly. I would certainly have preferred a more straightforward position - something on the order of “I oppose waterboarding because it’s contrary to any basic concept of human dignity and I wouldn’t authorize it under any circumstances” - but I understand Giuliani’s liberalism is making it hard enough for him to win the GOP nomination without adding on opposition to torture. We’ll see how this shapes up over time, but I’m a little satisfied for the time being.
6 Peter Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 8:48 am
I’m not sure what Jimmy Carter has to do with Rudy Giuliani. Carter isn’t running for President.

As for campaigning next to Pat Robertson: if Rudy and John McCain want to share a stage with him, well, it’s a free country and they can do what they want. They are associating themselves with an extremist nutjob. They don’t have to endorse every crackpot statement Robertson makes: the medium is the message.

My point is simply this: if a Democratic candidate were to campaign next to Harry Belafonte or Ward Churchill, we would never hear the end of it from the right. However, when the Republican front runner campaigns next to an extremist nutjob, there is nary a peep: it’s politics as usual for the GOP. The leading Democratic candidates show far more signs of moderation in their appeal to voters than the leading Republican candidates.
7 Peter Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Or put it this way: if Barack Obama were to campaign in Louis Farakhan’s mosque, would you treat it as just another campaign stop?
8 too many steves Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 9:57 am
If we accept that campaigning on the same stage, or day, or city, or whatever, with Pat Robertson is (always) bad, then what are the implications for Rudy (or anyone else)? Where does that fall, in terms of importance, on the scale of things to know about a candidate for President? What weight do you give it as you consider voting for Rudy? What material effect does being in the same place as Robertson have on Rudy’s views? Is it possible that because Rudy disagrees with Robertson, appearing with him is the best way to convince others that Rudy is right and Pat is wrong?
9 peter Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 10:57 am
The implicit message when a candidate appears with a controversial leader such as Pat Robertson is that the two leaders are aligned: the philosophy he has is the philosophy I also have. If you like Pat Robertson, you should vote for me because we have a lot in common. If those who like Pat Robertson vote for me, then I will reward them by voting for the things Pat Robertson stands for.

A candidate can fairly be judged by the people he associates himself with. If a candidate associates himself with Pat Robertson and Bernard Kerik, then there is nothing unfair about drawing inferences from those relationships.
10 aaron Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 11:37 am
I think the explicit message also is important. You have a point if the speech given is a standard stump speech, and I don’t like all the cozying up the right and left do with the fringes. But if the speech is tailored to the audience and challanges their views then I think that the implicit message is reduced. So if Rudy speaks at Robertson’s school and talks about the importance of separation of church and state then I see it much less as pandering for votes. The same with Obama, if he speaks at Farhakan’s mosque and does not pander then I for one will not criticize. That’s partially why I am interested in both Rudy and Obama, is that they don’t appear to be the kind that will say whatever will get them another vote.
11 TWL Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Peter,

Does anyone - you included - actually think Rudy would vote for things Roberston stands for? You are certainly entitled to find Rudy’s appearing with him to be wrong in principle, but does it actually change your view of how he would govern? My guess: he’ll hew right for the primary, and maybe in some ways in the general, but if he wins both he’ll govern exactly the way he did in New York - as a heavy-handed autocrat who happens to be on the left on social issues.

To be honest, I can’t understand why Robertson would appear with him. He’s either an idiot or a very cheap date. My guess: both.

Agreed, by the way, on the double standard re: Ward and the left. Regrettably, people don’t see religion as being as laughable as 9/11 conspiracy theories. But if we’re going to talk about principles, let’s talk about principles. If Senator Clinton gave a speech standing next to Ward Churchill I would question her taste - at worst, blast her for giving aid and comfort to an asshole - but I wouldn’t start to believe that Clinton thought that the people in the WTC had it coming.
12 peter Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
If Rudy is elected, he will certainly govern as a heavy handed autocrat. He was my Mayor for a number of years, and although I voted for him, I think that his style of leadership (read: bullying) is ill-suited for the Presidency.

However, if he gets a substantial amount of his support from social conservatives, I would expect that his social policies will reflect that. It will affect not only what he does (no more nights with Howard Koeppel and his lover) and how he acts towards the church (get an annulment for the marriage to Donna Hanover?), but what he does as head of state (who he picks for the Supreme Court, whether he vetoes stem cell legislation, etc.) Rudy has a unique talent for alienating a very large number of people, and if socials conservatives are part of his base, I have a hard time imagining him doing anything to distance himself from his core supporters.
13 too many steves Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Your argument is better when you use Farrakhan rather than Churchill in your example. Farrakhan and Robertson are more similar in stature to each other than either is to Churchill.
14 Ryan Bonneville Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I am highly skeptical that Rudy would be inclined to govern like a social conservative. There is, put simply, no evidence for the conjecture. For example: If he won’t change his position on abortion to get the GOP nomination, he certainly won’t change it once he’s elected. The real problem with Rudy, as TWL points out, is that what you see is probably what you get.
15 TWL Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Peter,

I just don’t buy it. Rudy may need socons to win the Republican primary, but he doesn’t need them to win the Presidency itself (or, at least, he would need a bunch of other people too), and I doubt he would face a serious primary challenge in ‘12 if he were to win in ‘08.

Besides which, vetoing stem cell legislation is bad politics - if we’re assuming that Rudy is going to sell out, wouldn’t it make more sense for him to sell out in the intelligent direction? I don’t think he’s going to restrict stem cell funding on principle. And he’s already committed himself to a pro-choice position.

Peter, I have to be honest. I don’t see how any reasonable person can think that Rudy would govern in a socially conservative manner. I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or deliberately credulous or what, but it just isn’t going to happen. At best he will appoint “conservative” judges . . . but he would probably do that anyway, since he’s going to want judges who won’t be too, ah, aggressive in defending individual rights in the face of anti-terrorism actions (there seems to be a correlation). I would bet substantial money that Rudy would gladly approve federal funds for stem cell research, or sign legislation changing the UCMJ so that gays could serve openly in the military.

Actually, I think there are better examples out there than Farrakhan or Churchill. Let’s put a different one out there - if Hillary appeared at an event with Al Sharpton, Peter, would you conclude that a President Hillary would push for reparations for slavery? ‘Cause I kinda wouldn’t.
16 peter Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Re post 13: agreed — I was trying to think of someone off-the-wall offensive, and Ward Churchill was the first one who came to mind –

Re post 14: I don’t think Rudy can change his position on abortion without looking as bad as Romney — he’s boxed in — but if he gets elected thanks to the social conservatives, I would be shocked if he nominates a pro-choice judge to the Supreme Court –
17 peter Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Post 15: well, we can conjecture all we want, but we’ll just have to see – I think Rudy can be as craven as any politician (as we saw yesterday when he blamed Bill Clinton for not doing anything about terrorism after the first WTC bombing, which was not only factually incorrect but conveniently ignores the fact that Rudy was Mayor a few months later, and did absolutely nothing – except put NYC emergency facilities in the WTC). Maybe he will be better than that as President, but way too soon to know.

I would not conclude that President Hillary would push for reparations – but I would conclude that her policies overall would be congenial to the things which Sharpton advocates. That may be why you haven’t seen them together. I am not suggesting that President Rudy would call for Hugo Chavez to be assassinated – but I do expect that his overall policies would veer substantially to the right.
18 Aaron Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Peter, what if Barack Obama’s church could be described by the following:

“So Barack Obama is a member of a church called Trinity United Church of Christ. It’s a predominantly black church in Chicago, that espouses something called the ‘Black Value System,’ which includes calls for congregants to be “soldiers for black freedom’ and a, quote, ‘disavowal of the pursuit of middleclassness.’” — Tucker Carlson

It doesn’t sound terribly different from beliefs that Louis Farrakhan might espouse.

BTW, Pat Robertson also opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Rudy appearing on the same stage as him doesn’t make a hawk like me nervous about Rudy’s foreign policy.
19 Ryan Bonneville Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I think we all agree that Rudy is unlikely to nominate a pro-choice judge to the Supreme Court. But that’s true regardless of whether he meets with Pat Robertson or gets elected by social conservatives. Hell, I would specifically refuse to nominate a pro-choice judge to the Supreme Court; that doesn’t make Pat Robertson and me fellow travelers.
20 peter Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I would bring up John Kennedy’s remark that he takes his orders from the people and not from the Vatican. If Obama is a member of a church which has questionable values — and who knows if they do (presumably he also is a member of a church in Washington; there was lots of noise and no truth about recent accusations he was in a madrassah as a kid; Tucker Carlson is not the best source about anything, much less a Democrat; etc.) — I wouldn’t give it much weight. Also, he’s presumably not making campaign speeches there — he’s just a member. Maybe he likes the choir.
21 Aaron Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Are you equating a church that espouses black nationalism and has a stated political agenda and a (relatively) small membership with the Roman Catholic Church?

I think it’s a much bigger deal if someone is a member of a church with questionable views than if someone appears with someone who has questionable views when he most certainly doesn’t share them. And Carlson is using direct quotes from the church’s own description so take your worthless ad hominem attacks somewhere that they might be applicable.

If Obama finds the church’s views objectionable, he shouldn’t be a member.

“Maybe he just likes the choir.” — I hope that you’re trying to be funny there because if you’re not, that’s the most pathetic example of grasping at straws I may have ever seen.
22 peter Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Uh, if this isn’t grasping at straws to see what sticks (block that mixed metaphor!), then I don’t know what is.

Here is the mission statement from the church:

http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

People have the right to worship however they choose — I don’t see anything so objectionable that Obama should renounce it. On a scale of one to ten, it makes John Edwards’s tonsorial bills look important.
23 Mark Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Well, I’m late to the party here - lots of good comments in my absence - but I would just reiterate to our good friend Peter that Democrats appear on the same stage with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson all the time…(and I know that Jesse Jackson is not quite in the same league, but he is the author of the enduring phrase “Hymietown”)…
24 Peter Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I always thought that Sharpton was a demagogue, as my impression of him was set during the Tawana Brawley mess. However, I give him credit for maturing somewhat over the years, and I think he has become much more moderate in both his tone and his actions. Maybe surviving an assassination attempt does that to you. I missed his debate with Christopher Hitchens, but from what I read he was incisive and impressive. This may be an eye of the beholder thing, but I don’t put him in the same league as Pat Robertson.

As for Jesse Jackson: I think he is an opportunist of the worst sort and I have no respect for the guy. Shame on anyone who shares a stage with him. I think he is pretty harmless, though.