« Twitter roundups: Should I keep them? | Main | Will Solyndra be the first major Obama scandal? »

September 16, 2011


Rick Perry is attempting to capitalize on Obama's Jewish Problem with a column pointing out Obama's various errors. It's behind a pay wall at the WSJ but free in the Jerusalem Post at http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=238144


It was a mistake to inject an Israeli construction freeze, including in Jerusalem, as an unprecedented precondition for talks. Indeed, the Palestinian leadership had been negotiating with Israel for years, notwithstanding settlement activity.

When the Obama administration demanded a settlement freeze, it led to a freeze in Palestinian negotiations.

It was a mistake to agree to the Palestinians’ demand for indirect negotiations conducted through the United States. And it was an even greater mistake for President Obama to distance himself from Israel and seek engagement with the hostile regimes in Syria and Iran.

Palestinian leaders have perceived this as a weakening of relations between Israel and the United States, and are trying to exploit it. In refusing to deal with the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, and taking this destabilizing action in the UN, the Palestinians are signaling that they have no interest in a two-state solution. The Palestinian leadership’s insistence on the so-called “right of return” of descendants of Palestinian refugees to Israel’s sovereign territory, thereby making Jews an ethnic minority in their own state, is a disturbing sign that the ultimate Palestinian “solution” remains the destruction of the Jewish state.

The United States – and the United Nations – should do everything possible to discourage the Palestinian leadership from pursuing its current course.

Gov. Perry said "The science [of climate change] is not settled."

The New York Times says he's wrong, because: "The overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring and that human activity — chiefly the burning of fossil fuels and cutting down of tropical forests — is likely to blame." [emphasis added]

Gov. Perry is supported by many eminent scientists who believe that the science isn't settled. E.g., just this week Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society because he disagreed with their statement that "The evidence is incontrovertible." Giaever and many others aren't saying that human activity may not be causing climate change, but simply that some uncertainty remains.

In a way, the Times' comment comes closer to supporting Perry than to refuting him. Their word "likely" means that the issue isn't fully settled.

IMHO an explanation of the Tea Party from a group of (presumably) ultra-liberal Poli Sci Professors is as reliable as an explanation of liberalism from Michael Savage and Sean Hannity. I don't agree that the Tea Party is simply new label for very conserv GOP.

First of all, the Tea Partiers are conservative only fiscally. They're not necessarily socially conservative. Secondly, the Tea Party's view that government spending ought to be reduced is the overwhelming view of the GOP. In fact, lots of Dems, inncluding many who dislike the entity called "Tea Party", actually support the Tea Party's view on government spending. I think what separates the Tea Partiers is their willingness to be active.

I also disagree with the claim disputing that the Tea Party is "a movement driven by principle whose members swore no allegiance to either party." I recall in early days the Tea Party was willing to support fiscally conservative Dems. And, of course, the Tea Party has been running candidates against Republicans who they deem insufficiently fiscally conservative.

The reason the Tea Party isn't supporting Dems now is that there are hardly any fiscally conservative Dems around. A Dem who wanted to reduce spending would have to strongly oppose President Obama's expansionist policies. That's not a position many Dems would feel comfortable with.

The comments to this entry are closed.