Netanyahu Trailing In New Polls, But He Could Remain In Power

Benjamin Netanyahu is trailing in the final polls leading to Tuesday's election, but he still may be able to form the coalition needed to stay in power.

 

Benjamin Netanyahu

With less than a week to go, the outcome of the Israeli elections remains up in the air, but even with recent polling showing his main opponent with a slight lead, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu still seems likely to keep his job after the dust has settled:

Jerusalem (AFP) – Less than a week before Israel‘s second general election in two years,Isaac Herzog‘s centre-left Zionist Union opened up a lead on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s right wing Likud, polls showed Wednesday.

The March 17 vote comes as Israel faces major domestic and international challenges, all of which will have to be addressed by the next government – among them the Iranian nuclear threat, the deadlock in peace efforts and a looming Palestinian legal move at the International Criminal Court.

Experts say the vote will largely be a referendum on the six-year tenure of Netanyahu, who has made security the centrepiece of his campaign.

The Israeli leader last week gave a controversial address to the US Congress on the threat that would be posed by a nuclear Iran, in a move he hoped would boost his support ahead of the vote.

But a series of polls published this week show an erosion in support for Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party, which for weeks had been neck-and-neck with its centre-left rival, with both hovering at around 23 or 24 seats.

According to a survey by Israel’s army radio, Herzog’s list was seen taking 24 seats to Likud’s 21, indicating an erosion in support for Netanyahu’s faction.

The poll found that the centre-left and potential allies would take 54 mandates compared with 58 for the rightwing and religious parties within the 120-seat Knesset, or parliament.

The centre-right Kulanu faction, which has not said whether it would back Netanyahu or Herzog and could play the role of kingmaker, is seen taking eight seats.

A similar poll by Channel 2 television released late on Tuesday gave the Zionist Union 25 seats to 21 for Likud, with the centre-left and allies taking 55 seats to 57 for the right. It too forecast eight seats for Kulanu.

These new polls are consistent with other polling over the past several weeks that has shown Herzog’s party gaining on, and eventually taking a slight lead over, Netanyahu’s faction, and The Guardian describes some Likud activists as being in a panic mode as Election Day approaches next Tuesday. while Herzog’s supporters have become more optimistic:

Israel’s opposition leader, Yitzhak Herzog, appears to be gaining momentum in the runup to next week’s general election, triggering a rising sense of panic in Likud, the party of the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu.

Two new polls suggest a lead of three to four parliamentary seats for the Zionist Union, with internal polling from both parties indicating a wider gap.

A text message sent to Likud activists, imploring them to get friends and relatives to vote on Tuesday, reads: “We are in danger of really losing!”

It goes on: “We must save the day and make sure that every single one of our friends/acquaintances/family makes it to the polls on election day and votes for the Likud. Wake up!”

Herzog, the Labour leader who has formed an electoral alliance with former justice minister Tzipi Livni under the Zionist Union banner, has been running neck and neck with Netanyahu, who is campaigning to serve a fourth term as prime minister.

Under Israel’s system of proportional representation which invariably produces coalition governments, Netanyahu still has an advantage. But in the last days of the campaign, there is a new sense of optimism among Zionist Union’s supporters and MPs.

At a campaign meeting on Tuesday in Be’er Sheva, in the Negev desert, Herzog told a gathering of the faithful, the curious and a handful of supporters of other parties that he represented hope for those who felt excluded within Israel’s dysfunctional economy and for those who sought the possibility of peace. He and Livni promised to end Israel’s increasing isolation in the international community.

According to MP Erel Margalit, Zionist Union supporters were buoyed by the large turnout at an anti-Netanyahu rally in Tel Aviv at the weekend and by leaks of internal surveys that suggest Netayanhu’s position is worse than published polls suggest.

“I’ve become optimistic in the last few days,” Margalit said. “I wasn’t so optimistic before. In the last few days I have felt a sense of building momentum. I feel a change is coming. People want a leadership based on something else than fear.

“The sense of fatalism that has been around in a large part of the campaign – people thinking that whatever happens they will get Netanyahu as prime minister again – I think that is what has changed.”

There’s been some contention that the decline inNeyanyahu’s poll numbers, and the contemporaneous rise in Herzog’s standing in the polls, has been due in some part to domestic Israeli reaction to Netanyahu’s speech to Congress last week, which seems to have become a campaign issue to the extent that it played into the opposition argument that Netanyahu had succeeded in ruining Israel’s relationship with its most important ally. The fact that there’s a correlation between the two events, though, doesn’t necessarily equal causation and none of the polling data that I’ve been able to see appears to have asked respondents detailed questions regarding their opinions about the Netanyahu’s impact on U.S.-Israeli relations in general or the speech specifically. We may just be looking at the impact of the campaign overall rather than a specific reaction to the speech.

Whatever the cause, though, it seems pretty clear that there’s been something of a public souring toward Netanyahu and Likud, although it’s unclear whether that will actually lead to a change in who heads Israels government after the dust settles. As noted above, neither Likud nor the Zionist Union will end up with sufficient seats in the Knesset on their own to form a majority. Instead, the question in the days and, possibly, weeks following the March 17th election will be which party is able to reach agreements with enough parties to form the 61 seat majority needed to control the Senate. On the surface, it still appears as if Netanyahu has the built in advantage here given the fact that he can count on the support of a number of right wing and religious parties that are likely to add 30 or more seats to whatever total Likud ends up with after Election Day. Much like he as able to do in 2011, Netanyahu may be able to use this built-in advantage to negotiate with other parties more in the middle of the political spectrum to give him the handful of seats he’d then need to get to a majority. In any case, it could be seem weeks before we know for sure who the new Prime Minister of Israel will be. In 2009, for example, the election was held on February 10th, but the final vote of confidence in Knesset confirming Netanyahu’s majority didn’t occur until March 30th. In 2013, the elections were held on January 22nd, but it wasn’t until March 18th that a final government was officially in place. Given that, it would be best to take any assessments about who “won” or “lost” the election on Tuesday with a grain of salt since it will likely be some time before we know for sure who actually walks away with a majority.

 

FILED UNDER: General, , , ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. stonetools says:

    Gonna need a Steven Taylor primer on how Israeli elections work.

  2. Moosebreath says:

    The calculations in the article assume that the Arab parties would support Zionist Union. However, if they are brought into the government, that could easily cause other parties to leave the Zionist Union coalition.

  3. humanoid.panda says:

    @stonetools: I can provide one! Basically, Israeli elections are a rare example of purely proportional, parliamentary system. What this means is that all parties (right now, there are 22 in the running), form candidate lists. Voters vote for the party lists, not candidates, in a national pool (i.e no local element in the elections.). Parties that receive over 3.5% of the vote get seats according to the proportion of the vote they got from all votes cast for parties that pass the electoral barrier. (so, if there are million voters, and 100,000 votes cast for parties that don’t pass the barrier, a party with 90,000 votes will get 10% of Knesset seats.). Then, all parties recommend whom they want to try and forge a coalition government (no party ever got more than 55 knesset seats, of a total of 120). If that person fails to get 61 members, the president assigns the task to someone else, and so on and on.

  4. humanoid.panda says:

    This is the technical side of things. As for the substantial struture of politics, the Israeli system is made of blocks

    From left to right:

    Arab parties (runnig in a join list this time) control about 12-15 seats, and never join or invited to join colaitions, but my provide outside support to a center left government on very rare occasions.

    Zionist left: made of meretz, the liberal, secularist, party, and Labor,the center-left party. According to opinion polls, meretz has 4-6 mandate and labor 22-25. Labor can and did work with nearly all parties, but meretz will not join a coalition with right wing or ultra-orthodox parties.

    Pure left: this time around, represented by 2 parties. Yesh atid, is the party of younger, secular, and affluent voters who don’t care so much about Palestinian issue, and Kulanu, a party of lower middle class people who usually vote likud, but pissed at it Bibi’s economic policy. Kulanu will join any coalition, but Yesh atid will not join a coalition in which the ultra-orthodox are represented. Both coudl join a center-left coalition led by Labor, but won’t join a coalition which needs Arab votes to survive. Both parties will control about 20 seats between them.

    Secular Right: Likud, and Yisrael Beytenu. The Likud needs no introduction, and Yisrael Beyteynu is the Russian party, led by Lieberman. Lieberman is a natural likud ally, but is also somewhat of a wild card, both because he has all sorts of personal vendettas against Bibi, and both because his voters HATE the ultra-orthodox, Likud’s other natural partner. The likud will have 20-23 seats, and Lieberman about 5.

    Ultra-Orthodox: Shas, the sephardic party, and Yahadut ha-torah the ashkenazi (hassid) party. Both parties are controlled by rabbies who care only about funding for religious schools, but are constrained by the fact their voters tend to be very right wing. They are also natural likud allies, but are pissed at bibi because last time around, he formed a center right coalition without them. They will not join a colaition with secularists.

    ReligiousRight: Ha Bayit ha-yehudi, the religious Zionist party, will have about 12 seats, and is Bibi’s first partner. Can join any coalition which Bibi controls.

    Far-far-right: Yachad, a new party formed by right wing splinters from Shas, combined with followers of Kahane. Absolute lunatics, to the extent Bibi will probably will seek to exclude them from any coalition. Will have either 4 or 0 seats. (if they fall just below the barrier, the whole math I laid out changes, to the great benefit of the left, but they will almost certainly pass it).

    So, as you can see, making a coalition is like playing a puzzle in which lots of pieces hate each other, but some things can be said

    * It’s much easier for Bibi to form a coalition government than for Hertzog.
    * But, the path of least resistance for Bibi: seculat right, far-right and ultra orthodox coalition is feasible, but is unstable, and would be anchored by zealots who view Bibi as traitor, is very unfeasible
    * The easiest coalition to build on paper: Likud-centrists-Religious Right, just fell apart with great recrimination, and seems that the centrists don’t want a repeat.
    * A narrow center-left coalition anchored by Arabs won’t happen.
    * To rule, labor could try to cobble a center-left-ultra-orthodox-center coalition, but that’s like herding cats. Another option is try to get Lieberman, but he is an open racist, and elements of the left will refuse to join him.
    * That leaves the default option in ISraeli politics: a coalition government that includes both labor and likud. The problem with that is that Bibi will never ever agree to be a no.2, and if labor does indeeed becomes the largest party, as seems likely, than he might have to. Maybe, the two will form a rotation government: likud and labor did it in the 1980s (prime iminister serves for 2 years, then resigns and is replaced by prime minster from another party.

    If I had to rate plausible outcomes, I’d put a right wing coalition with some left wing fig leaf first, and a union government second..

  5. Electroman says:

    @humanoid.panda: I was aware of much of the Israeli political situation, but had missed that Ashkenzaim and Sephardim each had their own ultra-orthodox party. Thanks for the summary!

  6. Jim R says:

    If that Israeli PM thing doesn’t work out for him, he can always run for the Republican nomination.

  7. michael reynolds says:

    @humanoid.panda:
    Thanks for that.

  8. @humanoid.panda:

    Can Israel have a situation similar to Belgium in 2010-2011 where no one could form a coalition so they technically had no government for 20 months?

  9. humanoid.panda says:

    @Stormy Dragon: Not 100% certian, but i think if two people tried and failed to form a government, new elections are called.

  10. humanoid.panda says:

    @Jim R: It was always my belief that Bibi deeply regrets not being born a US citizen, and thus being unable to run for US president.

  11. Paul Hooson says:

    I’m a Jew, but if I lived in Israel I would be a solid Labor Party supporter.

  12. Moosebreath says:

    @Paul Hooson:

    I’d be further to the left, likely Meretz.

  13. michael reynolds says:

    Well, one thing is certain: Bibi’s little stunt in Congress did not improve his poll numbers. So he and Boehner together managed to hurt both the GOP and Likud. And they hurt Israel’s standing with its only ally.

    Not to mention the fact that Bibi’s stunt combined with the #47Traitors made it clear that if negotiations with Iran collapse it will be the fault of the GOP working hand-in-glove with Israel to push the US into war with Iran.

    A war that will have Israeli and Republican fingerprints all over it. So when it goes wrong – as all our middle east wars seem to – average Americans and people who are citizens of our European negotiating partners, will cast a jaundiced eye on Israel. Anti-semitism will rise in the US and Europe, support for Israel will drop.

    Every single step of this is of course utterly predictable to anyone with any sense. Which obviously leaves out Bibi and Boehner and that astounding moron Tom Cotton and the backstabbing, war-mongering 47.

    Brilliant.

    Israel’s future security and ours now rests on Barack Obama’s ability to compensate for Republican treachery and incompetence.

  14. James P says:

    What I find most telling about this article is that it fails to mention Yisrael Beiteinu.

    To the extent Bibi is losing popularity (and I concede that he is to a limited extent – although this article overstates that) it is because he is losing support on his right flank to Yisrael Beiteinu and Avigdor Lieberman because many in Israeli believe he is not being tough enough on the Palestinians.

    It is my speculation that this was the motivation behind his trip to Washington. He wanted to publicly give Obama the finger (which was what his trip was) in order to ingratiate himself with Yisrael Beiteinu supporters. Bibi’s loss of support is coming at the expense of his right flank.

    Israel has a Parliamentary system. It is very unlikely that Likud will win a majority. This will force him into a coalition with Yisrael Beiteinu which will only strengthen the hands of the right wing hard liners (a good thing as far as I’m concerned). This will cause him to take an ever harder line with the Palestinians and assume an even more confrontational posture with the Obama regime (again a good thing).

    I don’t dispute any of the factual analysis of this article, but it omits a good deal of detail.

    A good analogy would be if the Tea Party broke off from the GOP. The GOP would lose support but it would come from their conservative right flank. If we had a Parliamentary system and the GOP had to form a coalition with a Tea Party (which was an actual political party) most conservatives would think that is a good thing. This is essentially what is happening with Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu.

  15. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:

    What I find most interesting is that you are a blatant and unapologetic liar. You lied your way through a whole long thread on unemployment. And when caught you fudged and bullshitted.

    You are a fraud, sir, and should be ignored until you go away.

  16. Tillman says:

    ^ Let’s just everyone upvote this post (though I would have preferred a link if I was a critic) and not discuss anything further. Such will be for the best. It would also be the best to avoid more one-party state talk, but that was a funny regional colloquialism compared to what’s going on now.

    A strange moment is when you realize what Obama’s impetus for not prosecuting known war criminals was.

  17. James P says:

    @michael reynolds: If I am “lying” than you are facilitating that “lie” by agreeing with me.

    You agreed that my unemployment number is closer to reality than Barack Hussein Obama’s.

    I checkmated you. You are basically acting like a five year old throwing his toys out the pram because it galls you that you unintentionally admitted I was right! 🙂

    I suckered you into agreeing with me – just admit it.

  18. michael reynolds says:

    @Tillman:

    https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/164647//#comments Run down the comments in which this guy continuously claims U6 is 14.6% and accuses what he refers to as “the regime” of lying by saying that U3 (the default unemployment rate) is 5.3%

    In point of fact, U6 is 11%. U3 is just what the gubmint says it was.

    If that were just a mistake, OK. You say “Oops” and apologize. This guy refuses.

    Big deal? Well, not if he was just some average Tea Party numbskull, but he presents himself as an economic expert able (in his own words) to dispute Paul Krugman from a position of deep economic knowledge. So that, too, was obviously a lie since a high school drop-out kid book author was able to discover the correct U6 number (I used this thing called the Google) and Mr. Expert was not.

    You cannot be an expert in economics and misstate U6 repeatedly. He’s a fraud, and an unapologetic liar who, when confronted, doubled down on his lies.

    I never down-vote people for disagreeing with me. I don’t even down-vote them for being morons. But a deliberate, calculating liar is death to any discussion. Amazingly enough, superdestroyer is a paragon of honesty (crazy but honest) by contrast.

  19. humanoid.panda says:

    To the extent Bibi is losing popularity (and I concede that he is to a limited extent – although this article overstates that) it is because he is losing support on his right flank to Yisrael Beiteinu and Avigdor Lieberman because many in Israeli believe he is not being tough enough on the Palestinians.

    God dammit, is there anything at all you are not wrong about? Yisrael Beiteinu is tottering on the edge of the electorall barrier, due to a major corruption scandal, and will have at best 5 seats in the next Knesset.

  20. humanoid.panda says:

    @michael reynolds: You are absolutely right. This guy is not a moron, but a compulsive liar. For someone to make the Lieberman argument he just made, one needs to know Israeli politics quite well, and to know Israeli politics and not to know that Lieberman’s party is dying, and that there are other far right parties supplanting it, is impossible.

  21. MarkedMan says:

    Absent from this discussion, and from virtually any US discussion about Israel’s ‘democracy’, is this very important fact: a government cannot be formed with Arabs. Despite constituting 20% of the eligible voters in Israel and, if I remember correctly, just shy of 15% of the voters. So, when someone is looking for those last few seats to form a government, you would think that adding an Arab party would be a no-brainer. Why hasn’t it happened? From what I understand, there is an unwritten rule that no party will form a government in Israel if they need Arabs to reach the minimum number. I believe that rule actually has a name but couldn’t figure out how to google it (can anyone help?). So in the supposed democratic state of Israel, governments are formed by bringing in the craziest religions fanatics, or the most depraved racists imaginable, but 20% of the population is cut off from any real representation.

  22. MarkedMan says:

    @humanoid.panda:

    This guy is not a moron, but a compulsive liar.

    This may be pedantic but I think you and Michael are misusing the word “liar” and is so doing crediting Mr. P with too much agency. His writing has the hallmarks of a Bullsh*tter, not a Liar. Here is a quote from a reviewer of the seminal work on this, “On Bullshit” by Harry Frankfurt:

    Frankfurt makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting. Both the liar and the bullshitter try to get away with something. But ‘lying’ is perceived to be a conscious act of deception, whereas ‘bullshitting’ is unconnected to a concern for truth. Frankfurt regards this ‘indifference to how things really are’, as the essence of bullshit. Furthermore, a lie is necessarily false, but bullshit is not – bullshit may happen to be correct or incorrect. The crux of the matter is that bullshitters hide their lack of commitment to truth. Since bullshitters ignore truth instead of acknowledging and subverting it, bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies.

  23. humanoid.panda says:

    @MarkedMan:

    Why hasn’t it happened? From what I understand, there is an unwritten rule that no party will form a government in Israel if they need Arabs to reach the minimum number. I believe that rule actually has a name but couldn’t figure out how to google it (can anyone help?).

    This unwritten rule exists, but its important to note that Arab parties have a policy of not joining any government as long as Israel is at war with Palestinians/Arab neighbors.

  24. michael reynolds says:

    @MarkedMan:
    My core philosophy holds that a good day is one in which you learn something useful. That is useful. I like that a lot. 11;54 as I write this, and you saved my day.

  25. An Interested Party says:

    …but 20% of the population is cut off from any real representation.

    Which is why some refer to Israel as an apartheid state…that description seems pretty accurate…

  26. humanoid.panda says:

    @An Interested Party: Actually, no. The reason that people refer to Israel as Apartheid state is that because it occupies the Palestinian territories. Israeli Arabs are discrminated against, for sure, but they have all the rights of citizenship (think African Americans after Jim Crow..).

  27. James P says:

    @michael reynolds: Why would I apologize when I am right. Even you agreed that I am right when you conceded that my number is far closer to reality than BH Obama’s.

    You are the troll here. This is a thread about ISraeli elections. I made a very solid point about Bibi’s sagging numbers being a result of increased support for a third (right wing) party and you bring up economic numbers.

    The only person who need to apologize is you for a) disrupting a thread about Israeli elections with a completely unrelated topic and b) inflicting an unqualified nit-wit community organizer on this country.

    Krugman has a Nobel Prize. So what? They’re awarded for being a liberal. A terrorist (Arafat), a boob (Carter), a fraud (Algore), and a community organizer (Barry) all have none. Awarding a Nobel to a terrorist, a boob, a fraud, and a community organizer on the basis that they hate America devalues the Nobel Prize. The fact that Krugman has one is more of a commentary on the committee than it is on Krugman.

  28. James P says:

    @An Interested Party: [“Which is why some refer to Israel as an apartheid state”]

    There’s a term for people who call Israel an apartheid state. The word is……………anti-Semite.

  29. humanoid.panda says:

    @James P:

    You are the troll here. This is a thread about ISraeli elections. I made a very solid point about Bibi’s sagging numbers being a result of increased support for a third (right wing) party and you bring up economic numbers.

    Except that you lied about it.

  30. humanoid.panda says:

    @James P:

    Lying asshole:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/03/barak-apartheid-palestine-peace

    Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister, last night delivered an unusually blunt ­warning to his country that a failure to make peace with the Palestinians would leave either a state with no Jewish ­majority or an “apartheid” regime

  31. James P says:

    @humanoid.panda: The Guardian is a Communist newspaper. I used to live in London and I know it well. It is not a credible source.

    Do you know the difference between fact and opinion?

    You stated BHO is a good president – I wouldn’t call that a lie. I’d just call it a wrong-headed opinion.

    I have never lied about anything. The erosion of Bibi’s support is on its right flank. If the Tea Party split from the GOP and became an actual party, the erosion in GOP support would not signal a leftward shift in America. This is essentially what is happening in Israel.

    Likud will win a plurality and form a coalition with right-wing parties and Orthodox religious parties. This is a good thing because it will force him to take an even harder line with the Palestinians.

  32. James P says:

    @humanoid.panda: Many people on the Israeli right-wing still have not forgiven Bibi for his surrender of Gush Kativ/Neve Dekelim.

  33. michael reynolds says:

    James P is a proven liar.

    James P should be ignored. Stupid and wrong are bad enough, but James P simply lies.

  34. humanoid.panda says:

    @James P:

    I have never lied about anything. The erosion of Bibi’s support is on its right flank. If the Tea Party split from the GOP and became an actual party, the erosion in GOP support would not signal a leftward shift in America. This is essentially what is happening in Israel.

    Yo didn’t say that Bibi’s erosion is on his right wing. You said he was losing votes to Lieberman, which is not true, because lieberman has half the support he held 5 years ago. This might be a simple statement of ignorance, but your level of knowledge and track record indicate that’s an intentional lie. On a less pedantic scale, your argument is simply not true. The right wing bloc (roughly speaking, likud+liebeman, ha bayit ha yehudi, the ultra orthodox,]held something like 66 seats in the last knesset and is projected to hold 57-58 in the current one. Likud is not losing votes to any of the parties on its right, but to Kulanu, a centrist party formed a former likud member. Those are facts ,and you are a liar.”

    “Likud will win a plurality and form a coalition with right-wing parties and Orthodox religious parties. This is a good thing because it will force him to take an even harder line with the Palestinians.”
    Because unlike you, I am not a liar, I said this is the most likely outcome of the election in my post yesterday. However, right now, Bibi would need at least one centrist party to get to 61 votes, which he needn’t do last time around. Also, notice that last time around, when he could have indeed formed a right wing government, he chose to go with the center, and even begged Labor to enter the coalition. That is because, Bibi is no fool and knows that a government based on right wing support will collapse within months, when it becomes clear that the reason Israel can’t solve all of its problems by force is not because the left and center are holding the right down, but because reality is a bitch.

    “The Guardian is a Communist newspaper. I used to live in London and I know it well. It is not a credible source.”

    So, the Economist are also commies?
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/israel_demography_democracy_or_apartheid

  35. humanoid.panda says:

    @michael reynolds: And still, I can’t disengage from him. There is smething about his lies and BS that is more infuriating that any other trolls I encountered here..

  36. Davebo says:

    @James P:

    Didn’t you mean to say that Ehud Barak is a communist? Or are you, as is normal, not sure what you really mean?

  37. James P says:

    @Davebo: You really need to improve your reading comprehension – that doesn’t seem to be your strongsuit. I said that The Guardian is a communist newspaper. I didn’t make any comment about Ehud Barak.

  38. James P says:

    @humanoid.panda: The Economist is a far more credible source than the Guardian. I subscribe to the Economist (although I’m not universally a fan of their editorial direction). I wouldn’t line a bird cage with the Guardian.

    The Economist is a credible and reputable publication — they just happen to have a wrong-headed pro-Palestinian slant.

    Capital O orthodox parties will align with Bibi if he needs them. You are overstating the importance of Lieberman. I merely cited him as an example of a political figure to Bibi’s right. Perhaps my wording was imprecise but I never intended to state that Lieberman is the focal point of right wing opposition to Bibi.

    Just as in the US, there is no singular right-wing opposition. In Israel some like Lieberman – some like others. Some American conservatives like Cruz – others like Walker. There is no singular figure.

    Holding an opinion which differs with yours is not a lie.

    I am optimistic about the forthcoming Israeli elections. I expect the right to gain power – I don’t necessarily expect Bibi’s power to be enhanced. I think the most likely outcome is that he will be more dependent on right-wing and Orthodox religious parties to form his coalition. That’s a good thing because it will force him to take a tougher line on Israel’s enemies like Hamas, Obama, and Iran.

  39. humanoid.panda says:

    @James P:

    The Economist is a credible and reputable publication — they just happen to have a wrong-headed pro-Palestinian slant.

    So, in short, do you concede that Ehud Barack, no antisemite, is someone who is concerned that occupation might make ISrael into an apartheid state?

    Holding an opinion which differs with yours is not a lie.

    No, but your first post hinged about Lieberman. I am glad you are backtracking, but maybe, after being shown factually wrong twice, you’ll learn some humility.

    I am optimistic about the forthcoming Israeli elections. I expect the right to gain power – I don’t necessarily expect Bibi’s power to be enhanced.

    On predictions one can’t argue, but all the available polling evidence is showing the right of Likud block either threading water or losing votes, so your previous argument that all that is happening is that likud is losing votes to the extreme right is wrong.

    I think the most likely outcome is that he will be more dependent on right-wing and Orthodox religious parties to form his coalition.

    I already explained why that is a scenario Bibi will avoid like a plague, and if he does form such government, it will fall within 6 months.

    That’s a good thing because it will force him to take a tougher line on Israel’s enemies like Hamas, Obama, and Iran.

    You are a vile scum.

  40. Tillman says:

    I’m just indiscriminately downvoting now, people. 🙂

    (Feel free to downvote me in response, or for any other reason.)

    (And sure, most of my “indiscriminate” downvoting is thrown in a particular direction, but I have enough underestimation left to think not mentioning anything by name will work even if I make it this obvious.)

  41. An Interested Party says:

    There’s a term for people who call Israel an apartheid state. The word is……………anti-Semite.

    Being opposed to Likud policies is hardly anti-Semitic…actually, the real anti-Semites are those Christian religious nuts who believe that Israel needs to gobble up as much land as possible so that the Second Coming can occur and then all the Jews will be cast into Hell…

  42. James P says:

    @humanoid.panda:

    You are a vile scum.

    That’s really what’s wrong with politics. People (mostly your side) just can’t be civil. When someone makes a point you don’t like you call them vile scum. Frankly, the fact that you would call someone you do not know vile scum says a lot more about you than it does about me.

    I concede that Ehud Barak is a liberal and that he is wrong. American liberals discuss Gitmo in the context of what the rest of the world thinks of us. Who gives a toss? Maybe the rest of the world does want to think of Israel as a so-called apartheid state. Who gives a toss? I couldn’t care less that the rest of the world doesn’t like that we dunked KSM in water. Liberals like Barry Obama do and liberals like Ehud Barak get their panties in a twist about what the rest of the world thinks of Israel. Who gives a toss?

    The bottom line is that Likud will get more Knesset seats than Labour. That gives Bibi first dibs on cobbling together 61. I have confidence in his political skills. He has first option to form a coalition. I could be wrong (if I am that does not mean it is a lie – it means I am wrong), but my best guess is that Bibi hits the magic number of 61.

    The fact that many Israelis want to give B Hussein Obama the finger works in Bibi’s favor. When Bibi does win, I”m sure people like you will try to spin the fact that Likud has fewer seats as being a loss, but the fact is that Bibi will still be PM and we can use that to rub it in Barry Obama’s face.

    Bibi loves America more than Obama does. Therefore I stand with him ahead of Obama.

  43. Tillman says:

    Like, really, I read nothing but the last two sentences of that and I don’t know how any thinking thing can possibly think, “Damn it, this deserves a reasoned response!!!”

  44. James P says:

    @Tillman: You just stated you didn’t read 95% of the post. How can you say whether it is reasonable or not?

    That’s akin to doing a book report panning a book you haven’t read.

    The “logic” of liberals never ceases to amaze me.

  45. lounsbury says:

    @James P: “The Guardian is a Communist newspaper. I used to live in London and I know it well. It is not a credible source.”
    Errr. No, The Guardian is not Communist and only a daft fool would write such a thing (or one of the usual Bolshevik Right in USA I suppose). I rather doubt you lived in London or that you know it well. Not that I care much for the Guardian….

  46. James P says:

    @lounsbury: Bolshevik right is a contradiction in terms. IT’s an oxymoron.

    I was using the term Communist as a pejorative, but the Guardian is a far far far Left publication. I read the Telegraph whilst living in Clapham – in the borough of Lambeth – SW4 – (as a student) and in Sloane Square- in the borough of Kensington and Chelsea – SW1W (after I graduated and got a job on Canary Wharf). Both are located in Zone 2 in the Tube.

  47. Steve V says:

    I’d just like to say that I think James P should stick around. I like to be aware of what the GOP base is howling about, and James is, as far as I can tell, the pure distilled essence of the talk radio 27% that is the base of the GOP.

  48. de stijl says:

    @James P:

    Bibi loves America more than Obama does.

    Netanyahu:

    “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in our way.”

    Didn’t realize that disdain bordering on contempt, and the perceived ability to manipulate, were indicative of “love.” Thanks for the correction.

    Please proceed, sir.

  49. de stijl says:

    @James P:

    (as a student) and in Sloane Square

    All around Sloane Square?

    Are you sure you were a student? Not a hairdresser? Mayhaps a hairdresser on fire? You’d have been busy. Very busy. Busy, busy.

    Is there anything Morrissey can’t do?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPRVXTytJQ0

  50. de stijl says:

    @James P:

    That’s really what’s wrong with politics. People (mostly your side) just can’t be civil.

    Self-awareness is obviously one your strong points.

  51. the Q says:

    Humanoid P, thanks for the run down on coalition partners in Israel, pithy and informative.

    Bullshite meet James P, James P meet bullshite.

  52. Ebenezer_Arvigenius says:

    I was using the term Communist as a pejorative, but the Guardian is a far far far Left publication.

    I think that tells you everything about James P. that you need to know. The Guardian is a strictly center-left publication to the right of the German TAZ (which is basically a teacher/hipster publication with pretensions of activism).

    Even the TAZ is a looong way from the radical left, so if James considers the Guardian “far far far Left” this places him firmly to the right of Bismarck.or Disraeli let alone 20th-century politicians.

  53. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:
    Wow. You have Google maps. Now why would we believe anything you say? You’re a bald faced liar. A fraud. A phony. One has to assume you’ve never been to London. One has to assume the same about any claim you make.

  54. de stijl says:

    @Ebenezer_Arvigenius:

    The Guardian is a strictly center-left publication

    Vs.

    @James P:

    The Guardian is a Communist newspaper.

    If I were to assert that the Wall Street Journal was a Fascist newspaper you could rightly claim that I was stupidly, foolishly hyberbolic and you would be totally right.

    The Wall Street Journal is a Facsist newspaper.

    How does that assertion feel to you? Does it feel correct, right, true? Does it make you want to respond and tell me how idiotic and wrong I am? How I can’t tell the difference between the center-Right and Fascism?

  55. de stijl says:

    @James P:

    I was using the term Fascist as a pejorative, but the Wall Street Journal is a far far far Right publication.

  56. James P says:

    @de stijl: Sloane Square is a neighborhood in the West End. I couldn’t afford to live there as a student.@michael reynolds: You can photoshop yourself in front of the Golden Gate bridge. I don’t believe you have ever been to San Francisco.

    I’ve also been to Aldwich — read between the lines on that (if you’re capable of doing so).

  57. James P says:

    @de stijl: It sounds frankly absurd.

    WSJ advocates for free and open markets – pretty much the polar antithesis of fascism.

    To refer to WSJ as fascist only suggests that you don’t know what fascism is. I suggest you are conflating fascism (an economic philosophy) with authoritarianism (a political philosophy).

    Yes, the Nazis were fascists. They were also killers. Those are two entirely separate things and they were wrong on both counts.

    Conservatives, I would imagine the WSJ included, find fascism every bit as abhorrent as socialism. Both philosophies empower government. As a free market conservative I believe in empowering the individual and the market.

    The WSJ wants to minimize government involvement in the economy. I don’t think you know what fascism is. You would be better served to call the WSJ conservative or right wing. You could argue that their editorial page leans right (although not that far right — they’re for amnesty after all), but there is absolutely zero merit to calling them fascist.

    With all due respect you need to educate yourself as to what fascism is. You’re just using it as a general pejorative.

  58. David M says:

    @James P:

    With all due respect you need to educate yourself as to what fascism is. You’re just using it as a general pejorative

    Irony is dead.

  59. James P says:

    @de stijl:

    but the Wall Street Journal is a far far far Right publication.

    It editorializes for amnesty and rails against government shutdowns. It’s not all that far right. Sure, relative to the NY Times it is right wing, but its editorial page is basically the voice of the establishment wing of the GOP.

    WSJ hates Ted Cruz. They love Republicans like Boehner and McConnell.

  60. Loviatar says:

    @Tillman:

    There you go. Down voted as requested.

    No one else seemed to want to take you up on you request. 😉

  61. de stijl says:

    @James P:

    You could not have missed my point more if you tried.

    @James P:

    To refer to WSJ as fascist only suggests that you don’t know what fascism is.

    and

    With all due respect you need to educate yourself as to what fascism is. You’re just using it as a general pejorative.

    and all the other things you wrote are totes testing my resolution not to call you an absolute moron and the least aware English speaker on the planet. Your inability to read cues is, frankly, astounding; but stating it flat-out would be very rude so I will not do that.

    Saying “Oh, my lord, you may be the stupidest person I’ve ever encountered in my life!” would be correct but disrespectful and possibly in violation of the commenting policy, so I’m going to refrain from those correct, but incendiary words.

    You took this:

    If I were to assert that the Wall Street Journal was a Fascist newspaper you could rightly claim that I was stupidly, foolishly hyberbolic and you would be totally right.

    The Wall Street Journal is a Facsist newspaper.

    How does that assertion feel to you? Does it feel correct, right, true? Does it make you want to respond and tell me how idiotic and wrong I am? How I can’t tell the difference between the center-Right and Fascism?

    to mean that I actually believe that the Wall Street Journal was actually a Fascist newspaper.

    You have to be a spoof or a troll. No one could be that stupid.

  62. humanoid.panda says:

    @de stijl:

    and all the other things you wrote are totes testing my resolution not to call you an absolute moron and the least aware English speaker on the planet. Your inability to read cues is, frankly, astounding; but stating it flat-out would be very rude so I will not do that.

    Or, as I suspect, he is a genius troll, who is able to take us all around the block, again and again, and again.

  63. de stijl says:

    @James P:

    Sloane Square is a neighborhood in the West End.

    Hairdresser On Fire is a Morrissey song. To which I linked!

    @David M:

    Irony is dead.

    Irony is Fascism.

    Just like the Wall Street Journal. (Which is totes fascist, btw)

  64. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:
    There’s a big difference: I tell the truth. You lie.

    That’s why no one here doubts that’s the actual Golden Gate, but everyone doubts you’ve been to London except via Google Maps.

  65. de stijl says:

    @humanoid.panda:

    Or, as I suspect, he is a genius troll, who is able to take us all around the block, again and again, and again.

    Are you talking a person who is saying provocative things in a performance artist sort of way who is spoofing a RWNJ, or a person who is a RWNJ who is looking to say provocative things to derail the conversation?

    A spoof or a troll?

    Seeing James P’s performance in various threads in the past few weeks since he’s shown up, I would have pegged him (or her) as your bog-standard, straight-up RWNJ Rushbot ditto-head, but the performance tonight very well have been a mask slip. Seriously, can anyone be that stupid?

    Given his past performance (the u6 Unemployment vs. u3 Unemployment disparity that michael reynolds keeps flogging him about) I’m leaning troll over spoof. But that can only be true if he skimmed my “The Wall Street Journal is a Facsist newspaper.” It would take a very stupid person to misread my comment that completely.

    Whichever is true, he is very committed to the role: totally clueless, or pretending to be totally clueless.

  66. de stijl says:

    @michael reynolds:

    no one here doubts that’s the actual Golden Gate

    I don’t doubt that is the Golden Gate bridge in the background, but I do doubt the guy in the foreground is you. Clearly, that is a picture of Mike Ehrmantrout* on vacay in SF. Inexplicably smiling.

    No fooling, michael, you kinda look like Jonathon Banks in that picture.

    (* If you’re not watching Better Call Saul, you’re a damn fool. And if you haven’t watched every episode of Breaking Bad you’re a bigger fool.)

  67. lounsbury says:

    @humanoid.panda: Re the status of ‘Troll.’
    I would suggest mate that the profile pix say it all. He’s taking the piss out of you.

    @James P:
    “WSJ advocates for free and open markets – pretty much the polar antithesis of fascism.”
    While I rather do favour the “baiting Troll” hypothesis it is worth noting that this is pure bollocks : not as re WSJ per se, re free and open markets being the ‘polar antithesis of fascism.’ While there is a reasonable tangential argument that purely free markets (not that my occasional brushes with the deranged WSJ editorial page convinces me they are truly so inclined, contra e.g. the FT, which is (i) conservative, (ii) non-deranged, (iii) rational in its editorial pages) do not play well with fascism, it is political liberties that are polar opposite to Fascism, not free markets. Political liberalism (in the proper sense, not the weird American sense) is indeed antithetical, but that is a package rather different.

    @James P:
    Bolshevik Right I note is not in any way an Oxymoron, it rather well for me describes the insane ideological nuttery of a solid portion of you lot (who have become quite the embarrassment to proper conservative and liberal politics) – full of quite Bolshy attitudes on ideological purity as test for opinions factual and political. Perhaps it was getting all those ex-Trotskyites into your ideological circles.

    However, I rather don’t credit your claims. Not that I care for the Guardian and it’s tedious, confused muddled woolly-headed feel-good Leftism, but to call it Communist (or Far far far Left) …. laughable.

  68. de stijl says:

    @lounsbury:

    I’m thisclose to declaring “shenanigans” on James P. I’m 90% convinced he is a spoof, false, a fake, blatant mummery – a lefty pretending to be be a righty. He is stretching credulity way too far.

    Yes, the Nazis were fascists. They were also killers. Those are two entirely separate things and they were wrong on both counts.

    I don’t even know how to process this without thinking “Okay, now you’re just flailing.” Please elucidate.

    Conservatives, I would imagine the WSJ included, find fascism every bit as abhorrent as socialism. Both philosophies empower government. As a free market conservative I believe in empowering the individual and the market.

    Please square your new-found libertarianism (or what lounsbury would call classic liberalism) with your statement of 3/10/15:

    I”d take someone who is pro-American with a questionable human rights record over an American enemy.

    I’d take Bautista over Castro, Pinochet over Allende, el-Sisi over Morsi, and the Shah over the Ayatollah.

    Both of these can’t be true statements from the same mind unless you believe that liberty ends at the American shoreline.

    Are you a proto-fascist authoritarian right-wing reactionary, a libertarian, or a big cheeky fakey-fake faker?

  69. michael reynolds says:

    @de stijl:
    I’ve decided if they make a movie of my life – and God knows why that would ever happen – it would star JK Simmons. I’m a taller, pudgier JK Simmons from Whiplash. Although I seldom slap drummers.

  70. humanoid.panda says:

    @de stijl:

    Seeing James P’s performance in various threads in the past few weeks since he’s shown up, I would have pegged him (or her) as your bog-standard, straight-up RWNJ Rushbot ditto-head, but the performance tonight very well have been a mask slip. Seriously, can anyone be that stupid

    I came to the conclusion that he is definetely a troll by how how quickly he moved to tone policing me once he got me enraged enough to call him scum. That’s a classic troll move.

  71. michael reynolds says:

    @humanoid.panda:
    I think he’s another Jenos sock puppet. It’s the neediness, the craving for respect, the inauthenticity and dishonesty, and the intellectual laziness.

    We should start a pool: Just what species of fake is James P?

  72. Neil Hudelson says:

    At a certain point, it doesn’t matter if he’s a troll or a spoof. His tenacity–even if aimed at spoofing–defaults him into the troll category.

    It’s a modification on the Aasimov quote regarding technology and magic. Any sufficiently advanced and dedicated spoof is indistinguishable from trolling.

  73. michael reynolds says:

    Oh, this is sweet:

    Likud officials aren’t waiting for the election results. On Wednesday, following less than favorable polls, senior officials labeled the election campaign a failure, and blamed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the party’s poor showing in the polls ahead of Election Day on Tuesday.

    “The Zionist Union will be larger than Likud after the election. This, it seems, is already a fact. The question is what the gap between the two will be. Even if we manage to form the next government, this campaign was a colossal failure. Netanyahu is primarily responsible,” said a senior Likud member.

  74. Neil Hudelson says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Clearly Likud doesnt’ realize how lucky Likud has been in gaining Likud strength by losing Likud seats.

    Hopefuly James P will email the officials and correct them.

  75. wr says:

    @James P: “Conservatives, I would imagine the WSJ included, find fascism every bit as abhorrent as socialism”

    Is that why the Republican party here supported the Fascist governments in Spain, Greece and Chile? In fact, I believe you were waxing nostalgiac about General Pinochet just the other day.

  76. wr says:

    @humanoid.panda: “That’s a classic troll move.”

    You mean the move practiced over and over again by the mysteriously disappeared Jenos, who has never used a sock puppet in his entire life?

  77. James P says:

    @wr: Lesser of two evils. Pinochet was better than a Soviet proxy. Franco was better than the Republicans in Spain. I wouldn’t say I was waxing poetic about Pinochet – I was arguing that he was preferable to a Castro wannabe. I said that Allende would have been worse – that’s not waxing poetic.

    Franco deserves respect because he saved the lives of millions of Jews and he saved Spain from Communism. That’s not waxing poetic (I would save that treatment for Churchill) but it is a recitation of historical fact.

  78. de stijl says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Okay I get JK Simmons. I can totally see that.

    You live up Marin way right? Next time you’re down in SF you should walk up real close to one of the 5 gal street drummers and freak him / her the hell out. Get a fake Oscar statuette for extra oomph. Back off if they drum so hard they start bleeding. Verisimilitude has its limits.

    But don’t fixate. Hear me out. Let me pitch you Johnathon Banks as Mike Ehrmantrout.

    With your dome profile and ears just grow an eight-day goatee and take off the specs, drive your ass to Albuquerque. Be taciturn and a smidge dour and you’d drink for a month.

    Depending on your preference, you could go OG and get a job as a fixer / enforcer, or new school and get a job as parking attendant. Failing that you could just hang in front out in front of whatever passes for Grauman’s Chinese Theater in ABQ and shoot selfies with Breaking Bad tourists. That’s not at all creepy or pathetic or sad. Don’t let anyone tell you different.

    Let me know. We’ll go halfsies.

    (All y’all – you’re a damn fool if you’re not watching Better Call Saul.)

  79. James P says:

    @de stijl:

    unless you believe that liberty ends at the American shoreline

    I believe that the US COnstitution ends at the American shoreline. The BIll of RIghts is not applicable in other nations. IF other nations want the same freedoms guaranteed to Americans they are free to adopt Constitutions similar to ours.

    If a country is not free that really is not our concern. Anything another country does is not really our concern unless they interfere with American national interests (such as the free flow of oil at market prices for example).

    I am not a fan of Augusto Pinochet’s human rights record and I would not want to see his example followed in the US. It couldn’t be if the US Constitution were obeyed. However, if he wants to forego elections in Chile, that’s really none of my business. The fact is that he was a pro-American ally who provided stability in that region. For that reason I supported him (AS THE LEADER OF CHILE – I would not want him to be the leader of the US).

    IF you refuse to see that distinction you are dishonest. If you can’t see that distinction you’re not particularly well informed. Pick one of those two hats and wear it.

  80. James P says:

    @lounsbury: YOu are conflating economic and political theories. YOu need to understand the differences between politics and economics.

    I could support Pinochet’s economic policies without embracing his authoritarian politics. Singapore is a free market economy but there is little political freedom. I could also embrace the political freedom of Scandanavian nations while deploring their socialist economic policies.

    I don’t think either system is ideal. I would want to be free BOTH politically AND economically.

    The owners of the Guardian probably want to turn a profit so they are not purely speaking Communists. THey probably do not want the government of Britain to actually own their paper or dictate editorial content. However, I 100% reiterate that the Guardian is a far far far left newspaper. For that reason I do not consider it a credible source. It is an agenda paper – not a factual paper.

  81. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:
    Franco also used his own citizens as live fire victims to train the Luftwaffe, which promptly turned its skills against the Poles, which led in due course to Katyn, and to eventual Soviet occupation of Poland and Eastern Europe.

    Had the Spanish Republicans won and Franco lost, Spain would almost certainly have entered the war on the side of the Allies – major ports on the Atlantic and in the Med, access to Spanish colonies in Africa, potential jumping off points for an invasion of France through Provence or across the Bay of Biscay, additional troops, materiel and resources. The Spaniards could have blocked all Axis shipping through the straits of Gibraltar. Imagine allied airfields in Bilbao and Barcelona.

    There would have been no need for Operation Torch, or for the invasion of Sicily, or for the invasion of Italy, all of which cost a lot of American lives and pushed the invasion into mid-1944.

    In other words, a Republican win could have shortened WW2 considerably, saved both Allied lives and Jewish/Roma/gay/Slav lives.

    But thanks for once more revealing the shallowness of your mind.

  82. michael reynolds says:

    @de stijl:

    You just described my retirement plans.

  83. James P says:

    @michael reynolds: You really are a nut. I have no doubt you are in SF — you fit in with those radical nutters quite well.

    I was mocking your silly claims. I have never lied about anything in my entire life. You just have your panties in a twist because you were checkmated into agreeing with me that BHO”s unemployment number is wholly bogus. YOu just have a very fragile ego which got a bit wounded so you lash out at me with your silly claims.

    Just get over it and move along with your life Sparky.

  84. James P says:

    @michael reynolds: I’m going to surmise that you went to public school because you know nothing about WW2 in general and Franco’s role in particular.

    However, unlike you, I will not make an accusation of lying. I will merely state that you are wrong and have no idea what you are talking about. That doesn’t make you a liar – it just makes you ignorant.

    Gen. Franco did the world a favor by defeating the Stalinst proxy Republicans in the Civil War. Franco was not a Jeffersonian democrat by any stretch of the imagination but he was far superior to Stalin.

    Millions of Jewish lives were spared because Franco granted Spanish citizenship (and travel papers) to any Jew who could reach any Spanish embassy or consulate on the highly tenuous grounds that they could conceivably be Sephardic. When questioned whether this would anger Hitler, Franco responded that he would rather run afoul of Hitler than run afoul of God.

    Franco also proved to be a reliable ally during the Cold War. He was a far more valuable member of NATO than DeGaulle. Would Spain have been in NATO had the Republicans won? ON balance, Franco and Spain were loyal American allies.

  85. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:
    All you’ve done is make a silly accusation and then repeat your canned talking points. Not very agile, are you? Not really capable of responding to unexpected input. You’re the mental equivalent of the Maginot Line: fixed guns aimed the wrong way.

  86. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:
    Oh, and of course you’re a liar. That’s proven. That’s done. You are a liar.

  87. michael reynolds says:

    Just get over it and move along with your life Sparky.

    By the way, I think I win the pool: James P is Jenos.

  88. de stijl says:

    @James P:

    Pick one of those two hats and wear it.

    Well you certainly picked yours. When push comes to shove, you choose the fascist strongman. Good to know.

    (PS – Franco read the Wall Street Journal)

    (PPS – Sprinkles are for winners)

  89. de stijl says:

    @michael reynolds:

    You just described my retirement plans.

    If there was a market for taking selfies with the middle-aged bastard child of Willem Dafoe and Rick Astley in front of whatever passes for Grauman’s Chinese Theater in Albuquerque, I’d so be with you, dude.

  90. James P says:

    @michael reynolds: Mike, are you five years old? Are you in third grade? You sound like it.

    Your level of discourse has reached the “I know you are but what am I” and the “I’m rubber and you’re glue” level. Grow up.

    Holding a viewpoint contrary to yours does not constitute a “lie”.

    IF I were to use your standard I would call you a liar for stating that a Republican victory in Spain would have shortened WW2. That contention is absurd. There was not one battle fought on Spanish soil. To suggest that a Republican victory would have influenced the course of a war reveals a profound level of ignorance about a country which was not even involved in WW2.

    However, because I”m not in third grade I won’t say that you “lied” – I will just say that you made an absurd contention which can not even remotely be supported by the facts.

    That doesn’t make you a liar – it just makes you ignorant.

    Grow up, Sparky.

  91. James P says:

    @de stijl: I pick Galt’s Gulch. I have no use for fascists or statists.

  92. de stijl says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Oh, this is sweet:

    Likud officials aren’t waiting for the election results…

    Haaretz is a Communist newspaper.

    I was using the term Communist as a pejorative, but Haaretz is a far far far Left publication.

  93. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:

    You’re a liar, and everyone here knows you’re a liar. Not for disagreeing: for lying.

    As for my level of discourse, I just smacked your millimeter-deep understanding of history all over the place.

    So now you’re not only a liar, you’re also demonstrably ignorant, incapable of debate and probably a Jenos sock puppet.

  94. humanoid.panda says:

    @James P:

    Millions of Jewish lives were spared because Franco granted Spanish citizenship (and travel papers) to any Jew who could reach any Spanish embassy or consulate on the highly tenuous grounds that they could conceivably be Sephardic

    Millions???? At most, we are talking about several thousand people. A genuenily good deed, but you are wrong by 3 orders of magnitude.

  95. de stijl says:

    @James P:

    I have no use for fascists

    You just said you’d pick Franco.

    I pick Galt’s Gulch

    Who Is James P?

  96. humanoid.panda says:

    @michael reynolds:

    In other words, a Republican win could have shortened WW2 considerably, saved both Allied lives and Jewish/Roma/gay/Slav lives.

    Another point that the OZMG! Franco saved Spain from Communism!! people are missing that the Communists were not in fact the dominant party in the Republic- just a member of the Popular Front coalition, and only became the dominant party after the USSR was the only country to support the republic with weapons/ milititary expertise. There is simply no reason to presume that the Republic would have developed into a communist dictatorship absent the civil war: that never happened. Additionally ,even if the postwar Spanish republic would have been communist, it would have almost certainly taken the Yugoslav route: relative independence from Moscow, and de-facto alliance with the West. Spain’s strategic location pretty much guaranteed that outcome (the only Communist country that remained a loyal Soviet satellite while not sharing a border with it was Cuba- and that’s only because people like James P..)

  97. James P says:

    @humanoid.panda: You are indeed correct. Millions is an obscene exaggeration.

    Given that people will say that I “lied” by claiming Franco saved the lives of millions of Jews when it was indeed only tens of thousands, I should have been far more precise in my language.

    Saying that millions were saved is indeed a “lie” given the way some people here would define the term lie.

  98. lounsbury says:

    @James P: “YOu are conflating economic and political theories. YOu need to understand the differences between politics and economics.”
    No, my dear Troll, but you did in ‘conflating’ economic liberal positions with socially liberal positions.

    Between the avatar pic and the manner of the replies (e.g. claiming Franco saved millions of Jews…) well I suppose there is a place for performance art.

    I should encourage someone to start promoting Islamist Royalism on this basis, after all the Moroccan Sultan legitimately did save large numbers of Jews from Nazi deportation…

  99. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:

    Read this.

    It may be paywalled for you, so I’ll give you the gist:

    BERLIN – Francisco Franco, the former fascist dictator of Spain, gave the Nazis a list of every Jew in his country in order to facilitate efforts to locate, deport and destroy them, according to a document found recently in a Spanish archive and reported on Sunday by the Spanish daily El Pais.

    The paper said that in 1941, Spain prepared a list of all 6,000 Jews in its territory and gave it to the architect of the Nazis’ Final Solution, Heinrich Himmler. At the time, Spain and Germany were negotiating over Spain’s entry into the Axis alliance.

    In the end, however, no alliance was signed, and Spain remained neutral throughout World War II.

    After the Nazis’ defeat in 1945, the Spanish government tried to destroy all evidence of its cooperation with the Germans. But the document recently found in an archive in the city of Zaragoza, in northeastern Spain, sheds light on what Franco sought to hide.

    The document is an official order, dated May 13, 1941, issued by Franco’s chief of security, Jose Maria Finat y Escriva de Romani, to all provincial governors. It instructs them to prepare a list of every Jew in their district, both local residents and foreigners, along with details about “their personal and political leanings, their means of supporting themselves, their commercial activity, the level of threat they constitute and their security classification.”

  100. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:

    Here’s the part I dropped in the cut and paste:

    It is true that Franco built no concentration camps on Spanish territory, nor did he voluntarily hand Jews over to Germany. However, neither did he make the kind of efforts to save Jews that Spain’s neutrality would have allowed – and he did send 18,000 Spanish volunteers to fight alongside the Germans on the eastern front from 1941 to 1943.

    In contrast, Spanish diplomats throughout Europe did save thousands of Jews. But they were working on their own, at great personal risk, in defiance of Franco’s official policy. These diplomats gave transit visas to Jewish refugees – most of them of Spanish descent – and also sheltered many Jews in Spanish consulates and embassies in Hungary, France, Greece, Germany, Bulgaria and Romania.

  101. James P says:

    @de stijl: I said I would pick Franco over a Communist, and I absolutely stand by that. I’d pick Pinochet over Allende, too.

    If given a choice between being hit over the head with a crowbar or a whiffle ball bat I”d pick the whiffle ball bat. That doesn’t mean I want to be hit in the head with a whiffle ball bat, it just means it is preferable to the crowbar.

    Franco and Pinochet believed in private property.

  102. Surreal American says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Haaretz is an anti-Semitic rag. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

  103. An Interested Party says:

    Lesser of two evils. Pinochet was better than a Soviet proxy.

    Yes, of course, because a democratically-elected government is just so evil compared to an unlawful military coup leading to a government that tortured and murdered thousands of people…

  104. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:

    Here, I found your song:

    Don’t know much about history
    Don’t know much biology
    Don’t know much about a science book
    Don’t know much about the French I took.

  105. James P says:

    @michael reynolds: FRanco wanted a list of Jews in order to know to whom he had to provide with travel documents.

    Oskar Schindler also wanted a list of Jews. Why did Oskar Schindler want a list of Jews?

    To save them – Franco wanted a list for the same reason Schindler did. There’s was Schindler’s list — there was also Franco’s list. The only difference is that Hollywood filmmakers don’t want to give Franco them same credit they (rightfully) gave Schindler.

    How many Jews were deported from Spain? ZERO!

    Franco was a devout Catholic. He knew well that complicity with Nazis in killing Jews would be a most vile sin.

    But why should we trust you – you lied. You lied when you said a Republican victory in Spain would have shortened WW2. That’s a lie. There goes your credibility.

  106. James P says:

    @michael reynolds: 1) I know plenty about History – more than you. I know that a Republican victory in Spain would not have shortened WW2. You must have been absent the day that was taught.

    2) and 3) I never claimed to be an authority in science.

    4) Je parle francais tres bien. Yo habla espanol tambien.

  107. Surreal American says:

    @michael reynolds:

    In contrast, Spanish diplomats throughout Europe did save thousands of Jews. But they were working on their own, at great personal risk, in defiance of Franco’s official policy.

    So to sum up: Franco saved millions of Jews. Except it was more like thousands, they were saved by the initiative of others, and they were saved against Franco’s express policy.

    Other than that, troll is spot on!

  108. anjin-san says:

    @michael reynolds:

    I don’t think that James P. listens to that awful negro rap music…

  109. anjin-san says:

    @James P:

    Mimi pia wanaweza kufanya kazi widget tafsiri Google …

  110. James P says:

    @anjin-san: I don’t think that James P. listens to that awful negro rap music

    Translation: James disagrees with me. He is a conservative therefore it follows that he is a racist. Since I don’t have a substantive argument to make I am simply going to resort to what liberals always do when we run out of ideas: we play the race card.

  111. Anonymouse says:

    @James P:
    1) I know plenty about History – more than you.
    Hahaha. Yes, as much as you know about unemployment measures, no doubt.

  112. James P says:

    @Anonymouse: I know enough to know that the figure of 5.3 is wholly specious, so yes, your statement is accurate.

  113. anjin-san says:

    @James P:

    The revolution will not be right back after a message
    About a white tornado, white lightning, or white people
    You will not have to worry about a dove in your bedroom
    The tiger in your tank or the giant in your toilet bowl
    The revolution will not go better with Coke
    The revolution will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath
    The revolution will put you in the driver’s seat

    The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised

  114. Anonymouse says:

    @James P: Hahahahahahahahahaha. Good one. You are as hilarious as they’ve been saying! Come one, lets do “Shadowstats,” now. You know that one, too, right?

  115. Anonymouse says:

    @Anonymouse: @James P: or maybe “Zerohedge”

  116. anjin-san says:

    @James P:

    I will simply note that you don’t seem to be aware that Sam Cooke was not a hiphop artist. So you are not necessary racist, just flamingly clueless.

    Here is something that will get you started down the road to being something other than a pathetic, pasty-faced, Palin worshipping patsy.

    Can I get an Amen!

  117. James P says:

    @Anonymouse: All kidding aside, that’s a really great site. I had never heard of shadowstats before, but I googled it, and it looks interesting. In all seriousness, I appreciate the referral.

  118. James P says:

    @anjin-san: I will simply note that all pop cultural references are completely lost on me. I couldn’t name more than two or three actors, musicians, etc. I have never heard of Sam Cooke (or 99% of all contemporary musicians). I know economics, politics, and sports.

    Classical music, Josh Groban, and U2 are the only music to which I ever listen.

  119. anjin-san says:

    @James P:

    I know economics, politics, and sports.

    Well, here’s hoping that you actually do know sports.

  120. anjin-san says:

    @James P: @James P:

    Classical music, Josh Groban, and U2 are the only music to which I ever listen.

    In other words, you do not listen to music by black folks. I never saw that coming. Oh, wait…

  121. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:

    I know plenty about History – more than you. I know that a Republican victory in Spain would not have shortened WW2. You must have been absent the day that was taught.

    The day it was taught. Delicious. Just what course in alternative history was that, James? What university is it that teaches alternate history, and apparently not as speculation but as fact? Name of the course? Was it, Bullsh!t You Can Pull Outta Your Ass 101?

    You make this too easy.

  122. James P says:

    @anjin-san: Your willingness to so cavalierly throw around the race card say significantly more about you than it does about me.

  123. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:
    Today in Alternate History as Fact 101, we’re going to see how closing off the Mediterranean to German ships would not have had any effect at all on the conduct of a war in North Africa. And we’re going to see how Allied air bases in northern Spain would have had no impact at all on Vichy and German deployments in France. Then we’ll get into why naval bases on the Spanish coast would have had no effect on the submarine war, and how they could not possibly have been used to confuse the Germans as to the landing in Europe.

    Moron.

  124. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:

    I have to confess something. I love it when guys like you come strutting in with your chests all puffed out lecturing and proclaiming and condescending.

    Do you know how much fun it is for me, little old me, high school drop-out kidlit author, me, to spank you on economics and on history within, what, 48 hours? Kinda gets me hard.

    I used to want you to go away. I’ve changed my mind. Stay. And as Mr. Obama once said, “Please proceed. . .”

  125. wr says:

    @James P: “Franco and Pinochet believed in private property.”

    And in seizing it from anyone whose politics they didn’t like. Along, of course, with their life, and occasionally that of their family’s.

    But they weren’t no steenking Commies, so they’re good guys.

  126. wr says:

    @James P: Don’t you mean “raaaaaacist”? Or does even little Jenos know that’s too much of a tell…

  127. wr says:

    @James P: “Franco was a devout Catholic. He knew well that complicity with Nazis in killing Jews would be a most vile sin.”

    Right. Because Spanish Catholics historically have always been kind to Jews, killing them only after a long and difficult inquisition. Oh, and of course the Catholic church in the 1940s was so bitterly opposed to the holocaust they had to cooperate with the Nazis in order to hide their true feelings…

  128. Surreal American says:

    @michael reynolds:

    To be fair, Spain was a has-been power during the 1930s and 40s.

    Outside of agreeing to be occupied by the French and the British, it’s difficult to believe that either a Republican Spain or a Nationalist Spain would have lasted long against the Wehrmacht pouring over the Pyrenees. Especially when Spain was still recovering from a 3 year-long civil war.

    Needless to say, a German invasion of Iberia would have been disastrous for the British possession of Gibraltar.

    Although why an allegedly Judeophilic Franco decided against even nominally joining the Allies after their invasions of Italy and Normandy is anyone’s guess.

  129. michael reynolds says:

    @Surreal American:

    Fair points. But pushing the Wehrmacht into Vichy and Spain would have drained troops they used in Libya and Greece and would not have had available for Barbarossa. Occupations are taxing on manpower. And of course if Hitler had thought occupying Spain easy he’d likely have done it. Even he would have seen the strategic opportunity in owning the Med.

    The Spaniards wouldn’t have added much weight to the fight in terms of troops or materiel, but the real estate would have been sweet. Could have projected air power all over the far western Med, out into the Atlantic, Bay of Biscay. That would have played hell with German subs. You could have had British and later American planes all over St. Nazaire and far enough out to sea that German fighters would have had to strain to reach them.

    I think the big question is: why the hell don’t they just let you and I plan these wars? (Not fight them, god forbid.)

  130. An Interested Party says:

    For someone to be so anti-communist that he would defend vile thugs like Franco and Pinochet is disgusting…perhaps we’ll next read how great Hitler was because he too was against the communists…

  131. anjin-san says:

    @James P:

    Your willingness to so cavalierly throw around the race card

    The “race card”? Not really. But since you don’t seem like you are going to bless us all and simply go away, I am investing a few minutes in trying to figure out what you story is. I had you pegged as a guy who never listens to music by black artists, no?

    On the subject of “playing the race card” – I know that conservatives that frequent blogs think that this expression is no-doubt-about-it, thermonuclear, in your face destroyer of liberals, but I’m afraid you are simply wrong, regardless of what Sean Hannity has led you to believe. It’s about as devastating as a spit wad.

    Speaking of spit wads, have you ever heard the classic story about Dizzie Gillespie, Cab Calloway, and spit wads? On second though, never mind. I will leave you in the bizarro alternate universe inhabited by American conservatives, where “Tutti Frutti” is a song Pat Boone wrote about ice cream, not one Little Richard wrote about gay sex.

  132. James P says:

    @anjin-san: IT is people like you who perpetuate racism when you constantly accuse people of it at the drop of the hat.

    It is akin to calling anyone with whom you disagree about a political issue a Nazi. You minimize actual racism when you trot out that stale canard because for the absurd reason that I don’t have particularly eclectic taste in music.

    I don’t really listen to any music. I listen mostly to Rush, Sean, Mark Levin, and ESPN radio. Very rarely do I listen to any music.

    You are doing a disservice when you use racism as a cudgel with which to attack people with whom you disagree on a political issue.

    You are not unlike your Dear Leader Obama as his trusty sidekick Mimi-me Holder when you weaponize race. You are not dissimilar to Joseph McCarthy in that you are basically doing the exact same thing as McCarthy except with race. By turning race into a weapon you are setting back race relations.

    You want to call me a racist because my taste in music is not particularly broad? Really? Seriously? Can you not see how insulting that is to people who are victims of actual real racism?

    TO the extent that racial disharmony still exists it is because people like you and your pals Sharpton and Holder and Obama seek to use race as a weapon. You truly should be ashamed of yourself.

  133. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:

    IT is people like you who perpetuate racism when you constantly accuse people of it at the drop of the hat.

    In a day filled with your stoopid, that maybe the topper.

    I guess it’s kind of like if someone accused me of raping grandmas it would force me to rape grandmas. Or if someone accused me of wanting to commit suicide I would totally commit suicide.

    That’s why those frat kids were singing a racist song: they knew they’d be accused of being racists and that’s what forced them to be racists.

    2d time: Moron.

  134. JohnMcC says:

    @michael reynolds: In my always being the cow’s tale on these fun threads, I have a typically off-topic but somewhat interesting thought (I hope). That your remark in the line of counter-factually considering a Republican victory in the Spanish Civil War that a center-left Spanish government would likely have joined the Allies of WW2 – although I noticed you didn’t close off the possibility of adding “unofficial” to later editions. And the lovely JamesP, I think, suggested what a horror that would be because it would provoke a Nazi invasion. To which you gave the Churchillian reply to the effect that it would have been much more convenient to have the Germans closer at hand.

    Which brought this to mind, that if Sir Winston had gotten his fondest hope and Hitler had invaded Iberia he would have been the 2d in his family to conduct a ‘Penisular Campaign’. His ancestor John Churchill was Duke of Marlborough who fought the War of Spanish Succession there back in something like 1700.

    Interested me for no good reason so of course I had to share it.

  135. humanoid.panda says:

    I don’t really listen to any music. I listen mostly to Rush, Sean, Mark Levin, and ESPN radio. Very rarely do I listen to any music.

    That is awfully time consuming.

  136. anjin-san says:

    @James P:

    You want to call me a racist because my taste in music is not particularly broad?

    Where did I call you a racist? Oh yea, nowhere. What I did do is speculate that you were someone that did not listen to the music the brothers are making. And as you yourself admit, I was correct. The “awful negro” bit is something I filched from Dan Aykroyd – simply another pop culture reference that went over your head. It’s humor, apparently another thing you don’t really understand.

    Are there any conservatives that don’t whine about their victimhood pretty much 24/7?

    TO the extent that racial disharmony still exists it is because people like you and your pals Sharpton and Holder and Obama seek to use race as a weapon

    Of course, of course. Racism exists because of white guys like me. People who grew up around black folks, who have spent lots of time in their homes, been out on road trips with their black buddies, dropped down and fought when the bigots showed up taking shit about n**gers. That probably explains why I am still tight with so many of the black kids I grew up with half a century later. Thanks for straightening that out for me.

    The guys on right wing blogs who call the elegant, intelligent, stylish and sophisticated Michelle Obama “ghetto trash” and “chimpanzee” have nothing to do with it.

  137. Surreal American says:

    How did I miss this gem?

    FRanco wanted a list of Jews in order to know to whom he had to provide with travel documents.

    Oskar Schindler also wanted a list of Jews. Why did Oskar Schindler want a list of Jews?

    To save them – Franco wanted a list for the same reason Schindler did. There’s was Schindler’s list — there was also Franco’s list. The only difference is that Hollywood filmmakers don’t want to give Franco them same credit they (rightfully) gave Schindler.

    From the Haaretz article:

    The paper said that in 1941, Spain prepared a list of all 6,000 Jews in its territory and gave it to the architect of the Nazis’ Final Solution, Heinrich Himmler. At the time, Spain and Germany were negotiating over Spain’s entry into the Axis alliance.

    So Franco’s method of saving Jews was to compile a list of Jews living in Spain and giving that list to HEINRICH FREAKIN’ HIMMLER????

    There…there are no words.

    Edited to add: It’s a damn good thing for the Jewish community in Spain that Franco didn’t do them any more favors.

  138. James P says:

    @michael reynolds: Racism exists because people like you (and your pals Sharpton, Obama, and Holder) see political advantage in perpetuating it.

    Sharpton does it for money. Obama does it to use race as a weapon against his political enemies. My guess is that you do so because you see color in everything — that makes you a racist.

    The Left is the most racist among us because they see race in everything. I never raised the issue of race — you did………….because you’re a racist. Own it.

  139. James P says:

    @anjin-san: Mooch-elle is stylish and sophisticated? LOL! That’s a good one!

    She’s a mooch with an entitlement complex. She’s a latter day version of Marie Antoinette. She got a full ride scholarship to Princeton yet still write her senior thesis about how much she hates black people. She’s an angry bitter woman. Stylish? LOL!

    The only one who ever called her a chimpanzee or ghetto trash is you. Nobody I know has ever referred to her in that manner. I only called her angry, bitter, and a mooch. Perhaps you are betraying your true feelings when you call her a chimpanzee? I don’t ascribe any racial angle to my criticisms of her.

  140. An Interested Party says:

    The only one who ever called her a chimpanzee or ghetto trash is you. Nobody I know has ever referred to her in that manner.

    You silly little person…Google really is your friend

  141. James P says:
  142. James P says:
  143. James P says:
  144. michael reynolds says:

    @James P:

    Wow. Now you’re just boring.

  145. An Interested Party says:

    Oh look, it’s conspiracy time…

  146. Surreal American says:

    @James P:

    On your first post to me, the first link describes how certain Spanish diplomats saved as many Jews as they could. This was acknowledged in the Haaretz piece Michael Reynolds linked to earlier:

    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/wwii-document-reveals-general-franco-handed-nazis-list-of-spanish-jews-1.297546

    It is true that Franco built no concentration camps on Spanish territory, nor did he voluntarily hand Jews over to Germany. However, neither did he make the kind of efforts to save Jews that Spain’s neutrality would have allowed – and he did send 18,000 Spanish volunteers to fight alongside the Germans on the eastern front from 1941 to 1943.

    In contrast, Spanish diplomats throughout Europe did save thousands of Jews. But they were working on their own, at great personal risk, in defiance of Franco’s official policy. These diplomats gave transit visas to Jewish refugees – most of them of Spanish descent – and also sheltered many Jews in Spanish consulates and embassies in Hungary, France, Greece, Germany, Bulgaria and Romania.

    The second link on your first post to me absolutely confirms what a terrible person Franco was during WWII.

    Your second post to me had no links or text, which makes it your most intelligible post on OTB thus far.

    Congratulations!

  147. anjin-san says:

    @James P:

    I’m inclined to agree that you are simply a bore at this point, but just so the record is clear, here is a Google SERP for “Michelle Obama ghetto trash

    Please don’t tell me you are confused because you seldom leave the basement and don’t know what a SERP is.

    If Michelle Obama was white, she would be the second coming of Jackie Kennedy. If President Obama was white, he would be a Norman Rockwell painting come to life.

    Crackers like you hate the Obamas because they are demonstrable superior to you in every possible way that matters. They are smarter, happier, more successful, better educated, richer, more powerful, better looking, and so on and so on. Listening to trailer park residents and lower tier cubical workers that live in third rate cities describing the remarkably elegant Obamas as trash would be hysterical if it were not so sad.

  148. anjin-san says:

    @James P:

    stylish

    You don’t think Mrs. Obama is stylish? I’m curious, what suits do you prefer? How about shoes? What’s your ever day shirt brand of choice for work? In short, do you actually have a clue about personal style?

  149. James P says:

    @anjin-san: I’ll bite. What is SERP? No, I have never heard that term.

    If Mooch-elle were white she would be an angry bitter white woman with a chip on her shoulder and a sense of entitlement.

    If Barry were white he would be the most incompetent white man to ever hold the office.

    Both of these two clowns are anti-American. Mooch-elle admitted she was never proud of her country until her husband ran for president. They’re both grifters – I don’t give a damn what color they are.

  150. James P says:

    @anjin-san: I have no opinions of any kind about women’s fashion – I’m not a metrosexual. My woman looks good and that’s really the only thing that matters to me. My idea of what looks good is whatever she happens to be wearing.

    My everyday suit is Brooks Brothers. I have seven of them. I have two Burberry’s suits for important meetings and two custom tailored suits for weddings, baptisms, and funerals. I didn’t buy any of them (although I did pay for all of them).

    I truly do not even know what type of shoes I wear since I did not buy any of them. I don’t have any style or preference for footwear so I wear whatever she buys because I don’t care enough to have a preference.

  151. anjin-san says:

    @James P:

    I’m sorry, that tattoo across your forehead that says “I’m an idiot who is desperate for attention” has disqualified you from further participation.

  152. James P says:

    @anjin-san: There is no way in hell I would EVER put graffiti on my body. You could offer me one million dollars and I would not inject ink into my skin. Tattoos are graffiti. One would have to be pretty self loathing to put that on their body.

    Nope, no tattoos here.

  153. humanoid.panda says:

    @James P: Oh god, you really were pulling our chains all along. Good work, sir!

  154. grumpy realist says:

    @James P: Oh really?

    (an oldie but the best response to Randites I’ve ever seen.)

  155. grumpy realist says:

    I’ll be amused to see what our resident misogynist will have to say if Hillary Clinton becomes POTUS. Amazing how much of an overlap there is between the MRA types and the glibertarian types.

    (Note: based on my experience and contrary to what they claim, libertarians aren’t all that good in bed. Selfishness shows up there as well.)

  156. James P says:

    @grumpy realist: I supported Michele Bachmann in the 2012 primaries, so that might indicate that I’m not all that opposed to the idea of a female POTUS.

    I donated money to Bachmann’s campaign. Oops, I guess that nukes your argument.

  157. de stijl says:

    @James P:

    I’ll bite. What is SERP?

    On the internet, there are these things called Search Engines. You may be acquainted with them; you may want to explore them a bit more. If one were to type in a query like, say, “define SERP,” one would get Results that would display as a Page.

    Pro-tip: you don’t even have to fully type out the word “define” to get this to work. You could just type “def.” As in type “def SERP” in the Google or Bing Search Bar and see what happens.

    One could try that to see what would happen.

    Hey, I can use google too

    Are you positive?

    BTW, do you need to keep a metronome on your person at all times to remind yourself to breathe?

  158. de stijl says:

    @James P:

    “Mooch-elle”

    Stay classy, James P

    Please let us know what part of Mrs. Obama’s biography makes you think she is a moocher.

  159. James P says:

    @de stijl: 1) She has an entitlement complex. When she had Barry both go to LA they take separate planes because she just does not give a damn that it costs taxpayers money. Let them eat cake.

    2) She is a racist. Did you read her senior paper? In addition to appearing to have been written by a third grader, it is not an academic paper. It is just basically a rant about why she hates white people.

    3) She’s not even remotely attractive because she is so angry. Anger and bitterness are not attractive qualities. She has a constant scowl on her face because despite everything that has been handed to her (which was earned by others) she is a very angry and bitter woman.

  160. James P says:

    It looks like Bibi is winning!!!!!

    Ha! This is a major foreign policy setback for the Obama regime! What is bad for Obama is good for America, Israel, and the rest of the world.

    I always had confidence in the Israeli people. I knew they’d be wise enough to give an anti-Semitic POS community organizer like Hussein Obama the middle finger.