David Trinh

On Tuesday, Aluf Benn, the editor of Haaretz, published a bizarre editorial in the New York Times in which he chastised Obama for failing to “speak directly to Israelis.”  Benn further argued that it is this failure by Obama to open up a dialogue with Israel that has let Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu enjoy “a virtual domestic consensus over [Netanyahu’s] rejection of the settlement freeze.”  The implicit case Benn makes is that Obama could turn Israelis against Netanyahu, and thus sway popular Israeli opinion on the settlements, if only he would bother talking to Israel.

Color me confused.  Hasn’t Obama already had a series of high-profile White House meetings with Netanyahu?  And the President sure hasn’t invited the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to share a beer at the White House.  Also, I seem to remember President Bush being fairly popular in Israel throughout his presidency which is funny because Bush never visited Israeli to “speak directly to Israelis” until January of 2008.

Benn makes a cute argument but I have a hard time taking it seriously.  I mean, I suppose it’s possible that Israelis feel so slighted by Obama that they’re embracing Netanyahu’s draconian settlement policies to spite him.  Or because of a power vacuum.  Or something.  However, I think it’s far more likely that Israelis dislike Obama because they disagree his policies.  And you know what?  This is fine!  Israelis are perfectly within their rights as a free people to disagree with Obama about the merits of their illegal settlements.   Let’s not pretend though that Obama could smooth over this situation simply by sitting down to coffee with the people of Israel writ large for a nice candid conversation.

Benn makes a few other strange arguments in his piece, one of which I’ll excerpt here:

Fourth, as far as most Israelis are concerned, Mr. Obama has made a mistake in focusing on a settlement freeze. For starters, mainstream Israelis rarely have anything to do with the settlements; many have no idea where they are, even when they’re a half-hour’s drive from Tel Aviv.

More important: in the past decade, repeated peace negotiations and diplomatic statements have indicated that larger, closer-to-home settlements (the “settlement blocs”) will remain in Israeli hands under any two-state solution. Why, then, insist on a total freeze everywhere? And why deny with such force — as the administration did — the existence of previous understandings between the United States and Israel over limited settlement construction? There is simply too much evidence proving that such an understanding existed. To Israelis, the claim undermined Mr. Obama’s credibility — and strengthened Mr. Netanyahu’s position. (Bold mine- DT)

Is it really true that Israelis have next to no knowledge about the settlements?  The same settlements that are a PR nightmare for Israel and perhaps the biggest reason why Israel is losing popular support in the West?  Even Americans eventually figured out that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay weren’t too popular with friends of the United States.  Is the Israeli street really so insulated from the pulse of world opinion that it doesn’t realize these settlements have become a big deal?    Honestly, if ‘mainstream Israelis’ know so little about these land grabs that they “have no idea where they are,” Obama is doing Israel a huge favor by warning the country that continued settlement expansion is akin to political suicide.

Finally, Benn’s contention that the United States should continue to allow settlement expansion because it may have previously had a clandestine agreement over illegally expanding settlements is crazy.  The settlements are illegal!  While we may have indulged in a supporting a dangerous policy in the past, that’s no reason why we should continue to embrace it today.  I almost understand Benn’s argument that the United States should fess up to any secret agreement it may have previously abided by, but, at least from a pragmatic standpoint, it doesn’t make much sense to admit this at the risk of incurring the ire of the Arab street.  It’s also totally possible that Netanyahu is making this entire secret agreement up!  I certainly haven’t seen the mountain of evidence Benn claims proves such an understanding once existed.

All in all, this is a pretty concerning article.  Haaretz is widely described as a left of center publication that, at least according to Jonah Goldberg is “Israel’s most vehemently anti-settlement daily paper.”  The fact that a senior editor from Haaretz would hold opinions this out-of-sync with, errr, reality does not bode well for the peace process.

There’s an article in the Post today that carries some rather bleak news for the U.S. Postal Service:

Lawmakers on Thursday will consider various proposals to restructure the U.S. Postal Service, just days after government auditors warned that it must quickly address its financial viability.

Confronting a sharp decline in mail volume tied to the recession and the continuing migration to e-mail and online payment options, the Postal Service projects a net loss of $7 billion this fiscal year and debt exceeding $10 billion, leading to a cash shortfall of about $1 billion. Losses are expected next year as well.

…”Any business confronting a situation like this would have to downsize or go out of business,” said Arthur B. Sackler, executive director of the National Postal Policy Council, which represents some of the largest mail customers. (Bold mine- DT)

Too true!  Those who know me well are aware that privatizing the U.S. Postal Service (as well as Amtrak) is one of my pet causes.  I have never been able to figure out why the United States needs to have a publicly subsidized postal system.  Sure, sure, if the year was 1909 instead of 2009, I would understand the importance of having some entity that could ensure the delivery of crucial messages to the most far-flung corners of the country; however, in the internet era, where the cost of communication has plummeted to a very low level, I don’t understand the rationale for a costly public postage option. 

Certainly some argue for the U.S. Post Office by claiming that the costs of any privatization effort would largely be borne by those who live in rural locales.  This is true; after all, you pay the same amount for a stamp that delivers a letter to Kotzebue, Alaska as you pay for a stamp that sends a letter to your next-door neighbor.  I fail to see though, why this matters.  Just as I don’t believe that the government should provide subsidized flood insurance to those who live in areas that are likely to flood, I don’t understand the rationale for subsidizing people who decide to live in extremely remote locations.   If some want to live in relative isolation, that’s fine; however, I don’t think these people should have their choices supported by the government.   

The U.S. Postal Service should be privatized (Japan did it, we can too!), or, at the very least, we ought to allow private carriers to deliver letters—something carriers like UPS and FedEx are currently barred from doing by federal law.  I understand that a privatization plan would inevitably cause some logistical hiccups—figuring out how to coordinate mail collection between several private companies would pose some problems for instance—but in the long run a privatization plan would allow competition to bring down postal costs and would save the U.S. government from having to shoulder the losses of a very failed business venture. 

Addendum:  The other Postal Service is awesome and I would totally support the creation of a public subsidy to encourage Ben Gibbard and Jimmy Tamborello to record another album.  Hell, I might be willing to waterboard the two of them if it would yield a nationwide tour.

I think TwoPuttTommy over at MN Progressive Report is a little too quick to dismiss the threat of a real challenge against Collin Peterson in MN-07.  I say this not only as one of Peterson’s constituents but also as a strong Democrat who isn’t inclined towards the wishful thinking that might sway the opinions of a GOP hack like Michael Brodkorb.

To begin, Peterson is not likely to enjoy strong support from his base in 2010.  Not only did Peterson lead the charge in sabotaging the cap and trade bill in the House but he’s also been less than willing to follow the progressive line on issues like health care reform.  Democrats like myself vote for Democratic politicians in the hope that they will vote for progressive legislation once in office.  If the only vote that Peterson casts in the House is a vote for Pelosi, why should I continue to support him?

Second, this little brouhaha underscores one of Peterson’s real weaknesses: he is down-right terrible when it comes to being accessible to his constituents.  Not only does Peterson refuse to hold town hall meetings, but like I said earlier this week, he refuses to meet with DFLers who are trying to give him money.  During my six years that I lived in Alexandria, I am aware of Peterson coming in and speaking to voters precisely one time in 2002.  Keep in mind that Alexandria is one of the largest cities in the seventh congressional district—I shudder to think how many times Peterson makes it out to the multitude of small hamlets which dot rural western Minnesota.

Finally, 2010 is shaping up to be a pretty rough cycle for Democrats.  While I doubt we’re going to see another purge à la 1994, I would not be surprised if some complacent Democrats in conservative leaning districts were unexpectedly toppled as Republicans begin to regain their footing on conservative leaning turf.  Peterson will probably not be one of those Democrats who actually loses; however, I would not at all be surprised if his share of the vote tumbled into the low 60s or high 50s.   Remember, swings of twenty points, while uncommon, are not together unheard of.  Doesn’t anyone remember what happened to Rep. Kelly, Walsh and Hart in 2006?

At the end of the day, we can only speculate at how the people of the seventh writ large will respond to being slighted and ignored by their Congressman; however, I can attest that at least I will be switching my vote from Peterson to his Republican challenger.

Over at MN Publius, Jeff Rosenberg argues for an earlier primary here in Minnesota:

Both the DFL and GOP will have hard-fought, bruising conventions, that will eventually end up with a single candidate endorsed. After that, though, the two parties will diverge. Several well-funded DFLers will commit to an even-more-bruising primary fight, while Republican kingmakers will step in to threaten all non-endorsed Republicans that they’ll never work again if they contest the election.

From the convention until the September primary, the DFL candidates will spend millions of dollars attacking each other. Finally, one candidate will emerge victorious. Cash depleted and exhausted from the primary battle, he or she will then have about 7 weeks to raise a new war chest, introduce himself to the voters, and draw distinctions with his opponent, who will have been steadily building support and raising money for about 3 months already.

In theory, I think the idea of a contested primary is a good thing. It gets more people involved in the political process and allows a party to pick stronger candidates. I say “in theory” because when your state holds its primaries in early September, there’s never enough time to actually run a general election campaign. A party that can avoid a primary fight is instantly favored to win in the general election, because 7 weeks just isn’t enough time to catch up. Republicans, having a more top-down organizational structure than Democrats, are more likely to accept the decisions of party kingmakers and avoid a primary. (Bold mine-DT)

Rosenberg is absolutely right.  The stereotype about the Republican Party of Minnesota being more “top-down” than the DFL is one of the few simplifications in politics that actually rings true.  Time and again, Democrats have fought bruising primary battles, only to find themselves too battered after winning the nomination to mount a spirited campaign in the fall.

This isn’t to say that Republicans don’t have contested inter-party conflicts, as anyone who watched the Republican contest for the GOP nomination in MN-06 during 2006 can attest.  However, Republicans allow themselves ample time to unify the party following these divisions while Democrats don’t get started patching up these splits until less than two months before Election Day.

Moving the state primary up would obviously raise some problems; specifically, when it comes to voter participation, as Minnesotans prefer to spend time on the lake instead of in the voting booth during the summer.  That said, Democrats have much more to gain than they do to lose from primary reform and if DFLers do manage to take the statehouse in 2010 this should be one of the first changes (in addition to reforming the absentee balloting process) to election law that they make.

Additionally, I might add that one could object to moving up the primary by claiming that this would increase the potency of the DFL party endorsement.  After all, an early primary would mean that a losing candidate at the convention would have little time to recover before they go on to a battle for the nomination at the ballot box.  This criticism is valid; however, I would argue that this is a feature of an early primary, rather than a bug.

We have conventions for a reason.  Delegates are party stalwarts who are given a unique opportunity to vet potential gubernatorial candidates up close.  This is not an experience that can be replicated at the level of a statewide primary.  Further, delegates are generally better informed than the wider electorate and pay much more attention to the political process.   The opinions of the delegates (who, let’s remember, are still elected at the local level) should matter.  If we shorten the time between the endorsement and the primary, the judgment of the delegates will (rightly) carry more clout.

Senator George Voinovich (OH-R):

Voinovich, a native Clevelander who retires after the 2010 election, continued after the southern elements of the GOP.

“They get on TV and go ‘errrr, errrrr,’” he said. “People hear them and say, ‘These people, they’re southerners. The party’s being taken over by southerners. What they hell they got to do with Ohio?’”

Coincidentally, “errr, errrrr” is the sound I make when I pretend to be a parakeet.

What Atrios said:

[I]t’s weird that mostly responsible drinking behavior by British teens is more disturbing to some than the blowout party binge drinking scenes one generally sees in US teen comedies. Even though the binge parties are portrayed as “fun” in some sense, there’s also the underlying message that somehow drinking is irresponsible behavior. When the adults show up the party’s over! Portray 16-18 year olds drinking without adults freaking out and suddenly it’s an issue.

I think things would be a lot better if we acknowledged that whatever valid risks and concerns exist, people drink and party and kiss and have sex because they want to and because it’s fun. People generally start doing these things long before society officially approves (sex) and before it’s legal (drinking), and only portraying these behaviors as irresponsible might make the official tut-tutters feel better about themselves, but it doesn’t actually encourage healthy behavior in these areas.

I too am a little confused by the extremely conservative voting record that freshmen-Rep. Erik Paulsen has amassed in the 111th Congress—he has voted with the Republic Party 91% of the time—especially considering the very marginal district that he’s currently representing.  Obama won the 3^rd Congressional District by six points last November and the district has been trending Democratic for the past eight years as the inner-ring suburbs of Minneapolis continue to vote more and more like Minneapolis-proper.

Paulsen would really do well to exercise a little more caution.  While he won by a convincing margin of 7.5%, I think Paulsen’s victory was something of a fluke.  Ashwin Madia certainly ran a much less competitive race than many were expecting.  Considering that DFLers will likely control the contours of the newly redistricted congressional map in 2012, Paulsen should be wary about staking out a voting record too far to the right, as I’m sure Democrats would like nothing more than to draw him into a district (perhaps one that includes a large portion of Minneapolis) that an extremely partisan Republican would be almost certain to lose.

At the end of an interesting article about Iceland’s new relationship with the IMF, there are a few cute sentences about an enterprising Icelander who is planning on making a “Roger and Me” style documentary:

Gunnar Sigurdsson, a theater director, says his car loan — which was tied to a basket of Swiss francs and Japanese yen — has doubled since the crisis began; his mortgage payments have jumped over 35 percent.

Personal bankruptcy is inevitable, he says, and he is now trying to make a “Roger and Me”-type documentary — training his camera on Iceland’s top politicians, bankers and, if he is lucky, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the I.M.F. “I have had enough of this stupidity,” he said. “I just want answers.”

Mr. Sigurdsson probably won’t have too hard of a time making this film.  After all, from what I remember about Iceland, the nation is so small that any citizen can walk into the Prime Minister’s office and request a personal meeting with the head of state—so long as they’re willing to be a bit flexible with the scheduling.  I imagine this policy may have changed a bit in recent months, but honestly considering that Iceland’s population is just north of 300,000, it’s probably easier to meet with Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir than RT Rybak.

I think this sums up how I feel about most proponents of local food*.

Recently, Rep. Collin Peterson was given an opportunity by Politico to comment on the fringe right-wing “birther” movement.  Peterson took the opening… and used it to pivot to a slur against liberal voters in his own district:

“Twenty-five percent of my people believe the Pentagon and Rumsfeld were responsible for taking the twin towers down,” said Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat who represents a conservative Republican district in Minnesota. “That’s why I don’t do town meetings.”

You stay classy Collin.  But hey, thanks for reinforcing the narrative that you’re a Washington insider who thinks that it is beneath him to discuss issues with his own constituents.  Of course, those of us who live in MN-07 are already well aware of Collin’s aloofness.  For instance, I remember a few years ago the Douglas County DFL tried to write Collin Peterson a $2000 check for his reelection bid.  The only caveat that we attached to the check was that we wanted Rep. Peterson to attend one of our county DFL meetings—not so we could criticize him but simply so we could have a chance to meet the man who represented us in Congress.  Apparently talking with constituents was too much for poor ol’ Peterson to stomach though, as he never bothered to come and collect our contribution.

P.S. I just want to add that Peterson’s is dead wrong to charge those on the left with the 9/11 conspiracy talk.  At least according to my understanding, those rumors are most common in the Ron Paul crowd; admittedly the Paul zealots do have a few extreme leftists in their ranks, but that crowd really does have a much larger contingent of extreme right-wingers.