In Context

In a shot heard round the world last week, Daniel Pipes unequivocally advocated a crippling U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear arsenal, suggesting that it might even "save the Obama Presidency."  For the record, he said nothing about either the 2012 or the 2010 elections, and I'd suggest he was speaking more to Obama's legacy than to his chances of a second term.

A few days later, Pat Buchanan (to whom I will not link on this blog ... it's at Townhall and it's not hard to find) wove Pipes's column into an argument for leaving Iran alone.  Iran doesn't really want a bomb, sanctions would only piss them off and following Pipes' advice would only guarantee a Democrat sweep of both the Congressional midterms and the next Presidential election.  "True" conservatives ... beware!

Yesterday, Sarah Palin appeared on Fox News Sunday and, in one of those rambling, largely incoherent interviews for which she's been justifiably skewered by the left and the MSM, she managed to give the impression of both (a) aligning herself with Buchanan (not a good move) and (b) completely misunderstanding his point.  Here's the key snip:

WALLACE: How hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?

PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played - and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day - say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided really [to] come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do, but - that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today I do not think Obama would be re-elected. But three years from now, things could change if -- on the national security front . . .

It goes without saying that Buchanan never remotely advocated support for Israel.  But when he asks if Obama will "cynically yield to temptation, play the war card and make 'conservatives swoon,' in Pipes' phrase, to save himself and his party," he's clearly pleading with his audience (such as it is) to lobby against such a move.  Did Sarah get that?  Because if she did, why didn't she cite Pipes (who is on her side here) rather than Buchanan (who clearly isn't)?

Meanwhile, those who have been trying to paint Palin as a Buchananite since the 08 election are having a field day.  This is the kind of thing that's now got me hoping we'll see and hear less rather than more of Sarah Palin in the months and years ahead.

Update:  Nevertheless ... give me a break.  How far a cry is writing a few crib notes on your palm from a teleprompter that feeds you a word-for-word script?  At least as far as the wild Alaskan tundra is from Washington.  Let's not make ridiculous comparisons, shall we?  See also, glass houses, stones: when it comes to mindless mediocrity ... Andrea Mitchell has no room to mock. 

By most accounts, last night's J-Street (spit) national kick-off event appears to have been largely a bust, attracting little attention beyond its own ardent supporters and most vehement detractors.  The live event was here (I used that term loosely) in Philadelphia and was reportedly attended by around two hundred people, few of them students in spite of being held on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania.  Z-Street, a new, grassroots, genuinely pro-Israel organization founded, in part, to counter J-Street's propaganda, sponsored this alternative event, held in the same building at the same time, which attracted a sizable crowd of its own.

In spite of J-Street's dubious pretensions to being "pro-Israel," its rhetoric and the reactions of its acolytes always reveal a very different agenda.  Take, for example, the first major applause line of last night's speech by Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami:

Maybe you just believe that all people have a right to self-determination, to opportunity, to security - and you want to see an end to the occupation of the Palestinian people.

By contrast, there was nary a clap in response to this one:

We believe in the state of Israel and support the notion of a national home for the Jewish people.

Nor was any enthusiasm generated by this very odd formulation of J-Street's aspirations:

We will build a home together where our organizing and our advocacy around Israel lines up with the values and the principles of our people.

A community where it is acceptable to study and to learn about history and about competing narratives and claims to the land - where we can hug and wrestle with Israel at the very same time.

Hug and wrestle?  Is he serious?  Or this one

You'll help redefine and expand the very concept of being pro-Israel. No longer will this pro- require an anti-.

Mr. Ben-Ami, judging by this performance, is a pretty terrible public speaker, which I must say is a bit encouraging.  But his organization is a nasty, disingenuous scam designed to dress up patently anti-Israel rhetoric in the guise of "progressive" pro-Israel ("pro-peace," pro-democracy") advocacy.  It plays on the hopes and fears of the hopelessly naive and uninformed, and hopefully this latest initiative will die on the vine.  In short, J-Street is a wolf in sheep's clothing. 

(Hey.  It's a demon sheep!)

Shabbat Shalom.

Powerline debunks some of the BS in Obama's 2011 budget, pointing out that, when you get through the slight-of-hand and misdirection, some of the President's proposals appear likely to throw the recovering economy under the bus.

Solomonia notes that a number of prominent Jewish groups have come out in support of Rush Limbaugh.  Among them are American Friends of Likud, CAMERA, Emunah of America,  the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the National Council of Young Israel, Religious Zionists of America and Z-Street.

There has been controversy, recently, over statements made by radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh about Jewish voting patterns, political ties and the recent Massachusetts election. We are deeply dismayed by the unfounded criticism of the talk show commentator's observations.

While one may agree or disagree with Mr. Limbaugh's views on many subjects, his outspoken support for Israel has been eloquent, informed and undeniable. Moreover, in commentary on the Jewish people, he has been nothing short of a philo-Semite. We are grateful for his strong and singular voice on these issues."

Abe Foxman was incredibly off base on this (and Solomonia has said so all along).

And then there was the SOTU attack on the Supreme Court.  Wow.  Just wow.  Another "heckofajob Barry" moment.  It seems there just isn't an opportunity to debase the office our President isn't happy to take.  As for the Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, my take is very well summed up here.

Because at the heart of that decision was a sweeping defense of free speech protections afforded to Americans under the First Amendment, regardless of their corporate identity. We may not like what's coming our way, but as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the 5-4 majority: "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy - it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people - political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence."

Yes, even if that speech is uttered by a corporation.

I'm definitely among those who dreads "what's coming our way" (though it will be interesting to see if it's actually worse than what we already have with the 527s).  But as our government gets bigger and bigger, I've grown increasingly wary of giving it the power to place restrictions on speech.

Shabbat Shalom and a very Happy Tu B'shevat!

They're crawling, squirming and oozing out of every crack, it seems.  Now this.

The Holocaust only gets media coverage because of affluent Jews' financial backing, military might and lobbying fronts, presenting a skewed version of events to the world, a high-ranking Polish bishop told a Catholic news portal on Monday.

Tadeusz Pieronek, a Polish bishop and professor and a friend of the last pope, John Paul II, claimed that "the Holocaust as such is a Jewish invention" promoted in the press by Jews to gain support for Israel.

While enormously offensive, I'm sorry to say this isn't all that shocking.  It's getting to be more a question of "when" than "if" the next Holocaust denying bishop will pop up (and, yes, this is still by far the exception, not the rule).  This claim, however, did rock me back.

"The anti-Semitic history of Poland is an invention," he said. "A joke ... offensive to our people."

Funny, no one's laughing.  And that would be one of the most extensively and exhaustively documented and debated "inventions" in human history.  More complicated than is commonly acknowledged?  Yes.  But an "invention?"  Hardly.  Good to know it's still alive and kicking, though, and that, increasingly, people no longer seem afraid or ashamed to own it. 

Never again?  The pit in my stomach is telling me that's the joke.

Do us all a favor, Tad, and crawl back under your rock.

Even now, the Obama administration clearly doesn't get it.

White House senior politcal adviser David Axelrod countered critics that believe Scott Brown's win in the Massachusetts special election for Senate Tuesday was a blow to Democrats' efforts to reform health care by saying that polls show the opposite sentiment.

"I must tell you that, if you look at the polling in the Washington Post yesterday on the Massachusetts race, it's very clear, people don't want us to walk away from health care," Axelrod said. "They want us to address their concerns with the program, and they want Brown to come and work with us and not be obstructionist. That was very clear in the polling."

Was it?  See also, Pres Sec Robert Gibbs on Fox News Sunday.

WALLACE: But, Robert, Scott Brown had a clear platform. Let's lay it out. Stop health care. Cut taxes. End backroom deals with special interest and don't give terrorists Miranda rights. It wasn't the same thing that swept Barack Obama into office. Scott Brown explicitly campaigned against the -- campaigned against the Obama agenda. 

GIBBS: That may be what he campaigned on but that's not why the voters of Massachusetts sent him to Washington. If you look at exit [sic] poll, done by the ""Washington Post"" --

At least they're keeping their spin straight.  But let's look at that WaPo poll they keep talking about.  The one that supposedly shows that the message on Tuesday was to keep pushing ahead with the Democrats' health care agenda at all costs.  The poll was conducted, by phone, among a "random sample of 880 voters in the Massachusetts special election" (or so they told the pollsters) and "242 Massachusetts adults who did not participate in the election."  The latter were excluded, obviously, from the questions on what influenced their vote.

89% of the voters said "efforts at health care reform" were an important factor in their vote (56% said extremely important, 33% said very important).  Health care was a more important factor for Brown voters than for Coakley voters.  (Next in order of importance came "the economy and jobs.")  You can check for yourself the reasons those voters gave for why health care was an important factor to them.  The biggest reason by far among Brown voters was the political process (deal making, closed doors, lack of transparency), followed by general opposition to the current bill. 

And then there's this major disconnect from the spin.  65% of Brown voters (who, let's recall, were the ones who carried the election) said their vote was intended to express opposition to the Democratic agenda.  And 75% said they were dissatisfied and/or angry with the Obama administration's policies.  How do you spin that as a vote of confidence?

Fully 75% of Brown voters said Senator Brown should, in general, "work with the Democrats to try to get some Republican ideas into legislation" (as opposed to mainly work to stop the Democratic agenda).  So Axelrod is right on the obstructionist thing as far as it goes (though he neglected to mention the part about getting Republican ideas into legislation).  But only 48% of the Brown voters said the same when it came to working with Democrats on their current proposals for changes to health care.  50% said they'd like to see him stop those changes from happening.  This is as close as it gets to the spin, and even so, other responses seem somewhat inconsistent. 

For example, 65% of Brown voters said they and their families would be worse off if the President and Congress passed health care reform.  72% said the country as a whole would be worse off!  And 64% said Massachusetts would be worse off.  Now, again, these are just Brown voters.  But it's the Brown voters who are sending their candidate to Washington.  So I think they're the ones who count when determining why they're sending him there.

Mr. Alexrod?  Mr. Gibbs?  I do not think this poll says what you seem to think it says.

A few things.

I'm late on this, but let's keep an eye on it, shall we?

The Simon Wiesenthal Center rebuked remarks made by director Oliver Stone during a press conference for his new history documentary. Stone said, "Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it's been used cheaply. He's the product of a series of actions. It's cause and effect."

The director is using the series to expose what he calls lies and biases behind the conventional interpretation of American history and that would include reexamining WWII history and putting Hitler "into context."

Greg Gutfeld manages to put a good sardonic spin on this story.  It's rife with well deserved snark.

David Frum has been in Venezuela, blogging up a storm.  This is just scary.  Scarier than usual.

I picked an exciting week to visit Venezuela. The night before my arrival, the regime seized the country's largest shopping mall. The day after, Israeli authorities disclosed that a recently intercepted shipment of missiles to Hezbollah had originated in Venezuela.

These two dissimilar events are importantly related. The seized mall belonged to one of Venezuela's wealthiest Jewish families. Following an armed attack on the country's most visible synagogue in January 2009, the seizure sent a strong message: None of you are safe.

The Chavez regime's turn toward harshly anti-Jewish policies is part of an ominous self-radicalization.

There's too much in this to excerpt meaningfully.  Please read it all.

Meanwhile, the new tape from UBL (or whoever is playing him on audio), blames Israel for the (failed) Christmas bomb attack and threatens more of the same if the U.S. doesn't cut off support for Israel.  The State Department says he's just "trying to continue to appear relevant."  David Axelrod says it's just "the same hollow justification for the slaughter of innocent people."  That may be.  But still ...

There's a theme here.  It's not good.  Not good at all.

Wow.  This is one of the worst cases I've ever seen.  Mort Zuckerman is so dismayed by Obama's performance he's rendered almost inarticulate (and remember that this guy is the editor-in-chief of U.S. News and World Report, among other things).

I'm very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.

I hope there are changes. I think he's already laid in huge problems for the country. The fiscal program was a disaster. You have to get the money as quickly as possible into the economy. They didn't do that. By end of the first year, only one-third of the money was spent. Why is that?

He should have jammed a stimulus plan into Congress and said, "This is it. No changes. Don't give me that bullshit. We have a national emergency." Instead they turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who can run circles around him.

It's very sad. It's really sad.

He's improved America's image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. "We are convinced," he said, "that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned," he said "that he is not strong to support his friends."

The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what's happening in Massachusetts.

It's really interesting because he had brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign. I don't know what has happened to them.

You were taken, Mort.  That's what happened.  You were bamboozled.  Flim-flammed.  A lot of people were.  But they're waking up now. 

I can't predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won't be reelected.

From your mouth, Mort ...

THANK YOU MASSACHUSETTS !!

And thank you, Senator Elect Scott Brown !!

If you're even remotely interested in the Massachusetts senate race, you'll be hard pressed to find better or broader coverage than Solomonia.  Links, polls, videos and updates galore. 

(Oh, and Bill Kristol is linking to Allahpundit at Hot Air?  This is probably not news but it's the first time I've noticed it.  Very cool.)