Conventional wisdom about the presidential elections looks like it may be wrong again, just like it was wrong in 2008. Newt Gingrich just might end up being the Republican nominee, rather than Mitt Romney. Even scarier, the guy might get himself elected president.
If this happens, my two countries, Israel and the United States, will have chief executives who are each other's clones. Politically, they're both on the extremely conservative side (though in Netanyahu's case, that's mainly true about economics and hawkishness, and less about social issues). That's probably why both of them are backed by Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson: Adelson has given millions to a pro-Gingrich SuperPAC and owns a free Israeli daily, "Yisrael Hayom", which many consider Netanyahu's unofficial spokesman.
The differences don't stop there. Netanyahu and Gingrich are both married to their third wives. Gingrich cheated on Wife No. 1 with Wife No. 2, and then on Wife No. 2 with Wife No. 3. As far as I know, Netanyahu was already divorced when he met Wife No. 3, Sarah, but in the early 90's he admitted to cheating on her when he thought a sex tape was about to be made public (in an interview with Sarah, which everybody compared to Bill and Hillary Clinton's famous interview).
In today's New York Times, Frank Bruni writes about many of Gingrich's negative character traits. When I read the article, all I could think of was the fact that it almost sounded like Bruni was talking about Netanyahu. Gingrich and Netanyahu like to falsely insert themselves into important events of the late 20th century (for example, Netanyahu once reminisced about Rehavam Ze'evi's time in his cabinet, even though Ze'evi never joined Bibi's government; other times, he claimed his first government proposed all kinds of initiatives that were actually started under other prime ministers). Also, Netanyahu and Gingrich regularly attack the elites, and just as Bruni can't find a definition of "elite" where Gingrich isn't part of it, I can't find a definition of the word that doesn't include Netanyahu.
As Bruni notes, Gingrich trumpets his Roman Catholicism and attacks secularists, despite having had a six-year affair with his current wife. Netanyahu, too, has whispered in the ears of rabbis that the left has "forgotten how to be Jewish", although he himself is far from being a righteous religious Jew.
I could go on: their animosity toward the media, except when it helps them; their love of deregulation; their de-facto opposition to the two-state solution, and much much more.
Oh, and there's one more similarity: I really would like neither one to be in government.
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Friday, January 06, 2012
Predicting 2012
The first week of January is almost over, and I haven't done the futile annual ritual of trying to predict the future. Let me guess what might happen, some of it wishful thinking, some of it I hope won't come true (you figure out which is which):
- Israel's Attorney General will make a final decision to indict Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman will resign from the cabinet, but will stay chairman of Yisrael Beitenu and will not resign from the Knesset. Faina Kirschenbaum will become Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister in his place. Lieberman will decide to stay in the coalition instead of bringing about early elections.
- It will be Ehud Barak's last full year as a member of the government. That will be the case for all ministers from his Atzmaut (Independence) Party.
- Benjamin Netanyahu will win the Likud leadership elections, since he won't have any serious opposition. In Kadima, Tzippi Livni will be forced to have leadership elections, which she will lose to Shaul Mofaz. Livni will leave Kadima with a few other MKs and form a new party. And here's a prediction for 2013: this split will lead to neither Kadima or Livni's new party winning any seats in the 19th Knesset.
- In the United States, Mitt Romney will be the Republican presidential nominee. He will pick Mike Huckabee as his running-mate (Romney-Huckabee was also my erroneous prediction in 2008). They will lose to the Obama-Biden ticket, but Republicans will gain control of the Senate and retain a majority in the House of Representatives.
- Iran will develop a nuclear warhead. Nobody attacks them before or after this happens.
- The new elected president of Egypt will put the peace treaty with Israel to a referendum, scheduled for around the same time as Mubarak's execution. The people will decide to declare the treaty null and void. The United States will halt all aid to Egypt, while Avigdor Lieberman, now the former Foreign Minister, will threaten that Israel will conquer the Sinai Peninsula for a third time in history.
- Syria's civil war will drag on all year with no foreign intervention and no end in sight.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Time's Person of the Year 2012: You Read It Here First
A day before 2012 begins, I can already predict with 90% certainty who Time Magazine will choose as Person of the Year 2012. I can't give you a name, but I can give you a title: President-elect of the United States. Here's why:
- Every president since Franklin Roosevelt, except for the unelected Gerald Ford, has been Time's Person of the Year at least once, either during their presidency or in the election year.
- Between 1932 and 2008, there have been 20 election years. During half of them, the presidential winner was POY. That includes seven of the last ten election years (since 1972), including the last three in a row.
- If Obama is defeated, the chances of the president-elect to be POY are even greater. Since 1972, presidential election years in which the winning candidate was not selected by Time were only years when the White House did not switch parties: Ronald Reagan's re-election in 1984, the election of then-VP George H. W. Bush in 1988 and Bill Clinton's re-election in 1996.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Mitt Romney's Ass Logo
This is Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign logo:
Now take a closer look at the R:
Am I the only one who thinks this looks like a human bottom?
Here's an idea for a new slogan, instead of "Believe in America": Mitt Romney - he won't leave you behind.
Now take a closer look at the R:
Am I the only one who thinks this looks like a human bottom?
Here's an idea for a new slogan, instead of "Believe in America": Mitt Romney - he won't leave you behind.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Sarah Palin, Republican Candidates and Israel
Potential Republican presidential candidate and supplier-in-chief of late-night comedians' material Sarah Palin is arriving in Israel today for a short visit. Is she trying to gain more of the Jewish vote by coming here? I doubt it. I don't think she's very popular among Jews, even the Republican ones. This trip is probably more about being able to say that not only does she understand Eastern Europe because she can see Russia from her house, she can understand the Middle East because she spent two days in Israel.
Palin will meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday evening for dinner. I bet she won't pressure him on construction in the settlements - a policy she'd continue as president. Of course, there's absolutely no chance in hell she'd actually ever become president.
It is more important to look into the Middle East policies of Republicans with better chances of winning the nomination. I don't think anybody has done that yet - and it is way too early for me to start doing candidate-by-candidate profiles. I can say this: It seems like there are roughly two categories of Republicans who both support Israel strongly (Ron Paul being the exception to the rule), but members of one group would, as president, continue supporting whatever Israel's right wing government does, and the others would seem to be more willing to pressure Israel after the election. I'd put Palin, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich in the first category and Mitt Romney in the second. There are a bunch of other Republicans whose Middle East policy is unknown to me, but I'm sure it will become clearer as time goes by.
I must say I prefer the latter, "friendly but nudging towards negotiations and peace" policy over the hawkish one.
Palin will meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday evening for dinner. I bet she won't pressure him on construction in the settlements - a policy she'd continue as president. Of course, there's absolutely no chance in hell she'd actually ever become president.
It is more important to look into the Middle East policies of Republicans with better chances of winning the nomination. I don't think anybody has done that yet - and it is way too early for me to start doing candidate-by-candidate profiles. I can say this: It seems like there are roughly two categories of Republicans who both support Israel strongly (Ron Paul being the exception to the rule), but members of one group would, as president, continue supporting whatever Israel's right wing government does, and the others would seem to be more willing to pressure Israel after the election. I'd put Palin, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich in the first category and Mitt Romney in the second. There are a bunch of other Republicans whose Middle East policy is unknown to me, but I'm sure it will become clearer as time goes by.
I must say I prefer the latter, "friendly but nudging towards negotiations and peace" policy over the hawkish one.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The President Joe Lieberman Scenario
Here's an unlikely, yet possible, political scenario for the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections:
Republican presidential nominee John McCain picks so-called Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman as his vice presidential running mate. The McCain-Lieberman ticket defeats the Obama-Biden ticket in November. On January 20, 2009, McCain and Lieberman are sworn in as president and vice-president, respectively. Sometime during the term, John McCain either dies or has to resign for health reasons.
Now Joe Lieberman becomes president. He is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. He nominates a hawkish Democrat as his VP. In 2012, President Lieberman decides to run for a full term, but he cannot run as a Republican or as a Democrat, so he runs as an independent. Since he is the incumbent, he is the strongest independent candidate in years and has an actual chance of winning electoral votes, if not the presidency.
On election day, the votes are split almost evenly between the three major contenders - the Democratic nominee (Hillary Clinton?), the Republican nominee (Mitt Romney?), and Joe Lieberman. Nobody gets at least 270 electoral votes. For the first time since 1824, the House of Representatives will have to choose a president, and for the first time since 1837, the Senate will have to elect a vice president.
I don't want this to happen, but it would certainly be interesting politically if it did.
Republican presidential nominee John McCain picks so-called Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman as his vice presidential running mate. The McCain-Lieberman ticket defeats the Obama-Biden ticket in November. On January 20, 2009, McCain and Lieberman are sworn in as president and vice-president, respectively. Sometime during the term, John McCain either dies or has to resign for health reasons.
Now Joe Lieberman becomes president. He is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. He nominates a hawkish Democrat as his VP. In 2012, President Lieberman decides to run for a full term, but he cannot run as a Republican or as a Democrat, so he runs as an independent. Since he is the incumbent, he is the strongest independent candidate in years and has an actual chance of winning electoral votes, if not the presidency.
On election day, the votes are split almost evenly between the three major contenders - the Democratic nominee (Hillary Clinton?), the Republican nominee (Mitt Romney?), and Joe Lieberman. Nobody gets at least 270 electoral votes. For the first time since 1824, the House of Representatives will have to choose a president, and for the first time since 1837, the Senate will have to elect a vice president.
I don't want this to happen, but it would certainly be interesting politically if it did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

