Can a Jew Be a Conservative? Israel. Matzav Asks

Somebody could explain to me why being Jewish precludes a belief in limited government, individual rights, free enterprise, traditional morals and manners, etc.
The real question is do conservatives behave according to the ideology they claim to follow.
In the main, they act for big government and unlimited military spending crushing human rights worldwide. There is no competition in their plutocratic state.
The behaviors described do not conform to any religious teachings anywhere.

Have Conservatives Gone Mad?

Serious thinkers on the right have finally gotten around to a full and open debate on the epistemic closure problem that's plaguing the conservative movement. The issue, to put it in terms that even I can understand, because I didn't study philosophy much in college: has the conservative base gone mad?

This matters to journalists, because I really do want to take Republicans seriously. Mainstream conservative voices are embracing theories that are, to use Julian Sanchez's phrase, "untethered" to the real world.

Can anyone deny that the most trenchant and effective criticism of President Obama today comes not from the right but from the left? Rachel Maddow's grilling of administration economic officials. Keith Olbermann's hectoring of Democratic leaders on the public option. Glenn Greenwald's criticisms of Elena Kagan. Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn's keepin'-them-honest perspectives on health care. The civil libertarian left on detainees and Gitmo. The Huffington Post on derivatives.

I want to find Republicans to take seriously, but it is hard. Not because they don't exist -- serious Republicans -- but because, as Sanchez and others seem to recognize, they are marginalized, even self-marginalizing, and the base itself seems to have developed a notion that bromides are equivalent to policy-thinking, and that therapy is a substitute for thinking.

It is absolutely a condition of the age of the triumph of conservative personality politics, where entertainers shouting slogans are taken seriously as political actors, and where the incentive structures exist to stomp on dissent and nuance, causing experimental voices to retrench and allowing a lot of people to pretend that the world around them is not changing. The obsession with ACORN, Climategate, death panels, the militarization of rhetoric, Saul Alinsky, Chicago-style politics, that TAXPAYERS will fund the bailout of banks -- these aren't meaningful or interesting or even relevant things to focus on. (The banks will fund their own bailouts.)

Conor Friedersdorf thinks the problem lies with the conservative movement's major spokespeople -- its radio/net news nexus -- and the "overwhelming evidence that their very existence as popular entertainers hinges on an ability to persuade listeners that they are "'worth taking seriously as political and intellectual actors.'" That is why the constant failures of these men to live up to their billing is so offensive, destructive, and ruinous to conservatives. There are plenty of women, too, is all I'll say.

I think this sensibility is pervasive throughout the smart media -- old and new. I think it's one reason why, say, Jake Tapper and other good reporters are very keen about direct fact-challenging -- why the media is reasserting itself as gatekeepers. (CNN might want to think about branding themselves here, even at the risk -- well, the reality -- of calling out Republicans more.) I think it's because there's so much misinformation out there -- most of it spread by the conservative echo-chamber. With the advent of Fox News and the power of that echo-chamber, complaints about liberal media bias are quite irrelevant -- the reaction to it being like lupus's reaction to the body, as Jon Stewart correctly noted.
Marfk Ambinder, Atlantic

The Difference between Politics and Sedition

The administration may see a connection. But it’s a big leap from that to the president saying, “Let the Iranians have the bomb, because I don’t like what the Israeli government is doing about the Palestinian conflict.” It’s inconceivable.
Relationship with US
It’s very important; there’s no question about it. But the independence of the state of Israel is more important. To Israelis, anyway.
Now, the issues of settlements in Judea and Samaria, of Israel’s ability to defend itself, and of the conditions under which it can reach an accommodation with the Palestinians are of vital importance to the state of Israel. So I would expect that, if Israel and the U.S. are unable to resolve the disagreement on these issues, the US would defer to the Israeli point of view. But clearly that is not the position of this administration.
Moishe Ahrens
Hossein Askari believes that the Obama administration could impose sanctions on Iran that would bring the regime down within a year if it wanted to. The problem is that Obama doesn't want to bring down Iran's clerical regime.
Few banks would choose Iran over the US and any that did would charge so much to do business with Iranians that regime insiders would have a heart attack!
Cutting off the central bank and all Iranian financial institutions would basically increase the cost of Iranian imports because Tehran could not use letters of credit—instead, it would either have to resort to cash, literally in suitcases, to buy what it needs or rely on barter. The cost of trade would soar in time, crippling the Iranian economy and demonizing the regime.
The Obama administration could spark a panic by motivating Iranians, as well as expatriates residing in the United States and overseas, to liquidate their assets in Iran and to withdraw their money from the country.
Israel Matzav
Sedition: Crime of creating a revolt, disturbance, or violence against lawful civil authority with the intent to cause its overthrow or destruction -- Brittanica Concise Dictionary
When the indictments against the Hutaree were unsealed last week, the S-word was right there, front and center, in Count One. The Justice Department accused them of "seditious conspiracy," charging that the defendants "did knowingly conspire, confederate, and agree with each other and other persons known and unknown...to levy war against the United States, and to prevent, hinder, and delay by force the execution of any United States law."
This is very serious stuff. But the Hutaree are getting nailed for sedition only because they crossed the line with inches to spare. They're by no means the only ones. Advocating, encouraging, and sanctioning sedition is the new norm on the conservative side.
We saw it again last Thursday, when the Guardians of the Free Republics -- a Sovereign Citizen group that believes that the oath of office taken by state governors is invalid under their twisted Bizarroland interpretation of the Constitution -- sent letters to most or all sitting state governors telling them to either a) take what they consider to be a legitimate oath of office; b) stand down; or c) or be removed "non-violently" within three days. The FBI, rightly, regards this as a potentially seditious threat against the governors.
These two events are a wake-up call for progressives. They're telling us that it's time to openly confront the fact that conservatives have spent the past 40 years systematically delegitimizing the very idea of US government.
AlterNet

Counter - attacking Conservative Propaganda

It doesn't take much time to publicize every good progressive piece every day. A Roger Ebert can expand the readership by 125,000 souls. Even I can generate 200 hits on Twitter. My warning is not to reproduce enemy propaganda and to assume your readers are savvy enough to detect the lies.
They aren't. They are consumers as you are. Madison Avenue eats us for breakfast. Any candidate is simply another media buy.
Our mission should be to scratch every conservative until we uncover the influence peddler, the bribes collector or the child molester just below the surface. Every talking point they have involves the theft of our human rights.
I won't argue with a Republican without evidence that should put him into prison.

Handcuffed to a Corpse

Many Conservatives Revile Bush
Arianna Huffington, HuffPost

Writing about conservatives backing Barack Obama (dubbed "Obamacons"), Bob Novak reported this week that Colin Powell will likely endorse Obama. Given Powell's popularity and national security cred (tarnished though they may be by his loathsome pre-war presentation at the UN), this would be a coup for Obama. But Novak documents something even more significant: the overpowering sense of revulsion with Bush and today's Republican Party felt by many conservatives. The money quote is delivered by a long-time GOP loyalist: "The Republican Party is a dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of Weekend With Bernie [sic], handcuffed to a corpse." I didn't think it could be done, but that tops Republican Rep. Tom Davis' classic "If we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf."