16
One-Man Peanut Gallery
Jimmy Carter really owns the inside of Jay Nordlinger’s skull*, doesn’t he? Why does the National Review continue to allow this weird time traveler from the Carter era to bore us all with his meandering, corny screeds?
I wonder whether any of the four candidates (Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin) could define the Carter Doctrine. I wonder how many of Palin’s critics could. But they have a view on the Persian Gulf, and what this country’s interest is there. Yes?
Look, George Ball knew the lingo as well as anyone — he was the one Carter really wanted for secretary of state. (He couldn’t follow his heart, however, because Ball was simply too anti-Israel for the country to accept.) And would you want Ball at the levers of American foreign policy? If you’re a devotee of NRO, probably not.
Anyway, you get my drift …
Maybe they pay him in 1979 dollars.
*Talk about your sub-primes.
Brian J said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:24
As much as I like history, I forget certain things because I’m no longer taking history classes on a regular basis, so the historiography developing in my head isn’t so hot any more. But I still know to look stuff up if I forget, so here’s what I found at Wikipedia:
The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the Cold War adversary of the United States—from seeking hegemony in the Persian Gulf.
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems fairly consistent with what national defense policy was at the time. I’m not saying it was a good idea, just that it more or less seemed to go along with what other presidents had done.
Now, while there has been some confusion over what the Bush Doctrine means, most people seem to think it means anticipatory self defense. That seems like a fairly big break from the past, or at least a big reversal from what people think the Clinton Doctrine was.
So I am not sure what NRO’s point is. Are they saying we should remember all foreign policy doctrines of previous presidents? It doesn’t seem like it. It seems like they are pulling out Carter’s Doctrine because (a) it’s old, (b) they don’t like Jimmy Carter, and (c) they think nobody knows what it is. They also seem to ignore the idea that the Bush Doctrine was such a big break from the past and thus more important than the foreign policy plans of other administrations that were more or less the same.
D. Aristophanes said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:28
What’s the difference between ‘anticipatory self-defense’ and ‘naked aggression’? Lipstick.
D.N. Nation said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:29
Ahh, conservatives and the Carter obsession. Don’t forget…not a month goes by without Michael Ramirez drawing some Carter cartoon and acting like it’s relevant. Sheesh, we don’t talk about Nixon that much on our side, do we?
Also, once again, the NRO clowns completely miss the point. It’s not that Palin had issues with the nuances of the Bush Doctrine, it’s that she acted like she had no clue about a huge point of contention in current foreign policy.
stryx said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:33
Wow. Skipped right over blaming the Clenis and went right to Carter.
I wonder if any of the 4 candidates could name the doctrine where you treacherously negotiate with your nation’s enemy to get them to continue to hold American hostages until after the American election by promising them advanced arms technology.
I think it’s the Begin Doctrine. Or Sagan. Maybe Hagan. Possibly Fagin. Could be Nagin.
I can’t remember.
Ripley said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:35
I wonder whether any of the four candidates (Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin) could define the Carter Doctrine. I wonder how many of Palin’s critics could.
That depends… will it be on the test?
javafascist said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:37
It’d still be at least 3x more than he deserves.
Olexicon said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:40
Hey Nerdlinger
tell us about the Truman Doctrine
Ripley said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:41
I know for a fact, though, that no one knows what the McCain Doctrine is, because he won’t tell anyone. Not even George W. Bush, who’s currently in charge of things like national security, commanding and chiefing the military, foreign policy and things like that.
Unless, maybe, the McCain Doctrine is just to say that you have a Doctrine but not share it with anyone because then they might steal the limelight and not give you credit for your wicked gnarly Doctrine.
Brian J said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:43
They are going to blame Clinton (and don’t forget that dirty, communistic, Apple-using, global warming proponent Al Gore) for the economy. At least that’s what I think after seeing Robert Kuttner go on “Hannity & Colmes” last week, where Hannity said that Bush inherited the “Clinton-Gore recession.” Of course, if things somehow pick up, it’ll be because of Reagan.
tigrismus said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:43
I wonder whether any of the four candidates (Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin) could define the Carter Doctrine. I wonder how many of Palin’s critics could.
We can be damn sure Palin couldn’t; I wonder why he thinks questioning whether others are ignorant of historical policy makes her ignorance of current policy look better?
Ed Marshall said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:44
I know what the Carter doctrine is. Any crusty Chomskyite does.
I think the idea may be that actually knowing what standard American foreign policy is makes you an America hating traitor who is unfit for office.
jim said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:45
“Anyway, you get my drift …”
Oh indeed I do, Jay.
Let’s see that one more time, everyone.
Watch how the discourse shifts, right … THERE.
Back several centuries, & to the right. Back several centuries, & to the right. Back several centuries …
Gundamhead said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:47
“I wonder whether any of the four candidates (Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin) could define the Carter Doctrine. I wonder how many of Palin’s critics could.”
I wonder he thinks that means anything. No one’s worried about McCain being the next Carter after all.
sagra said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:55
What’s the difference between ‘anticipatory self-defense’ and ‘naked aggression’? Lipstick.
Score!
J Neo Marvin said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:56
Exactly. Is he trying to say that the Carter Doctrine is just as relevant to 2008 politics as the Bush Doictrine?
Anything to make an excuse for the disaster that is Palin, right?
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:57
Since we’re asking embarassing questions about doctrines, I wonder if anyone want’s to ask about the Powell Doctrine?
Personally, I just want everybody to recognize the Wangchuck Doctrine:
PENIS
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:59
Sorry about the superfluous’ apostrophe’s
If elected’ I’ will put all your’ extra apos’trophe’s to good’ work’s.
fish said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:59
The Carter doctrine is that we can take Arab oil by force if necessary. The Bush doctrine is just a natural extension of this policy, just replace “necessary” with “when you want to”.
D. Aristophanes said,
September 16, 2008 at 17:59
Keep George Bell out of Foggy Bottom! Down with disco! Freebird!
OB-GYN Kenobi said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:01
Some people never forgave President Carter for putting those solar panels up on the White House.
El Cid said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:05
Actually, you just need to tune back to the right wing of that time, who screamed with disapproval as Carter suggested that Human Rights ought to be involved in our policies — even as he betrayed them by continuing to back the Somoza-allied National Guard tyranny in Nicaragua — because right wingers hate anything that even smells like it would get in the way of righteous slaughter.
And righteous slaughter was what they got under Reagan, in Central America, Southern Africa, and yes, in escalating Carter’s covert war in Afghanistan.
sagra said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:05
Wasn’t it more about using force to keep the dirty fucking commies from getting our Arab oil?
Brian J said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:06
Not to be confused with the Wang Chung Doctrine: Everybody Have Fun Tonight!
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:12
Brian J,
There may well be confusion since there is a Wangtastic correlation between PENIS and Having Fun Tonight.
Brian J said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:15
So I guess it’s fair to say that the Wang Chung Doctrine is a corollary of the Wangchuck Doctrine.
Aaron said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:15
Ahh, conservatives and the Carter obsession. Don’t forget…not a month goes by without Michael Ramirez drawing some Carter cartoon and acting like it’s relevant.
Some people never forgave President Carter for putting those solar panels up on the White House.
He’s history’s greatest monster!
SamFromUtah said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:24
Maybe they pay him in 1979 dollars.
Yes, and it annoys the shit out of him that they’re the coins with Susan B. Anthony on them.
paul said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:28
Mostly B, but A and C are gaining on it.
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:29
And now back on topic.
1. The Bush Doctrine. Everybody knows this – it’s the idea that George W. Bush can bomb the fuck out of whomever he wants so long as he pretends he’s doing it for national security. All this bullshit about how it’s an amorphous concept, about how the definition has fucking changed since it turned out so fan-fucking-tasic – irrelevant. FUCK. Her first answer was “His worldview?” She clearly had no idea whether it even fucking referred to snowflake babies or tax cuts. At a minimum, Nerdlinger isn’t using this dodge.
2. Palin’s perspective on it:
Umm, and a cure for cancer and a pony! Well Nerdlinger – does her answer make you feel more comfortable? Upholding the constitution means bombing people and invading their countries. This is your fucking set of standards Nerdlinger – she was told what the idea was (“The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.”) and that’s how she responded. Is that deeply serious enough for you?
Me said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:30
not a month goes by without Michael Ramirez drawing some Carter cartoon
Yeah, WTF is wrong with that fucking guy? I remember he did one when Gerald Ford died–a caricature of Jimmy Carter labeled “Edsel”. Who the fuck pays tribute to a dead president by mocking another one?
I repeat my opening question: WTF is wrong with that fucking guy?
Brian J said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:34
How long do you think it will be before McCain blames the Iranian hostage crisis on Barack Obama’s refusal to do town hall forums?
Specialist G said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:37
More importantly, can they define the central premise of the Chariots Of The Gods films? They pay him in Billy Beer. It explains everything…
Snorghagen said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:39
Anyway, you get my drift . .
Drift is right. Nordlinger writes like he’s been doing too much acid.
Near as I can tell the only reason he started babbling about Carter was so he could be a naughty boy and post the word ‘Ball’.
Dragon-King Wangchuck said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:40
Interviewer: Govenor Palin, what is your perspective on the situation with Lehman Brothers?
Mooseburger: You mean that New Country band with the song about the girl and the truck?
Interviewer: Umm, Lehman Brothers – one of the biggest banks in the nation.
Mooseburger: Oh – I think it’s great that the US has big banks! It just shows how strong the fundamentals of the economy are.
Interviewer: They’re filing for bankruptcy.
Mooseburger: Hahaha. A bank – filing for bankruptcy! The word bank appears in bankruptcy! Well, when John McCain and I take over the White House, we’ll just fire all the people responsible for this mess. There has to be accountability! Get it – accountability – banks – because you have an account at the bank!
Nerdlinger: Well, all these people calling Sarah Palin a bimbo are way off base. Obviously she knows how to spell, and also is for punishing the people responsible for the credit crisis – a position that will play extremely well with everybody
that doesn’t know who’s running Team McCainBrian J said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:46
Did anybody catch this quote from Lt. Gov. Patty Judge? From politicalwire.com:
“Sarah knows how to field-dress a moose. I know how to castrate a calf. Neither of those things has anything at all to do with this election. But since we know so much about Sarah’s special skills, I wanted to make sure you knew about mine too.”
– Iowa Lt. Gov. Patty Judge (D), quoted by Iowa Politics, on Sen. John McCain’s running mate.
That’s how you shank the opponent subtlety but effectively. They should send this woman all over the Midwest with Obama surrogates.
Snorghagen said,
September 16, 2008 at 18:54
Jay Nordlinger responds:
You may not know that a particular gigantic investment banking firm has failed, leading to highly complex and far-ranging possible ramifications, including (but certainly not confined to) a sickening drop in the stock market, the collapse of the American financial system, and worldwide economic chaos, which in turn would be likely to have horrifying political consequences in nations all over the planet — but, once you’re told, you do. Takes about two seconds. Big deal.
Fats Durston said,
September 16, 2008 at 19:01
That depends… will it be on the test?
As we type, the Obama-Biden team and McCain-Palin headquarters are compiling a cheat sheet. The contents:
The Reagan Doctrine
The Ford Announcement
The Dewey Theory
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff
The Hawley-Smoot Tariff
The Harding Manifesto
The Taft Lunch Order
The McKinley Credo
The Cleveland Dogma
The Fillmore Declamation
The Polk Promulgation
The Adams Blurb
and
The Monroe Doctrine
noen said,
September 16, 2008 at 19:05
They should send this woman all over the Midwest
No, we need to send her on a special mission to D.C. There are quite a few bulls there that really need to be made into steers.
J— said,
September 16, 2008 at 19:14
OG DFHs have the Drago Doctrine down cold.
OB-GYN Kenobi said,
September 16, 2008 at 19:14
Shorter Coach Urban Meyer: I like a Vice President with a lot of spunk. On her face.
DAS said,
September 16, 2008 at 19:27
Hey Nerdlinger
tell us about the Truman Doctrine – Olexicon
Back in the day when the Democrats were the party of Truman they believed in a tough foreign policy. For example, when the ChiComs started to have designs on Korea, Truman preemptively attacked China … oh wait a minute … that’s not how it happened? What’s this about Truman firing MacArthur? Why? … um … well … never mind.
gbear said,
September 16, 2008 at 19:31
WARNING!! Do not read this story while eating or sipping. You have been warned.
GOP delegate’s hotel tryst goes bad when he wakes up with $120,000 missing
http://www.twincities.com/ci_10472581?nclick_check=1
PS said,
September 16, 2008 at 19:38
That twin cities link seems to be bad — try http://www.twincities.com/ci_10472581
PS said,
September 16, 2008 at 19:44
And when you get to the twin cities story, for extra fun, be sure to check out the video interview, linked from the news page or directly at http://www.twincities.com/ci_10470772
I’m trying to work out if this is a Colbert-style piece of performance art.
J— said,
September 16, 2008 at 19:44
And catch the LinkTV interview, too. There’s a man who does not blink!
J Neo Marvin said,
September 16, 2008 at 19:45
That anonymous woman is an American hero. I hope no one ever catches her.
Thers said,
September 16, 2008 at 19:50
OT: Sadlynauts, I love you and I’m not trying to be a pain or anything, or tell you what to do, but you may want to seriously consider deep-sixing the Palin T-shirt ad. Given how the blogosphere works, getting rid of it may save headaches. Just saying.
Drill Swollen "OneMan" Palin said,
September 16, 2008 at 19:53
“GOP delegate’s hotel tryst goes bad when he wakes up with $120,000 missing
http://www.twincities.com/ci_10472581?nclick_check=1“
I got funky results from clicking on this until I cut/pasted everything up to “?click_check=1″ in a new tab (Firefox 3). It does some weird redirect otherwise.
Having read the article though, I have to say it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
Righteous Bubba said,
September 16, 2008 at 19:54
you may want to seriously consider deep-sixing the Palin T-shirt ad.
Well, hooray for being unable to see ads.
Apteryx said,
September 16, 2008 at 19:57
George Ball? You mean the guy who warned Kennedy and Johnson not to escalate in Vietnam? That guy?
Yeah, I can see why NRO readers wouldn’t want him in charge of foreign policy.
Blue Buddha said,
September 16, 2008 at 19:58
…and can’t quite grasp the concept that anyone can use teh Google.
monkey knife fight said,
September 16, 2008 at 20:01
Exactly. Is he trying to say that the Carter Doctrine is just as relevant to 2008 politics as the Bush Doictrine?
ding ding ding!! We have a winnah!
Whomever gets elected as our next president needs to deal not with lingering effects of any presidential doctrines from the ’70s, but will need to deal with the immediate effects of the current president’s doctrine. Like, right now. That’s why Palin’s non-understanding of the current president’s doctrine is such a big deal. But then again, she doesn’t even know what the Vice-President does. Sheeesh!
Blue Buddha said,
September 16, 2008 at 20:02
What makes you think it was even a woman? Knowing Repubs and their kinks, it was probably a tranny or guy, but Guido doesn’t want to admit it.
Grand Moff Texan said,
September 16, 2008 at 20:05
Jimmy Carter really owns the inside of Jay Nordlinger’s skull*, doesn’t he?
Bought it during the heady days of 2005, when fly-infested urine-troughs imported from Bavaria were going for five mil a square foot, but now Jimmy’s upside down on it and can’t find a buyer.
See? Democrats can’t be trusted to run an economy.
.
J— said,
September 16, 2008 at 20:08
From Schwartz’s résumé (pdf, my emphasis):
I love this guy.
Blue Buddha said,
September 16, 2008 at 20:13
Oh yeah. And then there’s the part where he “Owned and operated international businesses with offices in the U.S. and Russian Federation”.
* cough cough * Russian mafia * ahem *
J— said,
September 16, 2008 at 20:21
Oh yeah. And then there’s the part where he “Owned and operated international businesses with offices in the U.S. and Russian Federation”.
* cough cough * Russian mafia * ahem *
Yep. Combine that with “tax issues when structuring business transactions,” “white collar criminal matters,” and “direct and conduct asset tracing and location as well as recovery/collection.” The CV reeks of offshore tax evasion and money laundering.
actor212 said,
September 16, 2008 at 20:34
I wonder whether any of the four candidates (Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin) could define the Carter Doctrine.
Because a thirty year old foreign policy at the denouement of the Cold War is sooooooooooooooooooooo relevant today…
kenga said,
September 16, 2008 at 20:35
Well, they’ve got to keep criticizing Carter.
If Carter was right, about almost anything, then Reagan was a mistake.
And if Reagan was a mistake … well, let’s just say it’s best if the public never entertained that particular thought.
kenga said,
September 16, 2008 at 20:40
Nooo, I think she’d have more fun in a point-counterpoint interview with Tucker Bounds.
Ivan Ivanski said,
September 16, 2008 at 20:45
All your bling are belong to us.
Brian J said,
September 16, 2008 at 20:59
Maybe, but I think the media personalities want Bounds for themselves. It’s not every day that you get someone to smack down with so little homework.
Julia Grey said,
September 16, 2008 at 21:19
Anyway, you get my drift …
I don’t think the continents could get his drift.
Smut Clyde said,
September 16, 2008 at 22:30
“Doc Trine” would be a good name for a superhero with astrological powers.
InsaneInTheCheneyBrain said,
September 16, 2008 at 23:01
Brian J: you meant “subtly”, an adverb. “subtlety” is a noun.
Righteous Bubba said,
September 16, 2008 at 23:48
Brian J: you meant “subtly”, an adverb. “subtlety” is a noun.
Lolly’s has become a ripoff joint so the consumer must go elsewhere.
Bagel-san said,
September 17, 2008 at 1:26
I believe that anonymous 9-year-old boy is an American hero. I hope he has a good time this year in the 4th grade.
kenga said,
September 17, 2008 at 2:20
Lolly’s has become a ripoff joint so the consumer must go elsewhere.
It’s too bad Capital I closed its door.
Lesley said,
September 17, 2008 at 4:13
When they start countering with1979 you know they’re absolutely fucking DESPERATE.
Honus said,
September 17, 2008 at 4:40
?George Ball? You mean the guy who warned Kennedy and Johnson not to escalate in Vietnam? That guy?
Yeah, I can see why NRO readers wouldn’t want him in charge of foreign policy.”
Because we won the vietnam war- don’t you guys listen to chuck norris?
mdh said,
September 17, 2008 at 5:15
For that matter, what about the Taft doctrine?
It’s every bit as relevant today as Carter’s.
Brian J said,
September 17, 2008 at 6:06
Brian J: you meant “subtly”, an adverb. “subtlety” is a noun.
Yes.
pablo said,
September 17, 2008 at 6:24
Well at least his obsession is nearly 30 years more advanced than George Will’s odd obsession with hanging Alger Hiss on modern liberals.
rotten mcdonald said,
September 17, 2008 at 7:17
Wait, solar panels? White House?
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FAIL
rotten mcdonald said,
September 17, 2008 at 7:23
C’mon, nobody wants to talk about John McCain and vibrating butt plugs?
The Goddamn Batman said,
September 17, 2008 at 17:29
I would totally go back in time to the Carter Administration. Knowing what I know now, I’d have the courage to date the smart girls and I’d catch the Sex Pistols in concert while Sid was still alive.
OB-GYN Kenobi said,
September 19, 2008 at 14:48
You’d better move fast, ’cause Carter wasn’t inaugurated until 1977, and didn’t Sid die in February of ’78?