 |
| Click above for video |
Sean Hannity and David Pakman (strange bedfellows! A Right wing Fox-man and a Left wing pod-man) put words in Ramaswamy’s mouth and then attack those words.
It’s not clear to me if they’re being political (aka dishonest) or simply stupid.
Because each of Vivek’s positions on the issues they attack strikes me as reasonable.
Taiwan: Ramaswamy says US should move away from its current official stance of “strategic ambiguity” to make clear that the U.S. will defend Taiwan against military attack from China. It should then build up domestic semiconductor capacity. When the semiconductor industry now controlled by Taiwan has been established in the US, then the US can revert to its current policy of “strategic ambiguity”.
How is that difficult to understand? But it’s played by Hannity and Pakman as being “ditch Taiwan” after semiconductor independence. That is clearly not what he said. As I believe and as Nate the Lawyer believes. Yet Ramaswamy’s efforts to explain himself are characterised as “flip flopping” or being “slippery”.
ADDED: I went looking for what Vivek had said about Taiwan because a member of this household had told me Vivek wanted to “dump Taiwan” after US achieved semiconductor independence. But that’s not true! As a listening of what he actually said, reveals.
Israel: Ramaswamy proposes to expand the Abraham Accords (“Accords 2.0”) such that by 2028 Israel security has been so increased that the annual aid “won’t be necessary”. He also stressed keeping to agreements made. And the “won’t be necessary “ caveat is clearly meant to be contingent. Again that strikes me as a reasonable proposal, good for America, good for Israel and good for the Middle East. Reading this, as Hannity and Pakman do, as “ditching Israel” is weird and, I believe, wrong. Or bad faith. Or disingenuous. Or simply stupid.
Nate the Lawyer is an ex professor of Law, and Assistant District Attorney, Legal scholar. I’m following him fairly recently. I find his takes refreshing, clear, and down-the-line.
