Here.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's sunny and perfectly cool day here in Oberlin. This morning, let's take a look at some stories that I meant to write about, but, for whatever reason, didn't.
First, we have John McCain's foreign policy experience. He doesn't know the name of Spain's prime minister (for the record, I didn't either, but I'm not running for president and touting my foreign policy credentials to do it). It's Jose Luis Zapatero, by the by. McCain was doing an interview with some Spanish-language media outlet when asked about Zapatero. Josh Marshall sums it up:
The story is already getting picked up pretty quickly in the Spanish press. And the way it's being interpreted in the Spanish press is that McCain got confused about the fact that Spain is a country in Europe, rather than a rogue state in Latin America.
Our review of the audio suggests the same conclusion. In the interview, McCain is asked about Hugo Chavez, the situation in Bolivia and then about Raul Castro. He responds to each of these with expected answers about standing up to America's enemies, etc. Then the interviewer switches gears and asks about Zapatero, the Spanish Prime Minister. And McCain replies -- very loose translation -- that he'll establish close relations with our friends and stand up to those who want to do us harm. The interviewer has a double take and seems to think McCain might be confused. So she asks it again. But McCain sticks to the same evasive answer.
Okay, so that's a little weird as, you know, he's talking about Spain and not some Latin American strongman, but it's a gaffe right? Surely McCain wouldn't make up a crazy Spain policy just so he doesn't have to admit that he has no idea who the prime minister of Spain is? Right?
Well, no. Tim Fernholz (via Eric Martin at Obsidian Wings, gives us this astute analysis
After John McCain's gaffe yesterday he had basically two potential responses: Either admit that he didn't know who Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero is, or pretend that his Spain policy is crazy.
Apparently, he's chosen the latter, as his campaign's foreign policy adviser Randy Sheunemann tells the Post: "The questioner asked several times about Senator McCain's willingness to meet Zapatero (and id'd him in the question so there is no doubt Senator McCain knew exactly to whom the question referred). Senator McCain refused to commit to a White House meeting with President Zapatero in this interview."
Senator McCain: Country First. Ready On Day One.
Second, I have to agree with Greenwald, David Brooks is an insufferable ass. I mean, he is in general, but today's New York Times column deserves special attention for its rampant douchbaggery, not to mention idiocy. Brooks, as usual, is fawning over a terrible--not to mention frightening--idea. Some choice quotes:
What Paulson, et al. have tried to do is reassert authority — the sort that used to be wielded by the Mellons and Rockefellers and other rich men in private clubs. ...
It would assign nearly unlimited authority to a small coterie of policy makers. It does not rely on any system of checks and balances, but on the wisdom and public spiritedness of those in charge. It offers succor to the investment banks that contributed to this mess and will burn through large piles of taxpayer money. But in exchange, it promises to restore confidence. Somebody, amid all the turmoil, will occupy the commanding heights. Somebody will have the power to absorb debt and establish stability. ...
We’re entering an era of the educated establishment, in which government acts to create a stable — and often oligarchic — framework for capitalist endeavor.
Does anyone else find this column just bizarre and scary? Greenwald sums it up best, with his trademark scorn:
One of the most enduring and intense pundit fetishes is the fantasy that there is a small, elite group of trans-partisan, centrist, responsible Establishment Wise Men -- the Ultimate Safe and Loving Daddy Figures -- who can ride into any political crisis and rescue the warring partisan masses with their Sober and Powerful Integrity. We just need to call upon them for help, cede them absolute power, trust in them, step aside, and watch the Magic that is Created as a result of what Brooks longingly describes as "the wisdom and public spiritedness of those in charge." Stripped of his neutral observer rhetoric, that's all Brooks is "predicting" -- more accurately, yearning for -- here.
Knock, knock, yo.
|