Rubio’s defeat means the downfall of neoconservatives

US Politics
on 79 Comments

The stinging defeat of Senator Marco Rubio in his home state of Florida yesterday, and his withdrawal from the Republican race, have very powerful significance: pro-Israel neoconservatism has been flushed from the Republican Party, twenty years after it captured that party and produced the Iraq War.

Rubio ran as the candidate of the neoconservative faction in the Republican Party. He raised a ton of money on that basis. Donald Trump ran against the Iraq war and for a more evenhanded policy visavis the Israel/Palestine issue; and Trump smashed Rubio on his own ground.

The neoconservatives may now flock to Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side. Robert Kagan already has. Right now there is no other game in town.

Chris Matthews all but stated that neoconservatism is a Jewish pro-Israel movement last night. You have not heard such a bald description of the neocons’ agenda in the mainstream media ever I think, and that in itself is a sign of their loss of power:

One of the big factors that’s been unleashed… There’s a very significant but small number of people, they’re called noeconservatives. They’re sons of immigrants or grandsons of immigrants. They’re very pro Israeli. They’re very pro immigrant. Because they’re children and children of immigrants themsevles.

They’d been backing Rubio as their hope. He’s a hawk, he throws lines like Judea and Samaria, a reference to the fact of greater Israel, that the Likudnik party has never wanted to give away.

They send all those kinds of signals. Rubio has been that sort of guy. Now he’s gone.

They’re very active on the op-ed pages. They’re very intellectual. I like a lot of them personally. People like Bill Kristol, John Podhoretz, Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer, very smart people who have neoconservative culture and views behind them. They’re going to be interesting to watch now. I don’t think they’re comfortable at all with Trump with his latest line about being evenhanded on the Middle East. That’s not going to sell at all.

They don’t like him. They don’t think he’s classy enough….

That candidate [they go to] could very well be Hillary Clinton.

That’s when you’re gong to see a real sea change, on the op-eds of our major newspapers, people writing with a very strong evenhandedness [about the two parties]…

This is a big development night. Their vessel has sunk. Now they’re gong to be struggling in the water.

Justin Raimondo:

Marco’s Waterloo = the end of neonconservatism as a political force in the GOP. Glory, glory hallelujah!

In her victory speech last night, Hillary Clinton made an implicit nod to Israel and to Donald Trump’s wishywashiness. She echoed Marco Rubio’s attack on Trump as not supportive of our allies.

“We live in a complex and, yes, a dangerous world. Protecting America’s national security can never be an after thought. Our commander in chief has to be able to defend our country, not embarrass it, engage our allies, not alienate them, defeat our adversaries, not embolden them. When we have a candidate for president call for rounding up 12 million immigrants, banning all Muslims from entering United States, when he embraces torture, that doesn’t make him strong, it makes him wrong.”

Scott McConnell says the neocons are now thought to be up for grabs; and it means a lot that Matthews is talking about it:

Chris Matthews says Cruz pitched his speech tonite towards [Sheldon]Adelson/[Paul]Singer/ (FP hawks) and Koch bros. (kill the EPA). Incisive for TV.

Neoconservative Bill Kristol has moved on to a new strategy: getting an establishment Republican to run against Trump and Hillary Clinton.

An Independent Republican could win, w/ Clinton at 56 unfav & Trump at 67, & possibility of Trump meltdown in general.

Kristol is even notioning the candidacy of Tom Cotton, the Arkansas senator whom the neoconservatives made in 2014:

E-mail from serious guy: “Sasse or Cotton as Ind Rep/constl conservative? If either jumped in I’d be tempted to take leave to help them.”

When Kristol says that the guy is serious, he means that he has a lot of money. Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel lifted Cotton with $1 million in his 2014 Senate race, and he promptly attempted to sabotage the Iran deal. And no one really talked about it. Now they will, because the neocons are losing power.

As you read this, bear some things in mind. Matthews’s all-but-explicit identification of neocons as Jews is fine. Neoconservatism came out of the Jewish community, and was based on hawkish pro-Israel views; many Jewish writers said as much– even Alan Dershowitz, here. Back in the 1970s, neoconservative founders Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol originated the movement when they jumped to the Republican Party in the wake of George McGovern’s nomination by the Democrats; because they doubted the Democrats would use force to support Israel. A weak Defense budget would “drive a knife in the heart of Israel,” Kristol said outright in a Jewish publication.The creed was plain:

it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States… American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.

Then in the 1990s, his son Bill worked to purge the “Arabists” and realists from the Republican establishment, people like Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft who were against marching on Baghdad. Kristol and Kagan produced the neoconservative braintrust that helped to give us the Iraq war under Bush.

And all this time, neoconservatism was not politicized because there was a companion wing on the Democratic side: the liberal interventionists, the Democratic political/media bloc that supported the Iraq War, from Jeffrey Goldberg who may as well have been a neocon to Bill Keller to David Remnick to Chuck Schumer to Hillary Clinton. The entire foreign policy establishment was an Israel lobby establishment; no one argued about a militant Israel-supporting foreign policy in political races, except rank outsiders.

Hillary Clinton will now also be making a play for the neoconservative faction, inasmuch as there is a lot of money there. Read this comment, on a New York Times editorial, from a Hillary supporter, called Peg, who seems well-informed: 

Hillary made 41 speeches in 2013. One was to a Jewish fed for 400,000 and one to a nurses org for 300,000. She got her average of 225,000 from Goldman. This is how the Clinton’s make a living and raise money for their foundation. It is very common for large orgs to pay big bucks for speakers. Graduation speakers can even get as much as 100,000.

It is a shame Bernie spun that into a conspiracy to gain votes.

The issue is, how much Hillary Clinton’s pandering to the pro-Israel conservatives and neoconservatives– the Jewish Federation, the Saban Forum, and AIPAC, or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee– distorts her foreign policy positions. Bernie Sanders has not made an issue of this; but possibly Donald Trump will. Clinton has promised to bring Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House in her first month in office. She has promised to Haim Saban– a big donor to Clinton and Barack Obama too, who shares many positions with rightwing donor Sheldon Adelson– that she will work with Republicans to fight the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS.

The good news from last night is that these positions may at last be politicized: They may be openly disputed in the coming election.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

79 Responses

  1. hophmi
    March 16, 2016, 11:20 am

    More evidence that you’d promote a fascist as long as he seemed to go against the grain on Israel. For shame.

    • oldgeezer
      March 16, 2016, 11:53 am

      @hophmi

      Spare us the victim hood hops. Israel is a rogue and criminal state. Only someone with an inverted moral compass could consider even handedness to be anti Israel. The necons are pure scum and have wrecked many tens of millions of lives…. if correct then good riddance to them. As they die off the world will be a better place.

      you tacitly admit to the guilt of Israel when you fear a lack of privilege and even handedness. Going so far as to label it against Israel.

    • Donald
      March 16, 2016, 11:57 am

      Except he’s not promoting Trump–he’s correctly reporting that the neocons and the rest of the establishment in the Republican Party have lost control and so now some neocons are going over to Hillary.

      I will say, though, that it is a shame it takes a proto-fascist like Trump to point ou that the invasion of Iraq was sold by the telling of lies, and that someone like Trump is the only candidate saying we should be evenhanded on Israel, even though in the very next sentence he repeats some standard hasbara. It shows how utterly dishonest our political establishment is and this dishonesty about many issues has given a demagogue like Trump an opening.

      • hophmi
        March 16, 2016, 1:04 pm

        Where’s his criticism of Trump?

      • amigo
        March 16, 2016, 1:47 pm

        “Where’s his criticism of Trump?”hophead

        Hoppy , if you wish to publish your own articles that include criticism of Trump , go start your own blog.Don,t worry , we wont be along to demand you publish material that goes against Israel.Go knock yourself out.

      • Donald
        March 16, 2016, 9:24 pm

        There’ve been a lot of criticism of Trump on the front pages here. Even on the I/P issue, Trump was a racist buffoon who accepted the pro- Israel framing of the conflict while saying he was going to be evenhanded.

        I looked– here is a list of MW pieces on Trump.

        http://mondoweiss.net/?s=Trump

        Obviously Phil can hold more than one thought in his head simultaneously. Try it for yourself. In this case, Trump broke a taboo on Israel by saying he would be evenhanded, but he is also a dangerous bigot.

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      March 16, 2016, 12:58 pm

      how is he a fascist and Netanyahu is not? Why is it ok for Israel to have strong borders, but not the US?

      • Boo
        March 18, 2016, 7:01 pm

        MRSA is bacterial, Ebola is viral. They’re both virulent and potentially fatal. I wouldn’t call Netanyahu a fascist, but both he and Trump are demagogues.

        It is OK for both countries to have strong borders, but to think either country can achieve them by building walls is foolishness. The wall of Jericho came a-tumblin’ down and all it took was some 3000 BCE punk rock.

    • Krauss
      March 16, 2016, 1:24 pm

      So pointing out that Trump has wrecked the neocons(temporarily) is now the same as actively supporting or even promoting?

      Even for the low standards of an internet troll, you still manage to sink lower. You’ve never been intelligent, but at least you weren’t so outright stupid in your trolling.

    • lysias
      March 16, 2016, 6:40 pm

      I’m not sure yet whether Trump is a fascist. There’s enough of a danger there that I won’t vote for him. But I certainly won’t vote for warmonger Hillary. To vote for her would be immoral. We’re talking about a danger with Trump, versus a certainty with Hillary. If Hillary gets the nomination, I will vote for Jill Stein.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 16, 2016, 7:26 pm

        versus a certainty with Hillary

        exactly lysias, i won’t vote for her either.

      • pabelmont
        March 17, 2016, 10:14 am

        lysias: Hillary a warmonger? Yes. A big-bankster? Yes. In the pocket of the BIGs generally? Yes. Obscenely pro-Israel-hard-line (I distinguish this from pro-Israel-but-strongly-condemning-occupation-and-settlements)? Yes.

        I just sent Bernie some more $$. I think he’ll lose, but what can you do?
        FYI: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/bernie-sanders

      • brent
        March 17, 2016, 12:24 pm

        Hillary is a politician, first and foremost. Politicians don’t act out of principle until they believe they will likely gain more than they lose. They don’t lead until there is a parade to join. Another way of saying this, in a democracy, successful politicians don’t lead, they reflect. They conceal their thinking until time is ripe. Its called “positioning”. As Bernie says, change doesn’t come from the top, it percolates. Expecting something else is unrealistic.

        I predict with Bernie and Trump saying we need to turn from warmongering to diplomacy in order to build America, Hillary doesn’t miss that. She can’t be a successful president by ignoring the youth of the country. She will be positioned to take on the king when she judges the time is ripe.

      • Citizen
        March 17, 2016, 1:04 pm

        Me either.

      • ritzl
        March 17, 2016, 1:17 pm

        Bingo lysias. If T v C is the choice, I have to vote T (as opposed to Jill Stein).

        There may be enough written legality, popular consensus morality, and constitutional law to hold Trump’s [tactical??] “tiger riding” racist garbage in check while with Hillary the deep state (aka neocon nirvana) goes unchecked from run amok to completely out of control for as far as the eye can see.

        Sorry Jill. It’s not you, it’s me.

        That’s not to say Trump won’t ultimately fully embrace war-without-end/war-as-first-resort as well, but there’s a chance he might not. I think as much a part (beside the racism) of his successful unfocused-anger-tapping schtick is giving a vent to economic anger. He MAY choose to actually try to make the lives of the people who voted for him (and Hillary) better. Hillary supported and continues to support the cause of their anger (cf. TPP) and despite anything she says (or what her supporters “hope” she really means) will never address/correct those root causes. Not ever. She’d have to completely reject and reverse her husband’s 25-year old realignment of the Dems into a primarily business/donor-friendly party to do so. Pffft.

    • kalithea
      March 16, 2016, 6:46 pm

      And you hop promote a fascist ideology, namely, Ziosupremacy.

    • niass2
      March 16, 2016, 8:18 pm

      Of course I would, I love fascists. who cares about the election, idiots when do we get our freedom? I like white bread, no hard grains. ya mean the Hilary Israel train? well, I aint getting on. I also wonder why Jews care (I am a Jew) if people hate them. So what, ignore them. That’s what makes me happy. And with Karate, they (whoever they are) doesn’t want to fight me. I don’t need weapons. Peace is great, hate exists, who cares, ignore it and give us our freedom already. Or is that too hard of a concept even at this point. The Palestinians are a diversion for Israel, but its taking a long time to solve it and move on. Cause Israel has lost its marbles, a long time ago, if it had any. This is the real outcome of the Holocaust all these years later. A clueless childish immature self destructing Israel.

      Did anyone read the Torah recently, or were they reading a manual on how to operate a tank? What happened to the religion. I thought Judaism was one, or so I was told when I was young. Where’d the real manual go? Did manuel steal it, like in Wall-E? It could be that Hophmi confuses rain and sun , like when reagan sent the homeless into the rain cause his alzheimers made him confuse a rainy day for a sunny day. Ask Jerry, only he can explain this situation. Whatever, I do love Fascists though. always did always will. I kind of am one.

    • Rooster
      March 16, 2016, 10:35 pm

      Hophmi? Upset over fascism promotion?

      OUR Hophmi?

      Wow.

      Methinks the hophmi doth protest too much!

  2. echinococcus
    March 16, 2016, 12:55 pm

    Not so sure they went down. They were obviously very much a part of Obama warmaking, to the point of having Kagan’s wife unmasked (without consequences) as the head conspirator of the Neocon-Nazi putsch and the civil war in Ukraine, in the employ of the State Department. It’s only natural for them to follow the Empress to keep their grip on foreign policy.
    By the way, did anyone believe that slow-witted Rubio was anything but a scarecrow set up to scare people into voting the Empress as the “lesser evil”?

  3. Atlantaiconoclast
    March 16, 2016, 1:01 pm

    I am supporting Trump, with major reservations, precisely because of the terror he has caused in the neocon’s minds. But I don’t trust Trump on this issue. Nevertheless, the fact he had the nerve to say he would try to be neutral just boggles my mind. What did he have to gain in saying that? Most Republicans are reflexively pro Israel, though even most of them do not want us going to war for Israel like we did against Iraq. I am hoping that Trump will unredact those 28 pages of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and learn some things that could dramatically damage the “special relationship.”

    • hophmi
      March 16, 2016, 2:33 pm

      “I am supporting Trump, with major reservations, precisely because of the terror he has caused in the neocon’s minds”

      Another example.

      • niass2
        March 16, 2016, 8:23 pm

        I am not supporting Trump, and I do have a reservation for dinner, see ya later. I am supporting trump………………………………………..good luck, he will never be anyone. Welcome to NJ.

      • Citizen
        March 17, 2016, 12:34 pm

        Trump sure does have Bill Kristol in a tizzy. It’s very depressing to me that Kristol comes on cable TV news shows as a pundit weekly.

  4. Krauss
    March 16, 2016, 1:20 pm

    Trump will not call out Hillary on the neocons, because he is a bully and a bully typically goes after people he perceives as weaker targets. That’s why Trump went after mexicans & muslims but not jews, blacks or Asians. He instictively knows which groups have cultural power in the US and which don’t.

    He has also tried to woo Adelson in the past (but failed). He’s going to AIPAC. No, he’s not going to invade countries in the Middle East but he isn’t actively going to call out the neocons.

  5. Krauss
    March 16, 2016, 1:22 pm

    One more thing: Ted Cruz is not as belligerent as the neocons want, but he’s obviously not a realist in foreign policy. He’s a favorite of Adelson’s wife, which should tell you a lot. The neocons are not yet finished, you’re making a pre-celebratory victory lap here.

    Frankly, I still think, long-term, they have an easier stay in the GOP than in the democratic party. The base of the GOP by and large likes Israel, while the progressive base, especially the younger part, is starting to seriously hate Israel.

    Neocons are basically Jewish nationalists. So their primary concern is Israel. They can’t trust a democratic party long-term whose base is hostile to their core interest, Israel(not America).

    • kalithea
      March 16, 2016, 2:13 pm

      starting to seriously hate Israel. Neocons are basically Jewish nationalists. So their primary concern is Israel. They can’t trust a democratic party long-term whose base is hostile to their core interest, Israel(not America).

      Most of them can and they will put their trust with Hillary and the Democratic Party when its history with Bill, Obama and now Hillary is proving that they have no problem blatantly lying to the base in the primaries only to betray them over and over again when they’re in power by continuing Neoconservatism through hawkish foreign policy and continuing to diminish the Constitutional rights of individuals based on the perpetual war on terror and a misguided allegiance to a foreign country considered an ally, Israel.

      The leaders of the Democratic Party have no problem denying their base over and over again into perpetuity to demonstrate loyalty to Israel and its Neocon representatives so there is no long-term excuse. The base will always be made to heel before the will of its leaders with the Zionist rigged two-party system, whereby the threat of a Republican administration doing away with their domestic issues and entitlements is always used to control any revolt inside the base.

      • hophmi
        March 16, 2016, 2:26 pm

        “the Zionist rigged two-party system”

        Zionists created the two-party system? #learnsomethingneweveryday #dogoon

      • kalithea
        March 16, 2016, 6:42 pm

        @ hop: Zionists created the two-party system?

        No, they just rigged it so that Zionism is always the love child they need to compete for.

      • inbound39
        March 16, 2016, 7:54 pm

        If the two party system is controlled and manipulated by the Zionists then you have a single party voting in the Zionist interest only making Democracy non existent in America.

        Rubio’s Speech ending his run for President was telling. He said it was not God’s Will for him to be President. If true it means God listened to Rubio’s last coupla speeches on Israel and duly noted the pack of lies Rubio spoke in those speeches and decided he was not honest enough. But then…..what Zionist is?

      • peeesss
        March 17, 2016, 11:58 am

        Kalithea; you are right on target. The Democrat candidates, always speak to the more progressive, , humane, base of the party through the primary season… Then once in power cling to the neo liberal economics policies of the right wing and corporate America. See Bill Clinton and , sad to say, Barack Obama. Of course their allegiance to the right wing, and yes Hopmi, the fascist Zionist State is never impeded by the election cycle. The coffers of the Zionist billionaires negates any offer of justice to the Palestinian people.

    • echinococcus
      March 16, 2016, 2:21 pm

      a democratic party long-term whose base is hostile to their core interest, Israel(not America).

      Any evidence, outside wishful thinking?

      • Citizen
        March 17, 2016, 1:03 pm

        At least, at the last DNC convention broadcast, the progressives put a party plank in making Jerusalem under international jurisdiction as required by international law–Obama missed it, then scurried to change it, coordinating with DNC honchos; it was put to gavel voice vote right on TV–the yays & nays seemed at audio stand-off; then an old lady came out, whispered in Gavel buy’s ear & he quickly called for one more voice vote & slammed his hammer down, saying that plank was gone! I heard the contrary conclusion. It was blatant rule by Israel-First Democrats.

      • echinococcus
        March 17, 2016, 11:35 pm

        Of course, Citizen. I had forgotten that remarkable sign of people’s liking for fair play, even in the Dim party sewer. So yes, perhaps some of the Dim (or Puke, too) base may become hostile to Zionism in the future –after some other groups destroy Zionist respectability.
        I’ll just observe that this majority continued to sit there like so many hypnotized sloths after their leaders ran over them with a steamroller and they remain more loyal than ever to their Zionist party, thanks in great part to Sanders.

  6. kalithea
    March 16, 2016, 1:30 pm

    As you read this, bear some things in mind. Matthews’s all-but-explicit identification of neocons as Jews is fine. –

    But it’s not fine or okay here to identify Jewish Supreme Court Justices and the potential Justice that Obama just proposed, Merrick Garland, who would make the fourth Jewish Justice as being a threat to BDS as well.

    Trump is trying to skip a debate using the excuse that he’s addressing AIPAC. So addressing AIPAC just became more important to him than addressing the American public. If you’re putting your hopes with the Neo-fascist; you will be a hundred times more disappointed than having invested hope with Obama.

    Hillary is an overt Neoconservative; there is no doubt there and she is a big threat to BDS. But you have no proof whatsoever that Trump the candidate, who professed his love for Israel during the last debate, won’t squash BDS as well.

    All our efforts should be directed at protecting BDS, because that’s all we have to counter Zionist injustice. There is no candidate in this race who will equate BDS as a right protected by the First Amendment except maybe Sanders, who I believe will not allow legislation criminalizing BDS to pass.

    So whether or not Sanders speaks out against Neoconservatism and Hillary as the final standard bearer of it left in this campaign, which I wish he would by the way, pales in comparison to promoting a Trump fascist who would have no problem whatsoever demonizing and criminalizing BDS to neutralize all efforts to free the Muslim population of millions suffering under the supremacist scourge that is Zionism.

    • hophmi
      March 16, 2016, 2:32 pm

      “But it’s not fine or okay here to identify Jewish Supreme Court Justices and the potential Justice that Obama just proposed, Merrick Garland, who would make the fourth Jewish Justice as being a threat to BDS as well.”

      You just did it. Because when a Justice is Christian, he’s just a justice. But when he’s a Jewish justice, he’s a Jew.

      “Trump is trying to skip a debate using the excuse that he’s addressing AIPAC. So addressing AIPAC just became more important to him than addressing the American public.”

      Actually, his main excuse is that there have been too many debates, and of course, nothing prevents him from doing both things.

      “All our efforts should be directed at protecting BDS, because that’s all we have to counter Zionist injustice. ”

      According to people like Rutgers professor Jasbir Puar, BDS is a nonviolent way to support the Intifada that kills Jewish children.

      ” There is no candidate in this race who will equate BDS as a right protected by the First Amendment except maybe Sanders, who I believe will not allow legislation criminalizing BDS to pass.”

      What is wrong with you? Which piece of legislation “criminalizes” BDS? Boy, people here really must be Trump supporters. They’re just as uninformed, anyway.

      ” Muslim population of millions suffering under the supremacist scourge that is Zionism”

      The Muslim population is suffering because of Zionism? #really #tellmemore

      • amigo
        March 16, 2016, 3:16 pm

        “You just did it. Because when a Justice is Christian, he’s just a justice. But when he’s a Jewish justice, he’s a Jew”.hophead

        hophead , instead of shooting from the hip with the muzzle pointed at yourself , perhaps you should have opened the link provided and avoid making a clown of yourself.The following statements of Jews counting Jews was available to you.

        “Alan Dershowitz: (The Vanishing American Jew):

        Jews have been active in gay rights, but the recent neo-conservative movement in America has also been dominated by Jews, many of whom had been leaders in the socialist movement of the past.

        JJ Goldberg (Jewish Power):

        Not all the neoconservatives were Jewish… Nonetheless, they became known as a Jewish group for several reasons. For one thing, most of them were Jews…. Most important, the neoconservatives proclaimed their existence throught two magazines edited and published by Jews…”

        Follow the link for the other 5 individuals counting Jews.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/robert-siegel-scolds-kalle-lasn/

      • echinococcus
        March 16, 2016, 3:42 pm

        Vintage Hopfme:

        Because when a Justice is Christian, he’s just a justice. But when he’s a Jewish justice, he’s a Jew.

        Yeah, when 45% of the Supreme Court is drawn from a nominally religious group representing 2% of the population and all those 45% just happen to be Zionists anyway, that is the default position. While others are not of any religion if they do not practice, these 45% also get the racial designation thanks to the likes of Hopfme.
        Logic, anyone?

      • hophmi
        March 16, 2016, 4:36 pm

        OK, so because two Jews wrote books about how many neocons are Jews, it’s ok to assert that Merrick Garland will rule against BDS because he’s Jewish. Got it.

        “Yeah, when 45% of the Supreme Court is drawn from a nominally religious group representing 2% of the population”

        What was that about how jealousy never motivates antisemitism?

        “and all those 45% just happen to be Zionists”

        Sorry, but can you point me to the long record of Ginsberg, Kagan, or Breyer’s writings on Zionism and Israel? Oh, I see, they’re not on record as being anti-Zionists, and they’re Jews, so, even though Israel has nothing to do with their jobs, you’re reducing them to “Zionists.” Tell me again how anti-Zionism has nothing to do with antisemitism.

        “While others are not of any religion if they do not practice…”

        Based on what, exactly? Every Catholic on the court is a hardcore Catholic? The President’s not a Christian because he doesn’t go to church?

        Keep diggin’ that hole, echinocrapus.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 16, 2016, 6:09 pm

        when 45% of the Supreme Court is drawn from a nominally religious group representing 2% of the population…..While others are not of any religion if they do not practice, these 45% also get the racial designation thanks to the likes of Hopfme.

        and your response to this is ‘What was that about how jealousy never motivates antisemitism?’ who said anything about being jealous?

      • kalithea
        March 16, 2016, 6:18 pm

        Yeah Trump can do both, but Trump himself used the excuse that he had a speech to deliver at Aipac on the same day, okaaaaay? It’s not my invention; you’ll be disappointed to learn…

        …when a Justice is Christian, he’s just a justice. But when he’s a Jewish justice, he’s a Jew. Yeah, he’s a Jew and 9 times outta ten a Zionist one too cause you Zionists gotta have all bases manned to protect your precious Ziosupremacy and you wouldn’t need to control everything if what you were protecting weren’t so immoral and an ongoing crime against humanity.

        I won’t demean myself by debating the rest of the crap you just pooped there.

      • kalithea
        March 16, 2016, 6:34 pm

        Actually, hop, echinocrapus is what you get when you’re Zioinfectus which is precisely your affliction.

      • Mooser
        March 16, 2016, 8:00 pm

        “What was that about how jealousy never motivates antisemitism?”

        Well gosh, “Hophmi” who wouldn’t be jealous of you?

      • yonah fredman
        March 17, 2016, 6:47 am

        Regarding Garland: If the Republicans are smart
        If hillary wins, the next day the lame duck Senate should approve him because Hillary will nominate someone more liberal than Garland and certainly someone younger than him. In fact the Republican senate won’t do that, but it would be a clever trick if they would.

      • yonah fredman
        March 17, 2016, 7:04 am

        Regarding Jew hatred and jealousy I am reminded of the following joke: Rumors spread around town that there would be toilet paper for sale at the usually empty Soviet store, so people lined up. The owner came out and said, Yes there is toilet paper. But not enough for everyone, so the crowd would have to be winnowed down, so all jews go home
        No toilet paper for you. The jews go home. Then ten minutes later the owner came out and announced that the supply was even more limited than anticipated and only those whose grandfather’s had fought in the Great War were eligible, so many more left the line. Ten minutes later the owner announced that only those whose grandfathers had been decorated in the war were eligible. So even more left the line. Ten minutes later the owner emerged and announced that there were none available and everyone should go away. As they departed one woman said to another. “See the Jews always get preferential treatment.

      • Donald
        March 17, 2016, 10:59 am

        That was funny. ( Referring to Yonah’s toilet paper joke. This post should appear directly below it, but I never know where my posts are going to end up.)

      • Emory Riddle
        March 17, 2016, 1:30 pm

        “The Muslim population is suffering because of Zionism? #really #tellmemore”

        You actually dispute this?

        Oh, and you forgot to mention the suffering of the Palestinian (and Lebanese) Christians at the hands of the Zionists. That is really verboten (to raise that point).

      • Mooser
        March 17, 2016, 4:55 pm

        “Regarding Jew hatred and jealousy I am reminded of the following joke:”

        Of course, it’s been obvious that “Jew hatred” is in fact, nothing but a joke to you, “Yonah”, but do you have to make it this obvious?

    • Sibiriak
      March 16, 2016, 3:39 pm

      kalithea: But it’s not fine or okay here to identify Jewish Supreme Court Justices and the potential Justice that Obama just proposed, Merrick Garland, who would make the fourth Jewish Justice as being a threat to BDS as well.
      —————–

      A liberal Jew is more likely to defend BDS free speech than a right-wing non-Jew.

      • echinococcus
        March 16, 2016, 4:01 pm

        Even if he’s a Zionist?

      • kalithea
        March 16, 2016, 6:24 pm

        He’s not a liberal Jew.

      • Atlantaiconoclast
        March 16, 2016, 11:07 pm

        Why in the world aren’t you guys concerned about the lack of “diversity” on the Court? There are 0 Protestants on it. Somehow, I don’t think I will see Leftists bemoaning this fact. Hypocrites!

      • Sibiriak
        March 16, 2016, 11:07 pm

        kalithea: He’s not a liberal Jew.
        ———–

        Then the problem is lack of liberalism, not Jewishness.

      • Sibiriak
        March 16, 2016, 11:13 pm

        echinococcus: Even if he’s a Zionist?
        ————–

        Sure. Case in point: Louis Brandeis.

        From Dickerson’s recent post:

        . . The Whitney case is most noted for Justice Louis Brandeis’s concurrence, which many scholars have lauded as perhaps the greatest defense of freedom of speech ever written by a member of the high court.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/over-60-massachusetts-organizations-protest-anti-bds-legislation/#comment-830428

      • Sibiriak
        March 16, 2016, 11:40 pm

        kalithea: He’s not a liberal Jew.
        —————

        Even a “moderate-centrist” Jew (Zionist or not –almost all are) is more likely to defend free speech than a Scalia-type non-Jew.

      • Emory Riddle
        March 17, 2016, 10:11 am

        Is 0% more than 0%?

      • echinococcus
        March 17, 2016, 3:41 pm

        Oh, no, Sibiriak. The Brandeis opinion was about Whitney, a fine communist and civil rights champion –not an anti-Zionist before there was anything about that.
        Abstract ideas are fine with Zionists as long as their pet doctrine and their pet ‘people’ are not targeted. If there is any threat, they generally become insane, jettison all their principles and become murderous. Hundreds of examples.
        That is why Zionist or not is the basic question.
        That you shouldn’t know this is a bit worrying.

  7. amigo
    March 16, 2016, 1:42 pm

    “This is a big development night. Their vessel has sunk. Now they’re gong to be struggling in the water.”

    Throw them an anvil.

  8. David Doppler
    March 16, 2016, 2:04 pm

    I think the big development comes when they sink Hillary’s chances. Bernie can do her harm by calling her out on it, and, of course, there’s the Donald waiting to do it, if Bernie doesn’t.

    • kalithea
      March 16, 2016, 2:33 pm

      Donald’s going to call her out on her Neoconservatism? Fat chance! The only thing he’s going to do is what Bernie did that has proven ineffective: go back in history to her vote on Iraq. I don’t consider that doing her much harm seeing as how despite that vote, she’s still raking in delegates and continuing to side-line Bernie with her victories.

      Will Trump bring up her push to escalate hostilities in Syria and Libya with no-fly zones? He might, but now he’s got less to lose not alienating the hawkish side of the Republican Party. He’s already got an ad out today portraying her as weak on foreign policy, so that’s the direction he’s already taking with her on this issue, that: he’ll be tougher than she is with America’s enemies.

      • Bandolero
        March 16, 2016, 6:20 pm

        kalithea

        “Will Trump bring up … he’ll be tougher than she is with America’s enemies.”

        I think the point that Trump will bring up is who are America’s allies and enemies. Let me exaggerate a bit here for clarity.

        I assume Trump will keep running the line that Al Qaeda, ISIS & their main backer Saudi Arabia are America’s enemies, while Putin’s Russia & Assad’s Syria are protectors of Christianity and countries America can partner with, so to say allies in the fight vs Al Qaeda.

        In contrast to this, Hillary will say Saudi Arabia is an ally of America and Putin’s Russia & Assad’s Syria are dictator’s, meaning enemies of America, while she will agree with Trump that Al Qaeda & ISIS are enemies of America.

        Trump, who seems to be advised by Michael Flynn, will call out Clinton to be a backer of Al Qaeda, ISIS and a paid puppet of Al Qaeda’s chief sponsor Saudi Arabia. Michael Flynn has already explained that in 2012 a wilfull decision was taken by US government to support Al Qaeda, and a document is out proving that the US government knew what it was doing. Maybe Trump will label Hillary even as Al Qaeda’s chief operative in America, to make the punchline. America, you have the choice: will you vote for the Al Qaeda-Hillary-Saudi gang, or will you vote for me, Trump, and your military fighting against Al Qaeda to keep us safe? Trump will also likely to bring up that Hillary is such a big advocate for womens’ rights, that she is proud to take money from Saudi Arabia, to promote their Saudi version of womens’ rights. Trump’s punchline will be that Hillary’s declared fight for womens’ rights is a total fraud since she protects at the same time the enslavement of women by Saudi Arabia.

        Hillary in turn will accuse Trump to be cozy with dictators and strongmen like Putin and Assad because he himself is such a guy, too.

        My best guess is that Trump will win that argument, and the Israel lobby will be largely silent on this attack on their Saudi allies, because leading Israeli figures openly advocated teaming up with Al Qaeda in Syria, so they will have a hard time to prevent the connection of Israel and Al Qaeda to be widely discussed in the US public.

      • kalithea
        March 16, 2016, 7:29 pm

        @Bandolero

        We’ll see, we’ll see; that’s a whole lot to hope for there that’s pretty speculative. I really can’t wait to hear what he has to say to Aipac. That should be a revelation.

        His fascist edge really concerns me though. I’m not comfortable with all that effusive praise for the police and his comments on Snowden, the soldier held by the Taliban and Apple’s refusal to unlock the cellphone code to name a few. But I do get a kick out of Trump trashing the media – can’t say the mainstream don’t deserve to be raked over the coals. It’s been a long time coming.

        His ego bores me but he can be pretty entertaining when he just blurts everything that’s on his mind with so little restraint unlike Hillary who’s every word is measured and calculated, except when she barked like a dog.

        I can’t stand Trump’s arrogance but his political fearlessness makes for an interesting race.

      • ritzl
        March 17, 2016, 1:35 pm

        Great comment Bandolero.

      • eljay
        March 17, 2016, 1:54 pm

        I kind of admire Trump’s “I don’t give a f*ck” attitude, but it also scares me. He should never be entrusted with running a country. There’s nothing else about him that I admire (or like).

        There nothing about Clinton that I admire (or like).

  9. yonah fredman
    March 16, 2016, 4:48 pm

    It is clear that neoconservatives were betting on Rubio and that they lost their bet. But Trump’s rise and indeed Rubio’s failure have had very little to do with a rejection of any specific foreign policy position.

    There is more than seven months until the election, so there is plenty of time for Phil Weiss to reject the trump candidacy. It is not clear that he will do so (I predict weiss will not endorse any candidate and will tell us the day after the election that he voted for some 3rd party candidate.) Those who are alarmed by Trump’s manner (encouraging violence, advocating fear vis a vis immigrants and Muslims are clearly quite alarming) and for those sufficiently alarmed, the fact that Weiss does not explicitly reject the most dangerous candidate since George Wallace in 68 in every column, is worthy of condemnation. This is not trolling. This is a side effect of the alarm that Trump inspires in some but not in others.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 16, 2016, 6:02 pm

      heads up yonah. although nobody has gotten in touch w/me wrt what i’ve written in the comment section (i am a sanders fan), on the main page we’re not supposed* to specifically endorse or reject specific candidates due to our non profit status — because we could lose it. that comes from above and we get reminded of it every time an election rolls around (via staff emails). that said, phil (or any of us) can report the news and make commentary about it. ie note how i didn’t specifically endorse sanders here: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/02/videos-proof-of-sanders-lifelong-racial-activism-breaks-on-eve-of-nevada-caucus/

      *it’s not allowed for anyone on staff — not sure about other contributors, i’d have to ask.

    • Mooser
      March 16, 2016, 6:34 pm

      “the fact that Weiss does not explicitly reject the most dangerous candidate since George Wallace in 68 in every column, is worthy of condemnation”

      And you are just the worthy guy to do the condemning. On Mondoweiss! Ever try reading the “about” page, Judge “Yonah”?

    • Donald
      March 17, 2016, 9:39 pm

      If you look at my link up thread, there’ve been several articles at MW that are very critical of Trump. To the extent that any candidate gets mostly sympathetic coverage with some criticism, it would be Sanders.

  10. jsinton
    March 16, 2016, 8:35 pm

    Allowing that we will have to choose between Mrs. Clinton and The Donald, I will have to think very long and hard about my choice. I might not vote at all. I might take a chance on Trump because he makes anti-neocon sounds and scares the pants off the Zionists. However Donald revolts me for almost every other reason. Talk is cheap, and it REALLY cheap coming from Trump. Contrast that to Mrs. Clinton, who promises more of the same old same old, which might not be such a bad thing considering we had some pretty good years out of President Clinton for the country, and almost had an Arab/Israeli peace agreement to boot.

    No, it will be a really tough choice for me, and I probably won’t make it till election day.

    • Keith
      March 17, 2016, 12:35 am

      JSINTON- “Allowing that we will have to choose between Mrs. Clinton and The Donald, I will have to think very long and hard about my choice.”

      Why do you have to choose between Clinton and Trump when there will be other candidates on the ballot?

      JSINTON- “I might not vote at all.”

      God forbid that you vote Third Party! Better to play it safe and vote for the people who are screwing you! Anything else would be a “wasted vote.” There is a certain comfort in keeping your gaze within the cattle chutes.

      JSINTON- “…we had some pretty good years out of President Clinton for the country….”

      Is it possible to be this poorly informed? Why do I even bother replying?

      • echinococcus
        March 17, 2016, 4:39 pm

        Keith,

        Sinton seems to have looked outside the cattle chute inasmuch as heshe mentions the possibility of not voting.
        Abstention, if massive, may be as good as a vote outside the dictatorship parties.

      • Keith
        March 18, 2016, 12:16 am

        ECHINOCOCCUS- “Abstention, if massive, may be as good as a vote outside the dictatorship parties.”

        So you think that the suffragette movement and the registering of Black voters in the South was counter productive? Being submissive is an act of rebellion? Lacking your manichean mindset, I have convinced myself that a revolt at the polls is a first step toward effective resistance against neoliberalism and neofeudalism.

      • echinococcus
        March 18, 2016, 1:37 am

        Keith,

        A revolt at the polls may consist in conspicuous abstention when the field is monopolized by a single party. Sometimes it’s real effective. Not mentioned as being in lieu of registering Black voters or the Suffragettes –just as a different tactic in different times, and not even as being better than a scattered third party vote (so certainly nothing “manichean” there.)

  11. Rooster
    March 16, 2016, 10:37 pm
    • Kay24
      March 16, 2016, 11:55 pm

      That article is right. Hillary MUST show she is tough on foreign policy, and that she can play war games, just like the boys. If she did not vote for the Iraq war, and does not support the neocon agenda – she will be accused of being a weak woman.

      Unfortunately, her desperation to be President means she must kiss up to Israel, just like other politicians, show unwavering support for zio land, and make the usual noises about how it must defend itself, when it keeps killing unarmed civilians. A sorry state of affairs in the US.

  12. Qualtrough
    March 16, 2016, 10:37 pm

    I do not share Phil’s optimism. The neo-cons were just hedging their bets with Rubio. There is always Hillary, and even if Trump wins there is nothing in his record to suggest he would not support their agenda.

    Neo-cons are a hydra headed monster with more lives than a cat. Any other group with their disastrous track record would either be disbanded and/or in jail, but they continue to thrive.

    • Sibiriak
      March 16, 2016, 11:31 pm

      Qualtrough: .. even if Trump wins there is nothing in his record to suggest he would not support their [Neo-con] agenda.
      ————-

      Perhaps, but it’s certainly possible he could pursue a “realist” imperialist agenda, or even–who knows?–a “liberal interventionist” agenda.

  13. Chespirito
    March 17, 2016, 9:31 am

    I’d love to join the optimistic celebration of neoconservatism’s demise in the GOP but look who Ted Cruz just appointed as major foreign policy advisors! Also, bears remembering that W ran as a realist, promising no more nation-building or petty interventions–all it took was one Black Swan terror attack for him to reverse course. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-17/cruz-assembles-an-unlikely-team-of-foreign-policy-rivals

  14. eljay
    March 17, 2016, 1:23 pm

    The insanity on the Republican side makes Hillary look like a model of sanity by comparison. It’s hard to know whether Trump’s success is genuine or merely orchestrated to sway Americans into making the “sensible choice” of voting for Clinton.

  15. James Canning
    March 17, 2016, 7:06 pm

    The neocons will continue to receive strong backing from fanatical supporters of Israel right or wrong. And some of these supporters are very rich and powerful.

Leave a Reply