The worst thing about this whole idiotic memo non-flap flap is what it is doing to the long term credibility of all bloggers, in particular, conservatives. Now, granted, most people who read blogs understand that this medium is by nature personal, opinionated, and partisan, and as such, each blogger should be read with the level of credibility they deserve. However, as a collective, the right-wing bloggers who are still attacking Mike Allen and denying the veracity of the memo are beginning to look like ‘salivating morons:’
“Citizen journalists”? Try partisan hacks
Right-wing bloggers shrieked that the GOP Schiavo memo was a “liberal media” fraud. Now that they’ve been proven wrong, are they apologizing? Why, no!
This time, the hoax was on them.
Still gloating over their role in unmasking CBS’s faulty National Guard memo story last September, right-wing bloggers launched a new memo-based crusade against the so-called liberal media last month, one that turned out to be completely phony. But unlike CBS and its tarred former anchor, Dan Rather, who eventually admitted their mistakes in the Memogate affair, these bloggers (many of whom were also involved in the CBS campaign) haven’t had the guts to apologize for their blunder…
And this from Power Line Wednesday night, just four hours before the Post debunked the whole charade: “Some already suspect that the memo is a Democratic dirty trick. The inability of Democratic staffers to speak accurately about the matter does nothing to dispel that suspicion.”
Despite that dismal record, on Thursday bloggers showed very little appetite for self-reflection. In fact, scanning the blogs involved in the memo story, readers found few corrections or references to lessons learned.
According to Glenn Reynolds of InstaPundit, which helped hype the story early on, the take-away from the episode was about the mainstream press and how it “will publish stuff without much in the way of authentication.”
That’s an art some bloggers have already perfected.
Every time a blogger catches someone doing wrong, they are going to have this thrown in their face. “Sure so and so did that- just like you caught Democrats manufacturing the Schiavo memo.” Mark my words- not that we shouldn’t have this thrown in their face.
Maybe Mark Kleiman is right about the delusion suffered by some on my side of the aisle:
Really, unless you start with the assumption that any reporter who doesn’t work for Rupert Murdoch is a vicious, partisan liar, it all makes perfect sense.
What I see going on around me is that my party is in power. We control the Presidency. We control the House and the Senate. Republican appointees outnumber Democratic ones on the Supreme Court, and we are poised to add more. We own talk radio. Cable news tends to be neutral to conservative (it certainly is not liberal or progressive- some outfits may have anti-Republican reflexes). We have all but eliminated partisan debate in congress, playing by rules much tougher than anything that was in place. Where there were once no conservative (or few) newspapers, there are now several. We have numerous conservative online journals. Hundreds of publications that all push the same point and pass on the same message.
And it still isn’t enough. Everything is under attack if it does not toe the same hard-right line. The university, the institution of marriage, journalism as an enterprise, the medical community, the legal community, every foreign institution, the United Nations- anything, that doesn’t cater to the conservative need for instant gratification in the form of message adherence and submission to the new doctronaire must be destroyed. Look at the recent behavior of Republicans in Congress towards REPUBLICAN APPOINTED CONSERVATIVE JUDGES. Forget ‘screw me once, shame on you.’ This new breed of fanatacism is “Slight me in any discernable way, even a mild disagreement, and I will publicly destroy you.”
And for what?
– So Tom DeLay can stuff his pockets with PAC money?
– So the banking interests that bankroll Washington can get their bankruptcy bill, ensuring higher and higher profits and usurious interest rates?
– So Jim Sensennbrenner can put people in jail for broadcasting things he finds obscene?
– So that Congress can insert itself into your marriage, change your end-of-life decisions, because they don’t like them?
– So we can make sure gays don’t get married?
– To make sure something like evolution and other nasty science things aren’t taught in school?
What, exactly are we trying to accomplish, and why, exactly, should I be in favor of it? Other than Iraq and Afghanistan, which are going well and are a success (yet still works in progress), what have we accomplished? I’m serious. Remind me what we are trying to do here- why this is a good thing.
BumperStickerist
, that doesn’t cater to the conservative need for instant gratification in the form of message adherence and submission to the new doctronaire must be destroyed
You’re right, John … you’re the last, best hope against Evil …and, having raised this clarion call, they’ll be after you … probably through Reynold’s BlogRoll… you should ask Glenn to delink you, that’ll stall ‘them’ as they work their way through the list…
best you should take a cue from Star Trek:TNG and randomly vary your IP address .. that’ll take longer as well …maybe give you a chance to make it back to Xion.
Good luck … as for me .. .I have a crappy static IP address, they’re onto me, I think, I’ve been reading Kos and Atrios, some Willis, a bit of Pandagon, so I’m a goner …
best of lu~zcccracckkkkllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
martin
Preach it brother!
I hated the corruption of the Clinton Administration. I cheered when Repubs took Congress in 1994.
Now to my increasing disbelief-I’m going to vote Democrat in 2006.
Apparently it’s not a cliche, power really does corrupt.
amantha
So nice to know that I am not alone out here. Well done!
ape
jc –
regarding the CBS apology and the lack of apology from the bloggers:
this has always been the fundamental problem with the ‘liberal MSM’ con.
the accusation against the ‘MSM’ is always made by people or organizations who do not even pretend to be fair.
Techunter
I have repudiated Martinez and his staff on my blog, http://www.SoCalPundit.com. I have admitted we all got caught on this one. But you have to admit, based on recent experience, the MSM and Democratic operatives have no problem making documents to support their assertions. It was a mistake that we thought the document came from the Democrats but it would seem we were correct to doubt it
nemo
Why do you hate America?
Thomas Goodrich
Your side of the aisle has become a religious movement rather that a political force. Religion deals with absolutes, politics with compromise. Religious dissent is heresy rather than disagreement.
It is frightening to observe. I miss principled, intelligent Republicans as an important counterpoint to the excesses of my own party. Good luck.
Aaron
I think you guys read too much about politics.
stormy70
Preach it, Aaron. Step away from the Congress, people, they’ll kill you if their able. ;)
Tom
Holy crap, John. If liberals had half the outrage you do, we’d actually accomplish something. I’ve seen a lot of blistering critiques of today’s GOP from conservatives lately, but you really take the cake.
Maybe it’s that we’re broken (in the horse sense), or timid by our nature. Or we’re perhaps apathetic. Or maybe we just have sore throats after years of shouting and pleading. Maybe after all this time, we’re just going through the motions out of habit and forgot why.
Your indignation is fresh and raw. The realization is sudden and cathartic and new. Liberals are watching as old conservatism is replaced by something new and dangerous. For you, it’s you that is being replaced.
Jorge
“based on recent experience, the MSM and Democratic operatives have no problem making documents to support their assertions”
I think you are outlining one of the main problems here. MSM is just shorthand, a bit of intellectual laziness used to clump together just about any and all well established news organization and damn them with the perceived sins of the few. Ater all, you don’t usually hear of folks praising all of the “MSM” when one outlet does something well. Clear distincitions to isolate those groups are made. And of course, MSM is seldom used to include Fox News, the WSJ or any corporate outlet that is seen by those using the term “MSM” to lean towards the right. So, when in time has ABC been caught faking information. What reason, other than what a completely different corporate entity did during Rathergate, is there for saying that the is a record of misbehavior here? And saying “Democratic Operatives” creates one big artificial monolith that spreads blame for the actions of a select few to everyone who leans to the left.
Let’s be clear – no aides from the Hill, heck, no in-government Democrats anywhere, were involved in Rathergate. Near as I can tell, it was a private citizen with strong political leanings. But because of the lazy use of shorthand by so many, the jump in logic from the fake CBS memos to the very real Martinez talking points is fascilitated by saying “Democratic operatives.” The same with being able to paint ABC and the Post with same brush as CBS by typing three letters, MSM.
This is a case of journalistic laziness meeting politically motivated speculation. I seriously doubt that any of the bloggers involved in speculating about the supposed Democratic roots of this memo did even half of the half-assed research that Rather and his staff did into the fake Bush memos. I know they didn’t come close to doing the level of research that ABC and the Post did into this story.
ppgaz
From a Blue Dog Democrat (me):
I admire integrity wherever I find it. John Cole is a righteous, gnarly dude. I wish we had him on our side ideologically, but just having him out there at all is a treasure.
Gives me hope that the human race might actually survive.
JG
The interesting part of rathergate to me was that before the memo was found to be a forgery (not that I’ve seen any proof it was indeed a forgery) was the the white house did not deny the contents of the memo. That keep getting lost in the ‘forgery’ noise, probably by design. There must have a massive sigh of relief on 1600 when the right wing bloggers questioned the typeface on the memo, the white house no longer had to address the allegations in the memo. I still see the issue as an old tv anchor being blinded by a scoop in his later years rather than a massive left wing conspiracy to bring down President Bush. Occams razor (sp)anyone?
Alex Knapp
Bravo!
MT
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
We are seeing the living embodiment of this maxim in today’s political climate. It’s always been true, continues to be true and ever shall be true. When will we ever understand that?
This kind of power manifests itself in many unhealthy forms: theocracies, fascist states, dictatorships, oligarchies…I suppose we could debate just which of these are currently in the formative stages, but we’d be better off using our time and energy to rescue democracy.
What can we do? Regardless of which side of the aisle we come from, our voices MUST be heard. Remember Dante’s famous exhortation: “The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.”
Evil is insidious. It moves in when you’re not paying attention, too lazy to do anything about a problem or just plain don’t care.
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn
Francis
so how the Democratic party get your vote? (what state do you live in, btw?)
Jorge
“I still see the issue as an old tv anchor being blinded by a scoop in his later years rather than a massive left wing conspiracy to bring down President Bush. Occams razor (sp)anyone?”
Something else that is lost on folks about the Rathergate thing is the 2001 “Memories of a Massacre” story Rather ran on Democrat Bob Kerrey. That story painted Kerrey as a liar and war criminal. Rather’s fault is that he sat in Edward R. Murrow’s chair and wanted to be the kind of giant killer anchorman that Murrow was.
Rick
Really, John…Salon? Kleiman? Quite the uncontemplative critics. You seem to have lost the point that this memo was indeed misreported as pubbie leadership talking points, when it was really more on the level of a note to the boss.
Given its amateurish execution, suspicion naturally turns to the Left, with the Rather fiasco still fresh in the mind.
But hey, all well that ends well: Terri Schiavo dehyrdrated to death. So be of good cheer.
Cordially…
Nash
“It was a mistake that we thought the document came from the Democrats but it would seem we were correct to doubt it
jdm
John, those must’ve been some ugly, ugly emails you received during the Schaivo debacle. Your comments since then about republicans have been weird – note, I didn’t say wrong, just weird.
This notion you espouse that right-wing blogs are somehow losing their credibility is proven by referencing Salon and a “reality-based blog”? So I should believe your assertion because Salon and the lefty blogs are experts in lost credibility?
As to throwing the Schaivo memo, so what? If lefties don’t have real shit to throw, they throw fake shit. And if every Republican or right-wing blogger admitted their error and apologized profusely for getting this one wrong, do you think it would make any effin’ difference at all? Hardly.
You wanna be the conscience of the right wing? Fine. Good. Excellent. In many ways it could certainly use it. But I think the appearance of the ever-vengeful lefties running victory laps behind you is proof of how weird your posts have become.
synuclein
John,
Excellent sentiments — having for a long time considered myself a “South Park” conservative, I have watched with increasing consternation as the Republican party of fiscal responsibility, small government and states’ rights has morphed into a NeoTheocractic party.
The signs have been progressively there — the anti-abortion plank inserted in the Repub platform back in the 80’s, the increasing talk about faith and “God’s will”, etc. Now, it seems that the traditional Republican moderates have largely (except a few NorthEast Senators) vanished and have been replaced by representatives of two collaborating parties (the corporate kleptocrats — who quietly drafted the bankruptcy bill, and blocked the addition of amendments to protect, among others, the families of the soldiers defending our nation — and the theocrats — who are seeking to ablate 400 years of reasoning and enlightenment by returning to a mindset of blind acquiescence to religious authority)
As a rational individual, I fear for the increasing corruption and moral decay. Remember when we were the party of high standards? It seems to me that GOP no longer stands for “Grand Old Party” but rather “God Only Party” or “Gouge or Pillage”. I still have a hard time imagining voting for most Democrats, but I now am experiencing the same ill feelings when pondering voting for Republicans.
Maybe it’s time for a third party?
Ed
John, welcome to the otherside. As a libertarian, I’ve come to the opinion that it’s going to be a lot easier to get Democrats to be Free Traders, in favor of Small Government (well, at least not bigger) than it is to convert the social conservatives to increasing civil liberties (or at least not restricting them further). Come on over. As they say, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed is King.
DJE
Excellent, excellent post. You’re a credit to thinking conservatives–and indeed all thoughtful political rationalists on both sides of the aisle. If both sides had more people like you, this country would be in much better political shape.
Jorge
jdm has kind of hinted to something I’ve been thinking about… I started posting here because a left-leaning site linked to balloon-juice over the Schiavo thing. As a Democrat, I am looking forward for the circus to die down so that I can get a good measure of John’s opinions in a non-heightened situation. I get the feeling that this will be a situation similar to what happened for me when I followed a link to Andrew Sullivan from Talking Points Memo last September; I still check Andrew’s site a couple of times a day – he is one of the conservative voices I respect the most.
DragonScholar
Excellent comments, John. I don’t give a damn if you’re conservative, moderate, or progressive – you obviously give a damn about America.
I’ve watched what happened over the years, and from what I can tell, it boils down to the Republicans really got good at going out and winning (and I say this as a definite liberal/progressive). They learned to work the system and play hardball.
The problem is after awhile winning is all that matters. The people you pick are people who can fight and win, but in government you need people with a sense of ethics, history, and most of all what our democracy and country mean.
So you end up with a bunch of people who will play any game, say anything, lie anytime in order to win. That includes screwing the country and its people and our legacy over.
(I could go on about the Democrtic strategy of “look we’re not Republicans,” but I won’t. Gods know it was dumb enough).
Now it’s not Republicans versus Democrats. It’s this power elite versus the rest of us. And they’re willing to kiss up to radical sectors of our population (the religious right) in order to beat US – as in you, me, and a lot of people posting here.
Kimmitt
Or maybe we just have sore throats after years of shouting and pleading.
I think it’s this.
Mrs. Robinson
There’s also the fact that coalitions with widely divergent interests (like the corporatists and the religious right) are strongly motivated to hang together while they feel embattled and out of power.
However, when the group finally wins the day and seizes power, the cohesive glue that the common enemy provided dissolves. Now, it’s every faction for itself in the struggle over the spoils.
I think that’s where the Republicans are now. They can’t paper over their factional differences any more. They can’t blame the liberals. Everybody’s demanding their payoff — and they can’t cover all the checks.
To top it off, they’ve spent 30 years teaching Americans to be outraged at their government — a habit that won’t be unlearned quickly. Nasty two-edged sword, that.
John Gillnitz
I’m not sure why the vegie memmo was such a big deal. It was obvious that the issue was being used to fire up the base. It just bit them in the ass when everyone else started paying attention.
As for the Rathergate memmos: I’m less interested in who faked them then who destroyed the origenals. Remember when some records were destroyed by accident during microfinch “restoration”?
The Commissar
Hang ’em high, John. Hang ’em high!
Bleeding Heart Nazi
Or maybe we just have sore throats after years of shouting and pleading.
I agree. Have you ever been described as a “bleeding heart liberal” in one breath and a “brown-shirt Nazi” in the next?
Sometimes there is nothing you can say or do and you just have to let the bull run through the china shop.
praktike
Best GOP blogger ever.
arnott
John, Agree with all your points. Bravo !
but u think Iraq is a work in progress sucess ? what about W.M.Duh ? and why
should so many people(both Americans & Iraqis) die in Iraq ? Iran is next ?
Oliver
The question is, how much did Sid Blumenthal pay off John Cole?
Ross Judson
I am something of a bleeding heart capitalist. Bush’s intrusion on the bedrooms and private lives of this nation pisses me off to no end. I used to be able to deal with the GOP — other than a smirky sort of “you can be on the winning team” pandering line of crap they hand most of America, you could at least count on the inner goodness of certain traditional conservative principles, even if you had to put up with some preachy BS to get to them.
That’s all gone now. I used to be able to count on the GOP to push for smaller government, or states’ rights, or fiscal responsibility.
We’ve seen the emergence of a third political party in the past 15 years. It’s sad that it ate its way out of the stomach of its parent, the late and lamented real Republican party. What the hell happened to you guys?
Funny thing is, as a fairly intense liberal, the most important issues to me right now are fiscal sanity and states’ rights. It’s time for a breather in this country, and pulling back into our respective states is absolutely the way to get there. Let the chips fall where they may.
“You can have it all, all the time” is the mantra of the new power hunger. They’re not conservative, they don’t like light, and they’re not good for the country. Five years from now we’ll get to find out where this is all going, and I have this distressing feeling that it’s going to be too late to fix the damage. We’ll have to take our chances.
Liberals like me are out of the power mix and out of the equation. All I can do is try to protect myself and my family, and that I will do. But you, my Republican friend — you can DO something about it. Will you?
Joe in SC
Tell it like it is!
I am an unashamed liberal, but my large family has a balance of conservative perspectives. We all share the same core values, and we all recognize that integrity means copping to your mistakes. It burns me up the way that pundits of either party rationalize every misstep.
I am not offended by Bush’s “swagger,” or his commitment to a philosophy with which I personally disagree.
The main reason why I voted for Kerry was that Bush, when asked during the townhall debate “what is your biggest mistake?,” he was incabable of answering, except to say “some cabinet appointments.” {read: I picked some republicans not in lockstep with me}
I mean here was an opportunity for the man to sincerely demonstrate integrity, and he blew it. He blamed others for whatever mistakes his administration has made.
Bill
What happened to justice with responsibility? If I wanted to vote for people with a blind ideology and a hunger for cash, I could have voted Democratic….
Al Maviva
Some righty bloggers jumped on what looked like a fake memo, and when it turns out it wasn’t a GOP leadership memo, but a document circulated to one freshman senator by his aid… well, what can I say. My world view is shaken. Tom Delay is crooked (in spite of what the New Republic says) so my whole belief system must be phoney. Time to quit the Catholic Church and take up satan worship too, because Cardinal Law and a bunch of priests are rotters. So I’m going to vote Dem, argue for higher taxes, weaker defense, greater involvement of the fed in matters of local concern, and to off the useless eaters like Terry Schiavo. I’m going have an affair with my intern, take a gay boyfriend and get married in Massachusetts, and moan about welfare reform, which hits blacks and women hardest according to the NY Times, which is after all the gospel truth. Meanwhile, I’m arranging to have all my worldly belongings sold, and the proceeds donated to the Sierra Club. As for me, I’m moving to a homosexual agrarian commune in Vermont, where I will raise organic pine nuts for consumption in a non-profit, whole foods co-op restaurant in Ithaca, NY.
Yep, my whole world view is invalidated now, because Tom Delay is a wanker. I know this because I read it on Atrios.
But seriously though, if your whole world view is changed because a couple politicans, some over-ambitious mouthy televangelists have big plans, and some bloggers are assholes, then you have some serious problems, and you might want to get that mile wide/inch deep values system of yours checked out at the First Principles Lounge. I happen to always hold my nose regardless of whom I’m voting for – my belief system really doesn’t change much. Politics is about compromise, so voting is about choosing the least odious choice.
I’m personally pissed as hell at the “R” pigs with their noses in the trough in Washington, but the Dems don’t really present an alternative. Even if they hadn’t spent the last 5 years in full frontal collapse in a leftward direction, they are wrong on the big question of the age (whether to oppose islamofascism) and their main complaint with the Republicans is that they wone’t shovel out enough money fast enough. Matter of fact, shit, I can’t stand the Republicans. But the Dems are damn near enough to make me stroke out. The Dems could do us a favor by presenting a reasonable alternative, but I don’t see that happening any time soon. So the choices are, MoveOn, or Tom Delay. Hmmmm… Appetizing. Gay whole food co-op tofu, anybody?
Ridge
Growing up in the WVa coal fields and later moving to the Va/NC textile mill towns, I think I have a good idea what their goals are; on a smaller scale. It is heartening to see some thinking Republicans wake up, look around and ask, “Is this the country I want?”
Thanks for the blog and post.
R
Kimmitt
they are wrong on the big question of the age (whether to oppose islamofascism)
You’re absolutely right! Just yesterday, I was chatting with precinct captain friend, and we said to each other (in pidgin Arabic; we’re trying to get ready to work as handservants to our new masters), “You know, what this country needs is a good dose of Sharia law.” Then we laughed and mailed checks to the PLO.
Smarter monkeys, please.
Jensequitur
Odd that the people who don’t agree with John sound as if they’re chiding him for breaking with the party line. What, do Republicans discourage independent thinking? Well, on second thought, I suppose they do. Me, I’m off to a Bush town hall meeting to spout predigested questions… just kidding.
bago
I think it’s more about becoming less invested in your side winning, and more invested in figuring out what is actually going on.
Personally, I’m all for highly partisan dirt digging. It means that cover ups and falsehoods won’t survive the attacks of the partisans, and you can figure out what is actually true by watching both sides fight it out. What is inherently true is that the ruling party tries to use federal power to enact their wishes on the whole country, and the minority resorts to backing the states. It’s here that you see the true genius of the federal system. I think that as more and more information becomes easily discoverable, a sensible middle ground will emerge, but for now people are just finding out about the power of the world of information at your fingertips.
hadenough
I’m arranging to have all my worldly belongings sold, and the proceeds donated to the Sierra Club. As for me, I’m moving to a homosexual agrarian commune in Vermont, where I will raise organic pine nuts for consumption in a non-profit, whole foods co-op restaurant in Ithaca, NY.
Wow. That’s quite a fanciful strawman you’ve concocted there. Mind pointing out one of these individuals to me? And then tell me how much influence they have?
Both sides have fringe elements. Nutcases. Ours are still fringe. Yours are not.
jeff
“What, do Republicans discourage independant thinking?”
Somewhere, Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller and laughing hysterically at the irony of that question.
chriscol
The Dem progressives are busy taking their party back. It’s about time for Repub to do the same.
And check out http://www.hackthevote.com–by a Republican computer geek, no less!
Folks, America has Problems!
Vic
I have worked in local government most of my life. My two best bosses were a Democrat Mayor and a Republican Sheriff. I lean more toward the Democrats on national issues but I actually do not feel strongly about either party. I’m ready to agree or cooperate with either side if I think they are right.
Right now, the Democrats have so little power as not too be much of a worry but the what the Republicans have become is actually frightening between the corporations and the religious right.
It is time for checks and balances again to keep either party from running amuck. Even if I were a Republican right now, I’d vote for the Democrats to put the fear of God back in my party.
I wish there was a strong Moderate party so that all of us in the middle could meet and cooperate there.
CindyD
Your eye is breathtakingly clear.
Rick
Al,
Beautiful, on-target post. If John Cole feels the pubbies are more captive to extremists than the Democrats (absolute bitches to the trial lawyers and Moveon/Mooron/Deanic freaks), then he’s just foolishly joining himself at the hip with Andrew Sullivan.
Must be for the beg-a-thon money, though “I question the timing.”
Cordially…
John Cole
Rick- The Democrats aren’t in charge, so the lunatics in my party are of slightly more concern right now.
Really, Al, Rick, and others. At what point in this post did I say:
“Cynthia McKinney was right all along!”
“Howard Dean rules!”
or
“I need to send some money to MoveOn.Org”
You guys are doing exactly what I described above:
‘This new breed of fanatacism is “Slight me in any discernable way, even a mild disagreement, and I will publicly destroy you.”‘
You guys won;t even look ctirically at what our party is doing- instead, you make silly claims that I am out of touch because I think the Republican lunatics are as troubling as the Democratic lunatics.
Jeebus.
Kimmitt
Personally, I’m all for highly partisan dirt digging.
I have to qualify this — I’m for partisan dirt-digging, where each side keeps the other in check, but both sides have at least a passing sense of responsibility to the truth of the matter.
jdrhoades
Good on ya, brother. There may be hope for this country after all.
chloeindia
After 30+ years as a Republican I just couldn’t stomach any more and I left the party. While I think the best thing to do is for moderate Republicans to take back the party, I’m not sure the fanatics on the religious right or the radical tax cut extremists can be easily overcome. The alternative is to go with the Democratic Party, which in spite of the “spin” of the right, hasn’t butted into people’s personal decisions and left this country with a budget surplus the Republicans have managed to turn into a ballooning deficit.
When are moderate Republicans who really don’t endorse the culture wars of the religious right going to wake up to the economic rape the Bushies are perpetrating upon this country? The antitax folks have been duped, too. For most of us, Bush’s tax cuts have been a major rip off. Look at the facts – even ignoring the truly poor, the middle class has lost economic ground under this administration. When are moderate Republicans going to wake up and realize their party has been stolen? The “Republican” party as it stands now is the party of big, invasive government (“Terry’s Law”, the Patriot Act), fiscal irresponsibility, and very scary attacks on the very checks and balances that maintain democracy.
Rick
John,
Appreciate the response, and even the sentiment. I simply believe it’s hyberbolic and foolish. I’m not blind to the fact that rogues reside in both parties, but, in all seriousness, the extremists of the Democratic party are a genuine threat to freedom of thought, association and property.
If crusading Christians were ever to seize power, it would’ve happened during the occasional “great awakenings” in the 19th Century, when there was far more social and legal accord with faith issues.
Because there is now *less* of that, and even a move to discriminate against faith, what you are seeing–and decrying–is push-back.
And in quite a number of things, heathen me feels there is a need for pushing back. Hope for the country, and all that.
Cordially…
W.B. Reeves
“If crusading Christians were ever to seize power, it would’ve happened during the occasional “great awakenings” in the 19th Century, when there was far more social and legal accord with faith issues.”
Did you bother to think this one through before you hit the keyboard? All it amounts to is insisting that because something hasn’t yet happened that it can’t happen. Such thinking was likely in vogue in Pompei while Vesuvius was emitting occasional rumbles.
While we are it, is it your opinion that the “extremists in the Democratic Party” seized power under FDR and Johnson? If not, why worry now? If your answer is yes, well at least we know the quality of your thinking.
Rick
Did you bother to think this one through before you hit the keyboard? All it amounts to is insisting that because something hasn’t yet happened that it can’t happen. Such thinking was likely in vogue in Pompei while Vesuvius was emitting occasional rumbles.
While we are it, is it your opinion that the “extremists in the Democratic Party” seized power under FDR and Johnson? If not, why worry now? If your answer is yes, well at least we know the quality of your thinking.
Speaking of thinking things through and quality of cogitation, do I have to remark on the irony here?
And it’s wonderful to hear from all the Lowell Weicker Republicans, isn’t it?
Cordially…
Nash
If crusading Christians were ever to seize power, it would’ve happened during the occasional “great awakenings” in the 19th Century, when there was far more social and legal accord with faith issues.
Because there is now *less* of that, and even a move to discriminate against faith, what you are seeing–and decrying–is push-back.
Rick, I’d still like to hear you respond to W.B’s charge. Do you have any evidence? And in addition, I keep hearing this “discriminat[ion] against faith” meme, and as a Christian, I just don’t see it. I feel my faith as recognized and respected as ever in this country, arguably more so, given that the media more than bend over backwards to play to me as a Christian. It would be interesting to have your thoughts on why people of faith are in danger in this country. Again, as I said before, that just doesn’t seem to be happening in my world, which is very red state/blue state blended.
CaseyL
“[I]n all seriousness, the extremists of the Democratic party are a genuine threat to freedom of thought, association and property.”
— Rick
Give examples, please.
Name the extremists.
Say what party/policy positions they hold.
Specify which policies pose those threats.
Rick
Nash,
Thanks for writing. W.B. is easy, and one doesn’t have to reach back all the way to Pompeii.
The last great Christian theocratic state was toppled by the Ottomans with the Turks’ capture of Constantinople in the 15th (I think) Century. So much for W.B.’s “hasn’t happened yet.”
It’s all happened *before,* and the Western trend since the Enlightenment is absolutely in the secular direction.
Which event can be celebrated as liberating, except that the secularization can run to excesses, as seen in the ills of the last century.
Which brings me round to W.B.’s remark contra mine about the recent capture of the Democrats by extremists. The rise of socialism in the 19th Century, and its many guises and flavors in the last, is an absolutist trend which has been a carrier of virulent anti-clericalism, and persecution of people of faith(s). I don’t need to name all the famous tyrannies–all alleging to embrace Reason and other enlightened notions–do I?
From my perspective or starting point, if a Christian theocracy was in prospect anywhere, it would’ve arisen sometime in the past 500 years. (Note that I acknowledge the particular power–political, if not quite governing– of the Catholic Church in some parts of western Europe and much of Latin America for much of this span. But that political power waned all along).
And as for the Dems, well the Soros/Moveon crowd up and *stated* that they bought and paid for the party, and thus: Kool-Aid Powered Howard Dean. That’s a long way down from the days of Bob Strauss.
While some folks commending John Cole on this thread are enchanted by his hyperbole on nascent “theocracy,” perhaps I may be granted a secular indulgence to ventilate some myself. If there exists a threat to our freedoms, which are rare and precious things when viewed in the long. oppressive history of human society, it doesn’t come from bible-thumpers and snake-handlers (see how many primaries Pat Robertson won in ’88). No, it comes from the so-called progressives: the Kyoto-thumpers and UN-handlers.
It would be most remarkable to find a revival tent evangel in corporate and foundation boardrooms, faculty lounges, and newsrooms. But as for the “progressive” transnationals, it is sadly too common. Sadly, because “progressive” means enlarging social servility to serve what is defined as a common good. Here’s where I must swerve from violating Godwin’s Law, but I hope it’s clear that I believe the authoritarian danger comes from a nasty form of secularism.
I just don’t see it. I feel my faith as recognized and respected as ever in this country, arguably more so…
As I indicated (“heathen me”), I’m not a practicing Christian, but my lifetime encompasses the SCOTUS decision (rightly) banning school prayer. But secular things didn’t end there, and now Christmas trees are chased off the commons, and schools break for “Winter Holiday.”
The (non) Establishment Clause is being interpreted as a limitation on religion, when in fact it is supposed to reign in the state. Now Dubya’s judicial nominee Pryor has his Catholic faith held against him by some Senators. Some progress, some respect.
Cordially…
W.B. Reeves
“Speaking of thinking things through and quality of cogitation, do I have to remark on the irony here?
And it’s wonderful to hear from all the Lowell Weicker Republicans, isn’t it?”
Translation: “No, I didn’t think it through before I hit the Keyboard and I don’t intend to start thinking now.”
Thanks for the clarification Rick.
BTW, your Lowell Weiker snark is off by a light year or two, not that I imagine you care.
W.B. Reeves
Rick, do you have such contempt for people that you think you can switch topics and no one will notice? Just to cut through the pseudo-pedantic fog you’ve generated, the statement in question reads as follows:
“If crusading Christians were ever to seize power, it would’ve happened during the occasional “great awakenings” in the 19th Century, when there was far more social and legal accord with faith issues.”
So exactly what connection does your little historical diversion have to the above assertion? None at all. You’re obviously not a stupid fellow so I doubt that you thought there was one. You simply hope to confuse the issue by talking about something else.
You do manage to refer to my second question even though you don’t actually address it, much less answer it. Instead we are treated to more rhetorical smoke and mirrors.
Don’t you have any self respect?
John Sheraton
Why should you be in favor of it? Because you are a REPUBLICAN and if you can’t go along with the program get out of the party and go you belong with the Democrats.
over it
It is the John Sheratons in this country that scare me. Be they Republican or Democrat(or Christian or Muslim or whatever). Sheeple, unable of free thought. Quite sad really.
Rick
W.B.,
What *is* your point, dear correspondent.
Mine was to toy with your response connecting “…because something hasn’t yet happened that it can’t happen….While we are it, is it your opinion that the “extremists in the Democratic Party” seized power under FDR and Johnson? If not, why worry now?”
That “addresses” –with the respect it derserves–your second question, which you imagined to be a red herring. This is not difficult.
Cordially…
Rick
Hi, Casey,
If we can stipulate that the Democrats are the national party that is the greater advocate of increased government presence and power, then that is sufficient.
Government is many good things, but it’s also an inherent limiter of and threat to liberty. There is certainly a need for this, and much of politics is a tussle on where to set these frontiers on issue-by-issue bases.
I can always count on Democrats–save for my oddly “right-wing” DC City Councilman–to favor government expansion through taxation, property takings and restrictions, “hate crime” legislation, indifference to speech codes, and anything that makes the population more servile.
Cordially..
P.S. W.B.! Lowell Weicker was a poopy-head!
CaseyL
“If we can stipulate that the Democrats are the national party that is the greater advocate of increased government presence and power, then that is sufficient.”
–Rick
We can’t stipulate that. The GOP, not the Dems, gave us the Patriot Act. The GOP, not the Dems, subpoenaed citizens’ medical records. The GOP, not the Dems, wants to RFID our passports, our automobiles, and a national ID card (also advocated by the GOP). The GOP, not the Dems, tried to pass a law in Virginia requiring women to report miscarriages to the police. The GOP, not the Dems, wants to say who we can and cannot marry, wants to make our medical decisions for us. The GOP, not the Dems, requires loyalty oaths by people attending Presidential visits; the GOP, not the Dems, evicts people from taxpayer-funded policy forums for having the ‘wrong’ bumperstickers on their cars.
Your basic premise is false; therefore, so are your conclusions.
W.B. Reeves
Rick,
Citing the Byzantine Empire in response to a question concerning the “logic” of your assertions about U.S. history addresses nothing except your own intellectual pretensions. It is, bluntly, a dodge, demonstrating a fundamental lack of integrity on your part.
Once again: You argued that that the was no current theocratic danger to the U.S. since, if there had ever been such a threat, it would have come to fruition during one of the recurrent periods of religious enthusiasm in this country’s history.
The faulty quality of this kind of “reasoning” is apparent. Which, I suppose, is why you have expended so much bandwidth trying to obscure your original assertion. In this you are as one with the dishonest bloggers that John has been criticizing. Possibly for the same reasons. One of which being an inability to admit error.
Nash
Rick,
I appreciate the reply and will respond in turn, but first wanted to jump in here to say that I feel CaseyL is precisely correct. I reject a stipulation that the Democrats are the party of increased government presence and power and that therefore, by comparison, the Republicans are not. You are driving down a rhetorical avenue that is simply no longer negotiable as evidenced by the past few years.
If, before ascending to power and control, the GOP once had some merit in claiming to be for smaller, less intrusive government, that is no longer true. Before they controlled all the branches of government at the federal level, they claimed they were all for prudent, cautious exercise of federal power. I believe they were in earnest. But, and almost understandably, once they got behind the wheel of this lovely 8 cylinder beauty called the US government, they suddenly realized, “Hey this thing really feels nice–let’s open her up and see what this baby will do.”
So, Rick, I think you have to drop the rhetoric and judge the actual actions of these guys. Because, for the first time in some time, they have an actual record to look at. And it just doesn’t square with your claims.
Kimmitt
Further, increased spending does not equal increased intrusiveness. The government of China spends much less per capita (or as a percentage of GDP) than the government of the US, but I’m pretty clear on which one is more intrusive.
S.W. Anderson
Man, the lightbulb went on above your head, 1,000 watts of blinding-light insight.
A sincere, respectful salute for telling it like it is.
Band-Aids and healing salve are on the house over at our place when the bully boys get through with you.
Rick
Gentlemen! This is most gratifying; usually when I post a comment, it
Kimmitt
socialism
Juan Schoch
Mae Magouirk safe for now. See Tekgnosis for further details.
Tell the Media to report the REAL Schiavo polls!
http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=7351686&type=ME
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/4/emw226586.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/prweb/20050408/bs_prweb/prweb226586_3
My account, etc. of Terri Schindler’s Funeral Mass:
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2005/04/terris_funeral_.html
Main page:
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com
W.B. Reeves
A man infatuated with the sound of his own voice. He confuses prolixity with profundity, dissembling with depth. Example: theocracy does not require a single leader. Rick is either ignorant on this point or assumes that we are. Just as he assumes that his audience is too dense to realize that he has skated away from his earlier statement.
Nor has he bothered address in a serious manner the criticisms raised by Casey and Nash. Instead he offers Bernie Sanders as proof positive that the Democrats are closet Socialists. Of course, since Sanders is not a democrat Rick hangs his certainty on the fact that Sanders caucuses with Democrats. This elides the fact that the Democrats are in opposition to the present Administration, as is Sanders. Yes there is a reason for this. In fact, there are many reasons for it beyond the one that Rick wishes to insinuate.
Accept for a moment Rick’s “logic” . A Socialist associates himself with the Democrats. Therefore the Democrats are Socialists! The question begs to be asked: with which party do the theocrats associate? In fact, in which party do the theocrats constitute a significant portion of the party aparatus?
Or does Rick’s logic only apply to Democrats?
Like I said above.
Rick
W.B.,
And, like a said above, you’re comments run to the silly. But your efforts at using big words is really cute. Amusing, even: “pseudo-pedantic.” Better than full-blown, I guess.
So I’ve indicated the socialists and the fellow travellers; who are the dread theocrats? You’ve been ducking this since last week.
I’m really interested in understanding this threat, and what are its Secret Protocols.
Cordially…
W.B. Reeves
Tell you what Rick. You stop ducking the points that I posed in my first post and I will give you my opinion of who qualifies as a theocrat. Right now, you’re in no position to accuse anyone of ducking anything.
Rick
W.B.,
Please state your points, (see above, because this is the second time I’ve solicited this clarification) because I addressed what you wrote. Maybe it wasn’t what you meant.
“It hasn’t happened yet”–correctly, and I state that it’s practically impossible, given the secular trends since….oh, say…the fall of the Eastern Empire.
And as for Democratic extremism, the D-stuffed Progressive Caucus, a satelite of the socialists, constitutes an answer. If you are “progressive” yourself, you will see the caucus as moderate, perhaps. But they’re on the left fringe of the American polity, which fortunately doesn’t have as swollen and truly extreme left and right fringes as some other nations (France, for example). So the caucus Ds aren’t commies, and the church lady Rs aren’t theocrats.
So, what’s the theocratic program? NO ONE has gotten around to spelling this out.
Cordially…
Nash
Rick, you *are* indeed ducking specific points that W.B, Casey and I have all raised, collectively as well as individually. Your perogative, but don’t make the mistake of thinking we won’t notice you aren’t interested or perhaps capable of an honest discussion about this. You can continue to answer every comment with more misdirected gibberish and jibes at W.B. or you can actually engage on the points. I’d still like to discuss your “Christianity is under attack in the US” meme, but am not about to if you can’t be intellectually honest. What say you?
W.B. Reeves
My original post:
[ “If crusading Christians were ever to seize power, it would’ve happened during the occasional “great awakenings” in the 19th Century, when there was far more social and legal accord with faith issues.”
Did you bother to think this one through before you hit the keyboard? All it amounts to is insisting that because something hasn’t yet happened that it can’t happen. Such thinking was likely in vogue in Pompei while Vesuvius was emitting occasional rumbles.
While we are it, is it your opinion that the “extremists in the Democratic Party” seized power under FDR and Johnson? If not, why worry now? If your answer is yes, well at least we know the quality of your thinking. ]
Read it carefully. What exactly do you find so difficult to comprehend?
Rick
Nash,
My point is that the Chicken Little cry of “theocracy” works only on weak minds, and I see I’m confirmed.
Your point. Well, here’s the start of a series on “religion under seige”–http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050413-122937-3482r.htm
If you feel things are different, that’s your perogrative. And your point was purely anecodtal, which is fine, but not conclusive.
But if you think we’re in danger of theocracy, won’t you please tell me how? No one else can, evidently.
Cordially…
Rick
W.B.,
For the third time, I addressed your flailing on April 10 @ 10:11 with: ‘….[I was pleased] toy with your response connecting “…because something hasn’t yet happened that it can’t happen….While we are it, is it your opinion that the “extremists in the Democratic Party” seized power under FDR and Johnson? If not, why worry now?”
That “addresses” –with the respect it derserves–your second question, which you imagined to be a red herring….’
And from April 9/10:43 pm:
“And as for the Dems, well the Soros/Moveon crowd up and *stated* that they bought and paid for the party, and thus: Kool-Aid Powered Howard Dean. That’s a long way down from the days of Bob Strauss.”
So there you are. After all the huffing & puffing, which you fondly imagine to be “raising points,” you haven’t countered with any countering argument at all, just thesaurus-powered oratory to the panicky crowd of “theocracy” paranoids.
I’ve offered my valuable support in opposition to theocracy; hell, I’m hoping to see one overthrown in Iran. But first, *someone* has to do some serious persuading.
Instead, I get risible suggestions that the Democrats are less into government power than are ‘pubbies. And because such suggestions *are* risible, I do get some chuckles out of it.
So, what’s this theocracy deal? Who’ll be the U.S. Grand Ayatollah? Billy Graham?
Cordially…
W.B. Reeves
I see that you are either incapable of addressing, or are unwilling to address the faulty logic of your original quoted statement which was the subject of my post. Have fun in your sandbox. I have better things to do.
Rick
W.B.,
Sure, slink away without revealing the Unified Theocracy Theory, which presumable at issue.
A “better thing to do” might be to come up with a scenario of U.S. theocracy.
Lotsa luck.
Cordially…
Rick
Oh, no…all the Balloon-Juice “theocracy” jihadists are right:
http://www.mcphee.com/enlightenment/current/10746.html
It’s happening in America right now, proving my logic was faulty. Oh, woe!
Nash
Rick, I never said we are in danger of becoming a theocracy, so you are being dishonest to link that argument in any way to me. Please look for your strawmen in someone else’s back yard.
And you’ve offered no proof that, were they to return to majority status, the Democrats would be worse than the Republicans currently are at in terms of size and reach of the federal government. Once again, you are ignoring what the party in power is currently doing. You can’t prove that the Democrats would be worse.
Rick
Nash,
Well, the theocracy riff was the start of this “conversation.” See what happpens when you jump in the middle.
Democrats would be worse because they’re True Believers in bigger government. All for fairness/levelling the playing field rationales.
And then there’s that association with the socialists that I offered. All this to “prove” a hypothetical: that the Democrats are for increased Federal presence in society. How can I prove to you the sunrise occurs in the East? Same thing.
If my long-winded responses were read at all, it should’ve been noticed that I didn’t offer unstinting praise to the GOP. The Hastert/Frist Congress is pork-barrelling like it’s in a sweepstakes with Robt. Byrd, and Bush, like his daddy, is a Big Government “conservative.” I guess he thinks that makes him “compassionate,” but to me, that just going along to get along.
My approval is limited to the tax cuts, the Social Security reform effort, and the offensive against the real theocrats in the ME.
Cordially…
Nash
I jump in the middle and you are not willing to separate the different comments being made?
I see. The only comments that need to be paid attention to are yours.
I’m done with you and your arrogance.
Nash
BTW,
Democrats would be worse because they’re True Believers in bigger government.
is NOT proof…it’s another of those “anecdotes” you malign when used by others but fall back on yourself because your rhetoric is empty.
Rick
I win! I win!
Except that I never got the answer to what I thought was the serious umbrage to my criticism: that “theocracy” is just empty hyperbole.
That matter is what has been ducked all along, with no one offering arguments, anecodotes or any manner of “proof” that theocrats are taking over the GOP. What you construe as arrogance was just an insistance on having that issue addressed, since that got the ball rolling with W.B. and Casey and you.
You folks instead seemed more interested in changing the subject, and I cheerfully played along. But my “wants and needs” were ultimately neglected. I have the great consolation, however, of seeing W.B. and you dismiss me while flouncing off the thread.
So, back to the same old same old: a post of mine kills discussion. Oh, well.
But here’s an offer: my email addy is available. When a case can be make for the theocratic threat, send it to me. As I stated days ago, if persuaded, then I promise you my valuable support.
Cordially…
W.B. Reeves
You actually enjoy your sandbox don’t you? Pathetic.
Rick
Ya never know…sometimes you find a jewel of a comment/correspondent/debate, other times, just kitty turds.
Not that I’m thinking of anyone in particular in regard to the last find. Oh, nooo.
Cordially…
ErikC
CaseyL forgot to mention that it’s Republicans (though thankfully not all of them) who want to pass a law having people jailed for burning a piece of cloth, too.
Rick
Erik,
Thankfully, they went the tortuous amendment route (guaranteeing its failure).
I wish they would’ve done that for McCain-Feingold.
But, I stand by my assessment in re: the Democrats as the party of governmet power and regulation.
Cordially…
P.S. Still no update on theocracy, which I’ve solicited for days.