Tim Walz and dad jokes

by liberal japonicus

As everyone is probably aware, Governor Tim Walz is Harris' VP pick so a thread about that. Here is his first speech, in Philadephia (starts at 32:39). A few observations/questions in order to put up a quick post.

Listening to Shapiro's introduction speech, I'm glad they chose Walz. Not that the speech was bad, just that Walz gives off better vibes for me. Part of it might be the whole Midwestern Dad vibe, which has me wonder how much of a stretch is it for other cultures. My wife kind of gets it, but I don't think she enjoys it the same way I do, so I'm wondering what our non-US folks think about the dad jokes.

According to this page, he went to undergraduate at Chadron State College. As was noted by Paul Campos at LGM, this is the first P/VP candidate that didn't go to law school, which is telling to me.

Walz was a teacher, and did a year in Guangdong China on a program called WorldTeach. This link talks about his China experience, if anyone finds a video of him speaking chinese, please toss a link. This NYPost article is a foreshadowing of the line of attack indicting his experience. It's going to be interesting to see the Walz-Vance debate, because I assume that Vance will try to outflank him on China, and Vance was mentored by Amy Chua, who makes claims about Chinese parenting.

Here's his inauguration speech as governor.

Best for last, in by FB feed, someone posted an observation that with Harris and Walz as candidates, we have now entered apostrophe hell.

Have at it.

 

Comments

[nous]

You don't get much more midwest-down-to-earth than getting a teaching degree from Chadron State on the GI Bill.

Probably carries a multi-tool at all times, too, just in case.

Your move, Mr. Menstrual Tracking Fauxbilly.

[Michael Cain]

Also a retired Master Sergeant. My high school band director was a retired Master Sergeant. By the time I graduated I finally realized that in addition to getting a basic instrumental music education, I was also getting to watch a master class in motivating 17- and 18-year-olds.

[wj]

On top of all that, he was enlisted military. Very unusual for P/VP candidates. Rose all the way to command sergeant major, which is about as high as it gets. Served 26 years in the National Guard.

Contrast that with Vance, who was also enlisted, but bailed after 4 years. Not to mention the draft dodging Mr vanishing bone spurs.

And Walz, while in Congress did a lot of stuff for veterans. (Worked across the aisle to do it too, for those who celebrate.) Continued working for them as Governor.

Not sure how big an impact all that will have on voting by the generally conservative military and veterans. But tell them the guy was a command sergeant major and they are definitely going to be impressed.

[wj]

One other detail, the man was a high school football coach. There are a ton of red states where high school football is a religion. If he gets on podcasts or local talk radio there, talking football, it could have a serious impact.

[Girl from the North Country]

Not only a high school football coach, but one who took his school team, who had lost the previous 27 games, to be state champions in three years.

I'm really liking everything I hear about him. Also, he decided he should be the sponsor of the first LGBT society at school because "I was a straight white married man and a football coach, so I thought that would be helpful".

[russell]

He’s the king of the normies. A good call on a Harris’ part (note the apostrophe!)

[Ufficio]

Walz is great, but I wish he wouldn't have gotten into the couch thing. Leave the juvenile insults and alternative facts to the other party.

[Girl from the North Country]

Ufficio: I agree about the couch thing. I kind of winced when I watched that in the speech. But everything else is so good, and it was kind of throwaway, so I think he gets away with it. And I bet (I hope) it's retired from now on.

[CharlesWT]

I agree about the couch thing.

Walz seems to believe that misinformation and hate speech are unprotected speech.

Tim Walz Against Free Speech

[wj]

With respect to the "couch thing," I would agree that the candidates themselves should use it very sparingly. Just enough to let their supporters know that they're in on the joke.

On the other hand, among the independent agents, whether PACs or podcasters or whomever, it is a valuable part of what may end up being the most effective part of the campaign: getting everybody laughing at Trump and Vance. (And at Republicans generally. It's a target rich environment.)

The thing is, autocrats can deal with opposition of various kinds. But being laughed at? They've got nothing, and they hate being laughed at. Which emotional reaction leads them to do more stupid stuff. Which, in turn, provides opportunities to make fun of them.

It's rather the same with "weird," which Walz has used to good effect. It's something that voters can relate to, and for which there really isn't a good response. Trump et al have tried their usual collection of epithets, but it's just not working.

[wj]

One other fun fact about Walz: he's a hunter and fisherman, and thus a gun owner. Kind of takes the wind out of the "they're coming to take away your guns!" rant.

[GftNC]

Apart from this bit, which is what we have been talking about (although I particularly like the "one man rejoinder" concept), the whole article has interesting context about his political history in Minnesota:

In selecting Mr. Walz, Ms. Harris has picked a one-man rejoinder to the idea that the Democrats are the party of the cultural and coastal elite. His biography and his style are a sharp contrast not only to Ms. Harris, who is from California, but also to former President Donald J. Trump, a New York billionaire, and to some degree to Mr. Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, who graduated from Yale Law School (and wrote a best-selling memoir).

Mr. Walz has led a life that stands out in the top echelon of American politics: a tableau filled with scenes of farming, turkey hunting, weekends of National Guard duty, public schools and coaching the local high school football team to a state championship.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/us/politics/tim-walz-kamala-harris-campaign-2024.html?unlocked_article_code=1.BE4.XWpy.CU4breDzpT_z&smid=url-share

[bobbyp]

So Charles...you support hate speech and misinformation? That's kinda' weird.

[CharlesWT]

Of course, I don't support hate speech and misinformation. But the whole point of First Amendment freedom of speech is to protect speech people don't like.

At least, at the moment in this country, no one is going to jail for shitposting on X.

[Hartmut]

One other fun fact about Walz: he's a hunter and fisherman, and thus a gun owner. Kind of takes the wind out of the "they're coming to take away your guns!" rant.

So, "He wants to take away YOUR guns while keeping his own."

[hairshirthedonist]

The primary point of the First Amendment is that people should be allowed to criticize the government without the government turning its vast powers against them for it. It's really a check against tyranny, not a free-for-all. In practice, it gets applied more broadly than that. Think of it as a generous margin of safety.

[Pete]

I'm not crazy about leaning too much into "weird". For starters, it's not fair to Yankovic who's made it a term of endearment over decades. I'm still trying to zero-in on a definition of "normie". Is that a good thing? Usually when I hear it, it's in a mildly derisive tone.

We'll see how the campaign goes forward and I agree that the uplifting vibe is refreshing. I was actually smiling watching the coverage of the rally last night and I hope that the optimism continues to be infectious. Maybe it is what people are looking for to break the long Covid hangover and the oppressive negativity that's hung in the air since MAGA showed up on the scene. Cheap shots like the couch thing are generally not a good look. As wj said, give it a knowing nod and leave it there.

Of course, I don't support hate speech and misinformation. But the whole point of First Amendment freedom of speech is to protect speech people don't like.

Slander and libel are not protected, Charles, and you know that. What are you doing?

[CharlesWT]

Slander and libel have a high bar, an almost impassable one for public figures. And it's a civil not criminal matter as in some countries. No one goes to jail for slander and libel.

[Pete]

Who said anything about jail? What are you on about?

[nous]

Trust the campaign to know what they are doing with both "weird" and "couch." Both Harris and Walz are really good at knowing how to do this, and it resonates.

Weird is not a problem. Anyone who is harmless weird can just embrace it and laugh at themselves and that is that. I'm weird. I call myself weird in class when I'm being weird. It gets a laugh and it builds community.

The other sort of weird - the creeper kind that makes people uncomfortable - that can't be laughed off. And getting called on being weird for creeper behavior makes thin skinned bullies like Orangina and The Menstrual Tracker feel like they have to defend themselves, which makes them try to come up with innocent excuses for creepy behavior, which just gets more people talking about, and analyzing, that creepy behavior. Which keeps them in defensive mode.

Walz's couch joke, meanwhile...he didn't start that meme. All he did was make a pop culture reference that was a clever bit of play, which Vance could easily laugh off if he and his boss weren't so horribly thin skinned, creepy, and serious. Team Orange can't do that, though. They are too obsessed with being authoritarians.

Let the campaign manage this. Let the Tik Tok warriors be Brat in support of the campaign. The Dems have more enthusiasm on their side than we've seen since 2008. Let the young voters have their fun. They will show up if you give them something they want to be a part of and feel they can contribute to.

Relax. It's working. And if it starts to slip, I trust her media team to know that and pivot.

They sold $1m worth of Harris/Walz baseball caps in 30 minutes by knowing how to play the pop culture game, and most of us probably don't even know why that happened like that, but her team damn well knew what they were doing with it.

Let this go for as long as you can. There is still a long way to go, and the more the narratives favor Harris and keep Orangina on his heels and looking slow and out of it, the better things are.

Do you prefer the vibe from before Biden dropped? Let the carnival happen.

Enthusiasm wins.

[nous]

And while some of us are worrying about not having an elevated enough tone for the Dems, Menstrual Tracker is busy implying that Kamala is only worthy of debating him, and not his boss, since she was the VP when the debates were scheduled.

Negging little manosphere games...

They are bullies. You have to hurt them to get them to stop.

But they aren't worth getting to be the primary focus. Keep that focus on Freedom and Family. Keep it on Mind Your Own Damn Business. Keep it on Not Going Back. Lay out your vision.

The snark is just there because they don't have anything other than the bullying to rely upon, and losing in public will make them lose control.

They aren't in charge anymore.

[Girl from the North Country]

I like weird, and I like "kinda creepy" even more, because the two of them (and their henchmen - Miller *shudder*) are demonstrably both. I don't think anybody here prefers the vibe from before Biden dropped, why do you ask? Do you think we shouldn't be talking about this stuff? I mean, there has certainly been an awful lot of enthusiasm for Harris and Walz here.

After the debate, there was a sense around ObWi that we (and the media) shouldn't focus on the disastrousness of the debate, and that Biden stepping down would be a catastrophe from which the Dems could not recover, and which would inevitably mean Trump won the election. If it hadn't been for those discussions, here, everywhere and in the media, we'd probably still have Biden and the downbeat campaign that did the opposite of enthuse the electorate.

It is perfectly possible to talk about stuff we like, and stuff we don't like, without scaring the horses. Isn't it?

[wj]

Anyone who is harmless weird can just embrace it and laugh at themselves and that is that. I'm weird. I call myself weird in class when I'm being weird. It gets a laugh and it builds community. [emphasis added]

That's pretty much the whole point. They can't laugh at themselves.

I note Vance saying: "Trump has the best sense of humor. He loves to make fun of people." Not what normal people think of as a sense of humor.

[nous]

What I meant about the Biden vibe was that everyone was running scared and feeding the Streisand Effect. What I'm saying now is that you can like or not whatever you want about the campaign's tone, but I hope that they keep doing what they are doing. The other dudes are getting overwhelmed and nothing they have done has helped. If anything, they keep digging a deeper hole for themselves.

Find the things you like about the campaign and spread/boost those. Plenty of joy and fun to go around.

[nous]

Give them (Orangina, the media) no chance to get the narrative back in their control. Flood the zone with hope, joy, and disdain for authoritarianism.

[Pete]

I'm very much enjoying the lightness of being the past few weeks (especially the past 24 hours) have provided.

TFG/M-Tracker can't find enough rakes to step on and their policies are dangerous and repugnant. But the EC numbers are still an uphill battle for the Harris/Walz ticket. Meme culture isn't going to get them over the finish line. Policy will. We have 3 months.

[nous]

Swing voters don't do policy.

Young voters don't do policy.

Both respond to enthusiasm.

GOTV.

[wj]

The other dudes are getting overwhelmed and nothing they have done has helped. If anything, they keep digging a deeper hole for themselves.

Having Vance events following Harris around is a serious case of shooting themselves in the foot. First, there's the fact that a VP candidate's events are just not going to draw like a presidential candidate's, so his events would be bound to look pathetic. Although he has, admittedly, taken pathetic to a whole new level.

And then there's the stalker vibe. In previous elections it probably would baely have gotten mention. But in our social media driven environment? I will be unsurprised if it takes on a life of its own. See couches and cat ladies.

[nous]

Narrative is more important than policy.

[wj]

Swing voters don't do policy.

Young voters don't do policy.

Except when a policy has an immediate impact on their lives. They didn't care about policies around abortion. Then Dobbs, and a bunch of swingeing abortion restrictions, got their attention.

They may not do policy in the abstract. But when the practical application smacks them in the face, they do sit up and take notice. To be followed, most likely, by kicking ass and taking names.

(So chuffed to be able to use "swingeing" in a sentence! I know, simple pleasures....)

[Pete]

Agreed on young voters. Do swing voters respond more to enthusiasm than fear? I think that's where the sales pitch comes in.

[Pete]

Missed it before I posted, so… what wj said. Even the “swingeing” part, which I had to look up.

[liberal japonicus]

After the debate, there was a sense around ObWi that we (and the media) shouldn't focus on the disastrousness of the debate, and that Biden stepping down would be a catastrophe from which the Dems could not recover, and which would inevitably mean Trump won the election.

It might be interesting to get into that a bit. This goes a bit against nous call to do a Marie Kondo with the campaign and spark joy, but GftNC's observation caught me.

I can't speak for others, but for me, I didn't want to go off at length on why, mirabile dictu, I was right and everyone else complaining about Biden was wrong. I didn't feel good about it, but I thought in a straight up match up of cognitive abilities, Biden would have mopped the floor up with Trump, but the question was not who was better, it was focussed on Biden exclusively. I suppose 10 or 20 years ago, I would have staked out one position and then spent all my time defending it, but honestly, I think the choice would have been random.

I definitely was worried that the inner circle might be like my family was with my dad, not willing to confront him with hard truths, but instead working harder to compensate. Not ideal, but you live with the family you have rather than the family you'd like to have. I've also linked multiple times to articles about Biden's stutter, and how that shaped him as a politician, so it didn't seem like a stretch to point out that some of those old age gaffes might have been related to that. But to dress that up as speaking truth to power started to be like a dick swinging contest that the pundit community and many commenters on other sites seem to revel in. (and it was interesting that most of the loudest voices on both sides, at least in my readings, were men, though I'm sure there were women both propping Biden up and demanding that he step down, but the whole debate seemed overwhelmingly male)

As it turns out, that shiny object has been discarded and now people are talking about Swiftboating of Walz, which, given the history (the person who pioneered that with Kerry is in the Trump campaign, surprise surprise) was probably to be expected. I imagine that Swiftboat 2.0 will also be predominantly men sharing their opinions about chain of command, how things work in the military, yada yada yada.

I fail to understand why the news media can't ask Trump 'Biden has stepped back, what makes you think you have the cognitive capacity to be president?' To take one example, the prisoner exchange (which was done over the course of 2 years!) was one of the many things that are in the background. Asking Trump how he would have done things would be enlightening. He's probably end up saying of course Biden and Stalin share the same name, which means they are communists, which is why Tim Walz was the VP pick.

This isn't a complaint about people here, we were pretty restrained about the whole situation, to our credit. But it seems telling, in line with the fellow traveler/useful idiot question, that no one in the media follows up on all that was raised. Asking Vance at every press conference about Trump's mental fitness and whether he is ready to take over the job if something should happen would be something I would pay to see.

[nous]

They may not do policy in the abstract. But when the practical application smacks them in the face, they do sit up and take notice. To be followed, most likely, by kicking ass and taking names.

Sure. But we had years of talk about policy and abortion and the right still got into a position of power to ratfuck the whole business on the back of not policy but narrative. "Roe is settled law."

Policy is details to be debated and squabbled over and picked apart and watered down.

Narrative is "Not Going Back," and convincing people that proven liars cannot be trusted with the health of your loved ones who can get pregnant.

Policy doesn't win. You need to put it in the context of the voter's life and enlist imagination to get them to believe.

[wj]

now people are talking about Swiftboating of Walz, which, given the history (the person who pioneered that with Kerry is in the Trump campaign, surprise surprise) was probably to be expected.

The difference being, with Kerry they had enlisted denouncing an officer. With Walz, they're dealing with an NCO. Much harder to get enlisted guys to bad mouth an NCO. (Of course, guys with keyboards who never served can say shit. But that doesn't carry the same weight.)

I fail to understand why the news media can't ask Trump 'Biden has stepped back, what makes you think you have the cognitive capacity to be president?'

You can't? It's simple: Because Trump doesn't take questions from the media.

The closest he came was the Black Journalists fiasco. Where he evaded (or ignored/denounced) questions. And then bailed out less than half way thru the scheduled interview. I'm guessing his staff pulled him out because they could see it was a total dumpster fire. Enlightening as a real interview might be, it just ain't gonna happen.

[liberal japonicus]

The difference being, with Kerry they had enlisted denouncing an officer. With Walz, they're dealing with an NCO. Much harder to get enlisted guys to bad mouth an NCO. (Of course, guys with keyboards who never served can say shit. But that doesn't carry the same weight.)

I had to look back, and it seems that Swiftboating in Kerry's case was wrapped up the US attidtudes towards Vietnam, so it is different from Walz in that respect.

Some connected links
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/swift-boat-walz/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/26/swift-boat-attack-john-kerry-trump-2024-campaign

And the wikipedia link for the Kerry/Swiftboat so you don't have to look
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth

[Pete]

Maybe I'm using the terms wrong, but "Not Going Back!" is a slogan.

"I don't know what the infrastructure bill is, but I got a job to support my family rebuilding our town bridge."

"After 15 years of barely managing the interest, the principal of my student loan is relieved."

"In my state, my miscarriage might have cost me my life."

That's the narrative. You don't need to be in the weeds for that. But it's more than a slogan.

[nous]

Yes, "Not Going Back!" is a slogan, but it implies a narrative in this context that everyone understands, one that runs counter to the narrative that the other side spins out about strong leaders and turning back the clock to a better time when America was great.

So it's more than an advertising slogan picked for its catchiness and positive connotations. There's a shared vision of what needs to be done and who needs to be stopped. We can all fill in the things we are not going back to.

[wj]

"Not Going Back!" resonates because it contrasts so beautifully with the positions of obvious reactionaries. Going back being precisely what they want. (Doesn't matter that what they want to go back to never really existed.)

[liberal japonicus]

To good to not share

https://www.jta.org/2024/08/06/politics/tim-walz-wrote-a-masters-thesis-on-holocaust-education-just-as-his-own-schools-approach-drew-criticism

[Pro Bono]

Of course, I don't support hate speech and misinformation. But the whole point of First Amendment freedom of speech is to protect speech people don't like.

The point of the First Amendment is not to protect people when they're lying.

For example, I see no harm at all in preventing people stating as a fact that the 2020 election was stolen, when the proposition has been amply tested in court, and we all know it's a lie. It would be wrong to prevent people advancing actual arguments about something wrong with the 2020 election, if they've got actual arguments.

[CharlesWT]

The point of the First Amendment is not to protect people when they're lying.

The First Amendment protects the liar from prosecution by the government unless it's commercial speech lying about a product or service.

[Donald]

I feel some uncharacteristic enthusiasm for the ticket, but she can’t finesse Gaza with empathy. She was being interrupted by protestors yesterday and eventually responded with “ If you want Donald Trump to win say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking.”. That got cheers from the audience and the NYT said the chants died down.

That response isn’t going to fly with people losing family and Chicago apparently has a large Palestinian- American community. She needs to do better than that, but it isn’t just a matter of showing more empathy than her boss ever managed. Because it is her boss who keeps supplying weapons to Israel and when asked about atrocities, like torture, Biden’s spokespeople just mouth inanities.

I hate this because I really want them to win, but Biden is complicit in war crimes, the death toll is probably far higher than the reported one and this isn’t going away.

This is Biden’s problem ultimately. And he has done a spectacularly awful job so far.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

I, for one, look forward to the VP debate:
Coach Waltz vs. Couch Vance.

[CaseyL]

Donald - What, precisely, is the intent of the people who bring up Gaza?

Not their motivation.

Their *goal.*

Is it to get Trump back in office?

Because screaming "Genocide Joe/Kamala!" and encouraging people to NOT vote, or to NOT vote for Harris/Walz, means Trump gets back into office.

Simple as that.

I note, also, that during the June-July turmoil over whether Biden could remain a viable candidate, we didn't hear very much about GAZA! from the usual suspects.

Why is that?

My take is this: The GAZA! screamers are entirely bad faith actors, possibly outright ratfuckers, whose intent, whose GOAL, is to make sure Trump wins the election.

They've done and said nothing to alter my interpretation of their actions.

[Ufficio]

The First Amendment protects the liar from prosecution by the government unless it's commercial speech lying about a product or service.

Perjury? Claiming to be a Nigerian prince to bilk a retiree out of their savings? Falsely crying "fire" in a crowded theater?

[CaseyL]

Ufficio - Libertarians don't think bilking people is a crime, but a business strategy to emulate.

[russell]

I see no harm at all in preventing people stating as a fact that the 2020 election was stolen

I don't think this is a good idea. Sometimes people are simply wrong, I'm not sure we want Congress making it illegal to be wrong.

And I'm not sure you could write a law subtle enough to make the distinction between "I know it's a lie but I'm gonna say it anyway" and "But I thought it was true". Or, in many cases, "I want it to be true, so I'm gonna believe it".

[Girl from the North Country]

lj, just for clarity's sake, and slightly in haste hence the layout:

1. I was very freaked out after the debate, and fairly surprised that some people here seemed defensive about it.

2. Not only was I very clear, but repeated many times that in my opinion Biden dead or in a coma would be a better president than Trump. And I have no doubt now that Biden's cognitive powers are much better than Trump's (although, alas, not his presentation).

3. I could well imagine that his debate performance, given his age, could easily be explained by a) a virus, b) his stutter, c) tiredness, d) a UTI, or e) a combination of these things.

4. Even people IRL who agreed with me on 2 were terribly worried about the debate and thought it would probably hand the win to Trump.

5. I did not think that pundits, journalists, the MSM etc were wrong to focus on it, because the stakes are unimaginably high. But I agree, I wish they'd focus more on Trump's obvious cognitive decline.

6. People and pundits criticising Biden for not going sooner were ungracious and cold, but even Dem partisans of my acquaintance agreed with them.

7. I am ecstatic about the ticket, and very hopeful of the outcome.

8. I was heavily influenced by people here being so against the idea of Biden stepping down, but don't in any way blame them and know they are as happy as I am with the change.

9. I don't like being told what I can or can't or should or shouldn't say, or how I should think. I hated it when sapient did it, for whom the policy and behaviour of the Dems was absolutely un-criticisable, and that may have made me too sensitive. But there it is. And it was noticeable, here and elsewhere, that trying to suppress doubts after the debate struck many people as an attempt to deny what they actually saw.

10. However, hallelujah for Harris/Walz, gratitude and honour to Biden, and onward and upward!

[Pete]

And I'm not sure you could write a law subtle enough to make the distinction between "I know it's a lie but I'm gonna say it anyway" and "But I thought it was true". Or, in many cases, "I want it to be true, so I'm gonna believe it".

Dominion settled, but Smartmatic is ongoing.

[wj]

The First Amendment protects the liar from prosecution by the government unless it's commercial speech lying about a product or service.

And yet, there are laws about "hate speech". I'm not aware of those being overturned on 1st Amendment grounds.

[wj]

People and pundits criticising Biden for not going sooner were ungracious and cold, but even Dem partisans of my acquaintance agreed with them.

OK, I probably don't count as a Democratic partisan. :-)

But I don't think Biden should have gone sooner. I thought his timing was impressive. Yeah, he had to endure a couple of weeks of bad press. But consider.

By waiting as long as he did, the Republican Convention was over, their ticket was locked in**, but there was still enough time before the Democratic Convention (more precisely, before the telephone vote) for Harris to corral support, collect party endorsements, and then spend sufficient time selecting a running mate from the array of good options.

Just how good the timing was can be seen in how desperately the Trump campaign is flailing around, trying to figure out attack lines. (Sure, if they were running of platform and programs, they wouldn't need to shift gears hatdly at all. But that's not the Trump style.) They had their anti-Biden attacks all lined up. Indeed, they'd been hammering "Biden old!" for weeks. And they had been seeing calls for Biden to step down. But, unsurprisingly, they had no contingency plans for if it happened. Utterly incompetent staff work.

** Vance is a terrible choice, unless you think you're cruising to an easy victory anyway. And all you need is somebody who will bring in lots of cash. Yeah, TCFG loves cash. But winning the election so as to stay out of jail is more important to him the a few extra million.

[Girl from the North Country]

OK, I probably don't count as a Democratic partisan. :-)

LOL, but quite right, you don't. You belong to the same category as whoever had the lawn sign that hilzoy reposted, which said "I'm a Republican, but not a fool. Harris for President"

Also, it looks like you're right on the timing thing. Whether it was an intentional masterstroke by Biden (as some of you thought) or not, it has certainly worked out very well. If they win, it will be interesting to see if it affects US attitudes to the campaigning season in the future. I'm guessing not.

[CharlesWT]

Perjury? Claiming to be a Nigerian prince to bilk a retiree out of their savings? Falsely crying "fire" in a crowded theater?

This is pretty much in agreement with you.

"But you often can utter or publish a falsehood without a regulator or court having the power to intervene, thanks to a long history of free speech precedent. These rights have not contracted; if anything, courts and legislators have expanded protections for false speech over the years. Of course, U.S. law does not protect all false speech. If a plaintiff meets the many stringent requirements for proving defamation, the defendant may be liable for damages. Regulators may oversee the claims that companies make about their products. Prosecutors may charge defendants with fraud, lying to government officials, and other crimes arising from false statements. There are even scenarios in which lying about a fire in a crowded theater could lead to liability. But the standards for holding speakers liable for false statements are high."
How To Yell 'Fire' in a Crowded Theater: Aside from narrowly defined exceptions, false speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Libertarians don't think bilking people is a crime, but a business strategy to emulate.

Is that just a throwaway comment or do you have evidence to back it up?

And yet, there are laws about "hate speech". I'm not aware of those being overturned on 1st Amendment grounds.

I'm unaware of any "hate speech" laws that have withstood constitutional scrutiny.

[JanieM]

The point of the First Amendment is not to protect people when they're lying.

Hmmmm. Now we know!

But more seriously, from the American Library Association website write-up:

Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group.

The topic of speech protections under the First Amendment is huge, with vast amounts of material online in case anyone wants to actually read about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

https://www.freedomforum.org/is-lying-protected-first-amendment/

[JanieM]

And I'm not sure you could write a law subtle enough to make the distinction between "I know it's a lie but I'm gonna say it anyway" and "But I thought it was true". Or, in many cases, "I want it to be true, so I'm gonna believe it".

Besides that, suppression of dishonest, inaccurate, or ill-intentioned speech sounds great as long as I imagine I'm the one in charge of deciding which speech goes in which categories. If I imagine that power in the hands of oh, say, Clickbait, Putin, or hey, Elon Musk, it doesn't come off as such a great idea.

Not that we don't have a huge problem with misinformation, but it's not easy to design a remedy that isn't just as bad, even if in different ways.

[russell]

Dominion settled

Dominion sued on the basis of defamation, which is a tougher case to make than "they lied". The Alex Jones / Sandy Hook suit, same.

For good or ill, in the US you have the freedom to lie your @ss off as long as you don't cross other lines.

[Pete]

Ooof. Even on a Trump curve this presser is one for the ages. CNN and MSNBC cut away. He might still be rambling tho.

@russell
Charles' initial video snippet was Walz saying there is no free speech protection for hate speech and misinformation. It was a very short clip with no context. So, pretty useless.

Lying is protected unless it's an element of a crime, I think? Hate speech is protected, excepting when it proceeds to incitement of violence? But there are legal avenues available to address misinformation (and disinformation? and turbulent priests?). I dunno. IANAL. I'll admit I've lost the plot on whatever point he's trying to make.

[wonkie]

I thought lying about someone if it causes damage to that person is a crime--but not if the damage is to a person running for office.

I think we do need to have a way to inflict legal consequences on people who incited violence through hate speech. It's interesting to watch how England is dealing with the recent riots instigated by Musk. Prompt televised trials with full details of the damage to property and people with the role of hate media discussed in court followed by custodial sentences for everyone convicted regardless of how much they whine about what good people they really are.

[wonkie]

https://metro.co.uk/2024/08/08/woman-first-shared-fake-southport-suspect-rumour-sparked-riots-arrested-21389346/

In the US, civil suits have been used against haters, but that's a financial burden on the targets.

[CharlesWT]

I thought lying about someone if it causes damage to that person is a crime--but not if the damage is to a person running for office.

In some countries, it is a crime. But in the US it's a civil matter. And the plaintiff may need to consider the Streisand Effect before deciding to sue.

[Donald]

CaseyL—-

It’d be nice if all people of good will were unified. Reality is much more depressing. I read the pro- Palestinian people and engage in a local protest sometimes. I was excited about Harris- Walz and still am if I ignore Gaza, but her national security advisor just put out her stance on Gaza and it of course is the Biden one— “ she will always ensure Israel is able to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups. She does not support an arms embargo on Israel. She will continue to work to protect civilians in Gaza and to uphold international humanitarian law.”

So the same old crap. Lots of success with the protection of civilians.

The protestors are hoping to pressure the Administration into pressuring Israel. Nobody is upholding international law— the Israelis rape prisoners to death in some cases. Both civilians and militants are tortured. Health care workers recently came back from Gaza with more horror stories, The Biden spokesmen robotically state in response to every horror story that they are asking their Israeli partners for more information and wait for the results of their investigation. Real hard hitting stuff.

As for June and July, I don’t know who your usual suspects are, but the Palestinians, antizionist Jews and lefties I read have talk about Gaza nonstop. And Biden has been an object of intense loathing every second the war has been going on, along with Blinken, Sullivan, Miller, Kirby, and Patel. Lefties mostly sat out the debate about Biden’s mental capacity. He is despised whether or not he has any cognitive problems. On politics the pro Palestinian people vary. Some are extremely bitter and expect nothing from US politics. Some hope they can achieve something with protests. A very small number hope Trump would be better. I have read one like that. Chotiner interviewed another but I don’t subscribe and didn’t see it.

Chicago apparently has a large Palestinian population and they are planning to protest at the convention.

My only hope is that Biden gets lucky and Bibi agrees to a genuine ceasefire, but if that happens I doubt it will be from Biden’s wrist slaps combined with bomb shipments, but maybe from internal Israeli pressure, as many really would like the hostages back and a lot of people are sick of Netanyahu.

That would lower the temperature of the issue somewhat.

[wj]

And the plaintiff may need to consider the Streisand Effect before deciding to sue.

Probably not that major a consideration in most cases.

The extent to which the public pays attention to, or is even aware of, civil trials is damn limited. You can try to turn one into some kind of media circus. But unless one of the parties is already pretty high profile, it's unlikely to work.

[CaseyL]

Donald -

"The protestors are hoping to pressure the Administration into pressuring Israel."

Which Biden has done, and Israel has gone ahead anyway.

Israel is a rogue state ruled by a lawless regime. It will not respond to US pressure - not when it can turn around and forge an alliance with Russia. (Israel refused to share its Iron Dome with Ukraine, because Russia opposed its doing so.)

What should Biden do about that?

Cut off arms exports to Israel?

Then Israel will get them from Russia, and the US will lose what tiny bit of leverage it has.

I feel for the people of Gaza... just as I feel for the people of Ukraine.

But getting Trump elected - which is what some Gaza protesters have said is in fact their ultimate goal - will make things worse for Gaza, not better (and will, BTW, abandon Ukraine and the rest of Europe to Russia.)

This is realpolitik. It sucks. But it's real.

[wj]

her national security advisor just put out her stance on Gaza and it of course is the Biden one

There is simply no way, in this campaign situation, that she would do anything else. No matter what her intentions or inclinations for when she takes office.

First, it's bad politics, obviously. Second, trying to conduct foreign policy as a private individual, which is what candidates are, is illegal. (Yes, I know that hasn't stopped a variety of candidates. Still illegal.). Third, as VP she is constrained to follow the President's policy lead. It's that or resign.

You can read whatever you like into the statement. Just be aware that it's you reading it in.

[Pro Bono]

The UK betting markets tonight have Harris (just) ahead of Trump.

It's not over, but I am greatly relieved.

[Don]

I don’t think Israel will get its bombs from Russia— I am no expert but I don’t think military equipment is completely interchangeable. And imagine what it would say about Israel if they so easily switched sides geopolitically. Decades of claiming to be a Western democracy and then switching like that. I think many inside Israel would be uncomfortable with that.

It would also embarrass Russia— they get some propaganda mileage from the fact that the US claims to be a champion of human rights and yet supports Israel.

Biden hasn’t pressured them. If he put an embargo on weapons or if his Administration stopped siding with Israel every time the ICC or ICJ accuses them of war crimes, that would be pressure. What they do instead is utter platitudes and then say our commitment to them is ironclad and then give them more bombs. The message is that they shouldn’t embarrass us too much but we will give them bombs anyway. I think he might have kept them from literall starving everyone to death. Hard to say. But I have seen these Biden spokespeople countless times and to the extent they acknowledge any Israeli wrongdoing, it is always accompanied by a statement about Israel investigating itself and making sure it doesn’t happen again. There is no folllowup. It’s fatuous. .

Regarding wj’s comment, I haven’t seen anyone say Harris should sneak into the WH and countermand Biden’s orders. Ithink things like that happened under Trump, but haven’t seen anyone say they should try it with Biden.

The protestors are trying to do two things— effect the Biden Harris policies now and push Harris’s policies in the future. She had a bit of constructive ambiguity going on with that compassion thing- - Biden was absolutely horrible at it. I don’t expect her to openly state that Biden is wrong for political reasons. I doubt it is illegal. For one thing, Biden is probably breaking the Leahy law, so if we take the rule of law seriously then it would be her duty to say so if she thought Biden was doing something illegal by shipping bombs to Israel knowing they are dropped indiscriminately. But the reality is that law takes a back seat to politics. I don’t expect the rule of law to be taken seriously. It is invoked under some circumstances and studiously ignored in others.

Am I assuming anything about Harris’s own views? Nope. I hope she is better than Biden. . If I have time I might link to the interview the NYT did with the Democratic candidates in 2019. One was about Israel’s human rights record. Harris acted like she wasn’t sure what they meant. She is a politician and so you don’t always know what they really intend. I hope the empathy spiel is a hint of a change if she wins.

As for the protestors wanting Trump to win, that varies. Most despise Trump. But many were singiemindedly focused on what Biden has done. Harris is now the one running , so they protest at her events, some with hope and some not. They despised Biden and yes, many Palestinian Americans wanted him to lose even knowing Trump would win.

But many hope Harris is better. If Gaza wasn’t happening I would be enjoying this campaign and the Republicans being on the defensive, all prepared to go after Biden and now floundering.

[Girl from the North Country]

Re Israel and Russia: I imagine that Israel's refusal to share its iron dome with Ukraine because of Russian objections (I didn't know this) is because Russia has the world's seventh largest Jewish community, and allows them to emigrate to Israel. Israel would not want to endanger them, or this situation. The idea that Israel would get arms from Russia strikes me as very unlikely, but frankly, under Netanyahu nothing would surprise me, and in any case Israel does what it thinks it needs to do to keep itself (in its own estimation) safe. Israel had a good relationship with apartheid SA after all.

No, I think the truth of the situation is that US presidents of both parties feel they have to support Israel because of the Jewish lobby in the states. I hate to say it, because it is a common trope of antisemitic propaganda, but I think it is true. The only thing that would substantially change it would be if American Jewry in significant numbers finally decided Israel had gone too far. And unfortunately, with antisemitism (as well as other racisms) on the rise worldwide, even before Gaza, I can't see that happening.

[GftNC]

Oh boy, and speaking of antisemitism and other racisms:

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/04/tim-dunn-joe-straus-christian-texas/

tldr: Former Texas House Speaker Joe Straus [who is Jewish] said on Thursday that Midland oil magnate Tim Dunn, one of the state’s most powerful and influential GOP megadonors, once told him that only Christians should hold leadership positions in the lower chamber.

[CharlesWT]

Charles' initial video snippet was Walz saying there is no free speech protection for hate speech and misinformation. It was a very short clip with no context.

The context is that he's talking about deceptions used to mislead voters.

Very short videos should be suspect but that clip was the one that everyone was passing around. This video contains all of what he said starting at 0:22. I'm using it because it's the only place I've found the complete context not because of the commentary surrounding it.

[nous]

I think if anyone has a hope that Harris's Israel policy will be better than Biden's, they will have to get her elected before they will have a chance to find out. Until that time she is doubly hampered as Vice President for someone else's policy decisions and as a candidate who is stuck between two implacable lobbies, with a foreign leader who would be happy to see her opponent elected.

[Girl from the North Country]

nous: totally agree with this.

[liberal japonicus]

Charles, I'm a bit surprised that you didn't cite the Reason [sic] piece that pointed to the MSNBC exchange

https://reason.com/2024/08/08/tim-walz-was-dead-wrong-about-misinformation-and-free-speech/

and the embedded link is
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/watch/democrats-like-minnesota-gov-walz-leading-charge-to-secure-voting-rights-159021637737

The piece usefully provides a transcription

"Years ago, it was the little things: telling people to vote the day after the election, and we kind of brushed them off. Now, we know it's intimidation at the ballot box. It's undermining the idea that mail-in ballots aren't legal. I think we need to push back on this. There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy. Tell the truth, where the voting places are, who can vote, who's able to be there. Watching some states continue to weaken the protections around the ballot I think is what's inspiring us to lean into this.

The writer goes on to explain why Walz is wrong. Unfortunately, the writer fails to report that Walz was being interviewed in connection with the Minnesota Voting Rights Act.

The law that Walz signed, and was upheld by the state supreme court,
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/walz-voting-rights-minnesota-supreme-court-rcna165762

I think what Walz is pointing out is that efforts to misinform voters is going to be punishable. Assuming, as the writer does, that Walz is making some statement about all speech seems to be a calculated misreading.

While the law doesn't talk about it in speech, it seems to me that if I did a Spanish robo-call giving the day of voting as the day after polls closed, that would be punishable. In a similar way, something like this
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/political-consultant-behind-ai-generated-biden-robocalls-faces-6-million-fine-and-criminal-charges

would also fall under the law in terms of voter suppression and voter dilution.

[bobbyp]

Thanks, lj. It was obvious to me that the snip was taken out of context, because that is how wingnuts roll. I'm not sure where charles is coming from, but the right wing in this country has traditionally favored the use of the coercive power of the state to plump for measures that inhibit free speech: Throwing Gene Debs in jail; Palmer raids; McCarren Act; Smith Act; McCarthyism....a long and shameful list.

So when you see fascists blather on about "free speech" take it with a grain of salt.

[russell]

Right wingers yell about free speech when they get fired because of something offensive they said. Or when media channels of whatever type decline to publish their nonsense.

The 1st A prohibits Congress from passing laws restricting speech. It does not prevent other people from responding to you like the jerk you appear to be.

[Hartmut]

under Netanyahu nothing would surprise me

He is on VERY friendly terms with both the (now fortunately previous) Polish and the (still current) Hungarian governments despite both constantly using antisemitic tropes left and right as tools. But both are strong and open proponents of 'illiberal democracy' with RW governments concentrating power at the top and controlling and/or suppressing media by different means coupled with massive personal corruption.
That's also the Putin model and what the Yahoo from Netanja would like to have at home too. His Orangeness both admires and envies all of them (plus the open dictators and strongmen out there).

[nous]

This is going to really piss off Whopper and The Nothingburger:

Q: Can you comment on Trump’s litany of criticisms today?

Vice President Harris: I was too busy talking to voters, I didn’t hear them

[CaseyL]

Hartmut -

Netanyahu, like Trump/Putin/Orban, views political power as a way to get rich and self-aggrandize.

...oh, and also to stay out of prison. Bibi has a long, LONG delayed appointment with Israeli courts for various corruption charges.

Netanyahu will, and has, allied with outright Neo-Nazis to stay in power. And, like the other human slimes mentioned above, has (re-)created a political party in his own image - all grifting, corrupt, RW shits - to bolster and protect himself.

[Hartmut]

It would fit right into the other thread but the Israeli Far Right and the USian millenarists see each other as useful idiots. When Sharon openly joked about that in public*, it infuriated the religious whackos and they never forgave him. Years later, when he suffered a stroke and became comatose they declared it to be divine punishment for that blasphemy (and for getting out of Gaza**).

*He got asked what he thought about Israel getting support from rabidly antisemitic USian evangelicals who saw the Jews as the necessary and divinely ordained fuze for the apocalypse, believing that Christ's very first action after returning would be to slaughter all Jews but 144000 instant converts. His answer: "When the messiah comes, we'll ask him whether it was his second visit."
**which does not actually make sense since Gaza is NOT part of the Biblical Grand Israel but legitimate Philistine territory.

[Donald]

People are going to continue to protest Harris because, fairly or not, she is the public face of the Biden Administration and even if she wins ( which I hope happens), that is five more months for Gaza under Biden and Bibi.

Here is an example of the Biden policy of “pressure” at work. This is entirely performative, bureaucratic nonsense. The real effect is to let the Israelis know they just have to do a token thing or two and play the game and that is it. Just about the only people who care about this are extremely online people arguing about whether Biden is pressuring Israel. ( Ahem). I suppose Israeli and State Department bureaucrats have to type memos and exchange emails, As serious pressure it is a bad joke.

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/09/idf-west-bank-israeli-blinken

[wj]

which does not actually make sense since Gaza is NOT part of the Biblical Grand Israel but legitimate Philistine territory.

As a reliable rule of thumb, if an evangelical says something about Jesus, his time or environment, it's almost certainly wrong. How wrong varies, but wrong remains.

For example, those who at least have the wit to know that Jesus didn't speak English will routinely tell you he spoke Hebrew. Which is true to the extent that he doubtless would have known the language. But in day to day conversation, such as speaking to his disciples or preaching to the public? Aramaic.

And this on a subject they supposedly care deeply about and study assiduously.

[nous]

Netanyahu knows what Putin knows - US presidents have only broad leverage and very little leeway on foreign policy. House elections every two years, and presidential elections every four, and no effective checks on dark money campaign spending makes for a very short window on any sort of pressure.

Yes, there is US and International law being broken. Who is going to enforce compliance? I don't think anyone in the world can do that. And assuming that any given US administration did comply out of duty or conscience, how long would that compliance be allowed to last before elections forced a regime change and a return to non-compliance.

Xi and Putin can plan their foreign policy moves over much longer terms, and work incrementally. US leaders are always subject to the pressures of the ballot box.

I'd love for more pressure to be put on Israel to end their occupation, annexation, and general reign of terror against the Palestine (just as I sincerely wish for the Palestinians to end their hostilities and terrorism against Israel). What sort of action could actually be undertaken and sustained for more than a few months before electoral politics put an end to it?

I don't see any mechanisms for making this happen as anything more than a grand, short-lived gesture. Our electoral cycles are too short to sustain anything else.

This problem is structural, and we likely don't have the collective will to alter that structure.

I get the protests, but those protests are acts of despair, and the best they can hope to achieve is to harm whoever the sitting president is. I understand that impulse. I can imagine situations where I would feel the same. But it's not going to change anything.

Would that something could change it.

[Hartmut]

If a Palestinian uses 'from the river to the sea', it is seen as an expression of the wish for Holocaust 2.0.
If an Israeli RWer uses it, the question is: What river and what sea? The most extreme mean the Euphrates or Tigris and the sea can by anything but the Mediterranean, most often the Red Sea but in some cases the Black and I would not be surprised if the Caspian is also under consideration.
One would expect the Israeli extremists to be a bit better versed in the(ir) Bible than the run-of-the-mill USian millenarist.
But I assume that they tend to be even more cynical in a 'grab-what-you-can-get-and-keep-a-religious-pseudo-justification-ready-that's-vague-enough-to-fit-anything-you-need-it-for' way.
They are far closer to the Nazis than to the Nazis' victims.

[Girl from the North Country]

As a reliable rule of thumb, if an evangelical says something about Jesus, his time or environment, it's almost certainly wrong. How wrong varies, but wrong remains

Well, let's face it wj, as ignorant as they might be about Jesus and his time, old testament Israel (what - 1800 BCE Abraham and perhaps 1500 or 1300 BCE Moses?) has got to be a complete mystery to them. Which reminds me of an excellent joke, belonging to my favourite category of snappy comebacks, only tangentially related (not about Evangelicals, but nonetheless Christians and Jews, and with only a slight problem in the timeline):

Helen Suzman was for 18 years in 1950s and 1960s apartheid South Africa the only member of the Progressive Party, against the government (I think I have linked the incredibly poignant and beautiful photo of Nelson Mandela embracing her on his release), a white woman (obviously) and a Jew. She was famed for her quick, quite biting wit. Apparently, she was accosted by a group of activist Dutch Reformed women (the church that used a biblical justification for apartheid) who were furious at her contempt for the whole thing, and who said to her "What do you think you're doing? Our ancestors were taking the bible to the world and to savages and converting them, what did your ancestors do?" To which she replied "My ancestors were writing it".

[Donald]

Here are two of the protestors ( I don’t know if there were more) in their own words. They are college students who sound like they know people who have died and unlike some older folk it doesn’t sound like they expect anything from any politician. They were voicing their outrage.

I get that. I am slightly more hopeful but not much.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/08/kamala-harris-hecklers-protest-detroit-rally-interview-gaza-michigan/

[wj]

Well, let's face it wj, as ignorant as they might be about Jesus and his time, old testament Israel (what - 1800 BCE Abraham and perhaps 1500 or 1300 BCE Moses?) has got to be a complete mystery to them.

On the other hand, if you look at their worldviews, and at which verses they quote most often, they seem far more acquainted with the Old Testament than the New.

Sometimes I think they really ought to just accept that they reject Jesus' message and views. Face it, the Talmud would do them a world of good!

[wj]

My inclination is to express my opinions, even my outrage, to politicians in ways that will NOT tend to elect politicians whose views on the issue are off the charts worse.

That is, I admit, just a personal preference. But one which is based on half a century plus of watching performative expressions of outrage. And noticing how uniformly counterproductive they have been.

[Hartmut]

Their favorite verses in the NT are:

Thessalonians 3:10
He who does not work, neither shall he eat
=> no welfare and no laws against child labor
[actually quoted in context of e.g. free school lunches]

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
=> what he meant was the AR-15 but that was G*d's later gift to his new chosen people the USians, so Jesus had to use a more common term [I am not making that up!!! That's an actual argument of Kristian(TM) gun nuts]

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
[self-explanatory; any authority of women over men is anathema.]

Hm, I wonder whether the Parable of the Ten Virgins has been used in the context of "Drill, baby! Drill!"

[Donald]

Wj—

Lecture Palestinians who protest when Biden has supplied the weapons that have killed members of your family. That is a common theme, you know. Yeah, I don’t ever see myself as a heckler but some of the people in that community have lost literally dozens of extended family members. Try telling them that hey, Trump would kill even more and see how many campaign donations you get.

Political pragmatism means understanding that people aren’t robots.

And btw, Humphrey openly broke with LBJ during his campaign over the bombing. I don’t know if there is any way to tell if it helped or hurt him. Would it hurt Harris? Maybe so. But I bet people who have lost dozens of family members are probably thinking she should do this.

Gift link about Humphrey , LBJ and Vietnam

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/vietnam-hubert-humphrey.html?unlocked_article_code=1.B04.uG9m.ISWxFnnUNX0y&smid=url-share

[Pete]

Try telling them that hey, Trump would kill even more and see how many campaign donations you get.

Probably wouldn't fill the campaign coffers, but that doesn't mean it's not true. The idea that Biden is worse than the "Finish the job" guy is absurd. I'm no world peace genius like Jared Kushner, but I really don't know what people expect. If Biden turned off the spigot tomorrow, does that embolden a reconstituted Hamas, or Hezbollah, or Iran? And then Biden is has Israeli blood on his hands. And Jordan has its ass hanging out hoping not to get caught in the crossfire. I don't know what intel comes across the Resolute Desk, but it's a helluva lot more than I have. It's a shitshow. The idea that all Biden needs to do to turn the Levant into the land of happy rainbows just by uncapping his pen is sophomoric.

[Donald]

Okay, I guess I will say everything I really think.

The Israeli far right and Hamas are the only ones that want an all out war in the Mideast. Maybe the Houthis. Hezbollah knows Lebanon will look like Gaza if they go all out.. Iran knows the US will come in on Israel’s side of they go all out. And everyone knows that Israel has nukes. Hezbollah could probably overwhelm Iron Dome, or so I have read, and how is Israel going to respond?

The Iranian leadership stinks on human rights grounds, but they are rational, just as the IDF generals stink on the same grounds, but are not eager for an expanded war. Nasrallah— same. They have their own pressures to deal with, their own faces to save. They have to look like they are standing up to Israel— they are the “ Axis of Resistance”. But they do not want their countries destroyed and they don’t want to be toppled. in fact, people are saying Israel can kill high ranking Hamas and Hezbollah leaders precisely because they don’t want a wider war and because we have Israel’s back.

Biden is not playing 7 d chess with his vast foreign policy experience. He is a f@@@@@g moron. And a racist. And a pathetic chump and Netanyahu treats him that way.

Biden could tell Israel that he is cutting off offensive weapons to Israel but if Iran enters the fray in an all out war then we will join in. Is it complicated? Yeah. I am not sure he should even promise that, but I can see a reason for it because of the nukes that Israel has.. But Netanyahu can do almost anything and he knows our support is “ ironclad”, when it shouldn’t be. There should be limits. Rafah was supposed to be a red line. Netanhayu drove right past it because he knows the pathetic chump he is dealing with.

Given Israel bombs knowing that he will continue to drop them on civilians is past any decent limit. It isn’t because he has to do this or there will be a bigger war. This isn’t a question of promising to defend our “ ally” against a massive missile attack or even another Oct 7 ( which was sheer Israeli incompetence).

This is supporting the mass murder of children and there is no fracking excuse for it, no disgusting rationalization that holds water.

I will vote for Harris anyway, but again, I haven’t lost dozens of family members.

I have said all I will say on this because I can’t see any reason to say more.

A link. I don’t necessarily agree with all the political claims, but most of it, yeah.

https://www.columnblog.com/p/left-support-for-biden-replacement

[wj]

The idea that all Biden needs to do to turn the Levant into the land of happy rainbows just by uncapping his pen is sophomoric.

Unless protests have changed vastly since I was in college, a non-zero fraction of the protesters are exactly that: sophomores. Plus other, not notably more developed juniors and seniors.

Yes, there are adults as well, many of whom have lost family members. And it's hard, it can be impossible, to make a cold blooded assessment of what your protests will do. The folks protesting the Viet Nam War wanted it stopped. (As did a lot of us who weren't attending protests.) But what their efforts actually did was drive support for Nixon.

As Donald notes, Humphrey broke with Johnson over bombing. He was likely a far better choice, if what you wanted was to end the war faster. But between the impact of watching the protests across the country on TV (which shows the activity, but barely any of the slogans, let alone anything more in depth)? Got us Nixon. Got us more war.

And, just to gild the lily, started the trend away from celebrating colleges and their graduates and towards distaining first the major universities and eventually expertise of any kind that requires education. Those know-nothings that grace Trump rallies didn't magically appear from nothing.

[Donald]

Clarification needed, darn it.

Hamas wanted a wider war on Oct 7. They didn’t get it. Right now they want to survive.

[Hartmut]

I believe their immediate goal was to put a knife into the alliance under construction between Saudi Arabia and Israel. They knew that fear of the Arab street (in solidarity with the Palestinians) was the only thing that had to that point prevented it since the Gulf autocrats do not actually care about them at all. Oct 7. had the 100% predictable results of provoking Israel into going full hog revenge which in turn enraged the Arab street to a degree that even MBS could not ignore it. So, immediate goal achieved.
Had the alliance gone through, money and support both from the Gulf (openly) and Netanjahu (secretly and indirectly) would have dried up.
If lots of innocent civilians have to die for that, that's OK for the radicals.
Btw, given the profile I read of the political Hamas leader murdered by Israel in Tehran, he seems to have been on the side willing to actually negotiate something. Killing him and at the time and place they did, looks to me as another deliberate move to kill any possibility of a solution not involving further mass murder.
All that benefits Netanjahu's short term goals and has the additional benefit of making it more likely that the US elections go to the GOP and His Orangeness (whom Bibi personally despises but finds even more easily to manipulate than DC in general).
If Washington could credibly say: "if YOU provoke Iran etc. into going to war, you are on your own. And if you then use nukes on Iranian civilians, your state will be a pariah until YOU and your accomplices are held personally accountable and we know that's the only thing YOU fear. WE will not protect you then." that would make a difference (in particular, if the other side gets similarly credible threats). But I see no chance of that happening. It would not be believed by those it is aimed at.

[Pete]

wj - I didn't choose the word by accident. ;-)

He is a f@@@@@g moron. And a racist. And a pathetic chump and Netanyahu treats him that way.

I disagree. I think Biden is a compassionate person. I think this carnage weighs on him. Saying he was pushing back on Bibi while loading MK82s on transports was not a great look. My understanding is that the delivery was in the pipeline. But, still.

Biden is also trying to build a pier & get aid to the Palestinians. It's not just a blank-check "have all the bombs you want" situation. 70 years of boilerplate US/Israeli policy doesn't change overnight. And maybe if he didn't have to navigate the unfucking of Trump's departure from the Iran nuclear agreement and the consequences of Bush/Cheney's complete destabilization of the region, things would look different. Apples & oranges, maybe, but remember Syria? Point me to which ones are the "good guys".

Biden could tell Israel that he is cutting off offensive weapons to Israel but if Iran enters the fray in an all out war then we will join in.

He could. And...? You got any guarantees that doesn't make things worse?

No. You don't. I know I don't want the job making those calls.

Biden is navigating this about as well as can be expected and I think there's a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff going on to find a solution. Israeli citizen have some agency, too. I don't know what the pulse is. I know every time I see Greenblatt hand-wringing over dead Israelis while ignoring the 10x+ number of Palestinians killed in the same window, it does not sit well.

I think Harmut is pretty spot on, except for the last part which I maintain, perhaps naively so, has a chance at happening.

[Pete]

Speaking of unfucking, I'm gonna appeal to the ObWi gods to close the tag after "guys". I missed the preview button and accept my shame.

[wj]

Saying he was pushing back on Bibi while loading MK82s on transports was not a great look. My understanding is that the delivery was in the pipeline.

I don't know about this particular case. But routinely, aid to Israel is written into law by Congress. The President sometimes as enough discretion to delay delivery. But seldom more than that. Donald might do better to direct his wrath at Congress.

[bobbyp]

So just how did we get here? An interesting essay here:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n16/kim-phillips-fein/hate-burst-out

Enjoy.

[Donald]

Back from the local protest, where one guy came up and said “ I hope they all die.” The phones came out and he said “ I hope all the terrorists die”. He spat on the sidewalk.

Pete, that pier was built already, delivered almost nothing, and fell apart in the waves. It was absurd. There were also a few air drops which delivered a small amount of food and accidentally killed a few people. This was all for home consumption. Your consumption, not actual consumption of food by Palestinians. Boy, that Biden, doing his best but gosh, it’s tough.

Biden was bragging a few weeks ago while still running about how much he had done for the Palestinians. I watched that part. I don’t know how to describe the mentality of that. I could go on and on here. The press conferences of his spokespeople Miller, Patel, and Kirby are festivals of grotesque hypocritical idiocy on this subject. No one with a conscience would stay in that job. Every question about every report is answered with the same robotic phrases —“ we are seeking more information from our Israeli partners” . “ we await the results of the Israeli investigations”. I don’t know why people don’t do this with the Russians. Just ask them to investigate charges of war crimes and see what they come up with.

At the 100 day mark into the war the WH put out a statement which didn’t even mention the Palestinians. His “ empathy” for them is perfunctory, nothing like what he says about Oct 7. He initially sneered at the Palestinian death toll figures, as did Kirby, dutifully echoing his boss. As it happens, the Airwars site and others could check the early numbers, when the health care system was still relatively intact, and they seem accurate. Even Biden’s own State Dept experts had to correct their boss. His first instinct was to be a jackass.

Biden has leeway to speed up or slow down weapons to Israel. With the exception of the 2000 lb bombs, he doesn’t slow them down. He temporarily slowed down the 500 lbs but then allowed 1700 more to go through.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/15/biden-israel-weapons-policy-00158210

And there is the Leahy Law. There was a big show about how the State Department was doing all this careful vetting and it would come out in May, I think, and it was all a farce when as everyone expected, it turned out that yes, we could continue to send weapons. ,Boy, you could have knocked me over with a feather. They have sanctioned a few fanatics on the West Bank and we’re going after one particular West Bank unit, but thank goodness, the Israelis have done some remediation and now everything is great.

It was, of course, shocking that the ICJ was listening to charges of genocide against Israel. How dare they? It was shocking when the ICC prosecutor finally got around to asking for indictments against both Israeli and Hamas officials ( one now deceased). How dare they? Nothing much is said about the reports of HRW, Amnesty International, B’Tselem, though I think Miller did say something about the B’Tselem report about the widespread use of torture in Israeli prison camps. Pretty sure he will rely on the Israeli judicial system, which is only acting at all because of the ICC.

And yeah, the real obstacle to doing anything at all is not that, oh, foreign policy is so complicated—it is domestic politics. People on the left, vaguely defined, still say they support a 2ss, but for most this is pure boilerplate. They favor a “ negotiated settlement” between the two parties and find international law ( the ICJ just said the occupation is illegal) not helpful because we are working so so hard at this negotiated settlement. All this means to 99 percent of the people babbling it is that we are going to continue to support Israel indefinitely in every way possible, defending them against charges of war crimes,giving them nearly all the weapons they want, and only supporting a 2ss if they give their stamp of approval to the terms. Our commitment to Israel is ironclad, Palestinian rights are negotiable anc could be delivered at some future date at Israel’s convenience, if they want it.

The ceasefire has become the new 2 ss. We are working hard for it. Been working hard for months. Just don’t expect us to put any pressure at all on Israel to agree.

I would tell Israel privately that we are not supporting the war any further and we are going to side with the ICJ decision on the occupation. That gig is up. If Iran or Hezbollah or both deliver a massive attack, okay, we will help with that. But we are done with the child murder business. It is illegal. Also stupid, and it makes us look like hypocrites. Biden should have said this one week into the war, when Israel had already dropped 6000 bombs. And then gone public if it didn’t work.

The obs

Probably the most levelheaded commenter on this that I read is Mitchell Plitnick, who supports Harris but is doubtful she will do much on this even as President, though he hopes he is wrong. He was critical of her Michigan performance (where she pulled the Trump card) but did much better yesterday in Arizona. Yiu can Google his free substack.

[Cheez Whiz]

People outraged by Israel's punishmemt of the people in Gaza are disgusted by American diplomatic language dealing with Israel. As Donald succinctly summarizes, Biden is a "moron" being played by the wiley Netenyahu. Because Biden should be witholding all military support and issuing ultimatums to Israel instead.

What I never hear or read is what these people think would happen if Biden finally wised up and took their advice. How would Israel respond? Russia, Iran, North Korea?