| Morning Jolt – February 26, 2013 By Jim Geraghty John Kerry Was For 'Kyrzakhstan' Before He Was Against It This is kind of an easy lay-up for mockery . . . John Kerry has suffered his first gaffe as the new US secretary of state, inventing the nation of 'Kyrzakhstan' In an embarrassing slip of the tongue, Mr Kerry last week praised US diplomats working to secure "democratic institutions" in the Central Asian country, which does not exist. The newly minted diplomat was referring to Kyrgyzstan, a poor, landlocked nation of 5.5 million, which he appeared to confuse with its resource-rich neighbour to the north, Kazakhstan. The State Department kindly omitted the error in the official transcript of Wednesday's speech, which Mr Kerry delivered on the eve of his first foreign trip as secretary of state. (All of that wacky capitalization reflects that we're reading the Telegraph of London.) A little while back, I pointed out that we need a better, more specific term for the statements our current political journalism calls "gaffes" because the media was applying the term to all kinds of statements: Verbal misstatements and grammatical errors: "57 states," Joe Biden calling his running mate "Barack America," etc. Brain freezes: Rick Perry in the debate. Of course this looks bad during a moment in the spotlight, but anyone who has never had this happen to them, raise your hand. Uh-huh. Didn't think so. Honest statements that are admissions against self-interest: President Obama declaring during a meeting of his Jobs Council, "Shovel-ready was not as . . . uh . . . shovel-ready as we expected." Unusual ideas: Newt Gingrich's pay-kids-to-be-janitors idea. Genuinely harmful erroneous statements: Joe Biden saying, "I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now," in an appearance designed to reassure the public about swine flu, or Michele Bachmann repeating a mother's claim that Gardasil causes retardation. Controversial or unpopular points: See Romney's Olympics and Palestinian statements above. So John Kerry said 'Kyrzakhstan' when he meant 'Kyrgyzstan,' a small but strategically important Central Asian nation that has suffered from a vowel drought for many decades. Big deal? Small deal? I'd argue that our assessment of Kerry's intelligence or verbal acuity ought to be based on factors bigger than this. So why are some gaffes turned into big deals and others not? Narrative, right? If you're Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle, Mitt Romney, or certain other Republican figures, you've been accused of being a bumbling imbecile, and thus every time you slip up words in a public appearance it's further evidence of your imbecility. But when Barack Obama mentions "57 states," it's just a reflection that he's tired. By the way, a few Democrats do get the "dumb guy" treatment. Here's Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, speaking on the floor of the House, July 2010: "Today, we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South, exchanging and working. We may not agree with all that North Vietnam is doing, but they are living in peace. I would look for a better human rights record for North Vietnam, but they are living side by side." Yes, this is the same woman who in 1997 asked a NASA scientist if the Mars Pathfinder had photographed the flag that Neil Armstrong had planted . . . You know, the one on the moon. There are genuinely stupid people in our political world, people who are probably too stupid to stay in the offices they hold. But it's not their misstatements that worry me; it's their silly or stupid ideas. I think the "reset button with Russia" represented ludicrously wishful thinking, pretending that tensions between the U.S. and Moscow had to do with some sort of "cowboy attitude" from President Bush instead of the two nations having fundamentally different and conflicting interests and goals in the world, coupled with the unnervingly intense paranoia and ruthlessness of Vladimir Putin. Someday Russia may have a leader who's a nicer guy than Putin, but the Russian government's worldview is probably still going to see the world as a zero-sum game, where if we're winning, they're losing. Toss in the widespread, bipartisan support for negotiating with the Taliban. Obviously, David Petraeus and John McCain aren't stupid. But they, along with most of our foreign-policy thinkers, believed that at some point, the Taliban would wear down and be ready for good faith negotiations, where we would be able to trust them to live up to their side of the argument. Surprise! Turns out the efforts at talks went nowhere, and the Taliban made unrealistic demands for prisoner swaps. You have a better chance of hashing out the paperwork with a rabid dog. Over at the American Thinker, Shoshana Bryen looks at the non-gaffe parts of the speech that ought to concern us: Secretary Kerry equated foreign aid with promoting moderation. "The investments that we make support our efforts to counter terrorism and violent extremism wherever it flourishes. And we will continue to help countries provide their own security, use diplomacy where possible, and support those allies who take the fight to terrorists." Consider Pakistan. Between 2001 and 2012, the United States spent almost $18 billion in Pakistan. From 2009-2011, under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, the U.S. provided $2.8 billion in civilian aid, including $1 billion in emergency humanitarian aid. About $855 million of that was in the FY2011. And yet, our bilateral relationship is defined mainly by arguments over drone strikes and collateral damage. Regarding Pakistani willingness to "take the fight to the terrorists," Pakistan-based Taliban groups remain committed to attacks on targets in both Pakistan and Afghanistan and more than 300 civilians, mainly Shiites in a predominantly Sunni country, were killed in sectarian assaults in 2012. More than 80 people were killed last week when a bomb went off in a largely Shiite marketplace. Is more American money going to change and moderate Pakistan? Or those who support the United States in opposition to a nuclear Iran? See, this is stupidity (or perhaps better described as bad judgment) with policy consequences. Okay, one easy lay-up, from Jim Treacher: "You probably haven't heard of Kyrzakhstan, but it's one of the most dangerous places on Earth. It's so perilous that you can't find it on any map. It's just that scary. . . . I notice Kerry didn't mention Libya in his list of dangerous places. Apparently, everything's been going just fine there. But then . . . what difference does it make? By the way, is the Marco Rubio water-drink thing over? Anybody else still think that the water drink was a potential career-ender, as the CNN chyron suggested? Sequestration's Powerful Cuts Can Overcome the Time-Space Continuum! Sequestration: It's working already, as Reason's Mike Riggs notices: If you want a thorough agency-by-agency rundown of the budget cuts sequestration would deliver, the Office of Management and Budget has you covered. In compliance with The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, the OMB sent a detailed report to Congress in September 2012. But there's a small problem with the report: One of the cuts it warns against would affect an agency that no longer exists--and didn't exist when the OMB sent its report to congress. The first line item on page 121 of the OMB's September 2012 report says that under sequestration the National Drug Intelligence Center would lose $2 million of its $20 million budget. While that's slightly more than 8.2 percent (rounding error or scare tactic?), the bigger problem is that the National Drug Intelligence Center shuttered its doors on June 15, 2012--three months before the OMB issued its report to Congress. If sequestration is powerful enough to eliminate programs in the past . . . now I really like it. Sean Hackbarth summarizes the current moment: "The Washington, DC Way: Where directing the blame is more important than fixing the problem." Republican Governors, Disappointing Us One After Another So, my dear righty friends, does this give off a whiff of crony capitalism? Members of an Iowa board charged with doling out millions to lure business to the state often work for companies that benefit from the incentive programs they oversee, an Iowa Watchdog review shows. Additionally, Iowa Economic Development Authority board members donated thousands of dollars to political campaigns, including Gov. Terry Branstad, prior to their nominations to the board. The Republican governor led the charge to create the authority when he took office in 2011 and appointed its entire board, which has to gain final approval from a majority in the Iowa Senate. The board selected dozens of companies in the past year to receive a combined $189 million in taxpayer money and tax breaks, with the goal of luring more business to Iowa and growing its economy. An Iowa Watchdog review of state campaign donor lists, legislation and records from the authority showed a majority of the money went to fund projects at existing businesses, rather than to land out-of-state or new companies. "Whenever there is even an appearance of a conflict of interest we abstain," said Theodore Crosbie, an authority board member and vice president of global plant breeding at Monsanto. "We take the subject seriously. All members have been diligent about this matter." But the review found potential conflicts of interest among board members. Specifically, it showed six companies -- John Deere, Aviva USA, Monsanto, Cargill, Brownells Inc. and Interstate Companies -- received at least $39.6 million in tax incentives and state grants and loans, despite leaders from the respective companies serving on the authority's board. In exchange, the companies promised to create 983 jobs. State documents did not show a figure for the incentives received by Brownells. Pretty dispiriting time to be a Republican. Here in Virginia, Bob McDonnell just agreed to a transportation bill that includes way too many different types of tax increases. I think some folks on the right are understating the fact that the state genuinely needed a steady supply of revenue to pay for transportation projects and repair, but McDonnell began with a plan that would eliminate the gas tax and increase the sales tax. Now the sales tax goes up, the tax on gas is reduced and shifted to wholesale (easier to hide from consumers), AND the car tax goes up from 3 percent to 4.3 percent AND there's a new 0.25 percent sales tax on homes in Northern Virginia AND there's a new hotel tax. Did you guys forget anything? I mean, for a deal like that, we could have elected Democrats. We've seen Kasich in Ohio and Scott in Florida punt on the Medicare exchanges. And now this you-scratch-my-back, I'll-scratch-yours mess in Iowa. I'm sure everyone involved in the Iowa Economic Development Authority will insist the $189 million they've spent so far created jobs . . . but that's not the point, as it's hard to spend $189 million and not create any jobs. The point is that any business that has an employee on the Authority board has an enormous advantage in getting economic assistance from the state, an advantage that a small start-up is unlikely to have. ADDENDUM: Joe Scarborough asks: "Republicans have agreed to raising taxes. Republicans have agreed to cut defense. When will the President agree to entitlement cuts? #Never" To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com Save 75% . . . Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for print-edition information. Click here for digital-edition information. And National Review makes a great gift. Click here to send a full-year gift to NR Digital, and here to send a full-year subscription to the print edition. Conservatives – stay healthy! Get plenty of Vitamin Sea on the next National Review cruise. Visit www.nrcruise.com for complete information about our next trip. National Review, Inc. | 
Comments
Post a Comment