Is David Storobin a Real Republican?

YOUTH WANTS TO KNOW: Did David Storobin really say all these things?

"... Putin’s Russia also became more assertive in promoting its interests, rather than just being America’s little lap dog.”

"...Russia fought back like a cornered bear... over elections in the Ukraine... [and] the result was Moscow’s first major victory on the international scene in at least 20 years.” ((( HEY, WASN'T THAT A "VICTORY" OVER THE UNITED STATES ? )))

“It was now Moscow’s time to branch out of the borders of the former USSR.... Moscow felt the need to assert itself by poking the West in the eye as a show of strength." ((( WHAT NEXT, NUCLEAR MISSILES IN CUBA ? )))

This doesn't sound like the patriotic American "Republican-Conservative" David Storobin running for the New York State Senate --- that David Storobin praises America and denigrates Russia. WHAT GIVES ?

 

I must begin this piece with a bit of clarification. There is no doubt that if Republican State Senate candidate David Storobin was a conventional conservative Republican I would be probing his record and attacking its weak points, though it would not be unlikely there would be a few issues where my position was closer to his than it was to his opponent’s.

So let me be clear. David Storobin is not in any matter a conventional conservative Republican; nor is he in any manner an example of one the popular variants of that political breed.

Storobin is something unique and different.

He is not a Bush Republican, a McCain Republican, a Romney Republican or a Paul Republican.

He’s not even a Buchanan Republican, although that comes closer to the mark.

While their worldviews have some similarity, especially in regards to their lack of sympathy for people of color, Pat Buchanan is an “America Firster” in the tradition of Lindbergh.

In the tradition of Buchanan, Storobin is an outlier, a strange fringe type who feels compelled to whitewash_immigrant_bashers and give a forum to justifiably obscure white supremacists like the Afrikaner Independence Movement.

But, as will be illustrated here, no one can credibly accuse Mr. Storobin of being an “America-Firster.” In fact, he is better described as a “Blame America Firster.”

As I’ve noted before, Storobin has shown himself to be a full throated apologist for Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Take Storobin’s article “ Russia’s Nuclear Declaration: A Defense, Not An Attack, first published on Storobin’s “Global Politician” on January 22, 2008.

The article begins with a frightening quote from Russian Army Chief of Staff, General Yuri Baluyevsky, in which the General articulates a doctrine of preventive nuclear warfare:

"We have no plans to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand ... that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, the use of nuclear weapons."

Now, a normal neo-Con, like Republican Congressman Bob Turner, would probably react angrily, promising a little pre-emption of our own and denouncing the Democrats for not saying the same (even if they were).

As I noted about Turner after a 2011 debate: 

Meanwhile, in an age when Republicans are rapidly turning into Buchananite isolationists, Turner revealed himself instead to be a hardline neo-con, albeit a not very well informed one, going on a rant about supporting democratic forces against the Muslim Brotherhood that ignored the fact that they are sometimes allies of convenience, and sometimes hard to discern from one another.

Turner quickly changed the subject when asked about whether military or foreign aid spending should be cut back for budgetary reasons, but made clear he thought we must spend what was necessary, and by his other answers made clear that his view of necessary was expansive. It seemed clear that after 35% was cut and Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense and foreign aid taken care of at Turner’s preferred levels, there wouldn’t be much (if anything), left for infrastructure or anything else.

Turner seemed to be calling for action, whenever, wherever, criticizing the administration’s lack of support for Iran’s Green revolution, as if foreign policy and defense decisions were strictly a matter of right or wrong, without any regard for whether our resources would better be deployed primarily in the service of achievable goals.

Turner lives in some sort of black and white alternative reality, calling for more action in more places, screaming about the administration’s inaction anywhere, seemingly unaware that the Obama administration that had just helped overthrow a Libyan despot.

In sum, Turner has the neo-con view that America has the right and duty to impose its vision of the world  as it sees fit.

This is not the view of David Storobin.

For instance, in the article we are discussing, Storobin defends Baluyevsky, and his boss, Vladimir Putin.

But he does more than that:

“…Moscow is not trying to threaten the world despite the panic that the word "nuclear" usually provokes. The General's statement is also not particularly extraordinary. Russia’s new stance is not a threat to the West, much less the beginning of a new Cold War.”

Storobin then attempts to defend the unspeakable:

To understand why Vladimir Putin’s administration made the statement one needs to go back to the Balkan wars in the 1990s since the “ally” Moscow was talking about was Serbia in the anticipation of the potential unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo Albanians and recognition of the new state by the European Union and the United States.

In the process of this, Storobin attempts to
justify the Serbian genocides in both Bosnia and Kosovo, making several extraordinary statements, which I’ve reported before:

Both sides committed atrocities…”

“It was thus hardly surprising that Bill Clinton chose to help Bosnian Muslims over the Serbs. What was unusual was the vilification of the Serbs as the only side that committed atrocities. While it is true that the Serbs committed crimes, it was always doubtless that Bosnians did as well.”

 Bill Clinton’s grotesque unofficial and indirect alliance with Osama bin Ladin and Iranian Ayatollahs against Orthodox Christians (Russians and Serbs) was presented as a fight for human rights”

“In March 1999, after months of exaggeration of Serbian atrocities by the Western media… Washington-led NATO began the air campaign against Serbia.”

If you detect an element of anti-Americanism here, you are not mistaken. Time and again, Storobin does not merely express a disagreement with US policy (which is certainly his right), but openly cheers for its failure.

Let me be clear: criticizing your country’s policies and trying to correct its mistakes is often an act of patriotism.

But rooting for your country’s failure is not. 

Contrast Storobin’s words with the position courageous position of Ed Koch during the Vietnam War.

Koch was staunch opponent of the War, and a Congressional  leader of the fight to end it.

But Koch, nonetheless, always loudly condemned those in the anti-war movement who rooted for US defeat, and, as a result, was vilified on the left.

In his district, in that time, Koch’s patriotism was an act of political courage.

Koch knew that one could oppose US policy without cheering for US failure, but this was a lesson lost on the hard left.

Moreover, it is a lesson that Storobin has failed to assimilate.

As such, the most jarring thing about the article is Storobin’s support of Putin, vis a vis his conflicts with the United States government.

One cannot read Storobin’s article without concluding that Mr. Storobin is openly cheering for the failure of US policy, and if I’m not going to let Charles Barron off the hook for such things, it would be terribly unfair not to apply the same standard to Mr. Storobin. I should also note that Storobin supporters seem to agree, since  they have no problems with going after a former aide to John Liu on similar grounds.

And I do wonder what Republicans like Turner, Grimm, Marty Golden and Dean Skelos have to say about this.

Storobin defends Russia’s standing up to America time and again, while deriding America’s positions. Sometimes it seems like Storobin is actually gleeful about every perceived Russian triumph against the US:

But it gets far worse; here Storobin describes the Serbian withdrawal from Kosovo and the attempted arrival of the Russians, thwarted by the USA. What’s stunning is which side Storobin roots for:

“The Serbs left the province and NATO moved in. But when Russian soldiers arrived, Americans blocked them, and the media portrayed this as the new Prague Spring of 1968 (when the Soviets ruthlessly crushed the Czechoslovakian liberation movement). But this time it was not Kremlin abusing its power – it was the White House.

To the Russians, it was the ultimate slap in the face. Already reeling from helplessness, Russians correctly saw this incident as an insult.”

Likewise, Storobin defends Russia’s standing up to America time and again, while deriding America’s positions, gleefully enjoying every Russian triumph against his adopted country.

“But Putin’s Russia also became more assertive in promoting its interests, rather than just being America’s little lap dog.”

“During the Ukrainian elections in 2004, Americans tried not only to promote Viktor Yuschenko, but to turn him into a“candidate of the West” to the point where some have even traveled to Kiev. Unlike in Kosovo a half decade earlier, this time Russia fought back with all the vigor of a cornered bear, the same way Washington would fight an attempt to establish a pro-Russian, anti-American regime in Canada. The result was Moscow’s first major victory on the international scene in at least 20 years.

“It was now Moscow’s time to branch out of the borders of the former USSR.

At times Russia is fighting just for the sake of fighting. Like a picked-on school boy who just took a self-defense course, Moscow felt the need to assert itself by poking the West in the eye as a show of strength.

Putin realized that no country will choose to ally with Russia over the United States if they have a choice. He thus made a decision to embrace the enemies of the West such as Iran, Syria and Venezuela. In the United Nations, Russia made things difficult for the United States in order to show that it is a country that must be paid attention to.”

Storobin not only rationalizes the every indefensible Russian action, but clearly relishes every one of them, while at the same time trying to make light of the threat they pose to our country and the world:

“This Russian alliance with the enemies of the West is unlikely to hold for a long time, however. While some countries, such as Venezuela, are of no long-term importance to Moscow and could be either a friend or an enemy…”

Storobin also minimizes Russia’s kissy-face flirtations with Iran, arguing the countries are natural enemies. Strangely, it seems to elude him that it is this very threat which motivates the alliance and makes it far more dangerous.

Storobin then goes on to greater rationalizations still:

“Kremlin pretends to help Tehran inside and outside the United Nations only to play Washington for a fool. Americans are paying Russians to do exactly what they want to do anyway, while at the same time making Moscow seem like a major player on the world scene.”

In the end, Storobin just can’t stop lovin’ Putin, and affirming Putin’s right to impose his will upon others countries, even with pre-emptive use of nuclear arms:

“Putin’s next test is in Kosovo. He must show his people and the international community that Moscow is willing and able to help its allies.

Serbs are a people who are very similar to Russians (both are Orthodox Christians, both are Slavic, and their languages are similar enough to be understood). Moscow is entitled to defend it the same way Washington would defend Great Britain.

In declaring itself willing to defend its allies, with nuclear weapons if needed, Moscow did not intend to tell the world that it wants a new Cold War. Russia’s defense of Serbia is no difference an American defense of its allies in Western Europe, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and many other countries
.”

Storobin even defends
Putin’s poaching players from the National Hockey League.

In the end, it appears that Storobin is almost always willing to, using a phrase favored by Republicans, “Blame America First” and to justify almost any atrocity in the name of Putin’s hegemony:

“Ten years ago, Bill Clinton unnecessarily provoked the Russian people by going back on his agreement with Moscow… George W. Bush must not make the same mistake…And liberal Jewish organizations must remember that should they support KLA terrorists in Kosovo, Russia and its allies would be fully justified in aiding Hamas in Gaza as payback.

It seems to me that Storobin could credibly be accused of having sympathy for aggression committed by Slavic Orthodox Christian Armies than he does for Jewish civilian victims of terror.

Frankly this is jarring, given the genocide practiced by the Serbs in Kosovo and Bosnia (including mass killings and systematically organized rapes), especially coming from a man who escaped from persecution visited upon his family precisely because he is not a Slav and not an Orthodox Christian.

Then again, perhaps it is not so surprising coming from someone who writes sympathetic articles about Russian collaborators with the Nazis.

Still, Storobin’s love of Orthodox Christians persecuted by Muslims is selective, as he proved when he gleefully published an article denying the Armenian Holocaust.

The truth is that Storobin is not a real Republican. Usually when I say this, I say it to compliment someone. However, in this case, I say it because the Republicans deserve better.

Storobin, as revealed in his voluminous deleted writings, is a fringoid weirdo who has more in common with 9/11 truther, birthers and conspiracy nuts than he does with the GOP.

A revealing moment came the other day in The New York Times.

Asked about how he came to provide a forum for the views of extremists like Minutemen (whose ideas he called “very reasonable”) and white separatist advocates of the Afrikaner Independence Movement, Storobin said “They got in touch with me, and then I interviewed them.”

Having glanced through most of what Storobin’s posted on the internet, I’m not surprised they found him. 

He spent his life on the blogs sending up flare signals to such people that he is a loon who will say and print anything, including the filth lies of  deniers of the Armenian Holocaust and the dangerous ravings of  "Fjordman", an anonymous Norwegian blogger who writes about Islam and Muslim immigration and the danger that he believes it poses to Western civilization. Shortly after the bombing of Oslo in the 2011 Norway attacks, when it still was believed the terrorist was an Islamist), Fjordman asked his regular readers at the Gates of Vienna blog to "remember" that Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg was as much a "pathetic sucker for Islam as it is humanly possible to be". When the shooting at Utøya became known a few hours later, Fjordman described the Workers' Youth League (AUF) under attack as a "gang of anti-Israeli, pro-Palestine youth-socialists". Anders Behring Breivik, the man accused in the 2011 Norway attacks, frequently praised writings of Fjordman, citing him extensively in his manifesto..

Mr. Storobin’s views on international politics seem a curious mixture, sometimes even including common sense. For instance, he points out how much Iran benefitted from America’s invasion of Iraq.

Still, I wonder if most Republicans would share this viewpoint with myself and Mr. Storobin. 

More typically, Storobin’s views range from paranoia to things even more disturbing, though even the most disturbing elements are usually carefully put forth in the guise of neutral thoughtful observer. In the typical instance where one can find something which might cause offense or alarm, it is almost always at least arguably explainable in the fuller context, or at least has enough of an escape hatch to allow one to give Storobin the benefit of the doubt.

However, when all the pieces are taken together (which one can’t because Storobin has deleted them), what seems to emerge is a peculiar pattern of sympathy for certain despots and despotic movements (like Putin or Afrikaner independence), and precious little sympathy for people of color. Storobin has almost no interest in spreading democracy or ensuring human rights (in fact, he seemingly could care less even about genocide), and almost universally opposes the national claims of almost every ethnic minority (and sometimes majority) almost everywhere else in the world, with the possible exception of the Afrikaner Independence movement (seemingly the only such movement for which he does not express disdain).

I ask Bob Turner, Michael Grimm, Dean Skelos and Marty Golden, does David Storobin’s view of America and its role in the world reflect your own?

Please explain to me how someone who calls himself a Republican can embrace such a man?