[Peace-discuss] A view from the UK

[Brussel Morton K.]

I believe that the author meant by the word "isolationism" that she  
was isolated from the views of the rest of the globe's peoples and  
opinions. Only this makes sense to me: I don't think that the author  
of the quote is stupid.

And anyone who could think that McCain would possibly have been an  
anti-war candidate is seriously misinformed, or unbalanced.  --mkb


On Sep 15, 2008, at 10:18 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> [Palin has little or nothing to do with isolationism, in any  
> sense.  Would that she did: I've thought for a while that McCain  
> could win as an anti-war candidate, but that's now looking to be  
> unnecessary, as Obama's pro-war position becomes more and more  
> obvious.  Here below is another view from the UK, sounder as it  
> seems to me, although the last two paragraphs are blather.  --CGE]
>
> 	Democratic activists should stop digging
> 	By Clive Crook
> 	Published: September 14 2008 20:00
>
> If Barack Obama loses this election to John McCain – something  
> which, for the first time, I regard as a real possibility – history  
> will point to August 29 as the pivotal moment. That was when Mr  
> McCain announced that Sarah Palin would be his running-mate, and  
> when livid Democrats and their friends in the media voiced their  
> feelings about her and much of the electorate, and gravely harmed  
> their candidate’s prospects.
>
> For Mr McCain to win the election against the odds that faced him  
> pre-Palin – with the economy in the tank and the incumbent  
> Republican president setting records for unpopularity – would be  
> sensational enough. For this to happen because of his vice- 
> presidential pick, a decision that is usually of next to no  
> consequence, beggars belief. The Democrats had to bring all their  
> resources to getting themselves into this fix. They proved equal to  
> the task.
>
> As I argued last week, Mr Obama’s own initial reaction to the Palin  
> nomination was exactly right. All the party had to do was follow  
> his lead. Mr Obama, in effect, would give her enough rope; her  
> inadequacies would reveal themselves in due course; it cost  
> nothing, in the meantime, to be courteous, and to keep pressing on  
> the issues, where the Democrats still enjoy an advantage with most  
> voters. Ms Palin’s first television interview last week, an  
> adequate but far from stellar performance, affirmed the wisdom of  
> that course.
>
> But the Democratic talking-heads had to exult in their disdain for  
> Ms Palin and all she represents – namely, a good part of the  
> electorate whose support Mr Obama needs. In the space of a few  
> days, they irreversibly damaged Mr Obama’s candidacy and  
> transformed this election.
>
> Subsequent developments reflect poorly on both parties, in my view.  
> Are the Democrats learning, and trying to correct their error? No,  
> for the most part, just the opposite. Are the Republicans pressing  
> their advantage with a confident, principled campaign focused on  
> the issues that matter? Again, no.
>
> Certainly, the Democrats can see they are in a hole. Somehow,  
> though, the word has gone out: “Keep digging.” Mr Obama is also  
> urged to be less cool and lose his temper. Voters adore an angry  
> candidate, you see. “Dig faster, and be more angry,” is the advice  
> coming down from the political geniuses who decided it was a fine  
> idea to laugh at Ms Palin in the first place. A recurring  
> television image in the past few days has been the split-screen  
> contrast between a serenely smiling Republican operative and a  
> fulminating red-faced Democrat about to have a stroke.
>
> Efforts to smear the governor proceed at a frantic pace. My guess  
> would be that there are now more journalists on assignment in  
> Alaska than bothered to turn up for the Republican convention in St  
> Paul, sifting through dustbins, interrogating Palin family  
> acquaintances (extra credit for those with a grievance) and  
> subjecting Ms Palin’s expenses claims to a fanatical scrutiny which  
> I dare say their own record-keeping, or that of most senators,  
> might not withstand.
>
> Of course, they will find things. They may even find something  
> important. But the sheer swarming zeal for trivial malfeasance and  
> family embarrassments is rapidly raising the bar for impropriety. I  
> think that many voters – and not just committed Republicans – find  
> this whole spectacle disgusting, so on top of everything else Ms  
> Palin is now getting a sympathy vote.
>
> Among seasoned Democratic politicians, the picture is more mixed.  
> Joe Biden, the vice-presidential nominee, appears to get it. His  
> stump speech has started to include obliging remarks about Ms  
> Palin, which suggests he is approaching the forthcoming television  
> debate in the correct frame of mind. If he can stay polite and  
> respectful while laying bare the gaps in Ms Palin’s knowledge and  
> experience, and by highlighting her positions on social issues,  
> which are unappealing to many centrists, he can undo some of the  
> damage of recent days.
>
> But compare this with the comment of Carol Fowler, chairman of the  
> South Carolina Democratic party, who said late last week that Ms  
> Palin’s main qualification for office was that she has not had an  
> abortion. Brilliant! Even now, with the polls giving their verdict,  
> there is much more like that. And Democrats wonder why they cannot  
> get the debate back on to their issues.
>
> Republicans are not going to help them do it while things are going  
> so well for them. This may be understandable, but let us be clear –  
> this is not to their credit. If Mr McCain were the kind of leader  
> he claims to be, he would want to be elected for his platform. His  
> policy proposals, not his vapid commitment to “change Washington”,  
> would be to the fore. More than this, he would also want to bind  
> the country together, and restore its moral strength and sense of  
> purpose. He would strive to be a unifier. Mr Obama makes that  
> claim, with seeming sincerity, and it is the best thing about his  
> candidacy.
>
> Democrats will deny it, but they opened this new front in the  
> culture war by their response to the Palin nomination. The mess  
> they are in is their own fault. They still seem intent on driving  
> significant numbers of women and moderates over to the other side  
> and Mr McCain’s political instinct is doubtless to help this rift  
> in the electorate widen further. It could be a winning strategy.  
> But good politics is not the same thing as responsible leadership.  
> I intend it as a compliment to Mr McCain when I say that if his  
> means to victory in this election is to divide the country, it is a  
> victory he should not want.
>
> 	Send your comments to clive.crook at gmail.com
> 	Read and post comments at Clive Crook’s Washington Blog
> 	Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
>
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0be814b0-828b-11dd-a019-000077b07658.html? 
> nclick_check=1
>
>
> Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>> From http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/14-3
>> …
>> Ms Palin is a symbol of deep American introversion, of the fact  
>> that you have
>> ceased to take yourselves seriously and, more important, don't  
>> much care who
>> knows it. Arguments over the relationship between the wider world  
>> and your
>> choices have become irrelevant. You have detached yourself,  
>> finally, from the
>> global community. This is isolationism as never before conceived.  
>> "American"
>> in my life has been lingua franca, for better or ill. Now you talk to
>> yourself.
>> And you talk, my friends, in the sort of gibberish that once you  
>> spurned.
>> It's not about Ms Palin, as such. It is about the process that  
>> creates a
>> candidate-grin manipulated to serve darkness, ignorance, fear, a  
>> war economy,
>> and the flaunting of stupidity.
>> Nice going.
>