After saying Thursday that he would throw out the first pitch on August 15 opening day Yankees / Red Sox, the Covidiot Coward backed out today, fearing the Bronx cheer no doubt from the crowd.
Susan Rice: “What’s the matter, Mr. President? Can’t get it up and over the plate?”
She’s not only brilliant — she’s hilarious and fearless.
What an amazing attack Veep she’d be for Biden!
Please share widely!
I didn’t think there would be spectators at this one.
It would be truly obscene if, in the same year Congressman Lewis died, the Dem’s nominate some who, like the sheriff deputies who nearly beat Lewis to death, spouts the line that protests are the result of outside agitators. https://news.yahoo.com/susan-rice-blames-foreign-actors-120019152.html
There you go again, Bob. Your comparison of Susan Rice to “the sheriff deputies who nearly beat Lewis to death” is a vicious lie and I think you know it.
We already beat this dog to death when you ran it the first time. Ms. Rice made the accurate observation that Russian actors exploit every opportunity to sow chaos, discontent, and civil unrest.
Ms. Rice speaks the truth. You can’t handle the truth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA).
Rice is a foreign policy adventurist looking for enemies. Her contention that that protesting racism is something that wouldn’t happen except that the demonical Russkies are manipulating our loyal citizens of color may match yours, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not a paranoid delusion.
This thread is a great example of why the internet broke politics. Rice should be judged on her merits, not one juvenile tweet disparaging the president or another one erroneously tying white looters at BLM rallies to Russia. Surely the former is not a real qualification for president. Surely the latter does not imply she would have sided with Bull Connor during the Civil Rights era.
This forum should be a place for grownups to discuss politics without the vitriol and lack of nuance that defines so much of social media. It should be focused on local and statewide issues rather than being dominated by national topics all the time. The reason so many of us who’ve posted here no longer bother is because it has not been that space. Charley doesn’t have the time and energy to moderate us, we should honestly self moderate and post genuinely new insights on progressive politics at the local level moving up to the state and then to the national.
My own take on Rice is that she got royally and irrevocably swiftboated by the right over Benghazi. While that is not her fault, there is a reason Obama picked Kerry over Rice. She was not going to get confirmed by the Senate and she lost a lot of her credibility with the public. She has never been tested as a candidate in any campaign for any office.
What she brings to the ticket, mainly national security experience and nostalgia for Obama, something Biden already has in spades. What he does not have is someone who could reliably step in and run for president in his stead if something happens to him between now and 2024. What he does not have is someone with lived experience with the criminal justice system and economic realities for working families.
Bass, Demings, Harris, Warren, and in my view Duckworth are all better choices than Susan Rice. This has absolutely nothing to do with her freakin twitter feed.
I agree with the tone of your comment, James, but Rice’s erroneous tweet is not some random event. Saying that the “Russian are behind it” has become the all purpose method of explaining everything in politics. One Democratic hopeful suggested that she herself was a target of the Russians, and that the Russians played a role in the Colin Kaepernick controversy. Two other hopefuls, it was suggested, were either being “groomed” by the Russians or were the Russians’ favorite candidate.
If comparing Susan Rice to Bull Connor seems to harsh, I’m willing to swap him out for J. Edgar Hoover.
I’m perfectly happy to swap you out for Roger Stone.
I suspect the resulting commentary would be identical.
You still haven’t told us whose side you are on in this presidential race.
That’s right, I haven’t. Why do you ask? Does it affect the validity of anything I’ve written on this thread?
I am unsure why you find yourself a self appointed Russia gate skeptic on this blog. I actually agree with you that Rice’s comments were dumb, I just do not see how they are part of some wider pattern to blame Russia for everything. They did violate international law and they did interfere in our previous election.
I do agree that who you support has no relevance to your views. I also is like the knee jerk “you’re with us or you’re with Trump” attitude that has sprung up around here. I think it’s the height of white privilege to vote for a third party candidate this year, even in a blue state, when so many black votes are being deliberately suppressed in swing states. If we already had ranked choice, I wouldn’t care. Support that cause if you want better options than the Democrats. I won’t begrudge you that desire, I share it, but I also know John Lewis went through a lot of trouble to ensure black votes counted and they will be votIng for Biden.
It would help me contextualize your comments and assess their validity.
I do not see how opposing or supporting a particular candidate automatically invalidates someones argument about a particular issue.
As in so many other areas, I think support for Donald Trump is a special case.
I don’t think that any rational, sane or informed observer can support Donald Trump today. I think that whatever broken part allows somebody to continue supporting Donald Trump makes any other political argument they make untenable and unpredictable.
It is well understood in mathematics that once a division by zero or demonstrable inconsistency is identified in the body of a proof, the outcome of the proof is invalid. It is invalid because the presence of a division by zero or an inconsistency allows literally ANYTHING to be “proven”.
I will not knowingly allow a “doctor” who professes a belief in creationism or the “young earth” theory to treat myself or anyone I love following a similar argument.
I think Christopher’s question is very appropriate.
To my knowledge there are no supporters of Donald Trump who regularly post to this blog. Bob and others here oppose Biden from the left and are likely to vote for a third party candidate or write in Bernie, which in Massachusetts anyway, is immaterial to the result of the election. I do hope they think of their privilege compared to the Biden voters of color unjustly stripped from the rolls in Florida or unsafely waiting hours in line in Wisconsin before they cast their votes and reconsider. Until ranked choice happens, I will not support a third party candidate.
So maybe it’s an issue if we had Trump supporters on this blog. We don’t, and Biden critics are not the same thing.
Then they should say so, though there are only two realistic choices. I suppose given who the other candidate is this year I’m less patient with own goals than I otherwise might be.
That’s one way of defining privilege. Another might be the privilege of living in the U.S. and being insulated from the consequences of our foreign policy.
Someone in Yemen,, Venezuela, Bolivia or Palestine to name just a few countries, might define privilege differently.
And I teach about all of those consequences in my classes thank you very much. The pros and the cons of American interventionism.
I put LeMay and McNamara on mock trial. I usually rush through Iraq, but there’s usually time for a mock Senate or UNSC debate about whether or not we should go in. I missed be able to do these kinds of lessons the most with remote learning. I was happiest
when my most left wing student backed the A bombing and my Ben Shapiro quoting student opposed it, since in both cases it showed my students thinking independent and arriving at their own conclusions based on the sources and challenging their own preconceptions.
Also we debate about whether it was wrong for the US *not* to intervene in Rwanda. One of my students is an Aleppo survivor and she is against the knee jerk American support of Unending Israeli occupation (as is her teacher ,but I try and play devils advocate for positions I disagree with and not preach one sided about my own views), but also was very passionate in believing America could have done more to protect her and her family from Assad. I’ve argued here against that proposed intervention when it happened, but it’s a lot harder to make that case to a survivors face. So I think if you’re teaching history in a black and white way, you’re teaching it wrong. I am very sensitive, perhaps overly so, to our role as American propagandists and push back against that as much as I can.
While I do cover L’’Ouverture and Mandela, I hope to cover Lemumba and Leopold this year too, along with starting a little earlier than the state proscribes by doing a deep dive into pre-Columbian (itself a problematic marker) American civilization. Especially since a large number of students are mixed and from Central or South America. Also covering the tail end of the golden age of Islam for my Moroccan/Algerian students. We could all be doing better, so I won’t argue I’m doing a great job. I do think I’m trying my best and learning how to be better.
Looking forward to hearing the results of the debate between Trump’s and Biden’s policy toward Venezuela.
Seriously, your class looks great but this is a little off point. No matter how good the debate there are no consequences for the debaters (nor should there be, obviously). And nothing will happen to Assad, Mandela et al.
Elections are different. There will be consequences all over the world. When voters ignore those consequences because they won’t be affected personally, they are exercising a privilege.
That’s a fair point. I guess it comes down to a form of situational ethics. My students are under attack by this administration. I believe Biden when he says he’ll end the Muslim ban, the deportations, and restore the justice department consent decrees on day 1. He does not need a Democratic Senate to do these things. I believe him when he says he will promote pro-choice justices to the Supreme Court and expand Medicare and Medicaid. I believe him when he says he’s following the science. I’m share some mutual friends with RBG’s granddaughter and know she’s doing worse than the news is letting on.
I took a poll recently and I disagree with Biden on about 18% of the issues. 82% was the lowest score I got for any Democrat. Most of these are foreign policy, criminal justice, and health care issues. In no universe would I argue he was our best choice in the primary, in fact, I got into heated arguments with his supporters here arguing the opposite.
The primary is over and our choice is between a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe, a pandemic response that continues to kill black and brown Americans at a higher rate, a criminal justice system doing the same thing, a heartless immigration system killing kids, and an erratic foreign policy undermining global peace and security.
At the end of the day could I vote for a Howie Hawkins over Venezuela and live with myself if Trump gets four more years to deport my students mothers? To ban my students cousins from escaping Syria like she did? I don’t think I can. My African Muslim student who moved to Amsterdam last year, which is a hotbed of intolerance for Muslims and blacks, has been perversely inspired by how much Dutch aversion to Donald Trumps America is forcing that society to rapidly embrace Muslims and end racist traditions of their own. Their BLM rallies had been even bigger than ours.
Think local, act global. Voting out Trump does that. And if my students of color are politically mature enough to cast their first votes for Biden, despite vocally agreeing he is not a great choice, so can I. I’m following their lead. Their communities cannot endure four more years of this President. Neither can the rest of the planet.
*our choice is between all the Evils of Trump and a flawed candidates I agree with on 82% of the issues. Hawkins got 97%, but he won’t be president. Biden will be.
Those are all good arguments. I only object to the idea that by not ignoring the real problems of Biden’s candidacy (check out the DNC votes on M4all and Israel this week) I am acting out of “privilege”. I think that the real privilege is to discount Biden’s bad policies and their consequences.
My strategy is to shut up about any concerns about Biden until November then push him once he’s President. Now that the primary is over any criticism is just fodder for the other side.
I think it’s okay to push him now while also acknowledging he’s 80% and far better than Trump. There is still leverage with the joint Bernie/Biden platform committee and the individual delegates to push issues onto the fall agenda.
I’ve reconsidered my previous comment a bit. If I thought a pre-election pivot might pick up votes there may be a case as long as it doesn’t come across as blatantly pandering or flip-flopping. Right now, however, I think the campaign is mostly in if it ain’t broke do no harm mode.
That’s fair. I’m not for self censoring until the election, I just feel like until we pass RCV it’s not worth the third party vote, especially when non-blue state voters of color will have a much harder time getting their votes counted than we do. I appreciate that you acknowledged that privilege and will acknowledge the one you brought up. Many of my students are pro-Palestine and upset with both parties.
There is a world of difference between “not ignoring the real problems of Biden’s candidacy” and comparing Susan Rice to Bull Connor and J. Edgar Hoover.
I enjoy the commentary of the “bob-gardner” who penned the above response on Thursday afternoon. It’s a strikingly different voice from the “bob-gardner” who wrote the piece attacking Ms. Rice three days ago.
I’d like to see more of the former and less of the latter.
When someone in public life resorts to the “outside agitators” trope when discussing the protests about race, the comparison is apt, in my opinion. Likewise, when she sees foreign subversion as an explanation for American unrest.
What I don’t get is comparing me to Roger Stone. True, we both have gigantic tattoos of Richard Nixon on our back, but mine is meant to be ironic. There’s a world of difference.
Each of us is expressing an opinion about Ms. Rice. Neither is objective “truth” or fact.
My equally ironic comment was intended to observe that your personal view of truth and reality is approximately as valid as Mr. Stone’s (and mine).
The fact that certain crazies routinely accuse the “Russkies” of anything and everything does not mean that every observation of Russian activity is an empty trope.
As I recall, you’ve been similarly discounting the well-documented Russian cyberattacks for years here on BMG. At least at the time, you dismissed evidence produced by virtually every security professional, citing nothing more than your own personal belief that they too were “tropes”. It was almost as if, like our President, you put more credibility in the denials of Mr. Putin than in the assertions of pretty much every professional who looked at the evidence.
I understand irony. Do you?
“The fact that certain crazies routinely accuse the “Russkies” of anything and everything does not mean that every observation of Russian activity is an empty trope.”
Rice’s comment clearly falls into the “empty trope” category. Since she is under active consideration to be on the Democratic ticket it’s important to point that out.
I suppose once again we simply disagree.
I assume that Ms. Rice has access to information that leads her to make those comments. Apparently you either assume otherwise or discount current professional assessments just as you discounted them in the past.
Since she is under active consideration to be on the Democratic ticket, it’s important to point out the harm caused by false and distorted attacks on her. Similarly false and distorted attacks on the Democratic nominee in 2016 had a great deal to do with her ultimate defeat.
“I assume that Ms. Rice has access to information that leads her to make those comments. “
That’s kind of bizarre. It’s the kind of assumption that can lead to taking Mike Pompeo at his word.
It’s the kind of thing that can lead to taking Anthony Fauci at his word. Or James Hansen.
I agree that there is some “bizarre” commentary here.
More to the point. Colin Powell, or Dick Cheney, or Condoleezza Rice.
Fauci is not asking for credibility on the basis of secret information.
There’s a world of difference.
Pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel need not be mutually exclusive. I think of myself as both.
How about Apartheid, Christopher? For it or against it?
Against of course, but it’s exactly comments like this that make me hate your argument style.
Do you grade your students’ papers the same way, Christopher? Your students should envy JConway’s students.
Not sure what you mean. As a sub I only usually score objective assessments. You either solved the math problem correctly or you didn’t. You either spelled the word correctly or you didn’t. If I were grading persuasive essays I would expect students to provide the background upon which they were basing their arguments.
Hoover orchestrated a four decade campaign of violating the constitution, civil liberties, and waging war against leftist leaders and civil rights activists. Rice erroneously tweeted about Russia a few times.
Pretty hard to deny that their country has become an autocratic one party state, has illegally annexed Crimea, has violated the rules of war by hiding its soldiers out of untiring and among civilians in Syria and Ukraine, violates the sovereignty of Ukraine, backed Assad, and engaged in intentional misinformation campaigns to hurt Hillary Clinton in the last election. Only you, Donald Trump, Glenn Greenwald,, Oliver Stone, and Matt Taibbi are naive enough to take him at his word.
I think skepticism is warranted. Whatever Russia did in the Crimea or the Ukraine, I would like to see evidence that they are behind the looting in this country.
If Rice’s only qualification is that she was a national security advisor, I would argue that being paranoid is pretty disqualifying.
“Self appointed” is a little less uncivil that being swapped out with Roger Stone (whatever that means.) I didn’t realize that there was an authority issuing appointments to comment on this blog. I thought being a noble member was all the appointment I needed.
I thought it was obvious that my “swapped out” comment was a sarcastic reference to this (emphasis mine):
Your “skepticism” is indistinguishable from the “skepticism” of climate change deniers who choose to lie about the science while attacking the scientists.
I think a better comparison is to cold war paranoia. The Soviet Union and communists were real but so was the paranoia that blamed communists and outside agitators for civil rights campaigns and student protests.
Or, for that matter any dissent.
Have things changed that much?
I do not see Rice doing it to the same extent as your other examples. I will note it is an issue though, especially when MSNBC and CNN spent the first two years of the Trump presidency overhyping false Russia connections and legitimizing frauds like Louise Mensch. By the time actual evidence emerged about Trump abusing his power in Ukrainegate and now the Russian bounty story once persuadable skeptics are now not buying it. It’s too bad. Our elections will definitely be attacked again and it does not help to constantly have hawkish Democrats finding Putin behind every one of their opponents.
What “false Russia connections” are you referring to?
There is nothing false about the web of connections between Donald Trump’s inner circle and Moscow. There is nothing false about the reporting on Dmitri Firtash, Lev Parnas, Igor Frumin, or — for that matter — Rudy Giuliani.
There is similarly nothing false about the Deutsche Bank money laundering scandal, the Deutsche Bank connections to Russia and Russian organized crime, the hundreds of millions of dollars of Russian cash transferred to the US since 2016, and so on.
That’s before we even talk about the Deutsche Bank connections to Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump, and Ghislaine Maxwell.
It does not help to forget the active role that Vladimir Putin has been playing worldwide for years.
Those are obviously actual connections. I’ve talked about them at length. I do think there have been irresponsible allegations from less than credible sources which otherwise credible critics of Putin have spread. For instance, Putin is neither behind white kids looting at BLM rallies nor does he have incriminating tapes of Trump. What he did do was organize a deep cyberwar to divide Americans and we all fell for it book and sinker. But he lucked into a Trump presidency as much as he tried to tip the scales for one. Even he thought Hillary would win. They are stronger than the Russia skeptics admit and weaker than the neocons claim they are.
The short answer is yes, they have.
During the cold war, there was no way for the public to see source materials themselves. During the McCarthy hearings, Americans were completely at the mercy of daily print media deadlines.
I’m not sure that the explicitly and intentionally false attacks of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew on student protests had anything to do with cold war paranoia. Both men knew exactly what they were doing and why.
There is a mountain of evidence, growing every day, of widespread and pervasive Russian interference in democratic processes pretty much around the world. Russia is one of the leading actors in the world-wide cyber war that has been going on for years now.
There certainly was an excess of cold war paranoia during that period. Public figures like Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover were particularly egregious.
That does not negate the reality that there WERE people like John Cairncross, Klaus Fuchs, Theodore Hall, Harry Gold, David Greenglass, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and Lona Cohen.
I am confident that Ms. Rice has access to confidential information that we lack. I find the attacks on her reminiscent of the similar attacks on our 2016 nominee.
Ms. Rice is certainly NOT comparable to J. Edgar Hoover, Bull Conner, or — by inference — Joseph McCarthy.
Rice is damaged goods like Hillary, fairly or unfairly. She would be a liability to the Biden ticket.
@ Damaged goods:
I agree.
I actually think the issues with her son and all that rubbish with Benghazi are the problems.
The fact that she, like Ms. Clinton, is “damaged goods” exemplifies the utterly toxic nature of our culture today.
Asking whether we think we would be better or worse today if those “damaged goods” in 2016 was our President.
I know we agree about the obvious answer to that. I wish I knew how to repair the culture that has produced this mess.
The white males who got us into Iraq still get treated like experts while she has been raked over the coals and denied promotions, even by the mainstream media, over a comparatively minor mistake. Similarly Benghazi can and should be blamed on the Republican sequester which gutted foreign service security more than anything else.
This is much more reasonable criticism of Rice. I think her rush to react both with statements like this and with her initially wrong reporting out on Benghazi show she is not ready for the Kleig lights of a national campaign. If she could not even pull the trigger on a run against Collins, why take on Biden? Her son is also a huge MAGA/QANON retweeter which would pose some problems. Probably the riskiest choice on Biden’s shortlist.