Michael O'Hanlon, Very Serious Person, decides to write a Washington Times op-ed attacking Harry Reid. I joke from time to time that I'm ready to endorse the first Democrat who's willing to publicly rule out giving O'Hanlon a high-level job in his administration. The more I think about it, the less it sounds like a joke.
« The Redistricting Game | Main | Does This Help? »
The O'Hanlon Factor
19 Jun 2007 03:42 pm
Comments (18)
He seems like a decent guy and if he were correctly labeled as a conservative I wouldn’t have much of a problem with him. What drives me insane is how he’s used as the reasonable liberal.
I read Winning Ugly a few years back, and I remember thinking it was a pretty good book. But O'Hanlon's continuing descent into hackishness is impossible to ignore at this point.
Sadly I think he's as likely as anyone to appointed to a high level job by the next president.
"Under Secretary of State Michael O'Hanlon"
There was that article in TNR way back parsing out the Democratic primary outcome, where O'Hanlon played the role of anti-Dean enforcer, saying that he didn't want anyone who supported Dean to be employed in Democratic politics ever. Yes, we certainly wouldn't want someone with sound foreign policy instincts in a position of influence, God forbid! And why does O'Hanlon appear solely preoccupied by American domestic politics? I thought he was a foreign policy guy.
What a hoot. O'Hanlon opens by saying that, because of General Petraeus's resume, we shouldn't question him ever, and closes by proposing an "Iraq Study Group II", as if Bush would pay an iota more attention to the sequel than the original.
Oh well, at least he didn't assert that most Democratic senators are embarrassed by Reid. Points for that, I suppose.
Marshall wrote, "And why does O'Hanlon appear solely preoccupied by American domestic politics? I thought he was a foreign policy guy."
Most of the time, in most places, domestic politics plays a huge role in foreign policy. (Usually not in a good way.)
Has O'Hanlon spent any real time in Iraq? Does he do ANY field research at all anymore? Or does O'Hanlon just spend his days playing delicate policy footsie with other blushing out-of-touch beltway types?
The fact that O'Hanlon publishes an article on anything in the Washington Times is reason enough to deny him an appointment in any Democratic administration. That piece of crap paper is even lower then the fascist news channel.
Also, how serious can one be if you choose to be published in the Moonie Times?
Fact is, Moon, his money and organization play a MAJOR role in our nation's politics. I would argue the billions Moon spent on his fronts like the WT and the American Freedom Coalition, funding the extreme right folks like LaHaye, Falwell, Viguerie, Dolan and many more...played THE key role - had more to do with the rise and formation of the “new” right as anyone or thing. History will prove that to be the case when people wise up and stop laughing long enough to learn. We can laugh all we want but there they are. Laughing at them is like laughing at Limbaugh, we are right to do so but it doesn't change the reality of the role he plays.
FAIR put it best when they reported how the WT helped the right smear environmentalists.
http://www.fair.org/extra/0205/lynxgate.html
Lynxgate illustrates the power of the Times--a newspaper founded in 1982 as a vehicle to promote the right-wing views of Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church--to promote a conservative agenda and feed it into the mainstream media environment.
The WT was meant to drive the nation right which made a climate for the theocrats to take control of the Republican Party. Funny, Moon and his followers know exactly the game and role they play and why "Father's projects" are so important. Moon moves the big picture and doesn't give a rat's ass if the masses understands it or knows he is alive. He calls it the "natural subjugation of the American government and population." Get that? He isn't the clown we wish him to be.
Moon spends billions manipulating our political system, BRAGS about doing so, and most just get giggle out of it. No wonder the nation continues the slide into hell, we don't see who’s driving the bus. -
"I influenced America through the Washington Times and so many different activities." [Sun Myung Moon - September 13, 2002 "The Last Days Are Coming to America." Unification News – Sept, 2002]
_
And when we do glimpse or look right at him, we laugh and say "Nah, no way he intended this."
Blind. Naïve. Uninformed.
So O'Hanlon should be barred from working on a campaign because he criticized a statement made by Harry Reid about a respected friend? I am missing the connection. It wasn't exactly a skewering, he even admitted that Reid was right on certain points. If I were running for office, i'd sooner distance myself from Harry Reid. The majority of americans don't give a wet fart about Reid, and those that do don't particularly like or respect him.
So O'Hanlon should be barred from working on a campaign
No.
because he criticized a statement made by Harry Reid about a respected friend?
No.
Try reading before you write.
How touching. But O'Hanlon's played both sides of the fence--not to be bipartisan, but FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF REMAINING RELEVANT TO POLICY AND CLOSE TO "POWER."
In essence, O'Hanlon has "moderated" himself right into obsolescence--a reliable, pliant provider of policy "mush" for the party in power.
It's kind of sad, really. Had O'Hanlon stuck up for something (hell, ANYTHING), he'd be THE democratic defense powerhouse. SECDEF for sure. BUT...if he had...would O'Hanlon have been able to accumulate the funding required to stay at his perch in Brookings? DC thinktank catch 22...
on the other hand there are reports most notably in the Financial Times that shitbag Daalder (a founding member of the PNAC Democrats) is advising Obama on National Security. By Yglesias' rule, this might rule out a vote for our most bipartisan, above the fray, candidate
Recall O'Hanlon's over-the-top attacks on Howard Dean for the crime of being exactly right about Iraq.
Hey Steve. My reading comprehension is just fine. Cut out your snark and explain yourself. There's no reason to take that bitchy tone.
Daalder and O'Hanlon have had a falling out, as I understand it, because Daalder was against the Iraq War and worked for Dean, and O'Hanlon (sort of) endorsed the war and (sort of) advised Kerry. WINNING UGLY was a long time ago. There's also a lot of power-politics behind Daalder not becoming head of Brookings that probably play into that.
A link to the O'Hanlon piece is here. And if this spares just one person from looking at the main page of the Washington Times' site, it will have been worth it.
Comments closed July 03, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I remember suffering through O'Hanlon and Ivo Daalder's book "Winning Ugly," about the US/NATO war over Kosovo, in the Fall of 2001 in my Intro. to International Relations class; even then, he seemed to be a species of insipid and comically petty Monday Morning Quarterback that we have since evolved a term for -- a concern troll.
Also, how serious can one be if you choose to be published in the Moonie Times?
Also, for some reason -- maybe his cool name -- Daalder seems to have somewhat sounder instincts.
Posted by Ben Cronin | June 19, 2007 3:53 PM