"Even though I think Dick Cheney is batshit crazy, I think he should be a permanent Vice President."

Friedman argues that Rice should say:

“Look, I’m ready to cut a deal with you guys, but I have to tell you, back home, I’ve got Cheney on my back and he is truly craaaaazzzzy. You guys don’t know the half of it. He thinks waterboarding is what you do with your grandchildren at the pool on Sunday. I’m not sure how much longer I can restrain him."

I thought the "pretend-to-be-completely-bonkers" attitude towards diplomacy went out with Nixon? Oh, right. Everything Cheney does is a resurrection of Nixon's discredited approach to government.

This part is particular babble:

"If Democrats want to win this election, they have to get these two in balance — they have to learn how to criticize the Bush record from the right and the left, to show they can be better at engagement and coercion."

From what I see in the polls, a Democrat is going to win the election no matter what Friedman thinks. Tom Friedman is not the median voter, and should stop pretending to the public that he is.

It is false to view "engagement" and "coercion" as equally valid foreign policy options. Friedman is still peddling the Bush/Cheney attitude towards foreign policy: that merely talking to a leader of a foreign country is a reward.

Meanwhile the dollar continues to be devauled, deficits are soaring, the military state of readiness gets worse and worse, and the US approval ratings around the globe are at historical lows.

Thanks a lot, assholes!

artishardinnov says:

"Vice President Cheney is the hawk-eating hawk, who regularly swoops down and declares that the U.S. will not permit Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Trust me, the Iranians take his threats seriously."

Oh, I have no doubt the Iranians take the American threat seriously. That's why they are developing a nuclear program - to deter any future American attack. They probably figure now is the best time to build a program, while the American military is too bogged down in Iraq to do anything about it.

There is a limit to how much can be accomplished on the world stage by repeated bullying. The lesson states in the region have learned from the invasion of Iraq is: it's really a freakin' bad idea to disarm yourself completely at the behest of the United States. For all the talk in the US about "appeasment", the past fifteen years of history in Iraq are a good example of actual appeasement in a modern era. In a proper appeasement, you have one power that is dominant militarily (in this case, the US), and another one that keeps making military concessions to achieve peace with the first power (in this case, Iraq). Iraq completely dismantled their ability to defend themselves after the war in Kuwait. As thanks, W. decided to invade anyway.

No other nation is ever going to stop any arms-building program simply because Dick Cheney and Tom Friedman want them to. Everybody now knows what happens when you do: the United States says "thank you very much" and demands more. The likelihood that Iran will respond positively to threats is about the same as the likelihood that passengers on an American plane will cooperate with hijackers ever again.

Meanwhile, Pakistan, a nation that already has nuclear weapons, already has traded nuclear technology with North Korea, and is the reputed hiding place for Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership, is undergoing major political chaos as their dictator-for-life declares martial law. And Friedman really thinks Iran is the problem?

How do we get this guy off the editorial page? He's a menace to society.

Mr.Spud says:

"I think the Democrats should take Rove's advice."

That would be a phenomenally stupid thing to do. Rest assured that Rove's advice is always aimed to help Rove, and not anybody else. Americans are not going to suddenly go gaga over Democrats if they try to portray themselves as "tougher" than Republicans. Moreover, the base of the Democratic party doesn't want that kind of politics at all. The politics of triangulation have only succeeded in destroying the brand image of the Democratic party, to the benefit of a small number of a politicians.

Speaking of which, about the Blue Dogs? JoeCHI: try to stay on topic and get away from the daily rant featured on Kos's website.

What happens if we condition on "scoring second to tie the game at 1-1"? That takes all the blowouts out of consideration from your statistic.

I know, I'm a spoilsport. :)

The purpose of sports journalism is to be

a) controversial

b) accurate

It looks like you've chosen a).

It's pretty easy to stir up controversy by calling an entire 6-state region of sports fans masochists. It is not, however, true.

More to the point: if you are trying to bolster your argument, quoting somebody who yearns for the Larry Bird years doesn't help you much, does it? Did Steve Almond pay any attention to basketball in the 1980s? A lot of Celtics fans continue to revere Bird and his championship era. Can Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and company achieve the same level of success? I don't know, but the prospect is exciting, not tiresome.

Aside from Dan Shaughnessy, nobody in the greater Boston area believes in this kind of garbage theory.

What else is there to say? His advice is entirely self-interested (i.e., he is paid to say these things) and should be shunned by anybody in the Democratic party who wants the party to succeed.