I’m so glad that Katherine Harris supports Israel and Holocaust Education.
Cause, you know…she wants Jews to vote for Christians too.

you KNOW I blogged this chick. Although, you should see the entire text of the interview.
Even the Florida Baptist Weekly didn’t print all of it.

J brings up a fascinating point; why would anyone think there’s something anti-Semitic about a policy declaring it sinful to elect anyone but Christians to public office? After all, the policy doesn’t state that electing Jews exclusively is sinful, and it’s not like conservative Christians from the Bible Belt have any history of antipathy toward Jews that would cause one to suspect an element of Jew-hatred behind a “Christians-only” electoral policy. Likewise, if, say, Trent Lott came out next month in support a policy restricting the franchise to whites only, it would be similarly illegitimate to condemn said policy as racist with respect to African-Americans. Once again, the policy would be forrestricting the vote to whites, not against providing the vote to Blacks. Besides, just like Harris’s policy, it doesn’t discriminate against Blacks exclusively, but against all genetically mongrelized subhuman mud people. What could be racist about that?
On another matter, it is instructive to note that the views of Katherine Harris have been widely known in Florida for years, and yet there doesn’t appear to be a chance in hell that another candidate can beat her for the Republican nomination. Not that they believe there’s the remotest possibility she can win the general election; it’s clear that she’s going to suffer a beating of epic proportions. In other words, nominating Harris isn’t a question of opportunism, but a matter of loyalty to principal for Republicans.
It’s also worth noting that there is no single constituency in the Republican Party with more influence on national policy than Christian conservatives like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, James Dobson, Donald Wildmon, and countless others whose views and priorities are compatible with those of Katherine Harris in almost all respects.

Katherine Harris is the face of the GOP in America. All of those Jews who kvell over George Bush should review the history of his family (e.g., his grandfather who supported Hitler after Pearl Harbor) and realize that as Bill Maher says, he supports Israel because the triumph of the state means no more Jews.

“All of those Jews who kvell over George Bush should review the history of his family (e.g., his grandfather who supported Hitler after Pearl Harbor) and realize that as Bill Maher says, he supports Israel because the triumph of the state means no more Jews.”
Many people are aware of George W. Bush’s business deals with the Nazis. It was wrong, his grandfather should be castigated for it.
But the grandson is not the same person as the grandfather, nor the father. In fact, George W. Bush’s notions of foreign policy are a deviation from the cold, calculating realism of both his father. George W. Bush realizes the errors of our realist foreign policy during the Cold War (and prior)–suporting anti-Communist authoritarians–and is trying to do something to rectify it. In that respect, I think he’s doing the right thing.
Have a look at:
http://www.eustonmanifesto.org
Paul Berman. Terror and Liberalism. (W W Norton & Co Ltd., 2004)
Oliver Kamm. Anti -Totalitarianism: The Left-wing Case for a Neoconservative Foreign Policy (Social Affairs Unit, 2005)

Ah, david smith. So many words, so little content. As should have been obvious from the context, Harris was almost certainly talking about believing or serious Christians, not nominal Christians (people who come from Christian family backgrounds who don’t practice Christianity in any meaningful way), and likely had nominal Christians in mind as people to avoid electing as much as she did Jews and other non-Christians. Since the nominal type outnumber the practicing type, I don’t see how her use of “only Christians” means (only or primarily) “not Jews”. The comparison to blacks/ whites therefore doesn’t work.
As for “single constituencies” within the Republican party, I would say that conservatives who are not really definable as the “Religious Right”) ( that is, they may be and often are religious, but their views on public policy are defended with secular arguments) are a more powerful constituency (numerically, intellectually and institutionally). Center-right moderates are also very significant. If you want to worry about a major party being taken over by dogmatic loons, look at the Democrats instead.

“Further, I generally support the USA’s policy regarding supporting authoritarian anti-Communists during the Cold War, and as far as I know, so does George W. (please let me know if you know of anything to the contrary).”
From what I’ve read, George W. Bush’s adoption of neconservative foreign policy, in particular democracy promotion, was in recognition of the failures of realism. You know, the whole notion of he may be a jerk but he’s our jerk led us to support the mujahedin in Afghanistan. We were glad when they beat the commies but not when the country became a haven for the Taleban and OBL.
I don’t have a lot of links at hand but here’s one:
http://www.yale.edu/yjia/articles/Vol_1_Iss_2_Spring2006/kaufman217.pdf#search=%22bush%20refutes%20realism%22
Morgenthau’s Unrealistic Realism
BY ROBER T KAUFMAN
“Much of the criticism of the so-called Bush doctrine and the
president’s emphasis on regime change in the Middle East as a goal in the war on terror comes from the realist and neorealist traditions.”

Thanks for the links. If I’d known these pieces were available, I would have linked to them when there was a discussion here about Realism a couple of months ago.
My point was simply that of the many differences between Realism and Conservative Idealism (or Neoconservatism, but I don’t think that’s an entirely accurate phrase, because many conservatives who were not neoconservatives share this view), support for anticommunist forces, even if dodgy or worse, is/was not one of them. The Afghanistan example illustrates my point – it was a Reagan policy. (I agreed with the policy then and still do now- the good that was accomplished vastly outweighs the harm it caused.)
The article about Morgenthau pretty much encapsulates my own views of Realism – it has many good points, its theories are valuable tools, but in the end it’s seriously flawed, because it fails to adequately take into account the importance of ideological differences in regimes, it values stability too highly at the expense of improvement, and other reasons. Being able to support nasty regimes in the service of an overriding goal, however, is not restricted to Realists. (To say that the US cannot ally with bad governments under any circumstances strikes me as suicidal, and to say that opposing the Soviets was not important enough to justify such alliances seems to me a denial of true horror of the Soviet Union.)

J, no problem. Glad to provide the links. I agree with your points.
I think these labels are a bit misleading as well. There are a few people who fit the labels perfectly but, in general, I think it’s best to view them as “ideal types.” Most of us are realists on some issues and idealists on others.
I think the historical context is important as well. When we were in the Cold War, it made sense–if that’s the right word–to support anti-Communists, even if they were ill mofos. Once the USSR was out of the way, it created a different foreign policy environment and provided an opprtunity for neoconservative democracy promotion to take center-stage.
Plus, Bush’s cabinet contains both realists (Condi) and neoconservatives. I think there is a tendency on the left to lump them together and call them all neocons. I’m not positive why that is but I have my opinions. Part of it is intellectual short-hand to simply denigrate those you disagree with but I also think they think it makes them sound intelligent. Same with using the term hegemony.
Lastly, the neocons in both of Bush’s cabinets were mostly in secondary positions. Wolfowitz is one the names that comes up a lot as an “architect” of the war in Iraq and he was the deputy sec. of defense. Rumsfeld was, and is, the man in the driver’s seat, so to speak.

WEVS1:
Bush’s cabinet contains both realists (Condi) and neoconservatives. I think there is a tendency on the left to lump them together and call them all neocons. I’m not positive why that is but I have my opinions. Part of it is intellectual short-hand to simply denigrate those you disagree with but I also think they think it makes them sound intelligent.
Though I hate to be a spoiled sport – your suggestion left J practically swooning with enthusiasm: oh my, yes, yes, that’s it; absolutely; positively; THAT’S IT! – I think we might need to consider another possibility. In commenting on the allegation of anti-Semitic sentiment in Germany, you noted, Unfortunately this is no different from the loony left in France, the U.K. or even the U.S.
As you’re undoubtedly aware, the distinctions in ideological purity among the various factions of the far Left rival the finest gradations of snobbery and social privilege among the hereditary peerage of the English aristocracy. Still, you discuss none of the doctrinal distinctions among the Trotskyites, Maoists, Sparticists, and Syndicalists. Were you trying to make yourself sound more intelligent? I doubt it. Merely trying to denigrate those with whom you disagree? While that might be the case with respect to “loony,” lumping these factions together as “the Left” is the same phenomenon as referring to those on the Right collectively as Neocons. To wit, it reflects the assumption that the objectives and values of each group are so extreme, so distorted, so profoundly detached from those of the American electorate as a whole, that acknowledging their differences is nothing more than irrelevant hairsplitting. That assumption may be wrong; it may be sloppy; and, yes, it may be self-serving. But whatever it is, it’s the same when referring to either the Left or Right.
One observation you made is thoroughly inexplicable to me:
George W. Bush realizes the errors of our realist foreign policy during the Cold War (and prior)–supporting anti-Communist authoritarians–and is trying to do something to rectify it. In that respect, I think he’s doing the right thing.
Though you appear to point approvingly to the Euston Manifesto, I can’t find a single one of its principles that supports the claim that Bush is “doing the right thing,” with respect either to foreign policy or, indeed, anything else. Though there are many additional areas of conflict, several of the most salient include the following:
The current expansion of global markets and free trade must not be allowed to serve the narrow interests of a small corporate elite in the developed world and their associates in developing countries. . . . . Global development must be pursued in a manner consistent with environmentally sustainable growth. . . .
We support radical reform of the major institutions of global economic governance (World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank) to achieve these goals, and we support fair trade, more aid, debt cancellation and the campaign to Make Poverty History. . . . .
The violation of basic human rights standards at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, and by the practice of “rendition”, must be roundly condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles.
We recognize the right of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution. There can be no reasonable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that subordinates or eliminates the legitimate rights and interests of one of the sides to the dispute.
Can you name a single policy embraced by the Bush and the Republicans that doesn’t stand in direct contradiction to these statements of principle outlines in the Manifesto? Perhaps even more incredible than the claim that Bush is “doing the right thing” is the belief that he is the architect of a foreign policy “doctrine” that reconciles the theoretical contradictions between Realism and Idealism. As you said:
From what I’ve read, George W. Bush’s adoption of neoconservative foreign policy, in particular democracy promotion, was in recognition of the failures of realism.
Do you really believe the whole “imbecile” thing is an act, an affectation intended to lull his political opponents into a state of complacency? The man is barely capable of forming a coherent sentence, and is clearly the most intellectually feeble and least curious human being ever to serve as President of the United States. Indeed, the only reason people have a certain reluctance to mention Bush’s stupidity more prominently is the implication of some kind of bigotry in that observation, based on the suggestion of some culpability in the very fact of Bush’s extremely limited intellectual capacity. But that really isn’t the case at all. When people express disgust at the fact Bush is an “idiot” or a “moron,” they’re not referring to his lack of intelligence per se, but to his mind-numbing lack of intellectual curiosity, his contempt for those who believe in the importance of intellectual accomplishment, and his resentment at the suggestion that ignorance and a limited intellect should be deemed disqualifications for service as President.
I have to admit I was truly fascinated by your citation of the Kaufman article that praised Bush’s adoption of a neoconservative foreign policy:
Like Franklin Roosevelt with respect to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, like Ronald Reagan with respect to the Soviet Union, George W. Bush has rightly identified the nature of certain regimes as the root cause of dangerous aggression against the United States in the war on terror. In a manner similar to his great predecessors, President Bush has also wisely defined democratic regime change as our ultimate war aim in the Middle East.
This would have to qualify as the single most craven and debased illustration of transparent knob-polishing I’ve ever witnessed in my life. It kind of makes you realize what it must have been like for men like Copernicus and Michelangelo to dedicate the artistic or intellectual achievement of a lifetime to the wisdom and sagacity of some congenitally defective, humping baboon elevated to the papacy by the Medicis.
J:
You responded,
If you want to worry about a major party being taken over by dogmatic loons, look at the Democrats instead.
I wonder if you could perhaps provide any example whatever is support of that proposition. What policies and institutions are taking over the Democratic Party that compare even remotely in importance to the influence wielded by the Christian Right on the Republicans?