dagblog - Comments for "Chuck Hagel's A Fine Guy -- But Sign This Petition, Please"

Well it shouldn't, but it's

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:19:31 +0000

Well it shouldn't, but it's become something of a political litmus test to see which candidate will jump higher to support Israel. Funny how the British never seem to demand our love, but they're with us every time we get into trouble.

My take is that this

Michael Maiello — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:46:09 +0000

In reply to Well, some of the "Jooz"

My take is that this shouldn't be an argument about Israel at all.

Well, some of the "Jooz"

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:13:37 +0000

In reply to Michael, I'm not sure if I

Well, some of the "Jooz" seemed to put on a leather hood, teddy and get down on all fours for Bibi's particular fetish load, but does that mean all Jooz are into self-abasement? Actually, quite a lot of goys got into the act - Romney kowtowing to Bibi was certainly more disgusting than the supposed Saudi kowtowing Obama was accused of. And while Adelson is probably a nutcake on Israel, after a recent interview where he supported social positions anathema to the candidates & party he funds, it's obvious he's just a nutcake. Joe Lieberman seems to be an Israeli do-or-die type, whereas Al Franken seems much more thoughtful on the issues (but then again, managed to make a trip to Israel accepting the status quo of no peace talks or progress, and managed to . But it's pretty obvious the Lieberman side of things has much more power, no?

Listen to Nancy Pelosi in 2010:

"We in Congress stand by Israel," the leader of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., assured Netanyahu at an all-smiles appearance before the cameras. "In Congress we speak with one voice on the subject of Israel."

And that one voice says, "keep building those illegal settlements". Unless Italy's the lost tribe, I'd guess it's a larger problem. Congressional toadies-for-Bibi love them some right-wing talking points, even if "on the left". But you only have to go as far as J Street to recognize that there's significant disagreement among Jews as to Israel's actions, and more Jews disagree on Israeli support than blacks support Obama. But AIPAC cares mostly about Congress, not the guy in the street, and they've got Congress lined up like ducks at feeding time.

So did Hagel actually equate all Jews with having allegiance to Israel? Or you were just fine-tuned for a dog whistle?

"PS: Thanks for taking care

Michael Maiello — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:07:13 +0000

In reply to I know you wouldn't blog at a

"PS: Thanks for taking care the IBB situation."

Always here to gently mod.

"Which brings me to....where

Michael Maiello — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:06:00 +0000

In reply to This isn't going to help your

"Which brings me to....where did you get the idea that Obama didn't mean what he said in all of his speeches and writing on post partisanship? Where did you get the idea that he felt his cabinet if he won would be partisan? From what I read and heard from him, I got the idea that it was his deeply held belief that post-partisanship is the future, no matter what anyone else thinks. I, for one, fully expected him to have more than a token number of Republicans in his cabinet."

Excellent point, AA. I just wonder if it's a wise move for Obama. Should the Republicans take the White House back, I wouldn't expect to see conservative Democrats appointed to such important roles.

This isn't going to help your

artappraiser — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:50:47 +0000

In reply to It is interesting, Bruce,

This isn't going to help your cause at all, but since you've gotten on this topic, it's interesting that Jeff Goldberg isn't falling for the whole "he is my enemy because "they" are thinking tthe enemy of my enemy is my friend thingie.

In the end, as I said here, leftie support of Hagel because of his view on a single situation reminds me very much of fervent leftie support of Senator Barack Obama for president in 2008. For example, you could point out to an Israel basher Obama quotes on support of Israel ad nauseum and they would say that he's just saying that to get support of "the lobby." Likewise, you could point out to a vehement isolationist all of Senator Obama's quotes on being for smart wars, and they could only see his being against the Iraq war. And you could point out to socialists on economic matters all of Senator Obama's pro-capitalism statements and they still couldn't see through the hope that he was gonna be more socialist than the Clintons.

Which brings me to....where did you get the idea that Obama didn't mean what he said in all of his speeches and writing on post partisanship? Where did you get the idea that he felt his cabinet if he won would be partisan? From what I read and heard from him, I got the idea that it was his deeply held belief that post-partisanship is the future, no matter what anyone else thinks. I, for one, fully expected him to have more than a token number of Republicans in his cabinet.

I agree with your reasons and

LULU — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:47:24 +0000

In reply to It's not my point to advocate

I agree with your reasons and reasoning. I just don't think it is a big deal in this particular case. Much more significant is giving the Republicans another Senate seat by appointing Kerry to Secretary of State, just like the R's wanted. The numbers game is important. Put Hagel there and put me in charge of Defense.

I know you wouldn't blog at a

tmccarthy0 — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:26:49 +0000

In reply to It's really not about Hagel

I know you wouldn't blog at a place where people do what you say without question, which is great preparation for having a teenager!

The long game for the party however, it attracting more people like Chuck Hagel, more people who maybe don't self identify as Democrats but who would no longer identify or even vote for Republicans because their ideas are repulsive, they way they talk about the country is repulsive and the way they treat each other and everyone else is repulsive. Hagel is one of those people. We have to broaden our base, and the President has done an incredible job of doing this.

That is just coming from someone who has been involved in Democratic politics for what seems like eons, but only since 1984. Okay that is eons.

PS: Thanks for taking care the IBB situation.

By the way, everyone: while I

Michael Maiello — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:04:46 +0000

In reply to I think Erica and Acanuck

By the way, everyone: while I feel kind of strongly about this, I very much respect the well reasoned counter-arguments you've all put forward. I'm very impressed at how this community, went through its natural, post-election lull and then responded to Sandy Hook, and all events since, with renewed velocity, rigor and clarity of thought. The quality of debate here as definitely gone up a notch or two. Great stuff, everybody. Even when you disagree with me (and are, by definition, wrong).

It's really not about Hagel

Michael Maiello — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:44:50 +0000

In reply to The only thing the Hagel nom

It's really not about Hagel for me, TmMac. It's about the long game for the Democratic party. I think that when Raimonda showed up here, laughing that other Daggers were, gasp, arguing with me, that it told me everything I need to know. I would never blog at a place where people did what I said without question.

Thank you for flagging IBB. I removed his comment (but not his post) and left a warning. I'll consult with the other mods about potential further action, if necessary. It should go without saying that "Doxing" is not acceptable at Dag.