Friday Open Thread [9.4.15]

Washington Post: “Many say AIPAC’s efforts were doomed to fail in the aftermath of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s combative speech to Congress in March — an appearance brokered by Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. along with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) without White House consultation.”

“Several Democratic lawmakers pointed to Netanyahu’s speech to Congress as poisoning the political environment surrounding the Iran deal debate even before an agreement was reached. Netanyahu spoke to AIPAC’s annual conference the night before his congressional address, arguing vehemently against the Iran negotiations. Several Democratic members boycotted the speech, arguing Netanyahu’s appearance was inappropriate as Israel was preparing for national elections.”

Newsweek:

With ratification of the agreement now seemingly inevitable, some analysts say it could hurt AIPAC’s standing on Capitol Hill. For years, the lobby was among the most formidable in Washington, respected and, because of its hardball tactics, feared. So this summer, when AIPAC met with hundreds of lawmakers and spent millions of dollars on TV ads in an attempt to block the agreement, some thought the group might thwart the president.

Yet in challenging Obama on Iran, AIPAC may have overestimated its influence. While a vote on military aid for Israel is an easy one for lawmakers, a vote on the Iran deal is far more complicated: It involves matters of war and peace, which lawmakers have historically granted presidents wide latitude to pursue. “The strength of any 800-pound gorilla lies in the perception that his power is so significant that no one challenges him,” says Robert Wexler, a former Democratic congressman from Florida and a supporter of the deal. “But if the 800-pound gorilla challenges and loses, then the deterrence factor is seriously weakened.” (AIPAC did not respond to a Newsweek request for comment.)

The Economist: “First, as a billionaire, he will not run out of money to finance his campaign. Second, he faces so many Republican opponents that he could grab the nomination with only a modest plurality of the vote. The smart money still says that Republicans will eventually unite behind a mainstream candidate, as they always have in the past. But the world cannot take this for granted. Demagogues in other countries sometimes win elections, and there is no compelling reason why America should always be immune.”

Larry Sabato: “While there are 22 presidential candidates — 23 if Biden runs — most of them are human tape recorders. On the top 25 or 30 issues, each has memorized a paragraph or two; mention the issue and the candidates push the ‘play’ button in their heads. Almost word-for-word each time, they recite the pollster-researched, consultant-approved soundbites designed to produce a Pavlovian response in partisans.”

“Problem is, Americans would generally prefer to elect a human being, not an automaton. It’s at least possible that a few more intractable problems would get solved if potential presidents were less inflexible — or so it appears to many voters.”

“Whatever else you think of him, Trump is no automaton. He isn’t rehearsed, at least compared to the others: We can’t take our eyes off him because we’re not at all sure what he’s going to say next.”

Joshua Green thinks Trump was dumb to sign the GOP’s Loyalty Pledge: “The GOP has finally muscled its maverick front-runner, Donald Trump, into submission. A Trump adviser said on Thursday the billionaire has agreed to sign the Republican “loyalty pledge” he famously refused at the first debate in Cleveland last month, apparently ruling out a scenario that utterly terrified the GOP establishment: that Trump would launch a third-party bid and almost certainly deny Republicans the White House. With the stroke of a pen, Trump will put these fears to rest—and immeasurably weaken his own standing. He’s probably signing his political death warrant.”

“First, it shatters the independent image that is the key to Trump’s appeal, the idea that he isn’t beholden to anyone or anything, and will make a ‘great’ president precisely because of this… Second, rather than quiet the attacks against him, this gives the GOP license to amplify them tremendously without fear of repercussion down the road… Third, by signing the Republican pledge, Trump invites everyone to judge him by that standard. But it’s not a standard that favors him.”

Rick Klein: “It’s not quite fully honest to suggest, as Donald Trump did, that he got nothing in return for his decision to take a pledge to support the Republican nominee, no matter what… For starters, it’s important to realize what Trump was giving up: nothing. He needed to take similar pledges to appear on some state ballots as a Republican, including in South Carolina. He’d begun none of the difficult work of ballot access he would have to be working on to make a third-party run plausible. So in exchange for nothing, he got something of great value: another nationally televised campaign moment.”

“Once again, it was all about the Donald. Once again, he did not disappoint, with a dramatic prop and a whirlwind press conference that included the requisite number of just-weird touches. (What were those Indonesian men in suits doing there at the front of the room?) Trump hates losers, of course. He managed to emerge a winner for the moment – and for longer, potentially, now that his 16 GOP rivals are on record saying they’d support him if he becomes the nominee.”

National Journal: “But make no mis­take: Trump’s sig­na­ture will do noth­ing to pre­vent a third-party cam­paign if the real es­tate mogul de­cides to change his mind. Leg­ally speak­ing, the Re­pub­lic­an Party’s loy­alty oath isn’t worth the pa­per it’s prin­ted on.”

Matthew Duss:

During the 2008 campaign, Obama started—and won—a hugely significant debate about the proper uses of U.S. power. His declaration that he would not be afraid to talk to America’s enemies brought accusations of naiveté from both his Republican adversary John McCain and Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton, who would go on to begin implementing that same policy toward Iran as Obama’s first Secretary of State.

Ending that mindset has proven a difficult task. The idea that military force is decisive in a way that diplomacy is not remains a very attractive one, especially for politicians looking for cheap ways to appear tough. And to be fair, Obama has moved slowly on this, often frustratingly so. There are policy areas, particularly the use of drone warfare, where he has continued the commitment to the use of force. But Obama’s Iran policy is one in which the president has followed through on that central promise of his candidacy, and with great results. In short, Obama’s Iran policy is the anti–Iraq war.