A nation full of appeasers

June 2, 2008

The McCain campaign and its Republican allies really seem to believe Barack Obama’s willingness to talk to rival foreign governments is a serious issue that voters will reject. This seemed to begin in earnest, as a campaign matter, when Still-President Bush went after Obama in a speech to Israel’s Knesset, and it’s been a principal GOP talking point ever since.

McCain took the message to AIPAC this morning.

“[W]e hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before,” he said in the advance text of his speech, which was provided by his campaign.

“Yet it’s hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another. Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents, as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability.”

Now, on the substance, McCain’s argument is wildly unpersuasive. As an campaign Obama spokesperson explained, “Here are the results of the policies that John McCain has supported, and would continue. During the Bush Administration, Iran has dramatically expanded its nuclear program, going from zero centrifuges to more than 3000 centrifuges. During the Bush Administration, Iran has expanded its influence throughout a vitally important region, plying Hamas and Hezbollah with money and arms. During the Bush Administration, Hamas took over Gaza. Most importantly, the war in Iraq that John McCain supported and promises to continue indefinitely has done more to dramatically strengthen and embolden Iran than anything in a generation.”

But stepping back from McCain’s misguided embrace of a foreign policy that doesn’t work, the point we’re supposed to take away from McCain’s rhetoric is an anti-diplomacy, anti-appeasement message.

It’s a tough sell, given reality. The crisis with North Korea eased after Bush switched course and engaged Kim Jung Il’s government directly. Israel and Syria are talking. Bush and the Sudanese are talking. McCain, before his metamorphosis into Right-Wing Candidate McCain, even publicly endorsed the notion of engaging Hamas in talks.

Nevertheless, McCain thinks he has a political winner, even if the policy doesn’t make sense. As it turns out, he’s wrong about this, too.

McCain appears to be under the impression that American voters will find his pitch persuasive. What we need, McCain argues, is fewer talks, less negotiating, and less diplomacy. It hasn’t worked before, but maybe if we stick with it, the policy will eventually pay dividends.

Fortunately, just as McCain goes after Obama on this point today, Gallup released a poll showing Americans in large numbers favoring Obama’s approach to McCain’s. (via Oliver Willis)

Large majorities of Democrats and independents, and even half of Republicans, believe the president of the United States should meet with the leaders of countries that are considered enemies of the United States. Overall, 67% of Americans say this kind of diplomacy is a good idea. […]

Although separate Gallup polling shows that few Americans view Iran favorably, and that Iran leads Americans’ list of top U.S. enemies in the world, the new Gallup survey also finds high public support for presidential-level meetings between the United States and Iran, specifically.

About 6 in 10 Americans (59%) think it would be a good idea for the president of the United States to meet with the president of Iran…. [M]ajorities of men, women, younger and older Americans, and those from different regions of the country all [say] direct presidential-level talks with Iran and other enemies are a good idea.

Generally speaking, when asked if our president should meet with “leaders of foreign countries considered enemies of the United States,” diplomacy enjoys the support of 79% of Dems, 70% of independents, and even 48% of Republicans.

In other words, for all the Republican talk about “appeasement,” Americans think Dems are right about this, and the GOP is wrong.

By all means, Sen. McCain, keep criticizing Obama on an issue on which the public agrees with him. The next thing you know, McCain will want to go after Obama for other popular ideas like universal healthcare, scaling back tax cuts for millionaires, and withdrawing from Iraq. Oh wait….

I think it is important to read the coded messages whenever the Republicans make statements. One of the things progressives consistently overlook is coded speech. GWB does it all the time and progressives laugh at his perceived inability to form full sentences when in fact he is speaking to his base in a way we progressives might miss. Sen. McCain is not speaking about policies here (I am not entire sure he understands anything about Iran) he is hammering away at the notion that he will protect Israel and Obama won’t. Least you think this message is targeted for American Jews, it is not (although McCain will try to woo Jewish voters over the next several months). This message is for Christian Evangelicals and End-of-timers who believe that in order for Jesus to return the Hebrew people need to control the Holy Land.
People who are waiting for the Rapture have an absolute hard line on Israel and McCain, by using the words “anti-Semitic and “Holocaust” is letting them know (and they are a big part of the Republican base right now) that he shares their views on Israel.

  • The world looks a lot different when you’re inside a Koolaid filled bubble.

    I’m pretty sure most of McCain’s advisors (a scary lot to be sure) are telling him that all we need to do is stay the course.

  • What I’ve never really understood is the Jewish acceptance of these fundie Xtian “friends” whose only reason to befriend them is to get them all to Israel and blow it up to start the “Rapture.”

    Also the optics of speaking at a group who had two of its senior staff arrested for stealing US top secret intel on Iran. Might make John McCain look like some condoner of treason and spying on the US. Just saying.

  • This public support for diplomacy isn’t a new phenomenon. In late 2007, 73% said that they wanted the U.S. to try diplomatic/economic engagement before military action. In 2006, 72% favored diplomacy with North Korea.There are a lot of other polls suggesting that, by strong majorities, people in the U.S. believe that:

    -The U.S. needs to rely more on diplomatic and economic engagement as tools of national security;
    -The U.S. needs to respect international law, especially with respect to issues like torture;
    -The U.S. does not need to spend more money on the military;
    -The U.S. military is strong enough (or too strong);
    -The U.S. spends less than it should on international assistance; and
    -The U.S. should set a timetable to end the war in Iraq

    I’m feeling lazy, so let me know if you want links for these, or you can search on the Gallup website.

    Here’s another fun one:

    Only 33% think McCain has a clear plan to solve America’s problems…. Obama and Clinton are both under 50% as well…

  • This is a message to AIPAC about McCain’s deference to their position on Iran, which happens to accords with his rather childish view of foreign policy as all bluster and bombs.

    As MJ Rosenberg observed at TPM Cafe, Hillary Clinton largely lost because her war vote gave an opening to a candidate to run as more anti-war. She took that stand, and even more her vote for the Lieberman-Kyl Iran authorization for the use of force, because of people like AIPAC. Her defeat, and hopefully McCain’s as well, should prove that such stnads are no longer necessary to win in America.

  • What I’ve never really understood is the Jewish acceptance of these fundie Xtian “friends” whose only reason to befriend them is to get them all to Israel and blow it up to start the “Rapture.”

    The only ones who “accept” the fundies are the zionists who could care less what the fundies think as long as they deliver the votes to back up the ongoing subjugation of the Palestinians. The fundies of course could care less that they’re supporting people who think Jebus is a crock.

    All we need is more sunshine on those creeps and they melt like rotten butter.

  • The thing I worry about is that the misguided policy that Hon. Sen. McCain advocates, which, if anything, keeps Mr. Ahmedi-Nejad in power longer, will be touted as the policy which brought about the Iranian Presidents downfall. Mr. Ahmedi-Nejad’s popularity in Iran had been falling almost since he was elected (with both Iranians generally and the powers that be). One can only assume that his fall would have been swifter if the US had been out front presenting the benefits that international cooperation could bestow that their president had not (and promised to deliver).

    Today’s Boston Globe has some good news on this front:

    The pragmatic Larijani, a former chief of Iran’s National Security Council and lead nuclear negotiator, has been an outspoken foe of hard-line president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His ascension spells a promising power shift within Iran’s faction-ridden political system. Larijani is very much a devotee of that system, but one who makes no secret of his belief that dialogue and deal-making with the West offer the surest means to secure Iran’s national interests.

  • McCain hasn’t heard that successful Republican candidates run to the right during the primaries, then run towards the center in the general election.

    Just keep pandering to the hyper-nationalists and the fundies, Senator. You’re doing great.

  • Can you say: a 75-vote Senate and a 350-vote House? The Republican Party is about to become more irrelevant than it has been since 1936!!

    We’ll take their country clubs and turn them into housing projects for the rest of us. Maybe we can even make golf illegal. 🙂

  • This might be too deep in the weeds to be a successful general election argument. But when Ahmadinejad appeared at Columbia University last year, he managed to make a bigger ass of himself than any “hard-liner” could have dreamt just by opening his mouth and spouting idiocy along the lines of “we have no homosexuals in Iran.” The mocking laughter of a full room struck me as a more eloquent rebuttal to him–in the eyes of the world and, if the event was broadcast back to Iran, before his countrymen–than anything Michael Gerson or Ted Sorenson could have come up with.

    My point is that when we stick to our best principles, as I have full confidence in Obama to do, the U.S. can always win a “war of ideas” with hateful regimes. If that’s as or more effective than the bombs ‘n’ bluster approach, given that we know for damn sure it’s cheaper in blood and treasure, who could disagree with it?

  • Currently the Bush Administration uses the pre-condition that Iran must “verifiably suspend their uranium enrichment program” as a reason to avoid talking to Iran. But as we know they didn’t have such a program when Bush took office. They didn’t have such a program at the beginning of the Iraq war! They didn’t have such a program when Iran offered the U.S. a “Grand Bargain” after the Iraq war was started, and before it became obvious that the U.S. didn’t have a plan to maintain peace in Iraq.

    What this seems to show more than anything is that “not talking to Iran” is having the exact opposite effect that McCain now claims. Not talking to Iran has allowed, and maybe caused, them to develop this enrichment program.

    Probably McCain should be quizzed if he at least supports the Bush Admin position that he will talk to Iran if they do suspend their enrichment program. Then we can ask why we didn’t talk to them prior to this program (or at least our knowledge of it).

  • Why don’t we take Bush to task for his role in creating the following threats to national security through acts of appeasement:

    1) appeasing the Saudis with U.S. assistance in creating a nuclear program;

    2) appeasing Dubai and the other gulf states by facilitating their acquisition of strategic assets such as ports, stock exchanges and arms manufactures;

    3) appeasing China by allowing the greatest trade imbalance in the history of the world, and the currency rate imbalance that made it possible.

    4) What about the Bushes’ close confidant James Baker’s role (in connection with his law firm Baker Botts) in legitimizing and promoting sharia-compliant financial instruments in the West? Doesn’t that qualify as appeasement and doesn’t it present a potential threat to those of us who don’t want to have to adhere to religious law when doing business?

    5) And the greatest act of appeasement: allowing the oil producing nations to capitalize on the Bush / Cheney’s main focus: the profitability of the petroleum industry. That single case of appeasing a special interest has done more harm to U.S. standing in the world than can we can currently imagine. We’ll be calculating its impact for decades to come, along with the impact of the other acts of appeasement I cited.

  • I just wish the dems would point out that it was saber rattling stupidity that helped Ahmadinejad get in office to begin with. he was preceded by the (relatively) moderate Khatami, and the whole “axis of evil” and “real men go to tehran”crap probably gets play in iran. obviously, because of the supreme council, voting is always skewed in iran, as they’ll throw out liberal or secular or theocratic-lite candidates. nonetheless, if we all just stepped back, and tried to think like an iranian voter, this all makes a lot of sense. a county, very powerful, who is still angry about a horrific attack upon it, and has a small history of overthrowing your democratically elected governments in favor of bloody tyrants, groups you in a posse with two other nations, one the rogue of rogues; the other a place the leader’s father fought a war with whose supporters (now in the current administration) felt he should’ve gone the whole nine yards, and is also a sworn enemy of the county (and, ironically, your “axis-mate” is a sworn enemy of you). then, the leader invades one of your “axis-mates”, and continues saber rattling against you. who are you more tempted to support – the guy who speaks out against the threatening country, or a more moderate guy. if you think that bigger badder country may invade any day, there isn’t even a question.

    we don’t have to look far to see this natural reaction. we all (rightfully) rallied behind GW after September 11. He was our leader, and we were attacked, and under threat of another attack. the truth is, Ahmadinejad is simply iran’s GW Bush. people were scared, and wanted someone they felt was “tough” who could protect them. this nonsense from McCain and Bush only strengthens the conservative mullahs and politicians in Iran, giving them sympathy and support from the otherwise rather liberal and pro-american body public. If the real goal is regime change in Iran – and why not do it on the cheap through internal revolution – simply remove the Iranian public’s biggest reason to support the regime – fear of invasion and isolation, as it only stokes the fire of an “us vs them” mentality, helping the conservatives. Most conservatives are terrible at domestic policy, so once it comes down to that, the public may fell a little more plucky. The soviets didn’t fall from war, the Chinese haven’t moderated through invasion. You get more flies with honey, right?

    Look what happened in the US when its people got over their fear – the ass-clown republicans are facing down the worst election defeat in decades.

  • Addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) today, Republican presidential nominee John McCain called for a global campaign of divestment from Iran. He might want to start with his own campaign manager, Rick Davis, whose work on behalf of Ukrainian mogul Rinat Akhmetov included business dealings with Tehran. As it turns out, John McCain is following Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney as just the latest hard-line Republican to run afoul of his own plans for Iranian disinvestment.

    For the details, see:
    “McCain, Like Romney and Cheney, Runs Afoul of Iran Divestment Pledge.”

  • John (“I’m Just Like Bush”) McCain calls Obama naiive about the Middle East. Well, let’s consider that closeely. McCain has visited Iraq (mostly for campaign purposes) 12 times, while Obama has only been once. However, McCain cannot seem to get the situation in Iraq straight and continually misrepresents it – not because he’s lying, but because, for all his “military experience,” he really doesn’t seem to understand it. Obama however, seems to have a good handle on the problems in the Middle East and understands that if we don’t bring all the players to the negotiating table, so that their voices may be heard, peace will never be anything but a Western Pipe dream. Such are the differences between a hawk and a diplomat. Give me the diplomat any day.

  • Carpetbagger said:
    “What we need, McCain argues, is fewer talks, less negotiating, and less diplomacy. It hasn’t worked before, but maybe if we stick with it, the policy will eventually pay dividends”.

    This is a typical liberal move. Remove a couple words to fit their agenda.

    McCains actual meaning:
    “What we need, McCain argues, is fewer talks, less negotiating, and less diplomacy with rogue terrorist states that will not abide to negotiated terms with the United States only. Because we know from past experiences, they will promise terms that they have no intentions of fulfilling.

    Liberals read your history books.

    If Iran had any influential allies, then we could bring them into the negotiations. But Iran doesn’t. So basically they can say whatever, appease the negotiators, receive what is in the best interest of Iran, and then stop fulfilling the agreement. The US will continue fulfilling their side of the agreement out of good faith. Now as Carpetbagger said insert this: It hasn’t worked before, but maybe if we stick with it, the policy will eventually pay dividends.

    Sorry, but Barack “The Great Divider” Obama will not win the General Election.

  • One other thing.

    How can anyone truly take someone seriously when they say the following:
    1. Holocaust never happened.
    2. Israel should be eliminated

    Are you fricken kidding me? Go to an insane asylum and negotiate with them about anything and see how far you get.

  • About 6 in 10 Americans (59%) think it would be a good idea for the president of the United States to meet with the president of Iran….

    That’s because 6 in 10 Americans think that the president of Iran is as important in Iran as the president of USA is in USA. But that’s not the case; the president of Iran is but the public face of the gaggle of clerics. Obama would do better to talk to Khameini (spell?), who has much more power.

  • “What I’ve never really understood is the Jewish acceptance of these fundie Xtian “friends” whose only reason to befriend them is to get them all to Israel and blow it up to start the “Rapture.”

    ^^ ROFL.. you’re really showing how dumb you are by posting this. Nobody in believes that crap anymore, even the religious right predominantly don’t. Israel is a strategic alliance for OUR long term interests.

    1/10.. I’ll give you 1 point for trolling but epic failure for being a puppet of media marketing. good game

  • More black and white, knee-jerk, unimaginative partisan bullshit.

    Obama never said he was going to drop trou and bend over for these foreign leaders. He said talk, with preparation. Now, if you’re accustomed to talking out of your ass, I can see where you might get confused. But most people understand there’s a difference.

  • Yea i take them just as seriously as i do the la la land christians who say the world was created in 7 days. Adam and Eve….YADA YADA and these religous wingnuts are trying to run OUR nation. Our only hope is that progressivism will eventually evolve the human race enough so that 5000-10000 years down the road humans will no longer feel the need to reach out into an imaginary world for answers to the unexplained. Im a Christian by way of my parents but in no way do I buy into the BS brainwashing that any religion brings to the table. I worship my God the way i wish to. Not because this is the ‘Divine’ way to worship. Its terrible how the human race is…We’ve came so far but got such a long way to go

  • beep52:

    I agree AND McCain never said he wouldn’t talk with Iran. Funny how your black and white, knee-jerk, unimgainative partisan bullshit works both ways. Guess it’s a moot point.

  • Ummm, Jake? This stuff is all around the Net…

    On Monday, McCain told members of the National Restaurant Association that Obama fails to understand “basic realities of international relations.” McCain said Obama’s willingness to talk with Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions during his first year as president would only embolden “an implacable foe of the United States.”

    “[At the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association in Louisville, Ky.,] I have some news for Senator Obama,” McCain began, “Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel a stinking corpse, and arms terrorists who kill Americans will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program.”

  • beep52:

    You made my point. McCain never said flat out, I will not meet with the Iranian leader. To save time, I will even use the quotes you sited:

    “without preconditions”

    “unconditional meetings”

    Obama on the other hand. Will meet “without preconditions” and have “unconditional meetings”.

    AGAIN, go to an insane asylum and negotiate with a mad man. You will walk away thinking you succeeded, but the mad man will not adhere to the terms.

    In these situations, “without preconditions” and “unconditional meetings” are required.

    It’s Negotiating 101.

  • So will Obama, right after he takes office, jump into Air Force One and fly straight into Tehran?

    And just how much pull does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have when it comes to dealing with foreign policy?

    I found this in Wikipedia:

    “Unlike many other countries, in Iran the president does not have control over foreign policy, the armed forces, nuclear policy, or the main economic policies of the Iranian state, which are under the control of the Supreme Leader.”

    • Comments are closed.