Red Namib Desert dunes in Namibia. From National Geographic."Frontline closer to the capital than at any point since the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi's regime began."
Dissent in Damascus' Shadows: Driving Around Syria's Capital from Time Magazine
"Anti-regime activists counter that Damascus hasn't decisively moved because of fear — all of Syria's 18 security forces as well as the military are headquartered in the capital. Still, the activists are determined to bring the unrest to Assad's doorstep, and have a strategy to do so."
The Trouble with Global Public Goods (Christopher A. Preble) from the National Interest
"Our willingness to police the globe amounts to a form of foreign aid. Indeed our wealthy, well-governed allies have diverted their attention—and their resources—to other nice-to-have things: short work weeks, long vacations, shiny mass transit systems, and generous health and welfare benefits. I believe, by contrast, that many states that are currently U.S. security clients will take responsibility for securing themselves if we quit allowing them to free ride on American military promiscuity."
Now, let me say I disagree with Preble's analysis on MANY basic levels -- but it is interesting to see him come out and say flatly what has been in some ways a conversation largely kept within the foreign policy establishment, namely that the US's global militarism is a "public good". Now, Preble sets this up just to knock it down. But his analysis avoids so many more fundamental issues. His item here is part of a larger conversation that he links to in the article. The links are worth checking out. The main point I think is that his opinion and the items he links to give a window into what passes for foreign policy "conventional wisdom" these days.
Decoding China’s Aircraft Carrier (Trefor Moss) from The Diplomat
"There’s been much speculation about the implications of China’s first aircraft carrier. The Diplomat answers some of the key questions. When is an aircraft carrier not an aircraft carrier? The answer could be: when it is Chinese."
A Theory of Everything (Sort of) (Thomas Friedman) from the New York Times
"There are multiple and different reasons for these explosions, but to the extent they might have a common denominator I think it can be found in one of the slogans of Israel’s middle-class uprising: “We are fighting for an accessible future.” Across the world, a lot of middle- and lower-middle-class people now feel that the “future” is out of their grasp, and they are letting their leaders know it."
Roger Cohen has a different take on basically the same topic:
The Age of Outrage (Roger Cohen) form the New York Times
"About one in every five young Europeans and young Americans is wondering how to get any sort of working life on track. Britain’s NEETS (not in education, employment or training) meet U.S. boomerang kids in the anxiety of waiting."
Why No Democrat Will Challenge Obama (Eleanor Clift) from the Daily Beast
"Should Obama be primaried? Liberals are fed up with the president, but no Democrat is threatening to challenge him. And one reason, reports Eleanor Clift, is race."
The one piece Clift is missing here is Obama's broad appeal among average Dem voters. The "unpopularity" Clift mentions is almost exclusively combined to the liberal chattering class -- it finds, as polls have consistently shown, little echo among average Democratic voters.
GOP Presidential Candidates Spurn Press -- And Gain Popularity For It (Howard Fineman) from the Huffington Post
" The leading GOP candidates are conducting their campaign with almost NO direct, uncontrolled access to the press (or, in many cases, the public). What's more -- and more noteworthy -- the candidates increasingly are taking pride in and bragging about their contempt for reporters and even for the very idea of open campaigning."
After the Palin vice-presidential contest in '08, this was quite predictable. The 2012 election cycle will seriously test HOW FAR any candidate can go operating with virtually no contact with the MSM. I suspect the GOPers can make it through their own early contests. These folks, however, are not doing themselves any real favors by doing this. The REAL PURPOSE of the early contests (as Obama and Hillary can attest) is to test the durability, strategies, and character of the contestants. Hiding from the MSM will (I predict) ultimately leave them unprepared for the media firestorm that awaits them either in prolonged primary contests and/or in the general. Moreover, it is my sense that moderates and independents will be leary of any candidate who adopts this strategy. A week or two -- sure. But for six months leading into a general election? No way. Obama and his people would have a field day -- as they did with Palin. For Perry especially the pitfalls are big because he has never tried to sell his Texas "good 'ol boy"ism outside Texas. Suburban Philly voters will not be impressed with someone with such an outsized macho persona who hides from the press.
No Winners in Thursday’s Debate, but Many Losers (Ezra Klein) from the Washington Post
"Primary debates are usually watched for what they say about the candidates, but they’re generally important for what they say about the party. This one was no different. With the notable exceptions of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, the candidates didn’t disagree over policy. They disagreed over fealty to policy."
Adrift in Iowa: Tired Rituals in Tough Times (Frank Bruni) from the New York Times
"It’s time for nobler, smarter, more substantive politics. It’s past time, actually. But that’s not what Iowa presented. ... ...all of the Republican Party is running scared of its super-conservative faction in Congress and because the Republican nominating process rewards a rightward tilt. That remains true this election cycle, to the party’s and the country’s detriment."
On the Ames Straw poll, here's how it broke down. Who's in trouble? T-Paw needs to fold his tent -- as does Gingrich and Santorum. Romney looks very weak -- especially when you consider that Perry wasn't even on the official ballot and yet Perry bested Romeny as a write-in candidate.
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.): 4,823 votes
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas): 4,671 votes
Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty: 2,293 votes
Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.): 1,657 votes
Former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain: 1,456 votes
Texas Governor Rick Perry: 718 votes
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney: 567 votes
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: 385 votes
Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman: 69 votes
U.S. Rep Thad McCotter (R-Mich.): 35 votes
HERE's the New York Times' analysis. Other comments follow here:
Bachmann: The Leader Of The Opposition (Andrew Sullivan) from the Daily Beast
"Perry is the one now in trouble. He's in trouble because however red the meat he wants to throw at the base, Bachmann's is always redder. She is the rawest of the right, which means she can punch above her weight in these purity tests."
Behind Bachmann’s Iowa Victory (Jill Lawrence) from the Daily Beast
"She gets a big boost from the straw poll, while Pawlenty could be toast, Jill Lawrence reports. But can the congresswoman expand her Christian conservative base?"
Translating Rick Perry for non-Texans (Martin Frost) from Politico
"Perry clearly knew how to appeal to the conservative electorate in Texas. He is, however, untested on the national stage. The Texas media tends to be docile, and has rarely challenged Perry during his 10 years as governor — though he has said and done some outrageous things."
No comments:
Post a Comment