On one level you have to laugh that Kucinich and Paul were the only two dissenting votes in a 411-2 Congressional resolution urging the UN Security Council to charge Iran’s president Ahmadinejad under genocide conventions. But it is interesting these particular men stood alone in supposedly principled opposition to the obvious. And I’m sure their supporters would cite these “principles” as being great and idealistic. I’ll leave aside all the usual Neville Chamberlain clichés, because, well, we all know them, and cut to the chase – my view of their true motivations.
I think both of these men became highly-rigid narcissists decades ago. Their entire public personae … and the attention they crave… are totally dependent on maintaining an inviolable public image. You can invariably predict everything they are going to say, every attitude they take. There is never a surprise, because they are playing roles they have chosen for themselves and for which they were rewarded with public and media attention from years in the past. If they changed their positions and became more reasonable, even in a few areas, they would simply disappear because they no longer fulfilled their roles.
This disappearance, of course, is intolerable to the narcissist. The point – for both Kucinich and Paul- is not to win, but to bask in that reflected glow that justifies their existence. This is also an indication why both do not appear to listen when others talk. To do so would be to have their thought processes challenged and to risk change. What fascinates me in this, however, is that, unlike in national polls where they barely register, a large number of people in their home areas actually voted for the Congressmen. Perhaps Paul and Kucinich have different personalities for the hometown crowd – a kind of sudden practicality – or maybe it’s just earmarks or maybe… those folks back home bask in the glow of the narcissism too. Hey, this famous guy comes from our little town!
I have said it before, but it bears repeating…extremes meet.
So if– as is all too possible– the UN should decide, at the behest of its “Human Rights Council” that General Petraeus should be tried for war crimes, that would be fine with you?
Oh, sorry, I forgot, you could oppose that because you are unburdened by a narcissitic concern with “principle”.
And just when did you become such a supporter of the UN?
Ralph Nader seems to me to have the same personality trait, Roger.
I think you have something there.
Bravo, Roger. The irony that Mr. tomkow, of course, is that the UN would probably have more interest in charging Petraeus than Little Hitler.
Leaving the psychobabble aside, what credit do the 411 who voted for this toothless resolution deserve?
I think you are correct, Roger. The underlying message from such folk is always the same: “I’m better than you.” A common position would not support that statement and so an extreme one must be substituted regardless of how ludicrous or even dangerous it might be. It’s a question of priorities.
The above applies to certain trolls, too; they are simply better than the rest of us. It must be enormously frustrating to them that we can’t see their moral superiority.
Who so much narcissism these days? I blame the whole unearned self-esteem movement: when ego exceeds ability, insistence is all that remains. The true narcissists, remember, are not so much full of themselves as they are invested in maintaining a public image behind which to hide their self-contempt.
To be sure, both men project a bit of oddness. Most people, of course, closely examined, are a bit off the bubble.
The true significance of this symbolic vote, however, is that it’s another step on the disastrous path to an attack on Iran, a mad unjust war for which the likes of Norman Podhoretz are agitating.
When the war comes and goes bad, those in the herd that voted “Aye” will have to shuffle, shuck and jive to explain how they were taken in.
Ahmadinejad is bizarre and says terrible things, but to start a war with Iran would be to DO a terrible thing, which is worse.
Kudos to Roger and ras. And as for Grumpy, no one is going to go after Nutjob or Iran for his saying bizarre things. It’s the doing of bad, nay evil, things that requires intervention. Please get that into your head, Grumpy Neville, lest in the fullness of time you be compelled to shuck and jive yourself.
A non-binding resolution that makes a request that won’t be granted for an action that wouldn’t have any effect even if it were taken is one case where practicality doesn’t really enter into consideration.
As far as why his district would vote for Ron Paul, he’s a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, anti-spending candidate running in a rural Texas district. He spends lots of time on constituent service, and his quixotic votes don’t affect House outcomes or even seem to annoy his Congressional colleagues. And you don’t have to worry about him being bought, because any bought vote would be glaringly obvious.
So, replacing him won’t make a difference about what policies pass Congress, and you might get someone worse at constituent service, or easier for lobbyists to buy. Why risk the practical downsides for the sake of symbolism?
Kucinich does always vote the way the people want him to vote. Wouldn’t it be great if everyone in Congress did?
Unsuprising that the Jew-obsessed Grumpy Old Man from Laguna Beach goes so easy on the the virulently anti-Semitic Ahmadinejad. After all they do have an awful lot in common. Some examples:
‘Lerner�s a jackass, but he’s simply doing for his cause what the Zionist movement has been doing for years – using the memory of the murdered Jews to gain support for its policies.’
‘Caroline Glick, an American Jewess turned Israeli, is an indefatigably ferocious warmonger who writes for the Jerusalem Post.’
‘”Holocaustism.” Wish I’d invented that.’
‘Zionism contained two contradictory claims. One, that an independent Israel would be a light unto the nations, some kind of moral exemplar. The other, that an independent Israel would finally be just another nation, freeing Jews of their inhibiting and lethal chosenness.’
You’ll find a lot more (and a lot worse) of this poisonous garbage at his blog, if you have the stomach to root around for it.
One of very best reasons for Israel is that Jewish children do not have to grow up breathing the same air as Grumpy Old Man.
The model for both these men is Savonarola. He also had a fanatical certainty on all matters. I believe he was also a short man, which I think these fellows are. We all know what that portends.
Ahmadinejad makes bizarre and offensive pronouncements. He’s no friend of this country of or mine. However, Iranian marines are not about to come ashore at Atlantic City.
The question is whether the United States attack Iran? This issue is kept on the agenda by a relatively small but influential group of people, some of whom seem to be influenced by a right-wing strain of Zionism. Podhoretz is Exhibit A. This group is wrong about what is in the interests of the U.S., and many Israelis would say, wrong about what is in Israel’s interests.
Air raids on Iran would unite the rather restive population against the mullahs, might provoke attacks on Persian Gulf shipping and U.S. troops in the region, and thus begin a cycle of battles.
Of course the U.S. could conquer and occupy Iran, if we went on a war footing and mobilized a million-strong army through a draft. Would it be worth it? Few politicians would endorse this course of action if it were openly proposed.
The Iraq War, which I confess to having skeptically supported, has turned into a giant mess. Rethinking it, I believe a return to a fairly systematic non-interventionism (back to 1897, really) is in our interest.
If any commenter on this blog really wants to attack Iran, I’d invite him to say why, and what he thinks the result would be.
You can invariably predict everything they are going to say, every attitude they take
You could say that about Tony Blair, Ted Kennedy, Tom Lantos, Joe Lieberman, and any number of other public representatives. I don’t see why Kucinich and Ron Paul, ideologues though they may be, are any worse than the names above.
Leaving the psychobabble aside, what credit do the 411 who voted for this toothless resolution deserve?
It takes a brave, principled House member to take a pro-Israel anti-Iran stand!
For me, Kucinich and Ron Paul make excellent cocktail party break pedals.
Somebody starts blathering off the wall ideas about government I might ask isn’t that one of Kucinich’s ideas?
Even if it isn’t, the shock provides one with timely respite.
“Kucinich does always vote the way the people want him to vote.”
How do you know that with any degree of certainty?
Attacking Iran would be an act of supreme rationality, not madness. We did so in 1988. Sank half their navy in one afternoon and took over their oil platforms. A handful of SEALs performed the latter mission virtually unopposed.
For some reason people think that Iran is some sort of unstoppable juggernaut instead of the borderline Third World nation it is. They couldn’t even beat Iraq, which had one of the worst armies in history.
Iran is killing our troops in Iraq. That’s reason enough to destroy their military capabilities, which we could do in a matter of days. They would try to retaliate, at which point we would destroy their economic infrastructure so they could spend the next fifty years riding around in donkey carts like their beloved Prophet (pbuh).
I’ll be glued to the TV, laughing the whole time at the thought of the pious, murderous, ninth century bozos shocked out of their skulls, demanding to know from their stupid Revolutionary Guards and Jerusalem Force why the Great Satan was fighting back.
We can confront this & maybe lose, or we can avoid it and surely lose.
Coisty,
You mean Lieberman who lost his party’s primary? Oh I forgot, he’s a Joooooo, I mean a hook-nosed Trotskyite neocon wire-puller.
Me (Coisty):You could say that about Tony Blair, Ted Kennedy, Tom Lantos, Joe Lieberman, and any number of other public representatives.
Gary Rosen:Coisty,
You mean Lieberman who lost his party’s primary? Oh I forgot, he’s a Joooooo, I mean a hook-nosed Trotskyite neocon wire-puller.
I believe Tom Lantos who like Lieberman supports terrorism against Balkan Christians is also a Jew – or as you put it a “Jooooo”. But last I checked the most evil man in America, Teddy Kennedy, is Catholic – his brother Jack wrote an entire book on how evil the WASP founders and builders of America were. Tony Blair has been in the news this week for allegedly planning to convert to Catholicism. I thought the traitor was one already but apparently not. Interesting that you bring up the Jewish angle. Strange how you come up with a Jewish angle. Gary, your paranoia needs to be treated right away.
Kucinich thied to point out that according to two translations provided by the NY Times and MEMRI, Amadinejad is calling for the end of a Jewish state in Palestine rather than the end of the Jewish people. By the same logic, one would have to charge Ronald Reagan under genocide conventions for daring to consign the Soviet Union and other communist regimes to the ashheap of history.
More on the translation:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
Coisty:
Like you’ve never gone out of your way to take cheap shots at Jews bwahaha. One of the good things about being Jewish, though, is that antisemites always turn out to be losers, dimwits and misf*cks like yourself.
markus:
Never mind the fact that they fund Hamas, whose charter is rife with calls for the murder of Jews, not “just” Israelis or Zionists. Then there was the “moderate” Rafsanjani, who enthused about the fact that a nuclear exchange would eliminate Israel while leaving Iran somewhat intact with the loss of only a few million. But that’s Jim Dandy in your eyes, I guess. Unsurprising from a scumbag like you.