Fred Barnes doesn't even understand his own party. He snobbily predicted that immigration reform would pass easily.

As Reagan was fond of saying, "You ain't seen nothing yet."

Ultimately, it's up to the American people. At some point McCarthyism stopped working, and I can remember when knee jerk liberalism died. Bush might have killed the 1980s, but we'll have to wait and see.

I'll make a counter-argument: Obama is too patriotic!  Consider: imagine it's 1936 and there is one Jew in the senate.  A proposal to boycott the opening ceremony of the Berlin Olympics to protest Hitler's anti-semitism is made by the speaker of the House.  Our lone Jewish senator says he understands both sides of the argument but has no opinion.  If nothing else, you couldn't accuse him of putting his race/religion ahead of his domestic politics.  

The thing is, Obama speaks more positively of America as a nation than any candidate in my lifetime. It's one thing to go around saying "America good," as Republicans like to do. But Obama constantly speaks eloquently, and at length, about _why_ America is good.

It's the difference between "God Bless America" and "America the Beautiful." The former isn't actually a patriotic song when you listen to the lyrics; it never once says anything good about America. It's a prayer, and a crappy prayer at that. Every time someone sings it, God says, "You fool; the mountains, prairies, and oceans white with foam _are_ My blessing." Whereas "America the Beautiful" is packed with layer upon layer of frankly-stated justification for love of country and acknowledgment of blessings received and prayers not for more blessings but for the virtue to deserve them. Anyone who prefers "God Bless America" to "America the Beautiful" is no patriot.

However, it wouldn't hurt Obama any to go with the flow of wearing the damn flag lapel pin. And maybe even point out sometime that the GOP's penchant for setting up forests of flags behind their podiums is a violation of the U.S. Flag Code and therefore a sign of disrespect to the flag and to the patriots who died in its defense.

The Wright scandal was one thing, but this Obama/flag issue is just a joke. He stood but did not hold his hand over his heart during the national anthem? Nobody who doesn't already hate Obama is going to hold that against him.

Lymon, do you think we should boycott the Olympics?  I think it is complicated, and Obama acknowledged that.   I tend to think we should as well, but there are a lot of concerns with a wildly embarassed China.  

Boneill -- well, I think those concerns are the reason that the only thing on the table is boycotting the opening ceremony (in fact, it's not even that -- as I understand it the athletes would appear, but President Bush or other representative of the government would not).  I know in another thread I said that realpolitiks shouldn't be a factor when it comes to genocide, and directly vis-a-vis Sudan I still think that, but with China our economic situation is just too grim and their streak of nationalism is just too dangerous to go all Reagan 1980 on them -- well, I still might boycott, but I completely understand and respect those who disagree. (This is yet another reason why a dramatic energy independence policy should be the primary issue in this campaign, so that we'll have far more human rights leverage in the future, though economics and the environment are even bigger reasons).

As to the opening ceremony, I think we should at least be threatening it -- maybe China would do something positive in the interim.  One big problem for the insuficient-even-as-planned African Union force is that nobody is coughing up the helicopters they need.  Maybe China would agree to a not-immediate deadline to stop running interference for Sudan if certain benchmarks aren't achieved (which sounds kinda pathetic, but this has been going on since 2004 -- those dates come faster then it seems).  

Rhubarbs, Obama does the same thing with the forests of flags.  Check out the video of his race speech.  I like the analogy with the songs, though.

Honestly, I don't think there's anything Obama can do about the patriotism attacks that he hasn't done already.  Obama already talks quite a bit about how much he loves the country and how great it is.  Anybody who takes Michelle's comment as a legitimate criticism of Obama's candidacy has probably already made up his mind.

lymon is just looking for any kind of wedge issue to bash Obama with, he has no care as to the actual consequences of such an act, far better to throw in a useless quip. boycotting the Olympics has nothing but downsides and no upsides. It was make the Chinese more intransigent in the Sudan, rally the Chinese people behind the hard right in the politburo, and have the added potential of convincing the chinese to no longer finance our debt. But hey, if Lymon can get in a snarky post about Obama, it will all be worth it. I would say the same thing if it were about Hillary as well.

If anyone wants to say a pox on all 3 candidates for having no real or effective response to Darfur, fine by me. But this olympic boycott of the opening ceremonies as a way to put the Chinese in their place is a joke, and a disgrace since it will salve the consciences of people who can do something about Darfur but feel this little exercise is sufficient.

I've given 20 years of my life just so jerks can go about saying almost anything they want about this country.  I'm completely fed up with Republicans or anyone saying someone is unpatriotic because of this or that crappy reason - like not wearing a little flag pin made in Taiwan, or criticizing our government's actions on a certain thing.  I really wish some of these clowns would put on their big boy pants and start talking about real issues instead of trying to make crap up.  Better yet, go enlist in any of the services and spend a few years doing something constructive with yourself.

I wouldn't go as far as Blackton in impugning the intentions of anybody, up to and including Hillary, but an opening-ceremonies boycott does strike me as being the one "doing something" that is actually worse than doing nothing. It's the ultimate in all talk, not action, or all hat, no cattle. It combines the maximum of purely symbolic nation-to-nation insult with the absolute minimum of material commitment by the insulter. What does it say about our seriousness as a nation that we would say we're not willing to march in China's little parade one night, but we are willing to participate in China's games the following two weeks and let our athletes take home medals and let our corporations take home billions in brand-building profits?

What it would say is that we're not serious, that we're just posturing, and that we're doing so with deliberate hypocrisy. What it would say is that we're "against" bad things only so long as being "against" them comes at no cost to ourselves.

There are only two intellectually and strategically serious positions on an Olympic boycott: You're either for no boycott, or you're for boycotting the games entirely, including all U.S. athletic and business participation. Anything in between is self-parody.

Fred Barnes represents the unleashed id of the GOP. What he says in whispers now, will be shouted by the rank and file in the fall.

Barnes was a TNR writer at some point, wasn't he? There's a warning to you Mike.

blackton -- I've addressed why I think boycotting the opening ceremony could be useful and why I disagree with your constructive-engagementism (and "Darfur is lost") position elsewhere (and you damn sure know I favor more than just boycotting the ceremony).  And I agreed with your "pox on all houses" with respect to the candidates yesterday.  So fine, you disagree with me and think it will be counterproductive, but I'm sick of your endless personal attacks on me.  If Hillary Clinton had done a 180 on Darfur or if she were the only woman senator and the genocide was limited to women and wouldn't back Pelosi on a similar measure (and remember, this is an officially declared genocide -- our do-nothingism has a strong moral teaching component to it, or should I say amoral), I'd slam her to kingdom come.  

lymon, sorry don't mean to impugn your intentions, but I know that you know better. I just think it is a mistake to look like you are playing partisan politics about this issue, even if you don't think you are it appears that way sometimes. You and I both want something done. I would rather it be effective so first we have to figure out what is most effective and then work on pitching it to TNR, who can then pitch it to the candidates, etc. etc.

I also didn't see your response on the other thread, and if you had posted your second point first, I would have had no issue, but I have not singled out any candidate on this issue for slamming since I think it is counterproductive. I just found your first posting to be tasteless, it is nothing personal, anyone who had said it I would have thought the same thing. That said, even "Maybe China would agree to a not-immediate deadline to stop running interference for Sudan if certain benchmarks aren't achieved" shows that you don't understand Chinese politics. They have never reacted well to threats, but are amendable to backroom deals. In short, over Darfur we can buy them off. You just only need read Chinese internet boards about this issue (this adheres to the party line) to understand just how they really work.

one other thing even you have to admit. Consider: imagine it's 1936 and there is one Jew in the senate. is a pretty provocative statement. You can't lob firebombs and then expect to be above the fray. Essentially you are saying that Obama is now complicit in the genocide there, no nuance, no acknowledgment that he is only a Senator who commands no armies, and as a candidate who is running against one disastrous war in Iraq to focus attention on another war in Afghanistan, that maybe getting militarily involved in the Sudan as a policy to run on ain't the smartest thing to do. In addition, any supporters of Obama now should consider the blood on their hands as well since Obama doesn't share your absolutism on this issue, all the while ignoring the fact that neither do Hillary or McCain.

Far better to say what has to be done instead of bringing in analogies that you believe to be clever but are offensive to some (me for example, the analogy is wrong in so many ways, and the worst is to play politics with the holocaust) Maybe, just maybe there is no easy solution to Darfur, and maybe Obama knows this, and since he is now powerless to do anything about it finds it prudent not to dig a hole he can't get out of. George Bush is the President, aim your fire at him. He is in the unique position (since his polling can't go any lower) of doing something militarily (bomb the shit out of the leaderships buildings in Khartoum for example). Whether or not that is right, I don't know since I am not an expert on the issue but at least I would address the suggestion to him, and not any candidate.

This was in one of my posts in the other thread: When Speilberg first threatened to bolt over Darfur (after Mia Farrow's blistering WSJ editorial) and wrote China, they dispatched an envoy to Sudan and for the first time the Sudanese agreed to allow *any* foreign troops into Darfur.  I only have one personal Chinese source -- he tells me that Tibet is far touchier than Darfur.  But as I think I wrote in our thread on TNR Online, if Chinese nationalism is so strong that we can't even make a minimal gesture then that will be a much needed wake-up to America and the West.  It's bad enough we let Denmark get hammered for daring to criticize China's human rights abuses at the U.N.  Finally, if you were living in Darfur or Chad and had witnessed 4 years of American inaction, would you put your faith in any bolder move taking place?  Particularly given the silence from the three presidential candidates?  I think I'd say "give it a shot."

Now, as to my analogy, that's another huge leep -- where in the world did I say Obama was *complicit* in the genocide?  There's a world of difference between working proactively on behalf of the genociders (see Belgium 1994) and having a disappointingly weak response.  I think your real problem with the analogy is not recognizing that official U.S. policy is that Darfur is a genocide, not just a human rights abuse (and indeed, there has been legitamite debate over whether that was the right call, but Congress made it and so by objective standards that is how we should judge their response).  Sure, China is not the direct party, but they have effectively become a but-for cause.  And I'm not the one who put Samantha Power -- the biggest cheerleader for agressive U.S. policy there is (or was) on my campaign and used her as a selling point until she made a political faux-paux.  Also, am I slamming Obama for not taking the lead on this?  No, I'm slamming him for not joining Pelosi (but not not-joining her either).  Please, go ahead and tweak my analogy any way you want as long as it has Jews dying in Darfur and Obama was the only Jew in the senate and his party's Speaker of the House of Representatives had put her neck out AND he had gone mute on the topic during the course of his campaign. As for George W. Bush, again as I believe I've written several times, he AND the Democrats have been complicit -- not in the genocide but in not doing anything.  After we had consulations with Salah Gosh, the Sudanese army "major" alleged to be the designer of the genocide but also with some good intel on Al Queda (recall that Osama bin Lada had lived in Sudan), Bush had the GOP house leadership kill the DAA -- which had some real teeth in it -- after it had passed unanimously in the senate.  No dem would file a discharge petition so that the cowards could put their names to their vote.  And neither Obama nor HRC would publicly call on them to do it.  Clinton is equally shameful given the administration's history in preventing U.N. action in Rwanda.

Rhubarbs: great point about GBA and America the Beautiful.  McCain probably prefers a third song entirely, "America, Fuck Yeah!" from Team America: World Police.

Lyrics:

America, fuck yeah! Comin' again to save the motherfucking day, yeah! / America, fuck yeah! Freedom is the only way, yeah! / Terrorists, your game is through, 'cause now you have to answer to / America, fuck yeah! So lick my butt and suck on my balls! / America, fuck yeah! What you gonna do when we come for you now!

lymon, we can make gestures that will rattle the Chinese far more, invite the Dalai Lama to the White House for consultations. or something that really screws them up, inviting Chinese governors and the President of Taiwan to the White House, give 5 minute meet and greets to the governors, but have an hour meeting with the Pres. of Taiwan.  That will really rattle their cages and still adhere to the one china policy. But, all in all, I still think a backroom deal on Darfur is easily doable. Look at how papa Bush finessed the Chinese, not a single veto during his term from the Chinese. Even in Iraq they haven't issued a single veto but keep reauthorizing US involvement. This Bush knows how to finesse the Chinese too, the fact is he isn't with regards to Darfur. I promise you that Bush can but he doesn't.

You think gestures will make a difference, but I know money will (and what I mean by money is concessions on some tech transfer, tech that the Chinese already buy from the French anyhow). I differ with you in that I think Bush, and pretty much Bush alone is the only one who could really do anything. And I think that is the way it should be, we can't have 535 Secretaries of State.

Again, 1936, "we can't have 535 secretaries of state" from the only Jewish senator -- how well do you think that would be taken?  How far did that argument get in 1985-6 with South Africa vsi-a-vis Reagan's coddling?  REGARDLESS, if this is Obama and/or McCain's position, let them say it.  Right now this "gesture," as imperfect (to say the least) as it is is the only thing on the table.  Let the candidates put something else on and we can debate it, but after 4 years of a genocide, vague talk isn't going to cut it.  The most likely thing that will happen but-for the Pelosi et al. Olympic talk is that the issue will disappear once again from the political radar and we'll be back to scouring Trinity Church DVD's.

As for the substance -- money might well be able to purchase a deal (which is why I think the biggest hope Darfur had absent a 2005 no-fly zone was a divestment movement), but there's either not the money for it or there's another hangup -- I truly believe if Bush could have "bought out" the genocide in 2005-6 he would have. Yes, what you propose would rattle the Chinese a lot more -- if I were them I'd conclude from that our concern really isn't Darfur and Tibet but the Chinese government itself and I might start sending their ever-increasing navy to some very visible places near Taiwan in response.

blogs.abcnews.com/.../as-chicago-bids.html