About
A progressive online community for the Granite State. More...
Getting Started
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


The Masthead
Managing Editors

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
NH Progressive Blogs
Betsy Devine
Citizen Keene
Democracy for NH
Equality Press
The Political Climate
Granite State Progress
Chaz Proulx
Susan the Bruce

NH Political Links
Graniteprof
Granite Status
Kevin Landrigan
NH Political Capital
Political Chowder (TV)
Political Chowder (AM)
PolitickerNH
Pollster (NH-Sen)
Portside with Burt Cohen
Bill Siroty
Swing State 2008

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Carol Shea-Porter
Paul Hodes
Jeanne Shaheen
Barack Obama (NH)

ActBlue Hampshire
Stop Sununu
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Bob Geiger
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
RSS Feed

Blue Hampshire RSS

June 3 Results and Evening Open Thread

by: Mike Hoefer

Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 20:49:28 PM EDT
Will update for as long as I stay up (a bit under the weather).

Listening to McCain...Sounds like and empty suit to me... the Mr. Rogers Candidate. Couple of hundred people in the room at most. We've got to crush this guy in NH.

Montana
3% Reporting
- Clinton 39%
- Obama 59% Projected Winner!

South Dakota
75% Reporting
- Clinton 56% Projected Winner!
- Obama 44%

Update: llinois senator has received enough support to secure the Democratic nomination, AP report
Update: MSNBC declares Obama the Presumptive Nominee at 9pm, June 3.
Update 9:20 Super Delegate and NHDP Chair Buckley Endoreses Obama Thank you Ray.
~9:30 Hillary is on... good speech, crowd is into it.
9:50 HRC "This has been a long campaign and I will not be making any decisions tonight"
10:08 Barack and Michelle enter to U2's Beautiful Day. Crowd is wild.
Mike Hoefer :: June 3 Results and Evening Open Thread
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
June 3 Results and Evening Open Thread | 61 comments
Thought this was good on Kos today (0.00 / 0)
Obama can lose via any one of a variety of ways, but McCain can't win. It'll take Obama losing for McCain to see the inside of the White House as an employee of the people.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

Hope > Fear

McCain Theme (0.00 / 0)
"Vote for me, I'm not Barack Obama"

Hope > Fear
Congratulations, Senator Obama. (0.00 / 0)
Really quite remarkable, if you go back in time to, say, the spring, early summer of 2007 and remember the optics of the race at that time.

Wonder if Sununu's fired now.
One year ago here: (4.00 / 3)
[ Parent ]
I cannot believe that was exactly a year ago. (0.00 / 0)
And yet at the time it was 6 MONTHS into the campaign.

Ben Smith made a good point today.

The primary has been going on for 17 months, while the general will be a measly 5.

Wonder if Sununu's fired now.

[ Parent ]
Obama has a great line in his stump on this. (4.00 / 1)
Since the campaign began, babies have been born and are now walking and talking.
[ Parent ]
Jeffrey Toobin on CNN on McCain speech (4.00 / 1)
"one of the worst speeches I've ever heard him give."

I love it.

Wonder if Sununu's fired now.

Message for you sir... (0.00 / 0)
Michael --

I'm about to take the stage in St. Paul and announce that we have won the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

It's been a long journey, and we should all pause to thank Hillary Clinton, who made history in this campaign. Our party and our country are better off because of her.

I want to make sure you understand what's ahead of us. Earlier tonight, John McCain outlined a vision of America that's very different from ours -- a vision that continues the disastrous policies of George W. Bush.

But this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past and bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

It's going to take hard work, but thanks to you and millions of other donors and volunteers, no one has ever been more prepared for such a challenge.

Thank you for everything you've done to get us here. Let's keep making history.

Barack



Hope > Fear
mine added (0.00 / 0)

---

Make a donation now:

http://donate.barackobama.com/...

Or sign up to volunteer:

http://my.barackobama.com/FBit...

This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.

   Dorothy Parker

[ Parent ]
MA-Sen: (4.00 / 2)
Ogonowski failed to get on the ballot.

HA HA HA HA HA!

Congratulations on your re-election, Senator Kerry.

Wonder if Sununu's fired now.

Ogonowski (0.00 / 0)
I feel a bit bad for that guy; he is not a political person, he is being exploited by the Mass. GOP in its desperation for candidates. They ran him for the Meehan seat (now the Niki Tsongas seat) basically because people knew his name because of his brother, and somehow they thought they could expand that into a national security platform. Then he loses, predictably, and they then run him against Kerry? And without providing enough support to get him on the ballot? I think the whole thing is pretty shameful.

[ Parent ]
Ogo ya don't (0.00 / 0)
An Ogo ad:


The giant finds its gait.
[ Parent ]
Politics aside (4.00 / 1)
That's a pretty good ad!
[ Parent ]
I grinned n/t (0.00 / 0)


The giant finds its gait.
[ Parent ]
Lots of Kudos (0.00 / 0)
To Hillary from Barack... Health Care mentioned in specific "She will be a part of it"

Hope > Fear
Xcel Center (0.00 / 0)
Not sure how full it is but it can hold >15k

Level 000 Event Floor Level 5 locker rooms, 3 star dressing rooms
Level 100 Lower Seating Level 9,000 seats, 12 suites
Level 200 Suite Level 62 suites
Level 300 Saint Paul Club Level 3,000 seats
Level  400 Upper Seating Level 4,500 seats
Level 500 Press Level 150 seats, 12 broadcast booths


Hope > Fear
And McCain, well, he got (0.00 / 0)
like, a couple hundred or so.

Onward to victory!

Wonder if Sununu's fired now.

[ Parent ]
funny (4.00 / 1)
how the cameras didn't  pan over the McCain "crowd" on Pox news.

I watched the McCain speech with an 88 year old woman who got so mad she was yelling at him for being a liar. She thought his occasional fake smiles were really creepy.

We both wondered how the GOP can put forward the same failed economic agenda that didn't work for Reagan or Bush, and claim it's going to work this time. We also wondered why he gave that speech near New Orleans, and hoped someone would remember the infamous Bush/McCain eating birthday cake while people drowned - but no one brought that up.

I really, REALLY hope that someone puts together an ad with all the nasty stuff Bush/Rove did to McSame during the 2000 election, and then show him giving Bush the big sweaty hug at the very end.

Fran (my little old lady friend) has been a Clinton supporter - but she was quite impressed with Obama's speech last night, and dazzled by the crowd and the energy.  

Netroots Outreach Director for the Carol Shea-Porter campaign

[ Parent ]
NBC is saying 19k (0.00 / 0)


Hope > Fear
[ Parent ]
And another 15k outside n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Obama destroying McCain right now. n/t (0.00 / 0)


Wonder if Sununu's fired now.
Correction: (0.00 / 0)
Obama is DESTROYING McCain right now.

Wonder if Sununu's fired now.
[ Parent ]
my blinders may be on... (0.00 / 0)
But I don't see how we can lose.

Hope > Fear
[ Parent ]
17,000 inside (0.00 / 0)
15,000 outside !!!!

This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.

   Dorothy Parker

[ Parent ]
Will somebody please tell Hillary (0.00 / 0)
Stop. Once again totally self serving, her angling for VP will of course be rejected. We need to win.  If she were on the ticket, Dems would surely lose. She doesn't care.  In hoping for VP, it keeps her in the spotlight and gives her a platform to continue to hurt our nominee. Someone please!!
Burt, please (4.00 / 1)
Enough already. I hope Hillary is on the ticket just to drive you crazy - and I say that with affection!  

Energy and persistence conquer all things.

Benjamin Franklin

I'm a strategist for the NH Coordinated Campaign
[ Parent ]
I know they are saying that there (0.00 / 0)
have not been conversations, but HRC focus on Health Care in her speech and BHO saying similar things seemed interesting to me. In a "what's going on" way...

Hope > Fear
[ Parent ]
With great restraint, (0.00 / 0)
I'm doing my part to help unify the party by holding my tongue with respect to Senator Clinton tonight.
[ Parent ]
thank you (4.00 / 4)
because it would be very unfortunae if you did not restrain your self. For the sake of winning, everyone must display grea resraint. It is over. Let the healing begin and the scab picking end.
[ Parent ]
This won't be easy, but here goes...ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip! (4.00 / 3)


The giant finds its gait.
[ Parent ]
Did you have your lips done? (0.00 / 0)
Some collagen injections and an upper lip wax, perhaps?

Waking up on November 5th with no regrets.
[ Parent ]
A quick recovery, too; we just saw him a month ago! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I went for the Johnny Depp look n/t (0.00 / 0)


The giant finds its gait.
[ Parent ]
I just heard on NPR (0.00 / 0)
that McCain wants to expel Russia from the G8? Does anyone know anything about this? Is there some academic consideration anyone could point to on this like his appeal for a an international organization of democracies to offer a false veil of legitimacy when we don't want to go to the UN, or is this just Russia-hating?
Where have they been? (4.00 / 1)
Bloomberg had the story a month ago:

May 6 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said in 2001 that he had looked Russian leader Vladimir Putin in the eye and ``was able to get a sense of his soul.'' Senator John McCain says he looked into Putin's eyes ``and saw three letters: KGB.''

McCain, 71, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, favors expelling Russia from the Group of Eight club of industrial powers. He calls for forging a ``League of Democracies'' to confront Putin and hand-picked successor Dmitry Medvedev, who takes over tomorrow, on Russian threats against former Soviet republics and rollbacks of domestic freedoms.

McCain is frightening at many levels.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt   [I'm an advisor to the NHDP Coordinated Campaign]

[ Parent ]
I totally missed that (0.00 / 0)
I guess it never clicked.

I'd read this before we even voted in NH in Foreign Affairs. I must've skipped this paragraph:

A decade and a half ago, the Russian people threw off the tyranny of communism and seemed determined to build a democracy and a free market and to join the West. Today, we see in Russia diminishing political freedoms, a leadership dominated by a clique of former intelligence officers, efforts to bully democratic neighbors, such as Georgia, and attempts to manipulate Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas. We need a new Western approach to this revanchist Russia. We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyberattacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization's doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom. We must also increase our programs supporting freedom and the rule of law in Russia and emphasize that genuine partnership remains open to Moscow if it desires it but that such a partnership would involve a commitment to being a responsible actor, internationally and domestically.

This guy is stuck in the Cold War.

[ Parent ]
We need enemies! (4.00 / 1)
Fear mongering can't thrive in times of peace and global prosperity. McCain needs us afraid.

Michelle Obama: Be not afraid


The giant finds its gait.

[ Parent ]
Which guy is stuck in the Cold War? (0.00 / 0)

I don't know that expelling Russia from the G8 is the way to go but Putin's rule has genuinely been very antidemocratic - shutting down television stations, the whole Litvinenko - polonium sushi poisoning thing, and the sheer number of journalists who have been violently killed in mysterious circumstances is just horrifying.  I must recommend Putin's Russia by Anna Politkovskaya, one of the assassinated journalists.

Resurgent nationalism also appears to be moving more main stream.  I have read interviews with young Russians - not bitter old nomenklatura - who do not think that Stalin was such a bad guy and who essentially want to see a restored Russian empire with a nuclear strong arm and satellite states and the whole shebang.

So, while I would agree that what McCain is doing amounts to election year posturing, the Russia topics he's bringing up are not a flashback or paranoia - Putin needs to be vigorously opposed, just not in the Republican way that screws everything up even more.


[ Parent ]
This is exaggerated (4.00 / 1)
Similar criticisms could be levied against the Yeltsin government, but were not and are not. Putin is no longer the President of Russia, which is where the Russian constitution places much power, Dmitri Medvedev is. And he is no more hand picked a successor to Putin than Putin was to Yeltsin.

Is the Presidential appointment of governors (like they do in France), more or less anti-democratic than sending tanks to the legislative branch because they oppose your policy reforms? (John Lynch could probably get a constitutional amendment if he employed this political tactic)

Were more journalists murdered under Yeltsin or Putin?

Should the the guarantee of constitutional rights to Russian citizens be ignored because the British government files an extradition request?

Which was a bigger foreign policy upset, Russian opposition to the NATO bombing of Serbia or Russian opposition to the Iraq war?

Should Vladimir Putin be reviled for providing intelligence to his country on developments in Germany, when in 1990 we elected the former Director of Central Intelligence to the Presidency? Does anyone regard George H.W. Bush as a spy President?

We need to keep Russia integrated in the current international system. This is the most liberal and democratic government Russia has ever had. The United States has interests, and Russia has interests, and they do not always coincide.  Sometimes they do (see how much nuclear cooperation you're going to get when you "vigorously oppose" a a national public figure with an approval rating as high as Putin's is). Just because there are some differences doesn't create a need to be more antagonistic. And I reject that Putin or Medvedev are any more of a problem to the United States and the international community than Yeltsin was.

I know and acknowledge that my views on this are controversial and outside of the mainstream, but post-Soviet Russia is not examined as critically as it should be, and our concern with their internal problems should be secondary to our interests, which are not well articulated because the complainers suck all the oxygen out of the room.

The reason the Russian people feel a swell in national pride, which has obviously fueled nationalistic sentiments, is because that under Putin the purchasing power of Russians has doubled (thanks in part to our policies which have allowed Russia to reap the benefits of being the second largest oil producer in the world). Crime is under control. And the rebellion in Chechnya -- a threat to Russian territorial integrity and stability -- is under control.

[ Parent ]
Correction: *Bush elected in Nov. 1988, not 90 (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Were more journalists murdered under Yeltsin or Putin? (0.00 / 0)
Putin.  Unquestionably.

My observation that Putin's regime is very anti-democratic is not "just because there are some differences" between U.S. and Russian foreign policy.  Anyone who has been following Russia during the last decade would be well aware that it's not simply partisan critics from the U.S. who condemn what's going on there - that regime's behavior is a matter of international concern.

Take Amnesty International, for example.  A Google search of www.amnesty.org for "Putin" gets eighty thousand hits - more than three times as many as a search for "Bush".  If you honestly believe that this kind of criticism of the current government of Russia is just some sort of partisanship I will be happy to dig back through some of the stuff I've read during the last ten years and demonstrate otherwise.

By the way - the "rebellion in Chechnya"?  Are you serious?  That's like talking about Palestinian sovereignty as a "rebellion".

[ Parent ]
Is that really unquestionable? (0.00 / 0)
Committee to Protect Journalists shows between 1993 and 1999 (under Yeltsin), 31 journalists were killed in Russia. Between 2000 and 2008 (under Putin), 20 journalists were killed.

Average number of journalists killed per year under Yeltsin: 4.4
Average number of journalists killed per year under Putin: 2.2

Putin's regime is not significantly more antidemocratic than Yeltsin's regime. Putin never called in the military to achieve a policy outcome from a resistant legislature.

I don't think partisanship has anything to do with it. I do think sensationalism in the media has a lot to do with it.

I think that with regard to Chechnya, rebellion is a pretty neutral and accurate word. What would you call it? Do you not see separatism as a threat to the territorial integrity of states?  

[ Parent ]
Your "Journalists killed on duty" figures include war (0.00 / 0)
deaths and other deaths unrelated to government action and appears to place some deaths in the "unconfirmed" category that I can understand as lacking direct evidence -  but I think it would be naïve not to attribute to either someone party to Putin, or someone who is acting unrestrained by the Putin government.

But heck, let's say that my various objections just even out the number of assassinated journalists who have died during Putin's reign versus Yeltsin's.  All of these mysterious deaths, some of them confirmed assassinations, plus the Litvinenko assassination, plus things like crushing the Pushkin square demonstrations last year adds up to a little bit more than sensationalism.

And besides that, part of what you're dismissing as "just media sensationalism" is in part from the assassinated members of the media like Politkovskaya.

I think you know very well that calling something a "rebellion" is by no means a neutral term.  Calling someone a "rebel" implies that they are unjustly fighting against the proper authority or someone who is otherwise owed allegiance, like a king.  That's why, for example, during the American Civil War the Union pointedly referred to the Confederacy as "rebels" and the "rebellion", terms which the Confederates did not use for themselves.  The Union did that intentionally to deny the Southern idea that they were freedom fighters and had the right to secede.

So calling the war in Chechnya a "rebellion" implies that Russia's dominion over Chechnya is more lawful or proper than its dominion over places like Georgia, Estonia, or Kazakhstan was.  Obviously many of the Chechens have done reprehensible things in the war but I think they're owed more respect than to pretend that Russian domination of the region is a lawful and legitimate hegemony that Chechens are violating if they oppose it.

[ Parent ]
You think (0.00 / 0)
"freedom fight" is a more neutral term than rebellion? OK, whatever.

I think rebellion suggests you're against the established order, law or unlawful, just or unjust.

Chechnya is hugely different from Kazakhstan, Estonia, or Georgia. Under the Soviet Union, Chechnya was part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, which declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 and became the Russian Federation. Kazakhstan, Estonia, or Georgia were independent republics within the Soviet Union, on an equal legal footing as Russia.

If the US split up like the Soviet Union did, it would not be analogous to compare a Coos County separatist movement in NH to Massachusetts independence from the United States.

Besides, do you support Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence from Georgia? This is widely seen as a move in Russia's interest (which is arguable, Russia's got a huge stake in maintaining the value of territorial integrity internationally--hence opposition to Kosovo independence), which our government is opposed to -- to the extent we don't recognize these de facto states as de jure. There fight is just as much a "freedom fight" as Chechnya's is.

Keeping Chechnya under control is pretty much in our interest in the context of the Global War on Terror, given Al Qaeda support for the separatists there. Antagonism toward Russia, which faces an existential threat (though much less so since Putin got the area under control) from an enemy we share with them, doesn't really make sense.  

[ Parent ]
Chechens are not ethnically Russian (0.00 / 0)
That's enough for me to be unwilling to regard them as a group that owes subordination to the Russian state, which is what calling them "rebels" is implying.  I didn't say that they should be called "freedom fighters" - I'm saying both terms are equally spin doctorish.

Feel free to separate the world into "good guys" and "bad guys" and denigrate anyone you put in the bad guy category.  But I believe that sort of thinking is a major reason we got into this mess in Iraq.

I'm not going to assert Russian rule over Chechnya simply because it's in American interests to do so, and neither should you or anyone else - especially not with "The Global War on Terror" as a second excuse.

[ Parent ]
Russia is a multi-ethnic country (0.00 / 0)
We don't need a "Spring of Nations" right now. The trend is toward more local autonomy in the context of regional cooperation. I think this is a positive development.

Do you feel the same way about the Basques and Catalonians under the Spanish "yoke" as you do about the Chechens?

I can't believe you don't see the problem with a state set up with assistance from Al Qaeda, especially one that won't really do our country any good compared to the damage that would be done to the current relatively warm Russo-American relations.

[ Parent ]
Wow. You're ready and willing to deny Chechens' right to pursue independence (0.00 / 0)

because it won't "do your own country any good"?  That's pretty obtuse and selfish.

I mean, it would be one thing if you were simply objecting to some specific type of aid or to some particular claim made by one of the Chechen military groups - but you're actually trying to defend the spin-doctorish labeling of Chechen independence as a "rebellion" and the mendacious bunk put out by the Kremlin that the war in Chechnya is simply some strategy of Al Qaeda's.  (Kind of like Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime was just an arm of Al Qaeda, huh?)

If you have any interest in Chechnya beyond what is in Russian government press releases I would again recommend Poltikovskaya's Putin's Russia, or any of the other stuff she wrote about Chechnya before she was murdered for it.  (Poltikovskaya being a Russian journalist btw.)

As far as the Basque and the Catalan - yes, I would consider the labeling of Basque or Catalan separatist movements as "rebellions" to be spin doctoring too.  Just the same way that calling the Lakota independence movement here in the U.S. a "rebellion" would be silly rhetoric.


[ Parent ]
Rebellion, Chechnya, Spain (0.00 / 0)
I defined what I meant by rebellion: opposition to the established order. Currently, Chechnya is a constituent part of the Russian Federation (What is a federation, anyways? Is it necessarily a nation-state?). Russia represents the established order over Chechen territory.

I did not say that I oppose the Chechens right to pursue independence, I don't. They can choose to pursue independence, even at the barrel of a gun. However, I also do not oppose Russia's right to defend itself from terrorism, to protect its territorial integrity, and to maintain internal order.

Further, I do not think our government has anything to gain by supporting Chechen independence, and, indeed, has much to lose inasmuch as it adversely affects our relations with Russia. Additionally, it is my opinion that having a a Chechen state established with the assistance of Al Qaeda probably poses an equivalent, if not even greater, threat to our country and others as did Afghanistan under Taleban rule.

It would probably also be worse for the majority of Chechens, who would be deprived of the ability to live, work, and study in the rest of Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States, and would probably not be able to adequately advance their interests in the international community, as a minor state of little influence in a strategically valuable area between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea, which, incidentally, they would likely not have access to (though, it maybe possible through Georgia). But you're right, if Chechens want to be independent, are willing to fight for it, and Russia willing to capitulate -- they can instead be a nominally independent state in the Georgian sphere of influence.

As far as Spain, I don't know if you're aware how serious the Spanish government has taken militant Basque separatism since the end of the Carlist wars, and particularly since the Spanish Civil War. It's an issue that makes and breaks candidates in Spanish elections. It has led to antidemocratic measures in Spain, like the banning of electoral political parties andshutting down newspapers. I think the Basque issue is more similar to the Chechen issue, certainly compared to the Lakota independence movement you cited.  

[ Parent ]
It's nice that you've got all these sociopolitical opinions (0.00 / 0)
However, none of it changes the fact that referring to something as a "rebellion" is pejorative and imputing - not a neutral term as you claimed above.

And by the way, name-dropping Al Qaeda is also not the best way to show that you're trying to take a reasoned and impartial view on a conflict either.  Terrorism is bad and Bin Ladin is an evil guy, but it's not like he has some sort of islamofascist Midas touch that automatically makes any cause he supports unjust and indefensible down to the roots - remember how he was on our side in the Soviet War in Afghanistan?

Aaaanyways, entertaining though this diversion about the nature of the word "rebellion" is it has limited bearing on the original matter - that Putin genuinely and confirmably engages in extremely anti-democratic practices like assassinating journalists, practices that should be opposed.  It is by no means a matter of "sensationalism in the media" as you purport.

[ Parent ]
Don't let your emotions dictate your policy (4.00 / 1)
Putin needs to be vigorously opposed

I strongly disagree.

Kind of.

I strongly agree that the trends in Russia are in many ways very bad, and that we should seek to reverse them.

But we make a grave mistake when we leap from that utterly sound conviction to "Putin needs to be vigorously opposed."

Maybe vigorous opposition would be useful.  Maybe it would be counterproductive.  The embargo against Cuba is not useful.  Greater engagement with Cuba most probably would be.  Reagan's so-called "constructive engagement" with South Africa was not helpful.  A strong international sanctions regime was.

Putin is essentially an intelligent, sane and emotionally mature fascist unburdened by any ridiculous fascist ideology; his only ideology is a strong Russia.  If we "vigorously oppose" him stupidly, or even non-brilliantly, he will intensify exactly those policies we most dislike, and his subjects will love him for it.

[ Parent ]
Strongly disagree... "kind of"? (0.00 / 0)
Do you feel that Bush needs to be vigorously opposed?  Because, y'know, doing so would not seem like the "grave mistake" you're labeling opposition to Putin being and I would be entirely willing to say that Putin is worse than Bush.

Of course I am not suggesting that Putin be opposed stupidly.  Duh.  That's exactly what I meant by saying "not in the Republican way that screws everything up even more", so it seems to me rather imputing for you to talk about my policy opinions being ruled by emotion or suggest that I would endorse stupid measures against him.

How about this - since you seem to want to portray vigorous opposition to Putin as a maverick, reckless, and stupid attitude - without even asking what exactly I mean by that - how about you list off some of the things Putin has done during his administration and say which ones you think should be mildly opposed, and which ones should be unopposed?  Since having any conviction behind opposition to him is evidently foolish.

[ Parent ]
Do you seriously think (0.00 / 0)
we should interfere in the internal affairs of foreign states, especially over matters where we don't really have any interests?
[ Parent ]
No. (0.00 / 0)
Where did I say anything about interfering with the internal affairs of Russia?  This all started with mention of expelling Russia from the G8 which has nothing to do with their internal affairs (and which I said I didn't think was appropriate, anyways.)  Seems like you are trying to impute beliefs and positions on me because you don't like my position on this.
[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
how about you list off some of the things Putin has done during his administration and say which ones you think should be mildly opposed, and which ones should be unopposed

Name the ones you think should be opposed that happen outside of Russia's borders. Tell me how you think they ought to be opposed. And, I think, most importantly, tell me how your recommendations would be in our national interest.

[ Parent ]
"Our national interest"? (0.00 / 0)
Whether or not Putin's administration has behaved in an anti-democratic fashion is a matter of objective fact, not a matter of American national interest.  Us being really buddy-buddy with Russia would not erase or excuse Putin's government assassinating anyone - not even one single journalist - and it's pretty craven of you to suggest that American interests make any difference here.

I'm entirely willing to discuss what international measures should be taken to oppose anti-democratic regimes, oppression of journalism, manipulating other states through energy monopolies, etc.  Many of them are the same measures I might suggest as appropriate for levying against the United States when our hopefully-soon-to-be-gone government does things like torturing people in secret prisons or engaging in preemptive warfare.

However, I did ask that question you quoted first and it seems a bit underhanded of you to skip answering my question when you're going to demand the same sort of detail from me.  So I'll let you prepare and deliver your own answer to my question - a little demonstration of good faith, to show that you're not making this demand rhetorically - before I put together my own list.

[ Parent ]
I never made a complaint (0.00 / 0)
about internal Russian policies. I never suggested they ought to be opposed.

I think democracy is a means to good government and prosperity, not an end unto itself. It's none of my business whether Russia is democratic or antidemocratic. In the long view, Russia is more democratic now than ever before. They're not the Soviet Union. We have mutual interests in a stable international order. Beyond that, from a humanitarian perspective, the quality of life in Russia is beginning to recovering from the economic disasters of the 1990s. We should be encouraging positive developments, like easing access for foreign investment and facilitating trade and travel.

[ Parent ]
Encourage positive things, don't talk about negative things... like ASSASSINATION?!? (0.00 / 0)
What is this, a kiddie sports game where everyone gets a trophy?

I will again say that you are being completely selfish and obtuse to, from your position in a nice secure rule-of-law first world country, say things like "shucks, democracy isn't that important, it's just a means to an end.  If the Russian government wants to assassinate journalists it's an internal affair, it's just not in my interest to oppose it."

Could you look Politkovskaya's son in the eye and tell him that democracy is just a means to an end, that his mother's assassination just really isn't all that important as long as Russian quality of life indexes keep improving?
When I was confirming that she had a son I found that I made a misstatement above, Politkovskaya was ethnically Ukranian.

And one last thing - no duh modern Russia isn't the Soviet Union!  Criticizing one particular Russian political leader for closing TV stations, having at most a few dozen journalists assassinated, and crushing political protests is pretty far from saying the current Russian Federation is anything like the Soviet Union.  You are again setting up straw men to knock down - you sure like doing that, doncha?

[ Parent ]
Re-read, please. (4.00 / 2)
the "grave mistake" you're labeling opposition to Putin being

No, I did not label it anything of the sort.

since you seem to want to portray vigorous opposition to Putin as a maverick, reckless, and stupid attitude

No, not at all.  In fact, I believe that vigorous opposition to many of Putin's policies and tendencies is absolutely the appropriate attitude.

But attitude is about what you think and feel and believe and want.  Policy about is what you do to bring reality more in line with your attitude.

I simply want it to be recognized that the sort of policy that tends to be thought of as "vigorous opposition" might well be a bad and counterproductive policy -- and if not done well, that "might well" might well turn into a "would."  Right now the US is "vigorously opposing" a whole lot of things that Iran is doing.  That policy (which, I will grant, you might well (and correctly) consider to be stupidly carried out) isn't exactly producing bountiful harvests.

Since having any conviction behind opposition to him is evidently foolish.

Once again, I neither stated nor implied anything of the sort.  You seem to be setting up a series of straw men whose knock-down-ableness is highly appealing to you, but you err if you truly think they are in any way related to what I have said, or to what I think.  In contrast to many political sites, folks here tend not to be dense, amoral or gratuitously cantankerous; you'll find that you needn't approach them as if they are.

[ Parent ]
Reread again and again - you _did_ label vigorous opposition to Putin a "grave mistake" (0.00 / 0)
To quote you:

But we make a grave mistake when we leap from that utterly sound conviction to "Putin needs to be vigorously opposed."

Unless you're claiming that you meant deciding to vigorously oppose Putin is a grave mistake, but actually doing it isn't??  You then went on to say:

Maybe vigorous opposition would be useful.  Maybe it would be counterproductive.  The embargo against Cuba is not useful.  Greater engagement with Cuba most probably would be.  Reagan's so-called "constructive engagement" with South Africa was not helpful.

So without any inquiry into what I might mean by "vigorously oppose" you declared it a grave mistake, then associated it with two highly ineffective policies including appeasement of apartheid, thank you very much (what the heck does that even have to do with opposition to anything?), then finished up by declaring that Putin must not be opposed stupidly.  All of this in a post with a title that, also without much evident justification, implied that my policy opinions (sight-unseen) are "dictated" (which generally means wholly determined) by my emotions rather than rational thought.

I hope that you can at least agree that you definitely weren't displaying any interest in finding out what I meant by "vigorous opposition", you'd already made your mind up enough to make some pretty strong declarations about that.  I have a difficult time reading what you said in that first reply as anything other than a blanket dismissal of and blind attack upon whatever my policy opinions may be, sight unseen.  If you're going to declare my opinions to be "dictated by emotion" out of hand I hardly think it unreasonable for me to have made my own more evidenced and reasonable extrapolations of your statements.

What, among the statements you made about what you think "vigorous opposition" is, does not apply to mild opposition or any other forms of opposition?  Of course any sort of policy, oppositional, cooperative, or otherwise can be carried out stupidly - this is why, in the absence of any inquiry into what I actually mean, what you said above seems like a substance-less attack on my opinion, whatever my opinion may be.

You do seem reasonable (definitely compared to Alex's "democracy is not important" schtick) and in fact from the limited amount that's been said it sounds like you agree with me - but you preceded all of the statements that agree that things are very bad in Russia by saying you "strongly disagree" with me, so I'm a bit bamboozled here.

[ Parent ]
Putin, Russia, Democracy ad nauseam (0.00 / 0)
I didn't say democracy's not important. Democracy is hugely important. I think it's the best available vehicle to achieve good government. Achieving democracy, though, is not a set goal, it's a process to achieve goals. I think Russia is as democratic as many other acknowledged democracies, and certainly more democratic now than ever before. It's certainly not a perfect democracy, by any means.

I think the burden is on you to enunciate what you mean by "vigorously oppose," because it's literal connotation is not a pleasant one. What do you mean by vigorous opposition?

What sounds emotional and irrational, to me, is your justification for vigorous opposition. It doesn't make sense that a better life for a greater number of people in our country and Russia should be jeopardized over relatively minor things, especially when compared to the threat of wiping both of our countries off the map, which was a serious policy consideration for almost 50 years.

I don't even know what it means to oppose "Putin" anymore, and so I read that essentially as opposing the Russian political establishment -- which outside a small number of issues, is very to us. As far as Putin goes, though,  we don't even know if he's going to be in the Russian political picture 1 or 2 years from now.

[ Parent ]
You are *very clearly* saying that democracy is unimportant (0.00 / 0)
back to the root for elbow room

That's the literal meaning of "it's just a means to an end".  You stated that it's a tool, an instrument with no intrinsic value.  You can't have it both ways - you can't say on one hand that it doesn't matter whether a country is democratic or not, then turn around and claim you love democracy and it's "hugely important."  And I quote:

I think democracy is a means to good government and prosperity, not an end unto itself.  It's none of my business whether Russia is democratic or antidemocratic.

You said that in direct response to me making points about assassinated journalists and the Litvinenko case, another political assassination.  With such a response you have very clearly, literally said that those assassinations do not matter even though they are symptom and cause of an oppressive and oppressed antidemocratic political situation, a situation you find acceptable as long as the economic indicators keep going up and American national interests are protected.

The "relatively minor thing" you're talking about above is people living in fear of expressing opinions about the government, telling the truth about what the government has done, or joining the wrong political movement like Kasparov's Dissenters.  To anyone who is under physical threat of violence for having the wrong political beliefs or asking the wrong questions about the government, this is a major thing.  I reiterate: your dismissal and minimization of the importance of democratic freedoms for Russians can only be the obtuse and selfish viewpoint of someone who is already secure in those freedoms and takes them for granted.

Now you can recant those statement and claim battle fatigue or the fog of war or something caused you to misspeak.  But don't expect to get away with simply pretending you didn't say it, not with me or anyone else.   That's just silly - your words are right there and this attempt to wave them away or slip them under the rug is just rhetorical guff.

Yeah, so it's also a bit late to bother asking what I meant by "vigorously oppose".  That phrase conveys no unpleasant meaning whatsoever - it literally means to oppose with vigor, anything more negative is further spin doctoring on your part.  And in any case you've already made your decision to object to the very idea of opposing Putin and have stood up in general for the man's actions and declared that him using anti-democratic means is acceptable to you as it's "none of your business".  Unless you're recanting your previous position it's pointless to get into details since you've basically given him carte blanche to do anything whatsoever - to be as antidemocratic as he wishes, it doesn't faze you.

June 3 Results and Evening Open Thread | 61 comments
Powered by: SoapBlox