Overreacting to an overreaction

So the Obama administration has decided to make a big deal out of the announcement, during VP Joe Biden's visit, that Israel is planning 1,600 new housing unites for Israelis on the West Bank -- close to Jerusalem and as I understand it an addition or expansion of an existing settlement, not a new settlement. There's little doubt that someone in the Israeli government -- it looks as if Netanyahu is still denying personal advance knowledge of the announcement -- did intend to embarrass Biden. For various reasons the Israeli government is not especially pleased with Obama or his administration. Israel is mainly concerned about Iran right now, and in no mood -- and probably no position -- to negotiate with the Palestinians, whether through an intermediary or toherwise. When Obama called on Israel a year or so ago to halt West Bank settlements it was a blunder -- a president sholdn't make such a request unless he has already negotiated acceptance behind the scenes. Oops. Israel wasn't ready for that, though it softened its utter resistance after a while. Somebody was ready to put some egg on the American face.

The mistake is compounded by making such a big deal of it. The U.S. is in the position it has been in through much of the last 30 years or so -- wanting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and a two-state settlement more than either of the parties involved want it right now. If Obama were smarter he would say nothing and start cutting off aid -- informing the Israelis but not making a public announcement. But after lookiing "soft" after letting the firm demand to stop settlements wither and die, he has to look "tough" now. Or so the constricted logic of too much of what passes for diplomacy goes.

First Amendment means nothing?

I'm fascinated at how little the First Amendment means to so many people in the United States (check some of the comments on this Orange Punch blog post). Obama specifically criticized the Supremes for their Citizens United decision with a wildly inaccurate characterization of it and Sam Alito gets criticized for being seen to silently mouth the words "not true." All right, it was a minor breach of protocol. Obama's characterization was a major breach of SOTU precedent -- no president has used it to make such a direct criticism -- and a major breach of the truth. In the fuss, we forget about the First Amendment.

The McCain-Feingold law included a novel restriction on advocacy organizations, a rule that they couldn't air any ads or other kinds of modes of persuasion in a way that the FEC could interpret as electioneering just before -- 60 days before -- an election, when election-related speech should be at its most robust and political speech most carefully protected. The campaign restrictionist crowd didn't like it, and the Supremes could have issued a narrower decision, but the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law," remember?) was clearly violated. It was correct to strike the clearly unconstitutional law down. That's the Supreme Court's job, arguably its only important job. But the restrictionists reverse the logic of democracy. Elections are supposed to be how the people control the government, but if the government controls the electoral process, declaring who can participate and how, the permanent government cannot be really held accountable. That's what campaign finance "reform" is really all about, giving government more control over the process that is supposed to control it.

The US-Israeli-Palestinian Kabuki

I didn't blog nor did I write last week when Israeli prime minister Netanyahu came to Washington last week, but maybe with Mahmoud Abbas, the "approved" Palestinian leader in town today a word of explanation might be in order.

If the Israelis and Palestinians ever do get sick of the confrontation game and work out a way to live together peacefully in the same neighborhood, they might prove to be remarkably compatible partners. After all these years they know one another so well that if they were inclined they could get along quite well. As it is, what they know is how to push one another's buttons. Whenever some ambitious U.S. president tries to secure what he conceives of as a place in history by pushing them to negotiate, they each demand something they know good and well the other won't accept. Both do it and blame one another when it dfoesn't work out.

The U.S. plays make-believe as well. It is officially committed to a two-state solution, but that is about as likely as elephants flying. Even besides the fact that there are two Palestinian entities (with Hamas, to worse of the two, having arguably a better claim on legitimacy), the geography of the region would make any Palestinian state almost completely reliant on Israel, and no Palestinian entity could guarantee various elements wouldn't lob missiles into Israel. Israel is almost as fractured politically as the Palestinian entity. Besides, the "moderate" Arab states, whatever lip service they might pay, have no interest in seeing a Palestinian state. I have been observing and writing about Israel-Palestine for going on 30 years and while the players and some of the peripheral issues may change, the fundamental issues don't. Yet the U.S. has a certain interest in keeping the political theater going, maintaining the fiction that it's working on peace, which it expects to break out any time as soon as a few loose ends can be cleared up.

It's more than a bit tiresome. I thought Obama was being fairly shrewd appointing the peripatetic George Mitchell as special envoy so he could create the appearance of action. I'm surprised he agreed to meet with Netanyahu and Abbas. I hope it's just part of the game of pretending to care and he doesn't start getting the idea that maybe his unique qualities can accomplish what Reaagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush failed to do.

Jumping all over Sotomayor a big mistake

I can't monitor everything, but from the excerpts and bits and pieces I see or hear about on the Net, the right-wing talk radio/blogosphere universe is in the midst of a huge tactical/strategic mistake over Supremes nominee Sonia Sotomayor. But it's almost as if they can't help themselves. Supreme Court nominations have been so contentious lately that both sides have huge attack/defend machines in place and millions invested in the process. Both sides are convinced that nomination fights "energize the base." At this point it means that Rush/Hannity et. al. are falling right into the trap Obama has set for them. The best thing the base could do in this instance, is to shut up, as most Senate republicans who have a modicum of actual responsibility are doing.

I talked to UCI law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky for this Register editorial, and as has often been the case in the past Erwin, God love 'im, had the politics down pat. Obama nominates a Hispanic woman. The Republicans know they can't win a national election without about a 40% vote from Hispanics (about what Bush got in'04), so doing a balls-out attack job on Sotomayor risks making the GOP something like a permanent minority in national elections. But Rush etc. can't resist the bait. Sotomayor is not just to the left, as she is -- what did you expect from Obama? -- she's the worst nominee ever, devoted to identity politics ueber alles, proclaiming that she routinely makes up law and will ruin the Supreme Court within a week of donning a robe. TheApocalypse is upon us if we don't make the most flamboyant case possible against her. The Republic hangs by a thread.

Take a chill pill. She'll vote almost exactly the same way Souter did so she won't tchange the balance of the court, and with the Dem majority in the Senate she's going to be confirmed even if you convince the "base" that she's the devil incarnate. The "outrageous" quotes (wise Latina woman better than white male et. al.) are nowhere near so outrageous in context. There are certainly valid criticisms to be made of her approach to jurisprudence, but this kind of hysterical attack will only discredit those who made it except in the eyes of an ever-diminishing choir.

The hysteria isn't all on one side. Look at the comments and not that a reasonably balanced piece with some mild criticism is dismissed as nothing but part of the evil Republican attack machine by the other side.

McCain downgrading eloquence?

My colleague Steve Greenhut and I did live-blog tonight's debate over at the Orange County Register's Orange Punch blog, so if you want to see real-time reactions, including to the cable news media coverage, you might want to click over there. I have just a couple more observations here.

On several occasions, when Obama came back with a fairly smooth response to one of McCain's charges or criticisms, McCain would come back with a relatively dismissive reference to Obama's "eloquence." I think I know what he was trying to do: dismiss what Obama had just said as merely a smooth but fact-free statement, and perhaps trying to garner some underdog sympathy for the plain-spoken straight talker. But in using the word "eloquence," I think he gave Obama more credit than he should have; I suspect people value eloquence in a president. Maybe a word like "smooth talker" would have been more effective.

Botoom line: I think this was McCain's best performance, and he certainly did some attacking on specifics. He may even have won on points if you were scoring as a debate judge would. But I think he didn't come close to doing enough to turn the race around, and I'm not sure what he could do that would. As I've mentioned before, I think he lost his best chance by not opposing the $700 billion bank bailout. I haven't talked to anybody who isn't in the political or chattering classes who favored that ill-conceived move, and the stock markets seem to agree.

Plus ca change!

Here's a link to the piece I did for the Register's Sunday Commentary section yesterday on the mantra of change in the presidential marathon. I hope I got a little deeper than simply deploring the use of an essentially empty slogan, given that change means little without a hinto or two as to what direction the proposed change is going. I discuss Andrew Sullivan's thought-provoking article in the December Atlantic, but conclude it's a bit pollyannish. The interests that control the two parties are still dominant, although we may be in a transition to different issues than those that have fascinated the baby boomers. But when it comes to real change, it will come from the private and independent sectors, and the politicians will deplore it or take credit for it, depending on their disposition (or how it affects their most cherished interest groups).

The race is on

Here's a link to the piece I did for the Register's Sunday Commentary section today on the presidential race. On the Democratic side, in the wake of Iowa Hillary is looking much less inevitable, while Huckabee's win has put the Republican race into a certain amount of confusion, although Giuliani's strategy of focusing on Florida and beyond just might work. Having been in New Hampshire for a couple of days, I expect Obama to win here, and McCain on the Republican side. I expect Ron Paul to do better here than the 10 percent he pulled in Iowa, but the race is really up in the air. Local TV stations report that their polls show 39 percent of Democrats and 40 percent of Republicans are either undecided or open to changing their minds between now and Tuesday. Plus 40 percent of New Hampshire voters are registered Independent and they can vote in either primary.