Jots with dots Mar 10

Is the country ready to elect a sexless nag as President? See, we all recognize the deficiencies of our chosen candidates, but vote for them anyway because they are the lesser of two evils, amirite? Figure there’s got to be limits though, and that’s what this is about. IE, how close Hillary is to the limits as, ya know, a duplicitous narcissist who’s commitment to progressive politics is unreliable.

Nevermind a Democrat President who doesn’t respect the conventions of constitutional authority. But we should really worry about it when Republicans do it. But I’m sure that’s a false equivalence eh.

The ammunition ban on armor piercing handgun cartridges that aren’t technically armor piercing and aren’t really handgun cartridges. Ya know, it is what it is, the Administration exercising the boundaries of administrative / executive authority, and engaging in some gamesmanship. They’ve decided to do that, and if you read Chait’s piece, they think they are rewarded or at least not electorally punished when they’ve decided to be assertive in this way. I think this is different in ways they fail to appreciate… again, because we’re talking guns, and there is a recent history to take obvious lessons from. Ya know, I say it’s stupid on the merits, and perceive that they’ll lose in court or even provoke congress to rescind. Which is reason enough to not do it, you don’t want to set up legal arguments to be trashed when there’s no need now when they might play better in the future. But the other thing is, this is the kind of thing that’s going to antagonize the NRA electoral machine into a heretofore uncontemplated robustness. Which is saying something. And it’s going to be impossible For Hillary to win in the face of that, even if you think you can’t perceive it as we go to Nov 2016. Ya know, or she’s going to have to disavow the ban, and then rescind it herself as president… which means it was all for naught anyway. The politics are very dumb.


8 thoughts on “Jots with dots Mar 10

  1. pm1956

    Clearly this is another example of Matt Yglesia’s thesis (

    I really do think that this is an example of the GOP crossing another line in their opposition to Obama, and that they are seriously harming the country in pursuit of short term political interests. And i do not think that there has been any Democratic equivalent in the field of foreign policy.

    frankly, i think that the President is right, and that we need to reach an agreement with Iran. We need to normalize our relationship with Iran. They have been an important ally in the past, and i think that there is no reason that this couldn’t happen in the future. And that would be good for the US if it happened.

    Seriously, what are the alternatives to an agreement on the nuclear issue? No agreement–there for the only restraint on Iran would be–military action? Clearly economic sanctions are not working, particularly when the Russians and the Chinese are not willing participants (right now they are participating in the current negotiations, but if the US abandons those negotiations, the russians will be only too happy to pick up a new anti-US ally in Iran–and imagine the progress towards nuclear weapons the Iranians would make with the help of the Russians–and you know that would happen). Do you think it would be a good idea to start fighting a war with Iran? Do you think that we should escalate and conduct limited military strikes? And what are the chances those strikes would stay limited? None.

    No, this is netanyahu trying to get the US to fight an ill concieved war on behalf of Israel, and the GOP has been suckered into this. They are so blinded by their opposition to Obama that they are willing to trade the security of our country for short term political power. Fools.

    the New York Daily News headline has it right. Traitors.

    1. W.E. Peterson Post author

      Meh. For them to be traitors Iran would have to be our enemy. If it’s our enemy, then we’d be ill advised acquiescing to their nuclear ambitions. But that’s not the case, right?

      1. pm1956

        Many people believe Iran to be our enemy. If fact, pretty much all of the people who signed that letter believe Iran to be our enemy.

        But seriously, what choice do we have? (regarding their nuclear policies)Countries get tom set their own policies/ambitions, don’t they? You’d need something like the United Nations on steroids to limit countries nuclear ambitions, right? For example, who gets to limit our nuclear ambitions? No one, right? Who gets to limit Russia’s nuclear ambitions? Or Israels nuclear ambitions?

        If we don’t acquiesce, our only other option is force. are you prepared to go to war with Iran? think of the ramifications…what will Russia do? what will China do?

      2. W.E. Peterson Post author

        It’s to say “traitor” is hyperbole. Cotton and the other Rs are not “traitors”. Yes, it’s a violation of political norms, but so what. That toothpaste isn’t going back into the tube there.

        We are ready to go to war with Iran, and I doubt a treaty gives us any sort of peace that allows us to stand down to a state of readiness like that we have for say, I dunno, Kazakhstan or Algeria.

        I thought the sanctions were working, and I recall the administration making that claim.

        Choosing to not do a treaty is one for which reasoned rationale can be articulated. Actually, I don’t know why we’d be obligated to pursuit anything at all with them, or what the nature of any sort of urgency would be.

  2. pm1956

    The Administration argues that the sanctions are working–in that they are bringing Iran to the bargaining table. Of course, you have to recognize that the sanctions only work to the extent that ALL of the countries that are enforcing them are willing to continue to enforce them–and Russia, China and the EU have stated that they are not willing to enforce this level of sanctions indefinitely. They want a treaty to end the sanctions. Without a treaty, what will probably happen is the Russia and China will stop enforcing the sanctions, saying that the US did not negotiate in good faith. At wwhich point Iran loses all incentive to negotiate with the US on anything (because it can get everything it needs from Russia and china (and the EU, which would soon follow Russia and china in ending sanctions). So we would have a situation with no nuclear agreement and no sanctions and Iran would be perfectly free to do whatever it wanted to do, and the US would have no leverage at all (except the threat of military force).

    i for one think that Iran with nuclear weapons is not that much of a threat (N Korea is far more crazy than Iran, and they actually have nuclear weapons…) certainly not to the US, and not really to Israel either. I think that the people who would have the most to worry about a nuclear Iran would be Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states in the Arab world.

      1. pm1956

        Frankly, in don’t think that Iran is all that eager to have nuclear weapons. I think that they want nuclear power, and will push for that no matter what.The treaty does not attempt to deny them nuclear weapons forever, so maybe someday they will build them. but lets face it, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and a nuclear Iran will soon become the least of our worries (wait for the collapse of Russia, and see what happens to its nuclear weapons stockpile–that is the nightmare!)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s