Considering the paucity of real ideas floating around the Democratic Party (and not reactive "ideas" such as: just stand up and be counted against everything George Bush proposes, every last thing) it struck me that the biggest blue state of them all, Old Europe, is in the same boat. As this Tom Friedman editorial in its body (not quoted) mentions. Standing for nothing, they simply stand against everything someone else stands for. The Middle East, although a mess in many ways, is a successful mess that the opposition must either make up stories about (see those stories questioning Iraq's election) or slide to the center (see Hillary's latest moves in religion, abortion and even Iraq). The amazing story in the Middle East goes something like: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt. Which regime will be next to propose changes thought impossible just 5 years ago?
nytimes.com
"There is an obvious compromise that Mr. Bush could put on the table that would defuse this whole issue. Mr. Bush should simply say to France, Germany and their E.U. partners that America has absolutely no objection to Europeans' selling arms to China - on one condition: that they sell arms to themselves first. That's right, the U.S. should support the export to China of any defense system that the Europeans buy for their own armies first. Buy one, sell one.
But what the U.S. should not countenance is that at a time when the Europeans are spending peanuts on their own defense, making themselves into paper tigers and free riders on America for global policing, that they start exporting arms to a growing tiger - China."
Rhetorical question: just how many columns can Paul Krugman devote to his hysteria about social security reform?
(don't bother counting; since February 1st I count 8 out of 10 editorials as Krugman hissy fits about social security. 80%:
nytimes.com |
