I'm not a fan of John McCain, never have been. The problem with McCain was always that he bailed out the Democrats whenever their worst ideas blew up on them and he provided them with rhetorical cover. But all of that changed in 2008. Since 2008, McCain has been a solidly-conservative, savvy politician. And lately, he’s one of the few conservatives acting like a conservative.
Consider these things McCain is pushing...
● Main Street Advocate: As we’ve pointed out before, Wall Street has become a predator that engages in stupidly risky trades and abusive practices while dumping its bad bets on taxpayers. Few in Congress want to do anything about it. McCain and Elizabeth Warren, however, are proposing to forbid banks from engaging in risky trading activities with FDIC-insured money. In essence, their bill would break banks back into two types: those that handle checking/savings accounts and those that engage in investment banking, insurance, swap deals, equity trades and hedge fund activities. This is something everyone should embrace because it would protect taxpayers, end a major form of cronyism, and protect Main Street banks and Main Street firms. It would also show that conservatives aren’t Wall Street dupes. This should be on every conservative agenda.
It’s not. The “conservative” response has ranged from calling McCain names to attacking Warren’s fake Indian heritage again.
● Advocate For Justice I: In light of the Trayvon Martin shooting, there have been many calls to re-evaluate the nation’s “stand your ground” laws to make sure they make sense. This is an issue that resonates with blacks at the moment. Personally, I think the laws are fine, but that’s not the point. This is exactly the kind of “after-action review” that rational people do whenever anything goes wrong. It’s also an obligation-free way to let blacks know that Republicans aren’t cavalier about the idea of people “hunting blacks,” and that they are interested in making sure the nation’s laws are just for everyone. McCain took up this banner this weekend, and he was smart to do so.
So what has been the conservative response? Ted Cruz shot down the idea because it could lead to gun control... somehow. Meanwhile, conservative pundits continued to demonize Martin and canonize Zimmerman. One group is trying to raise money to buy Zimmerman a new gun. Rush is bragging that he can use the “n-word” now.
So who’s the real conservative? The guy who wants to make sure the laws protect the rights of innocent citizens and who wants to assure the entire public that he hears their concerns... or the guys trying to smear a dead black teen.
● Advocate For Justice II: The Department of Justice has issued a “blueprint” on sexual harassment at colleges which does some pretty heinous things. For one thing, it wipes out the “reasonable person” standard and instead drifts toward the self-described victim’s idiosyncratic belief that they were harassed. For another, it lowers the burden of proof for the university to take action to more-likely-than-not rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. And it has no protections for freedom of speech. Thus, even playing a song with sexual lyrics can be seen as harassment. This is a significant violation of the rights of accused students and it is precisely the kind of thing conservatives claim they will oppose. Yet, only one person in the Congress has stood up to stop this: John McCain.
● Consumer Advocate: As I noted before, McCain has introduced a bill to let consumers pick only the channels they want from cable. Is this a big deal? Don’t know. But it does show a desire to help consumers. The rest of the conservative world has gone anti-consumer even though consumerism is the foundation of capitalism.
Here’s the point. It has been eight months since the election. The public wants an agenda that will help them. They have concerns. McCain is recognizing those concerns and addressing them in conservative ways. Yet, the rest of the conservative world simply doesn’t care. In fact, to the contrary, I keep seeing comments that basically assert that the conservative agenda is to make sure nothing passes until Obama leaves office. That is political suicide. Right now, John McCain is showing conservatives the way forward. It's time the derangement ended and the conservatism began again. Conservatives need an agenda that appeals to Americans rather than insults them, and as much as you may dislike him personally, McCain is building one.
Consider these things McCain is pushing...
● Main Street Advocate: As we’ve pointed out before, Wall Street has become a predator that engages in stupidly risky trades and abusive practices while dumping its bad bets on taxpayers. Few in Congress want to do anything about it. McCain and Elizabeth Warren, however, are proposing to forbid banks from engaging in risky trading activities with FDIC-insured money. In essence, their bill would break banks back into two types: those that handle checking/savings accounts and those that engage in investment banking, insurance, swap deals, equity trades and hedge fund activities. This is something everyone should embrace because it would protect taxpayers, end a major form of cronyism, and protect Main Street banks and Main Street firms. It would also show that conservatives aren’t Wall Street dupes. This should be on every conservative agenda.
It’s not. The “conservative” response has ranged from calling McCain names to attacking Warren’s fake Indian heritage again.
● Advocate For Justice I: In light of the Trayvon Martin shooting, there have been many calls to re-evaluate the nation’s “stand your ground” laws to make sure they make sense. This is an issue that resonates with blacks at the moment. Personally, I think the laws are fine, but that’s not the point. This is exactly the kind of “after-action review” that rational people do whenever anything goes wrong. It’s also an obligation-free way to let blacks know that Republicans aren’t cavalier about the idea of people “hunting blacks,” and that they are interested in making sure the nation’s laws are just for everyone. McCain took up this banner this weekend, and he was smart to do so.
So what has been the conservative response? Ted Cruz shot down the idea because it could lead to gun control... somehow. Meanwhile, conservative pundits continued to demonize Martin and canonize Zimmerman. One group is trying to raise money to buy Zimmerman a new gun. Rush is bragging that he can use the “n-word” now.
So who’s the real conservative? The guy who wants to make sure the laws protect the rights of innocent citizens and who wants to assure the entire public that he hears their concerns... or the guys trying to smear a dead black teen.
● Advocate For Justice II: The Department of Justice has issued a “blueprint” on sexual harassment at colleges which does some pretty heinous things. For one thing, it wipes out the “reasonable person” standard and instead drifts toward the self-described victim’s idiosyncratic belief that they were harassed. For another, it lowers the burden of proof for the university to take action to more-likely-than-not rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. And it has no protections for freedom of speech. Thus, even playing a song with sexual lyrics can be seen as harassment. This is a significant violation of the rights of accused students and it is precisely the kind of thing conservatives claim they will oppose. Yet, only one person in the Congress has stood up to stop this: John McCain.
● Consumer Advocate: As I noted before, McCain has introduced a bill to let consumers pick only the channels they want from cable. Is this a big deal? Don’t know. But it does show a desire to help consumers. The rest of the conservative world has gone anti-consumer even though consumerism is the foundation of capitalism.
Here’s the point. It has been eight months since the election. The public wants an agenda that will help them. They have concerns. McCain is recognizing those concerns and addressing them in conservative ways. Yet, the rest of the conservative world simply doesn’t care. In fact, to the contrary, I keep seeing comments that basically assert that the conservative agenda is to make sure nothing passes until Obama leaves office. That is political suicide. Right now, John McCain is showing conservatives the way forward. It's time the derangement ended and the conservatism began again. Conservatives need an agenda that appeals to Americans rather than insults them, and as much as you may dislike him personally, McCain is building one.
Andrew, I've just about given up. Every day conservatives seem to find new ways to get even nastier. As for McCain, they are so knee-jerk that he could propose breathing and half of them would start holding their breath.
ReplyDeleteWhere was this John McCain before? I held my nose to vote for him in '08. If the had just this handful of things on his record back then (anachronisms aside) it would have been much easier. Not that I think anything short of him not running would have stopped Obama from becoming the First Black President. (Yes, it gets capitalized now.)
ReplyDeleteKelly, I'm undecided. On the one hand, you are getting people like Paul Rand, Marco Rubio and now McCain. On the other hand, notice that none of them are in the House, where the truly idiots dominate. Maybe the next election will fix that?
ReplyDeletetryanmax, Good question. As I note, I am not a fan of McCain and this is too little too late for me to become a fan. The guy has a history that is hard to overlook.
ReplyDeleteBut that said, I like his ideas. He is on the right track. And while I know it's become very popular to judge ideas on who is offering them these days, that's retarded thinking.... these are things we should be advocating.
McCain is an odd one, he has a lot of conservative positions. But when he goes lib, watch out.
ReplyDeleteHe is known for having a huge temper, which would have been more entertaining in a presidential roll.
A lot of us in AZ wish he would retire. I had it with him when he was defending his senate seat from JD Hayworth. He played every political trick in the book on the fellow Rep. But when it came to Obama he wanted to an honorable campaign. We kept wondering why, he obviously didn't want to be president.
Max, Agreed. When McCain does go left, then it gets ugly. He doesn't seem to understand the difference between politics and treachery at those moments. That's why I will never be a fan.
ReplyDeleteStill, right now, he's one of the only conservatives coming up with ideas and I really, really, really wish conservatives would start listening to him. "STOP EVERYTHING!" is not an effect platform. And adding in the heavy use of anger and questionable rhetoric that is going on right now is just turning away an already sour public even more. Conservatives are basically ensuring they will never be relevant again.
Ah yes, we have a new platform idea that will no doubt win over those morons in the public... House Republicans want to end door-to-door delivery by the post office. You will now get to pick your mail at the post office if they have their way!
ReplyDeleteThat's brilliant.
//rolls eyes
In many respects he is a conservative, that's an Arizona tradition. After all he filled the seat after Barry Goldwater. But
ReplyDeleteBut McCain is very much a Washington insider, he is in the click. Which would explain his big swings to the left.
I do understand the swing to anger, after all it is a result of frustration. But that doesn't mean it's effective. But we have to keep in mind the top leadership of the Reps, thinks we as conservatives are a bunch of hicks, and Should be ignored. That's what you get with a "I'm better than you" attitude. It shows they are more interested in high school type clicks than they are success. After all Reagan showed the way to success. It's real easy, but when every click is against you. It's like pushing a boulder up a steep hill, and people are greasing your feet.
Max, Anger is counterproductive, especially the kind of anger being thrown around right now.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, it's turned off everyone. They are killing themselves with the young, blacks, women, Hispanics, Asians, and educated whites. The moderates I know no longer want to hear from conservatives... which is a significant change from the past. They are even hurting themselves with other conservatives. I can tell you from a great many private conversations that the words being tossed around by conservatives about a great many conservative talkers right now are words like "hateful" and "racist."
Another problem is that anger keeps you from choosing rational courses. Right now, this anger has taken the form of: "DESTROY ANYONE WHO TRIES TO DO ANYTHING!!" It's created an intense amount of infighting and witch hunting -- ironically among conservatives v. conservatives rather than conservatives v. moderates. It's kept conservatives from analyzing anything they are doing or planning a strategy. It's kept them from achieving anything. It is mob rule. And I suspect it's dooming conservatism to permanent minority status.
As for Reagan, Reagan was nothing like current conservatives. He wasn't angry. He didn't insult people. His policies were about helping people succeed, not getting people he didn't like. And he worked hard to reach across the aisle to whomever he needed to get as much as he could of his ideas put into place. He was much more like Rubio and McCain than anything like Cruz. And he would be the first person to reject the current conservative mindset.
Max, Sadly, in the end, I don't think it matters. The House is totally inline with talk radio and their goal is martyrdom.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, Any thoughts on the 2014 election?
ReplyDeleteEllen, It's impossible to say until we see more information about enthusiasm. History tells us that the Republicans should win a large chunk of House seats and possibly win the Senate. But that won't happen.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to guess right now, the most likely result is the Republicans win one seat in the Senate and lose 5-7 in the House.
To the extent that I pay attention (which admittedly isn't much), my issue with Cruz is that I'm naturally skeptical of anyone who gets so popular so fast... along with everyone who hitches their wagon to that particular star.
ReplyDeleteInstant fame is the new black.
ReplyDeleteWhich particular star?
I guess it was more of a general statement but I was referring to Cruz.
ReplyDeleteAnd I also admit that my mode of operation has changed from "What do conservatives think?" to "Conservatives think the opposite of whatever Obama says so why the f--- should I bother?"
This doesn't apply to you guys, just to the pundits! :-)
Ah. Personally, I'm weary of Cruz because the MSM has been feeding him to conservatives. Plus, he stands for nothing that I can tell.
ReplyDeleteOn moderates, I've noticed since the election that the moderates I know simply don't want to hear what prominent conservatives say anymore. They still listen to the Democrats, but they now actively tune out conservatives. It reminds me a lot of the Bush years when the left lost their mind.
If anyone can tell me what Cruz is about, besides being the anti-Rubio and from Texas, let me know.
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty much how the MSM has sold him -- the anti-Rubio. His name also comes up whenever gun control gets mentioned. Beyond that though, I'm not aware of him standing for anything.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, I got a kick out of this. There was an article about him in which one Republican Senator anonymously called him "Jim DeMint without the charm" which is meant to be ironic because DeMint was known for a distinct lack of charm. He then said that Cruz is the most ineffective Senator on the hill.
This got parlayed at Breitbart into "Cruz scares the left!" That in turn got picked up by DC, which did an article about the MSM trying to destroy Cruz. That in turn led to a thousand blog posts about Cruz for President!
Pavlov's dogs.
BTW, As for my personal view on Cruz, I have none... not enough data.
ReplyDeleteHe's an establishment insider from a huge national law firm who is hiding behind the "reel 'merkican" label and seems to be doing so with no agenda whatsoever. Until he actually does something, I have no way to know if he's any good or not.
So, Andrew, your advice to Conservatives and Republicans is basically "Get cool, boy."
ReplyDeleteUh... no. My advice would be to grow up, ditch the hate, and stop following leaders who act like Jim Jones.
ReplyDeleteAndrew.....Good piece on McCain. I look at him as someone a few years before re-election time, he tries to establish his "conservative" bona fides with the right in order to get re-elected. Very much like Lindsey (light in the loafers) Graham in SC.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the issues he supports that you mention, and yes, it's great that he supports them, yet he will always (like a moth to a flame) flitter back to those media loving issues so he can get the air time and show his importance and relevance to the voters in AZ.
And this is from someone who was a member of the McCain fanboy club years ago when he was released from Vietnam. His history since then leaves a lot to be desired, but then, he did graduate close to last in his class and was shot down on one of his first missions.
So there...... :)
Patriot, Sadly, I agree completely. That's why I'm not endorsing McCain, I'm endorsing his ideas. I think conservatives should be running with this whether he sticks with them or not.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me started on Lindsey Graham. He's like McCain to the tenth power. Arg.
It's pretty clear that no one knows what to make of Cruz. I did a search on his name and found several very confused articles.
ReplyDeleteDaily Beast calls him more anti-woman, anti-gay, and anti-immigrant than Paul Ryan...because Ryan's is the first name in right-wing bigotry, apparently. /sarc
Mother Jones calls him "The Republican Barack Obama" but it's not certain whether that's meant positively or negatively. The article gives him the kid-glove treatment but the accompanying picture--an intentionally uncropped photo revealing a narrow backdrop--is suggestive of smoke and mirrors.
Everyplace else, it seems, is trying the old "religious wacko" ploy that they pull out when they have nothing else. "He thanked God in his opening remarks! He's insane!"
Of course, all the right-wing sites are fawning over Cruz for the negative press the left-wing outlets are heaping on him. And if reports out of Iowa are accurate, his speeches have been pander-tastic!
tryanmax, That's pretty much what I've seen too. The left hates him on instinct so they say nasty things about him and that makes the right assumes he must be Messiah II: Electric Jesusloo because the left hates him. Lost in the shuffle is that he has yet to actually do anything.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, he is telegenic and he's very smart. He's got a solid career in establishment politics, agency practice, and big firm DC practice. So he's no fool... he's not Palin.
On the other hand, his career is not consistent with the image he's selling. A Tea Party guy whose been inside DC politics since at least 2000, who is a lawyer at a very establishment firm, and whose wife is a banker at Goldman Sachs? That doesn't compute to me.
Beyond that, he has no track record except being loved by talk radio. So until I actually see him develop a record, there's simply no way to judge him.
And him starting a 2016 campaign after thirty minutes in the Senate is a little off-putting.
tryanmax......imagine that! A politician pandering to his audience! Good god what will Cruz do next? >sarc off
ReplyDeleteI sorta like Cruz, just cause I like a politician who is a little off and takes it to "the man." He is definitely a smart guy....(President of his Harvard debate club, where I heard he even debated! Unlike another President of a Harvard Law Review who never published anything!)
What I find funny, is that he is never referred to as "Hispanic." Or even as a "white Hispanic." Maybe the media will come up with a new name for Repub Hispanics they don't like. ..... Like "Texan"
Andrew.....Imagine a recently minted Senator thinking he could run for President!! The chutzpah!!
ReplyDeletePatriot, Cruz is very likable... I just don't know what he believes yet.
ReplyDeleteAs for pandering, they all do that in Iowa. I think it turns Iowans on some how. That and cow tipping.
You know, that whole Harvard Law Review thing has always struck me as really squirrelly. I'm not aware of any law review that doesn't require you to produce a publishable article to be a member.
Patriot, Yeah, and look how that turned out.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Iowans are political perverts.
ReplyDeleteMy sister......who is an attorney (aarrgghh....we've disowned her) states that Obama MUST be smart or they wouldn't have selected him as Pres of Law Review. Because at UVA you HAD to be smart to be pres of law review. I asked her if she ever heard of affirmative action? (smirk)
ReplyDeletetryanmax, It's the whole farmer thing... they get lonely.
ReplyDeletePatriot, I'm sorry. I know it's difficult having a lawyer in the family. Have you considered hiring a deprogrammer? ;P
ReplyDeleteAnyway, for most official law reviews, you need to be in the top of your class -- something like the top __ people get invites. They then need to write articles of a publishable quality. The existing staff reviews them and approves. If you make it, then you end up on the law review. Becoming an editor or whatever is typically just a popularity thing.
But there are also unofficial law reviews that don't have such requirements. I don't know which one Obama claims he was on.
Not to mention, at the time he would have been doing this, Harvard would have been desperate to put blacks on their law review, so you simply can't assume anything about his qualifications.
P.S. I was on law review and they published my article, but I can't for the life of me tell you what it was about. I do remember a thesis I wrote a couple years later though to get an advanced law degree (an LLM): "Accounting for Pension Costs under Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) 413."
ReplyDeleteTotal page turner.
As I noted before, McCain has introduced a bill to let consumers pick only the channels they want from cable. Is this a big deal? Don’t know.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's a big deal. MSNBC and possibly a couple other MSM channels wouldn't be on the air if they were only subsidized by the people who actually would pay to watch them. It could make a meaningful difference in the national political culture. I give McCain +1 on this.
Unfortunately, this McCain position, like the other "conservative" ones you mention have, I understand, no chance of getting passed anytime soon. I read it as so much pandering to damp down the real loathing most conservatives feel for this man and his political legacy.
= Raymond Shaw
Dude......I read that!! A real bodice ripper!!!
ReplyDeleteI especially liked the chapter on "Accounting for Accounting Standards sake!"
K, I guarantee you that some of this can be passed. The banking thing could be passed with a combination of progressive-left/libertarian-right votes.
ReplyDeleteThe sexual harassment thing is a matter of pressure. And pushing that would help a lot with college kids who care a lot about free speech. At the very least, it calls out Obama's DOJ as oppressive to this entire generation. Combine that with an effective student loan plan and you can win college students.
The stand your ground stuff is all rhetorical. It's mainly meant to show that you don't find it acceptable that people are out there killing each other. And if tweaks are needed, then you do them -- I'm sure that if the right was willing to make a tweak, the left would take it. But the big thing is that you are letting people know that you do care when things go wrong and your goal is to make sure to correct problems where they arise... whether you actually do or not.
The cable thing is the one that probably can't be passed, but you never know. If conservatives adopted an agenda, it's very likely that the left would find themselves compelled to accept some of it.
Patriot! So you were the one person who read it! LOL!
ReplyDeleteWriting that was 212 pages of heavily-footnoted living-death, let me tell you.
Andrew.....Did you hear this?
ReplyDeleteDateline London: July 23rd in the Year of our Lord
In order to show their understanding of the commonfolk in the British Isles, the Royal couple has decided upon a name for the heir to the throne. They have decided upon the most common name for newborn males in contemporary Great Britain for their newborn............................
.............wait for it.................
Muhhamed
LOL
Wow! Kanye's going to be pissed! ;P
ReplyDeleteExcellent choice infidel!
ReplyDeleteSure, only now you can't show him on television except in a bear suit.
ReplyDeleteStop makin' fun of the His Royal Highness the future King of England Ireland Scotland Wales Australia etc. Ooops, maybe not Ireland so much anymore, but you know what I mean. You just don't understand...
ReplyDeleteBev, We would never poke fun at such an august personage... even if the whole thing was faked by Hollywood.
ReplyDeleteCountdown to Catastrophe
ReplyDeleteJULY 23, 1914 (99 years ago today…) –Part 1 of 3
The final day of the Franco-Russian summit in St. Petersburg begins with another military review, followed by a state luncheon. At some point (historians aren’t sure when this happened), Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov spoke with French President Poincare about a possible Austrian attack on Serbia. They agreed to send a counter-ultimatum to Vienna. Both will also order their respective ambassadors in Austro-Hungary to warn Austrian leaders not to attack Serbia.
That afternoon in Vienna, a member of the Russian embassy tries to deliver Sazonov’s warning. He’s told that Foreign Minister Berchtold is busy and that he should come back tomorrow morning at 11 A.M. (Copies of the note will be sent out to all major European countries at 10 A.M. the next day.)
Berchtold, for his part, seems be to be having a bad case of cold feet, his famous indecisiveness returning. With the delivery approaching, he meets with General Conrad and discusses several concerns he’s having. “What if Serbia completely complies with our demands?" Conrad says that Serbia should then ordered to pay for the cost of Austrian mobilization. Berchtold then remembers he never bothered to placate Italy. "Then, what happens if Italy gets involved?" Conrad says that would mean a possible three-front war (Russia included), and that Austria shouldn’t mobilize at all. Berchtold then tries to pass the few remaining hours trying to convince Bulgarian leaders- in diplomatic terms- to remain neutral and not try to avenge their losses in the Second Balkan War if something should happen involving Serbia.
In Belgrade, Austrian Ambassador to Serbia Giesl, having that very day opened the contents of the letter sent by Vienna, leaves for the Serbian Foreign Ministry building. The note, he now knows, has been written for the purpose of ensuring its rejection by Serbian leaders. Giesl originally scheduled a meeting with Serbian Prime Minister Pasic at 4:30 P.M., but then re-scheduled for 6:00 P.M. on orders from Vienna. (Berchtold found out the French were leaving Russia later than expected.)
Giesl arrives just before six. He enters the office and is shocked to see not Pasic, but Serbian Finance Minister Laza Pacu. It turns out that Serbian elections are coming up, and Pasic is busy campaigning in the town of Nish. (Some studies state that he’d learned of the coming note and deliberately left town so as to spite the Austrians.) Compounding Giesl’s frustrations is the fact that Pacu doesn’t speak French- the language the note was written in. Fortunately, Serbian Secretary General Slavko Gruic is fluent in French and serves as translator. The note accuses Sebia not only of the assassination plot, but also of sponsoring “dangerous propaganda”- the goal of which is to “detach from the Monarchy territories belonging to it.” Giesl then wastes no time in spelling out his country’s list of demands following the assassination of its presumptive head of state.
Countdown to Catastrophe
ReplyDeleteJULY 23, 1914 (99 years ago today…) –Part 2 of 3
On this day, July 23, 1914, the Empire of Austria and Hungary formally demands that the Kingdom of Serbia:
1. Suppress all publications which “incite hatred and contempt of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy” and are “directed against its territorial integrity.”
2. Dissolve the Serbian nationalist organization “Narodna Odbrana” and all other such societies in Serbia.
3. Eliminate without delay from schoolbooks and public documents all “propaganda against Austria-Hungary.”
4. Remove from the Serbian military and civil administration all officers and functionaries whose names the Austro-Hungarian government will provide.
5. Accept in Serbia “representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government” for the “suppression of subversive movements.”
6. Bring to trial all accessories to the Archduke’s assassination and allow “Austro-Hungarian delegates” (that is, law enforcement officers) to take part in the investigations.
7. Arrest Major Voja Tankosic* and civil servant Milan Ciganovic** who were named as participants in the assassination plot.
8. Cease the cooperation of the Serbian authorities in the “traffic in arms and explosives across the frontier;” dismiss and punish the officials of the line at Shabatz Loznica frontier service, “guilty of having assisted the perpetrators of the Sarajevo crime.”
9. Provide “explanations” to the Austro-Hunagrian Government regarding “Serbian officials” who have expressed themselves in interviews “in terms of hostility to the Austro-Hungarian Government.”
10. Notify the Austro-Hungarian Government “without delay” of the execution of the measures comprised in this note.
*- Tankosic is an officer of the Serbian Army and Black Hand member. He helped assassinate the Serbian royal couple in 1903. He helped the June 28th conspirators train and acquire their weapons.
**- Cignaovic is an official for the Serbian Railways who works alongside Colonel Apis in the Black Hand. He also allegedly helped the conspirators gain their weapons.
Countdown to Catastrophe
ReplyDeleteJULY 23, 1914 (99 years ago today…) –Part 3 of 3
After reading the note, Giesl states that Serbia now has 48 hours- which will end at 6:00 P.M. on Saturday, July 25th- to respond to the Austrian demands. If a satisfactory response (that is, unconditional acceptance of the entire list) isn’t received, Giesl and the entire staff of the Austrian legation will leave Belgrade.
Pacu, (who had drawn out the delivery by constantly interrupting through Gruic’s translating), refuses to accept the document. He says it's Pasic's job to accept such pronouncements, and that he doesn't have legal authority to do so. Giesl doesn’t care. Despite Pacu’s additional excuses, which include the upcoming election and the need for a full cabinet meeting, Giesl leaves. He has been instructed to return to the legation, prepare- as much as possible without attracting attention- to leave, and to reject ANY Serbian response to the note as unsatisfactory. Austro-Hungarian mobilization will then start at midnight on July 25th- 26th.
Serbian ministers then rush in to talk with Pacu and Gruic. Serbia’s Minister of Public Information, Ljuba Jovanovic, seems to sum up the feelings of the room by stating, “Well, there is nothing to do but die fighting.”
They then quickly pass on the note’s contents to friendly ambassadors. They also publicly publish the list.
THE JULY CRISIS IS NOW A PUBLIC AFFAIR.
Around 9:00 P.M., Chorister’s Bridge in St. Petersburg receives an urgent request for a meeting between Foreign Minister Sazonov and Ambassador Szapary for tomorrow morning.
At 11 P.M., following a lavish banquet on the ‘France,’ Nicholas II disembarks and leaves on the ‘Alexandria’ as the French leaders begin steaming back to France. A few hours later, Prime Minister Viviani sends off a message to Vienna for French Ambassador to Austria Alfred Dumaine. (Viviani is actually forwarding harsh instructions from President Poincare.) Dumaine is ordered to use any methods necessary to prevent Austria from violating Serbian sovereignty.
News of the Austrian ultimatum begins to arrive piecemeal in Russia shortly after the ‘France’ leaves.
And strike the letter "Q" from the alphabet.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I blame the Serbian to English translations
ReplyDeleteI just blame the letter Q. It's been getting uppity lately.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I just got a note from someone who claims to read this blog, but says he can't post for professional reasons. He claims to be an Englishman who says he is, quote- "not to blame." He says he's a competent inventor and that all of his devices would work effectively if a certain British agent wasn't always wrecking them. The note was unsigned.
ReplyDeleteRustbelt, Did I say Q? Why, only a crazy man would have anything against the letter Q. Let's wipe R out of the alphabet... no one uses that.
ReplyDeleteWell, no one except really strange people intent on returning defective parrots.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, have you heard Reagan's campaign speeches in 79. He not only threw insults at Carter, but sounded very angry.
ReplyDeleteBut Reagan was a much more effective communicator. Plus he had something else, his reputation and he could get his message out. Something conservatives couldn't do today, I've heard all sorts of conservatives spouting Dem talking points. Only they do not realize it. While claiming they are thinking for themselves.
Max, You can count the number of times Reagan showed anger in public on one hand and still have change. And he never seethed. He never ranted. He never used words like "whitey." He never accused whole groups of people of anything. He never spun conspiracies. He never claimed he was a victim. He never went witch hunting for traitors. He didn't sell his policies based on who would get hurt. He didn't start with the idea that America was finished. Nor did he ever express an irrational thought... something that is all too common today.
ReplyDeleteHe also had a strong grasp on his beliefs, and they were broad-based, i.e. he had a complete ideology. There are very few people like that in conservative ranks today (or liberal ranks), as most of what you hear is just prejudice, not platform... "I hate ___."
The few times when Reagan expressed anger, it came off very much as "righteous anger" rather than a tantrum. Part of that was his ability to connect with his audience. He made it seem as though he was expressing the anger his audience already felt rather than trying to stir them up.
ReplyDeleteBut more than that, Reagan tied his displeasure to solid principles and a platform. He didn't just say "those things are wrong." He also said "these things are right." And he made the compelling case for both. All you hear from today's conservatives is "the Constitution says..." or "the Bible says..." or, ironically, "Reagan said..."
tryanmax, I think that's right. When Reagan showed anger it tended to be justified. His anger arose when his integrity was questioned or when someone said that we shouldn't bother doing better. He didn't scaremonger, he didn't spit out prejudice, he wasn't angry for the sake up whipping people up. And he always had solutions. I can't think of the last solution offered by anyone on talk radio.
ReplyDeleteCountdown to Catastrophe
ReplyDeleteJULY 24, 1914 (99 years ago today...) -Part 1 of 2
7:00 AM
The full text of the Austrian ultimatum reaches Chorister’s Bridge in St. Petersburg.
10:00 AM
Vienna sends copies of the ultimatum to all of Europe’s Great Powers.
Serbia’s Council of Ministers meets and, in a state of panic, proposes to meet at least part of Austria-Hungary’s demands. Serbian Regent Prince Alexander then sends a cable to Russia, urgently asking for support and advice.
In St. Petersburg, Foreign Minister Sazonov arrives and is briefed by Chief of Staff Schilling. He exclaims (without shock), “C’est la guerre Europeenne! (This means European war!)”
Sazonov then meets with Austrian Ambassador Szapary. During the hostile encounter, Sazonov tells Szapary that Serbia will not meet such demands, as they compromise the country’s sovereignty. Sazonov continues, saying that all other European capitals will see the ultimatum as unrestrained aggression. He famously adds, “you are setting fire to Europe!…The fact is you mean war and you have burned your bridges.... One sees how peace-loving you are.” After the meeting, Sazonov then goes into a whirlwind of work.
Russia's Foreign Minister immediately summons the Council of Ministers for a meeting that afternoon. He then orders Finance Minister Peter Bark to begin repatriating state funds from Berlin. Chief of the Army Staff, N.N. Yanushkevitch, is asked to prepare a plan of “partial mobilization” of the Russian Army. The task is given to General Sergei Dobrorolskii, who, at first, says it won’t work. The partial mobilization is meant to be aimed at Austria-Hungary only and not to alarm the Germans; current plans don’t allow for that. Besides, any mobilization will be impossible without using the train stations in Warsaw (close to German East Prussia). Dobrorolskii, however, will do the best he possibly can.
12:00 PM (roughly)
Sazonov has lunch with the French and British ambassadors. French Ambassador Paleologue says France will back Russia both diplomatically and militarily. However, British Ambassador Buchanan, who seems to understand that Russia fully intends to mobilize and that war may be on the horizon, says his country cannot back Russia because the whole thing is none of Great Britain’s business. Instead he asks for France and Russia to mediate with Vienna, a suggestion Paleologue despises.
(Afternoon)
The ultimatum text, now being shared around London, is met with shock. (Note: the following quotes are approximate, after the ultimatum text is seen and reports begin trickling in from the British embassy in Russia.)
“The most formidable demand ever imposed on one state by another that was independent.”
-Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign Minister
“Europe is trembling on the verge of a general war. The Austrian ultimatum to Serbia being the most insolent document of its kind ever devised.”
-Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty
“The curious thing is that on many, if not most of the points, Austria has a good and Serbia a very bad case. But the Austrians are quite the stupidest people in Europe…”
-British Prime Minister Sir Herbert Asquith to his friend, Venetia Stanley (He also remarks that “Russia is trying to drag us in.”)
Countdown to Catastrophe
ReplyDeleteJULY 24, 1914 (99 years ago today...) -Part 2 of 2
In Germany, Chancellor Bethmann publicly supports Austria’s ultimatum to Serbia. Behind closed doors, German officials are again alarmed by the slow pace of Austria’s actions.
Meanwhile, Kaiser Wilhelm, still sailing off Norway, sees a copy of the ultimatum- not from the German Foreign Embassy, but from a Norwegian newspaper. He mutters, “an interesting note. What?”
3:00 PM
The Russian Council of Ministers meets. Sazonov lays out a case for war. Interestingly, he spends most of the time talking about Germany (evidently believing the Germans forced Austria into this situation). He says Russia can’t afford to be weak any longer. Five resolutions are quickly drafted:
1. Russia will work to extend Austria-Hungary’s deadline. (public)
2. Advise Serbia not to resist an Austrian invasion, and leave fate in the hands of the Great Powers of Europe. (public)
3. Army and navy chiefs will ask the Czar to approve, in principle, the mobilization of the military districts of Kiev, Odessa, Moscow, and Kazan- along with the Baltic and Black Sea fleets. (secret)
4. The army will begin stockpiling war supplies. (secret)
5. State funds are to be repatriated from Germany and Austria-Hungary. (secret)
6:00 PM
Sazonov meets with Serbian Ambassador to Russia M. Spalaikovic. He asks for advice, as Serbia’s army is in no shape to fight Austria. Sazonov advises Serbia not to comply with the ultimatum (especially points 5 and 6). Russia will also give public support and, if comes to it, military support as well.
7:00 PM
German Ambassador Pourtales is next to meet with Sazonov. Sazonov says that localization of the dispute between Austria and Serbia is impossible. He adds that he doesn’t believe any of the evidence that Austria has put forth blaming Serbia for the assassination. He continues by saying that all of this is part of a plot by Austria to “swallow up” Serbia and, if possible, all territories between Russia and the Black Sea. And to prevent that, he says, Russia is willing to go to war. Pourtales angrily rejects this, first saying that Austria has no such plans. He also accuses Sazonov of hating Austria because it’s Catholic and Russia is Orthodox. (Not an unlikely reality for the time.)
8:00 PM
Sazonov meets with Paleologue. He moans about the meeting with Pourtales. After that, he tells his ally about Russia's secret mobilization plans.
"The Austrians are quite the stupidest people in Europe."
ReplyDeleteYou know, I know some Germans who would agree with that.
Well, Andrew, they gave us the Fuhrer. So, I guess, case closed.
ReplyDeleteAndrew
ReplyDeleteChecking and Saving Accounts don't actually make the bank any money. They cost the bank money. What investment activities does McCain want to allow the banks with FDIC money?
Is it just mortgages, small business loans. I am confused as to what this law would actually do?
Personally it does not matter since Dodd Frank sets up regulation that can literally make some mangerial decisions for the bank. Would this law repeal anyuthing from Dodd Frank. Doubtful it could get passed if it would but hey ya never know.
Indi, It would put them back into the same field they were in under Glass-Steagall between 1933 and 1999.
ReplyDeleteAndrew
ReplyDeleteThat is probably a good law then. Would it facilitate a breakup of the big five players that emerged out of the TARP fiasco or would Bank of America for instance just operate Merrill Lynch as a separate subsidiary.
My gut feeling is that it probably would not. I am not as certain as to all the effects of the Dodd Frank regulation but I do know that it sets up a regulatory agency funded by the Fed (to make congress unable to defund it).
As I understand it right now one of the methods of keeping the QE3 digital money printing presses from entering Carter level inflation is that they are controlling the lending capabilities of the banks. The Reserve is paying interest to keep the banks from lending that money into to market so the oversupply of money is not hitting us as the Grocery store.
So when we look at what they are doing with banking regulation we have to look at what effect this will have on monetary policy because they are intermingling it. That is why I ask.