An Odd Definition of "Partisan":
Let me get this straight: if the only prominent American politician to attend a rally against Iran is Hillary Clinton, the rally is a neutral, nonpartisan event. If Hillary Clinton AND Sarah Palin attend, then the rally becomes a partisan political event, and Clinton couldn't possibly agree to appear. Very, very strange.
UPDATE: A reader comments: What's the difference between [Malcolm] Hoenlein [who invited Palin, and then disinvited her under pressure from Democratic activists] and Ahmadinejad?
Ahmadinejad isn't intimidated by the Democrats.
There is a difference between politicians who are not running for anything attending an event and politicians who are currently in the middle of the most-watched election in decades attending an event.
There are also a number of other non-trivial differences between Hillary attending this, and Palin doing so. Can you really not identify any?
And Tatil, David wasn't talking about whether or not Hillary should have gone to the event. He was talking about ger gall in calling an event to which both Rebpublicans and Democrats are invited to "Partisan."
-Dixie Yid
So unless someone is running for office, he or she cannot be partisan? Um.... Okay.
It is always interesting to see how one's own argument looks through a very partisan lens. Thank you.
Because the media would have turned the rally into a Hillary Clinton vs. Sarah Palin moment. Which would not only detract from the event, but would detract from the Obama campaign's message.
But since I'm here, I cannot help being impressed by just much care (and time) DB has been taking to polish his topic about Tzipi Livni's victory in the primary. Unless I missed it, but I don't think so...
Yes, there is. But those differences do not magically make the event "partisan" or "political". Which was David's point.
Beg, borrow, or steal a clue, please.
Its all a BIG conspiracy..
Non-Jewish Americans are completely unconcerned about Iran.
Actually, Obama should have attended: he would have had an opportunity to speak with Ahmadinejad with no preconditions, as per his declared desire.
Agree with Sigh: this rally was supposed to represent a national concensus. It's an unfortunate reality, however, that the UN is in New York. This does not make the issue proprietary for the local politicians.
Prediction: this decision will cost the rally a significant number of attendees, and attract nobody.
What's the difference between Hoenlein and Ahmadinejad?
Ahmadinejad isn't intimidated by the Democrats.
Maybe you can finance a war with Iran.
Most of America is wondering if they will have any money in the bank next week. Maybe we should save the McPalin-style, rabid tough talk until we know whether we can finance yet another conflict.
We'll have to check the attendance list to make sure their aren't any Congressional, state assembly or senate candidates either. Or if they're all democratic will that make it non-partisan?
The first thing that went through my head when I read this -- Occam's Razor! Your statement assumes that campaign politics are involved in this event, that the Dems (or at least Clinton) decided to make a political play by excluding Palin, and the the political play was designed primarily to prevent Palin from speaking at a prominent forum on issues of importance to Jewish voters. It seems to me that the simpler and more likely explanation is that this event is designed to address important international issues, and that the concurrent presence of Clinton and Palin would transform the event into a political spectacle.
Prof Bernstein also said:
Well played! :)
Must agree. Curse those east coast billing rates!
Magically? No. But it does make the event more partisan. Or, at a minimum, it is a reasonable argument. It is not "very, very strange."
You can make all the points you like about whether Hillary had good reasons not to attend (and she may well have), but using "non-partisan" to MEAN "partisan" is still a load of crap (to put it politely), and that's what has been done here.
Hillary complained that having someone of the other party there would make the event "partisan". Maybe she meant Palin specifically (hard to know), but in any case, she could have certainly complained about many things (that it would be "polarizing", or take the focus off of the issue and back to politics, or whatever), but she didn't.
Her actual complaint, "I thought this would be nonpartisan" (in reference to Palin) is the same thing as saying that having Palin there makes it a partisan event.
Having only members of one party there makes it partisan. Having members from both parties there makes it "nonpartisan" (even if there is some ranking between them). The original post is spot on.
I mean there is every difference in the world between the crowds, attention and motivations of a former candidate and a current one.
This is the same media that's been directly attacking Palin?
I'm having a hard time keeping the direction the media is supposed to be biased in straight.
Iran apparently has shadowboxing both Democrats and critics down pat. No wonder that, among arabs, persians are considered slippery.
Having only members of one party there makes it partisan. Having members from both parties there makes it "nonpartisan" (even if there is some ranking between them). The original post is spot on."
This is too conclusory. I and others have provided reasons for why adding Palin makes it more partisan. In DB's post, and in yours, you make no argument--you provide no reasons.
That's far too dull to be Occam's razor. Of course the event was not organized to serve partisan ends, rather to address important international issues, namely Iran's threat to go nuclear. But it would not detract in the least if the event got more attention because both Hillary and Sarah were there. The story that Hillary isn't going to show up because she doesn't want to "transform the event into a political spectacle" is laughable. When, if ever, does Hillary show up someplace and it isn't political in nature? Maybe to her daughter's college graduation, at her own college reunion, or a rare few occasions like those, but otherwise it is pretty much 24/7 political. Ironically enough, if she doesn't show up this time, that will be political!
Was it a "partisan political event" when Obama and McCain appeared together on 9/11? That was candidate and candidate, whereas this would be candidate and non-candidate, a consequential difference? It somehow matters that Palin is the GOP's VP candidate and Clinton tried for, but did not get the Dem's nomination for president, making her only a sitting senator at this time?
No it wasn't however a partisan political event, it was a bipartisan presidentia lcampaign event. you are confusing two different concepts. Partisan is not about the US election but about the parties themselves. Clinton could have legitimately complained that Palin would have turned the event into a campaign event, but that's different than a partisan one. If we extend this inequality theory any action Bush either opposes or approves is a partisan action since he is president and no one else is, so if 30 democrat and 28 republican senators join in an action it is not non-partisan (bi-partisan?), but partisan in opposition to the policy held by the president. It's partisan if one party is represented, it is bi-partisan or non-partisan if both major parties are represented. And yes, bipartisan is not the same as non-partisan although in the US system many bi-partisan things are also non-partisan.
Since you don't get it, I'll explain. While "partisan" is perhaps not the most appropriate word, it's clear that Hillary was saying that she wasn't willing to participate in the event because it would be a political campaign event, not a true event.
Also, frankly, it's insulting to have Hillary put as an "equal" guest at an event with Sarah Palin. It just cheapens the whole thing.
What you seem to mean is that it would make it more of a domestic political event. But that's not at all synonymous with "partisan."
Only if everyone behaves themselves.
neurodoc, you made my point for me. Occam's Razor holds that the position with the fewest assumptions is usually the right position. My post was in response to Bernstein's suggestion that Palin's withdrawal resulted from a political ploy to block Palin from addressing issues of importance to Jewish voters. You began your attack by acknowledging the foundation of my argument -- the event is not partisan in nature. This fact is what forced Bernstein to make several assumptions in order to reach his ultimate conclusion. My theory is simpler, in part, b/c it is consistent with your concession. Thus, I have made far fewer assumptions in my theory, and thus Occam's Razor would prefer my argument.
Your critique of Clinton also misses the mark. First, you fail to grasp that, if malicious politics is at work here, the culprit it probably the Obama campaign or the Dem party in general, not Clinton. Given this fact, your suggestion that Clinton would never miss a chance to score political points is irrelevant b/c Clinton's motives are not the issue. Also, even if you are right that Clinton's motives are the issue, you have simply stated the bare, unsubstantiated suggestion that Clinton attends such events for political ambition as opposed to a concern over Iran.
Moreover, you assert that Clinton wouldn't show up somewhere unless it is "political in nature." Well, that may be, but "political in nature" isn't the issue, because no one is suggesting that Clinton initially backed out due to the politicization of the event. Instead, the issue is partisanship and the state of being a political spectacle.
No, actually it makes the event bipartisan, not nonpartisan. In fact, your whole post stems from your misunderstanding of the distinction b/t "bipartisan" and "nonpartisan." See below analysis...
Prof Bernstein said (sarcastically):
To be partisan is to adhere firmly to a party. Yes, Clinton adheres firmly to the Dem party, but her presence at the event does not make the event itself partisan. In fact, the event will be nonpartisan if she attends (& Palin does not) b/c the event itself will not adhere to any certain party. However, if Palin attends, then the event will involve two parties, which is the definition of bipartisan. Thus, Clinton's statement was accurate.
Too many meanings for partisan to parse this properly. Palin's appearance would swamp the nonpartisan nature of the rally. Hillary didn't want to appear on the same platform as Palin. Palin's running for Vice President. Palin's appearance at the rally would turn it suddenly into a campaign event. Palin would speak and work the crowd. Obama would be criticized. In contrast, Hillary is not running for anything, and could make a nonpartisan speech.
It strikes me as funny in a way that Hillary declined to show up if Palin was going to be there. Not a strong, confident move on her part. Is Hillary's afraid that Palin will undermine her as the political hope of women?
What isn't funny about it all is that the J Streeters pressured the event organizers to disinvite Palin. Are they one and the same with the National Jewish Democratic Coalition, an unabashedly partisan group in the same way that the Republican Jewish Coalition is one of opposite polarity?
Thank God I resisted the impulse long ago that I might want to be a lawyer.
I discovered this one this afternoon at work and started putting in names. I really do think that Sarah Palin might have used it to come up with Track, Trig, Willow, etc. Or maybe she watched too many Val Kilmer movies, beat too many seals to death, and drilled too much oil.
It's really simple. You enter a name, and out pops a translation . . . it's as if you were born to Sarah Palin herself.
George Bush = Open Aircraft Palin
John McCain = Steam Fangs Palin
Barack Obama = Tarp Lazer Palin
Talkingpointsmemo = Pump Bust Palin
You get the picture. http://www.politsk.com
Why doesn't she go on Meet the Press? -- that's pretty prominent and they'll probably give her the whole hour.
Get your talking points straight.
the pressMcCain begin to allow Palin to address them directly? It's getting to be ridiculous."Fixed your post.
DB,
I don't get it. I know the Commenter is being puerile, immature, and making a "point" that nobody who has a double digit IQ actually think is true, but to single the person out for ridicule in the .....wait, are you actually endorsing that comment???????????
Is it going to take them setting off a nuke in Tel Aviv before we can say they're the bad guys and not worry about TV appearances?
Earlier this year, Kevin Drum asked himself publicly--or published his thinking, more accurately--why he didn't reproach Iran for things like hanging gays. He answered himself that, although the Teheran represents all he loathes, to say so would make George Bush look good. So he will keep his mouth shut.
Drum is widely considered moderately liberal, not a nutcase.
A nuke in Tel Aviv would make Iran look bad and thus George Bush look good so a nuke in Tel Aviv cannot be allowed to be important.
And, as Rush Limbaugh said, everybody knows Palin's the hottest ticket in town. Doesn't matter who you are; if you attend the same event, you will--pun coming up--pale in comparison.
Presuming for the moment that's true, how many think it's a good way to operate?
Now, if it were Biden being disinvited by repub pressure, how many would think it a good way to operate?
Thought so.
Jack, great comment. I drop by here and the term “morbid fascination” strikes me as appropriate. Mind if I borrow it? Thanks.
When I was in High School, ages ago, the career tests I took said I should be a lawyer. Thank God I could not afford law school.
Exactly so. Democrats threaten to kneecap Jewish nonprofits
If I invite A and B and only B accepts, do I dis-invite B? If so, does not that say that A is more important to me?
Does anyone think that if Biden accepted and Palin declined, Biden would have been dis-invited?
But will Ahmadinejad endorse re-establishing a ROTC progrsm at Columbia?
(No stranger a comment than "There ain't no gays in Iran." You always have to wonder what pronoucements he'll make. It's always interesting watching a power-mad publicity hound who is close to having nukes and a missile capable of reaching orbit.)
More importantly, Sarah would have been the center of attention, which is why Hillary freaked out and suddenly refused to participate.
More interesting is the thuggish behavior of the congressional dems--and the continuing propensity of Jews to vote for them.
Don't take it as a slap in the face from the organizers. They had no choice.
http://www.jstreet.org/