More on Why Real Conservatives Ought to Vote for Obama

By -
Andrew Sullivan does a great job describing the utterly radical nature of the Netanyahu-Romney foreign policy regime-that-would-be. That regime is simply neo-Trotskyite world revolution ideology updated for the 21st century.

I have lots of complaints about Obama. And I have no doubt that Romney himself is no radical: he is simply hungry for power. But to get it, he is perfectly willing to sell his soul to these radicals.

Comments

  1. Prateek3:01 AM

    I am sorry, Netanyahu a radical?

    Netanyahu has nearly sabotaged his political career - repeatedly - in the name of peace.

    As Prime Minister in the 1990s, he signed off Hebron and West Bank as a part of a peace deal with the Palestinians, even though it would and did damage his re-election and got him booted out of office. And this man is a radical hawk?

    While most of the hawks in his country wanted to keep the settlements non-negotiable, the fact that he considered them at all worth negotiating has got him nastily tarred and feathered by members of his own coalition and by much of the Israeli media. Yet, he moves onward to hold talks. And again, this man is a hawk?

    He has given amnesty to Palestinian prisoners convicted of the most violent crimes, including the ones involved in the bloody Ramallah lynching, just to obtain peace with Arabs.

    And he has sat down to talk and negotiate with the likes of Arafat and Abbas. Arafat, who ordered kidnappings and killings of Israelis. Abbas, who has cheerleaded the murder of Israeli soldiers by a Lebanese Druze. And yet, Netanyahu sits down with these evil men face to face to have TALKS.

    This man is one of the most dove-ish, appeasing, and conceding Israeli leaders of the past 30 years. He is anything but a radical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah5:27 AM

      Well, Prateek, many, many others see a different Netanyahu than you do. Googling for 'Netenyahu "radical right"' turns up 322,000 hits, many of them like the above.

      I think you've chosen your facts very, very selectively.

      Delete
  2. John Goes9:19 AM

    I think comparing google hits is a rather weak diagnostic criterion, by itself.

    In any case, I think it's plain that Israel is a radical state, however moderate or radical Netanyahu might appear within that context. Obama's refusal to kowtow wholeheartedly to Israel is his best feature. I don't have a lot of confidence that he will not ultimately defer to Israel on this, especially given his willingness to pursue an Internationalist agenda; but I think it's hard to argue that Obama wouldn't be better in the short run on international issues (namely Israel and Russia).

    I still wouldn't vote for him. But part of me hopes he wins, as much as I despise the movement he represents domestically, since it will polarize the right even more and might force a genuine reaction at home (and might, God willing, cause the neocons to perish as a force in the right). And as you've pointed out there are some positive considerations internationally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah11:36 AM

      "I think comparing google hits is a rather weak diagnostic criterion, by itself."

      Yes, I agree. But Prateek seemed to be implying my view is simply nutso, and I just wanted to show it is shared by many people, so there *might* be something to it.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous12:02 PM

      I think that you already know that I share much of the same opinions as you do on this matter. However, it is quite a touchy subject to tackle, there's a lot of strongly held feelings. Be prepared for a lot of fallout.

      Any time you want to see just how far out there Bibi is, just read the Israeli headlines. Most Israelis are against his "wants". Who knows when they'll get their house in order?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more