An interesting point about Bush criticism, when a liberal like me criticizes Bush these days you mostly get weary sadness and a sort of sardonic cynicism. Sure I was outraged once, back around the time that he got elected the first time, but that steam blew off a long time ago. I have long since reached the poiltical equivalent of a thousand-yard stare. Transportation contracts awarded to criminals who can’t hold on to buses or a transportation license? Throw it on the pile. I know that I should feel pissed but jeebus, they lied about Clinton peeling the W keys off of White House keyboards and the nonsense hasn’t let up since.
It is refreshing to read somebody for whom the outrage is still fresh. Most of the current crop of commenters no doubt arrived after Frist and DeLay’s Schiavo adventure nearly drove John over the edge and the rest (including myself) no doubt came by after abu Ghraib. My feeling was, yeah, I felt like that once. Being a relatively recent Belgravia reader I don’t know when the revelation happened for Gregory Djerejian but it is clear that Donald Rumsfeld’s determined idiocy did for Djerejian what the Schiavo affair did for the proprietor of this site. Today’s rant is characteristically lucid:
Look, I was talking to a partner at a leading private equity firm a few days back about the state of play in DC. He leans strongly Republican. The ‘Decider’ line came up. He said: “I mean, what the eff is this, a banana republic”? Indeed. We’ve had it. The government appears increasingly cretinized and dyfunctional. At this point, despite the bubble-headed idiocy of the Pelosi-wing, I can’t help feeling thinking Republicans should be rooting for the Democrats to take control of the House in November, subpoena power and all. I mean, what are the arguments for Republicans keeping control? $100 oil rebates and other Fristian crapola? Or something else? Seriously, let’s discuss the pros and cons of having the Democrats take the House in November in comments. But let’s do better than the war on terruh will be imperiled,
That seems like a worthwhile challenge. Republicans complain that a Democratic Congress will tie the nation up in investigations and impeachment hearings. Is that such a negative thing? A government that demands the right to invade the personal space of every citizen should act with enough rectitude to withstand a little inquiry of its own. A government that cannot hardly seems to deserve of the powers that they have claimed for themselves.
The hardcore base no doubt fears that Bush’s tax cuts might expire some day, which reflects more of a long con than an actual policy. The con goes like this: Republicans promise to act as a one-way tax ratchet and ride to victory on bread and circuises. Said tax policy drives the defcit to unsustainable levels, which is fine because eventually Democrats will win control of Congress and make the hard decisions to right the fiscal ship of state. FOX News will enrage its base with stories of Democrats raising taxes and cutting government spending, eventually the budget will right itself and some amiable son of priviledge will win the GOP nomination with stories about how a balanced budget means that we can cut taxes again. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I honestly never understood why the GOP ever held an advantage in national security, although it appears that the situation is righting itself. It will forever mystify me why Republicans continually remind people that 9/11 happened on their watch and preemptive wars make no sense as a defense policy. We can invade and occupy basically one enemy in ten years unless we institute a draft (which we won’t), which argues against the policy in general, and we made it worse by choosing the “enemy” who posed the least threat. If Iran feels free to thumb its nose at the world that no doubt has something to do with the US Army tied up uselessly next door.
Anyhow, I am as curious as Djerejian to know what motivates people to continue the current state of one-party Republican government. Let’s hear your thoughts, and make some effort to play nice.
Paddy O'Shea
I’m not even certain the Republicans can come up with a good reason for their keeping control of Congress. I can’t recall reading many GOP supporters actually making a rational argument for such a thing. Can you?
They will, however, be trotting out the following in the next few months:
1) The Mexicans are responsible for you having a lousy job.
2) Democrats hate Jesus and Christians.
3) The Gay agenda is being aggressively sold to your children in public schools.
4) If you don’t support the president’s war on terror you are a Saddam lover.
5) Hillary Clinton is evil personified. (Check out the lunacy on PJ Media lately?)
Remember Voodoo Economics? The GOP is down to Voodoo politics.
TBone (TBone's War Journal)
I think the biggest reason I stick with the Repubs is because the people out front of the Dems remind me of cartoon figures. For example, Dean seems like a loose cannon without much in the way of depth. Then you’ve got McKinney running off at the mouth, making a fool of herself. Gore…enough said. The Clintons, with their skeletons rattling around loud enough to wake the ghost of Christmas past.
Then the Dem issues that get the most publicity also seem a little contrived to me. They pick issues with emotional appeal in order to attract voters, but in the end they seem inconsequential to the big picture, and somehow not high priority. The environment is important to everyone, but can anyone tell me that a Democrat, once elected, won’t favor on the side of his corporate constituents when it comes time for the vote? Many people who pipe up about issues like global warming and saving the red cockaded woodpecker probably don’t have a clue as to how their congressman actually votes on issues. And no Republican wants to breathe bad air or dirty water…the argument is stupid.
And don’t give me any of that BS about Dems having equal ground on National Defense either. That is blatant crap. All I have to say on that one is to go over the defense votes for the last 20 years and tell me who: cut the Defense budget, tabled new Defense initiatives, and downsized the military…one guess: Democrats. Then they have the balls to say that Rumsfeld should have sent more troops, and that we don’t have enough people, or armor, etc. to fight the war. Blame your boy Clinton on that one. When I came in the military under Reagan, we had enough money to train and have toilet paper in the barracks for Chrissakes. Now we are lucky to have enough troops and money to do half of what we could in the 80’s.
Sure, there are plenty of jackasses in the Republican party, and I’m sure half of the criticism is justified; but I just can’t find too many Democrats that can truthfully stand and criticize without being hypocrites (Colin Peterson of MN is a good guy). The proverbial pot calling the kettle black. We all need to put our heads together. Stop the cycle of silliness and vote for the person, not the party. If we could do that, things might change…but probably not.
D. Mason
As a conservative who never liked Bush, I would love to know the answer to this question myself. How anyone who claims to believe in small government could condone this massive consolidation of partisan power in the hands of the executive branch is beyond me.
I have a theory though. The problem is of course complex. First – the average person has been completely cut out of politics by the corperate owned propagandist media. That allows the extremists on both sides control the tone and therefore maintain the status quo. Second – the same corperate giants also control many elections through dubious vote collecting/counting techniques. This allows the corperate donors to swing close elections in their own favor without causing a huge uproar. Third – elected officials, like celebrity endorsers, are in many ways beholden to their “sponsors”. If they want to be able to pay for their next campaign they must in some ways cater to the donors who put them there in the first place. These political contributors run the gamut from corperate giants to local political groups to radical religious institutes. They all expect to get their moneys worth from their elected officials.
It’s hard to imagine anything that could reform such a twisted abomination. Governments and industry are so hopelessly tied together that releasing the bonds would likely destroy both parts.
Mean Gene
I like language, and so I appreciated Djerejian’s choice of the word “cretinized” in describing our government. Very nice.
Ross
I think a lot of it is in getting people to believe in the myth of the golden “good old days” of America when everything was perfect and we all lived in Norman Rockwell paintings. If you believe that, then logically – since things aren’t perfect today – something must have caused that change. Insert scapegoat here… feminists, immigrants, atheists, gays, academia… all things that we assoicate with DEMOCRATS
VidaLoca
Linked to the question of “what motivates people to continue [support of] the current state of one-party Republican government” is the question of what arises to take its place — because while the current incarnation of the GOP possibly will be driven from power, the people who control it will still be very much with us, and anxious to make a comeback as Tim points out. Investigation, prosecution, and incarceration may blunt that effort to some degree, but those all rely on the Democrats’ being able to carry them forward competently and energetically. This is something not to be taken for granted.
Furthermore, we’ve seen over the past 5 years what one-party rule looks like. I think it’s naive to think that one-party Democratic rule would necessarily be a blessing, particularly if it’s controlled by the DLC crowd.
We’ve had discussions here before about an “honest conservative” third party, but the history of third parties in the US is not inspiring. What are the chances of “honest conservatives” re-capturing the GOP?
D. Mason
I believe there is a much greater chance of the neo-con steamroller destroying honest conservatism for the next 20+ years.
Paddy O'Shea
Unfortunately, Vida Loca, given the sad state of our government after 5 years of almost exclusive Republican control, the term “honest conservative” has become a bit of an oxymoron in the minds of quite a few Americans.
I think the first step you would have have to take is to somehow convince people that the likes of George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, Dick Ceheny, Bill Frist (etc) are not conservatives, but something else. Martians, maybe?
As long as average American has branded into their minds the concept that Bush = Conservative, or Tom DeLay = Conservative, your cause is in trouble.
My question would be: what possessed you to pick such a bunch of dirtbags to lead your movement in the first place? And how do we know that in the next incarnation you’ll do any better?
Brian
I’m on the side of The Edm’s taking Congress, even with the certain consequence of hearings after hearings, tying up politics through the ’08 election. The GOP is incapable of using its power effectively, so a balance of power is for the best.
But I don’t expect the Dem’s to use any new-found power to useful purpose. They’re equally incapable of structuring a platform for conservatives to find worth voting for. They’ll win through protest votes against the GOP, but they’ll still have no message. The next two years are going to be 1998 – 2000 all over again, but with the sides reversed.
VidaLoca
D.Mason,
Looking at the record of the past 5 years I could hardly disagree with you — the neocons have really had a lock on the party from top to bottom. But, that period may be coming to an end: it’s reasonable to think of all of them being discredited, and many indicted. If they lose 1 or both houses of Congress you may see the circular firing squads being set up. If there was ever an opportunity to make gains on behalf of some kind of a principled vision of conservativism, it would be now. After all, they didn’t get where they are by magic: they took the party away from the Goldwater-ites. Theoretically that would mean it could be taken back.
Al Maviva
I still support conservatism and libertarianism. Frist and the Feckless-tones wont be getting my vote in the fall, however, and the entire party needs to be punished for turning into the Rostenkowski Republicans. I’ve had it with their “Great Society In an Elephant Suit” tax and spend bullshit. They aren’t conservative in any way – they chucked out the stuff that matters to real conservatives like fiscal conservatism, devolving power to the states and not half-assing it in wars and national security policy, in favor of half measures in foreign policy, and vast new social entitlement programs, along with inane gestures like the Schiavo resolution and the biennial anti-gay marriage amendment. We weren’t fooled then, we aren’t fooled now, the only difference is we’ve lost patience. Most actual conservatives I know are torn. While we believe a Dean/Pelosi/Reid party in power will be stunningly disastrous, at least they won’t lie to us about what they are up to. It may in the end separate the wheat from the chaff in the Republican party, or may bring it down entirely and result in the formation of a new party of the right. Whatever. All that’s clear right now is they can’t govern their way out of a paper bag, and are working pretty systematically to disavow every conservative or libertarian ideal they can identify. They’ve lost my support.
Conservatives and Libertarians aren’t leaving the Republican Party. It left us about three years ago, and actually started running away in 2004 with the prescription drug benefit. I personally hope the Dems take both houses in the fall. I’d love to see Speaker Pelosi hamstring the fed gov. As many of y’all have ably argued, it is so incompetent that getting rid of it completely, totally stopping it in its tracks, probably wouldn’t have any adverse effect. Might as well try crippling the WH and Executive Branch, and test that thesis out. The threat to the country, as y’all have stated, is greatly, greatly exaggerated, so it’s probably a worthy experiment to try. I’m particularly looking forward to the criminalization of the Republican Party as well – slap every politician, every donor, everybody with Republican sympathies under a subpoena. Do what you think is right. Indulge your whims. It’s y’all’s turn to make the country your bitch for a while. I’ll speak up in favor of policies I support here or there, but I don’t vouch for any of these greedy tax and spend slimeballs. The nose holding is over.
Paddy O'Shea
Speaking of conservative dirtbags, looks like the Bushie bunch over in the CIA are being caught with their fingers in something other than the cookie jar.
Newsweek has now identified another CIA fellow caught up in the growing Fornigate Scandal. His name is Brant Bassett, who Newsweek IDs as being “a former (Porter) Goss aide.”
Wouldn’t you know it …
http://www.tpnmuckraker.com/archives/000578.php
ppGaz
Who are the “people” in the question?
If they are the people “in” the Republican government, then the answer is beyond obvious: The two-party system is a mechanism for getting and keeping power. If your party is in power, then the power is in keeping that party in power. Simple as that.
If the they are the “people” out here in the world, then we are talking about roughly one third of the people, or fewer, these days, in which the question is a little bit late and at least a dollar short. Those people, the “base” of votes for the existing power structure, are living in a time bubble right now. I don’t think it matters what they think, or why, their time in the driver’s seat is about up, unless the American experiment has been so damaged by these people that it can’t right itself before it founders and goes completely to the bottom of the sea.
If the “people” in the question are members of blaboscenti, the blahscape, the punditocracy, then …. I’d ignore them. They have much less effect on the rest of the world than they think they do, and they talk and listen mostly to each other. The bullshitsphere is entirely self-referential.
ppGaz
“in which case the question is …”
VidaLoca
Paddy,
Well, the good news is they’ve got their best thinkers hard at work on this one, even as we speak: Bush is now a liberal!
Andrew
Shorter Al Maviva:
If I write enough bullshit, maybe you won’t notice how intellectually dishonest that I am.
CaseyL
I agree with ppGaz: other than the power-holders themselves, the only supporters Bush has at this point are the LGF/Redstate/Hindrocket cretins, who can and should be written off entirely. The Bush Era will be known as a shameful, disgusting chapter in American history; and its most fervent supporters will enjoy the same high regard.
Now, as to what support the GOP still has… well, there’s folks like Holsclaw, and probably Djerijian, who anxiously await sanity returning to their party, and are no more willing to give up on it than Democrats are willing to give up on the Democratic Party despite its spineless ineffectuality. Yet even they’re coming to realize the only way to return sanity to the GOP is to let the current incarnation of it lose power and wander in the wilderness.
The challenge will be for both Parties to stop living in their sheltered LaLa Land and address, not only the scandals and betrayals of the Bush Admin, but the deep rot that has eaten away any sense of the Common Good altogether. That rot predates Bush: it goes back to the 1980’s, when the government was busy dismantling a human-based body politic and replacing it with a corporate-based one. We have, in 20 years of commodifying everything from education to healthcare to thought processes, gotten to the point where no one even talks about a Common Good; the concept isn’t even in our national vocabulary.
And yet, I think (or hope) the hunger for such a thing is still there, in people; that most of us really don’t want to live in a society that rewards predation in all things – we’ve mostly given up thinking it’ll be any different.
The Party, and the politicians, who understand that, who can articulate it, and who can offer real ideas and ways to revive the concept of the Common Good (without resorting to bigotries, appealing to ignorance, and scapegoating)… they’ll be the ones who’ll prevail.
Tim F.
Andrew, at least rebut something specific.
In general I think that there is hope for the Republican party, but the current current crop who merely sees “conservatism” as a convenient venue for personal power and enriching themselves and their allies need to be removed, disgraced and thoroughly repudiated. There are people left in DC who would lead a respectable GOP if they weren’t constantly beat down by the shady element.
The Other Steve
To be fair. A Democratic Congress would not be able to tie up the nation in investigations and impeachment hearings if the Bush Administration hadn’t been so blunderingly stupid.
I don’t understand these complaints from the rightwing. I mean, if you vote for someone who uses Stalinist tactics to win elections, don’t you kind of expect that’s the way they are going to govern too?
As I wrote in my blog yesterday, Republicans are becoming increasingly like Communist apologizers. That is, it wasn’t our fault our ideology was flawed… it was that Bush didn’t carry it out correctly. Real Republicanism will be a paradise. Just you wait! As soon as we eliminate human nature and those pesky kids with the dog.
The Other Steve
TBone,
Terri Shiavo
Abortion
Flag Burning
Gay Marriage
Projection? We Report, you Decide.
ppGaz
I think this is a very good assessment.
And “common good” of course is the conceptual basis for modern liberalism. That is NOT to argue that everything advocated by “modern liberalism” is the one and only true solution to problems, or workable, or politically viable. Those are separate questions that have answers grounded in their own merits. But the general idea was to apply the power of government to enable people to do better.
Modern liberalism created enemies for itself when it went to war with the culture of segregation and racism and tried to engineer a better society … just as the right of today has created huge opposition to its social engineering of “family values” and “defense of marriage.”
But there’s a big difference between saying that government should be in the business of protecting your right to get a job or your right to vote, and saying that government should be in the business of protecting the prejudices of your church. Liberals like to think that the former is a rightful application of broad government power, while the latter is not, and I happen to agree with that view.
And if the latter view and its capacity to eke out votes has produced the grandiose, collosal fuckup that is the government we have now … so be it. I have no problem blaming “those people” for this and holding them accountable.
Ancient Purple
I doubt it. You support your own personal interpretation of “conservatism and libertarianism” based on your whims at the time. You certainly were not being a conservative or a libertarian when you were cheering Bush and the GOP prior to them, as you say, leaving you.
Schiavo, NSA, largest deficits in history, ignoring of 750 laws, tax breaks for oil companies with record profits, WMD’s, etc. You knew what Bush was about a year after 9/11 and you still were hoping to God that he was a conservative (because he was never, never, never, never anything resembling a libertarian).
If you want anyone to take you seriously that you are a conservative, then you need to dig up some of the policy issues and agenda statements of the father of conservatism, Barry Goldwater, and start following them.
If you want anyone to take you seriously that you are a libertarian, then you need to state on the record that you adamently oppose the local county health department checking on restaurants to make sure they have enough sanitizer in the dish water so people don’t get sick.
I suggest you go the Goldwater route.
ppGaz
I give you credit for saying that, Al. Props.
In fact, I’d even form a coalition with you to get rid of the current pseudo-conservatives even if it meant that down the road it meant a stronger, more classic-conservative GOP that could kick Dem ass. I’m willing to take that chance.
The Other Steve
VidaLoca,
Just to give you an idea. Yesterday, the 6th CD district in Minnesota nominated Michelle Bachmann to run for the seat being vacated by Mark Kennedy(who thinks he’s running for Senate).
Bachmann is a Pat Robertson Republican. She’s cried in front of abortion clinics, she’s been beating an anti-gay marriage drum for the past 4 years or so.
She received 60% of the ballots.
She beat out a number of old-school, fiscal conservative Republicans, a couple of which have at least as much experience in the state assembly as she does.
The GOP is dead.
Andrew
From Al’s site:
When you’re a third tier water carrier for a half-wit meme designed to absolve one’s sense of culpability for the half-decade (or decade, or two?) moronathon we’ve been experiencing, you’d best do better than try to cover your ass by setting new records in volume to content ratio.
JPK
Some fine points here. One factor continually overlooked by the nostalgic Rockwellists is that in the best of those days — say, the 15 years following WWII — taxes were sky high. Before that, the Depression and then the war created a society where people were willing to sacrifice for the greater good, and they did.
Privatization is hardly the panacea it’s been made out to be since 1980. In effect, it only opened the floodgates of me-firstism (which I suppose you could argue has its roots in identity politics, but that’s another discussion). The old complaint about big government was its inefficiencies and bureaucratic paralysis. Try getting somebody on a Microsoft help line nowadays. Privatization is no more the answer than big-gov largesse. As Eisenhower and Clinton knew, the trick is in managing policy, something the current crop of Republicans and “conservatives” have all but abdicated in the last 25 years.
The Other Steve
Paddy,
Damn. I figured with Foggo, that they were going to identify the 9 finger guy as Frodo Baggins.
Otto Man
Well, the argument as you’ve caricatured it is certainly stupid. No one’s saying that Republicans want to “breathe bad air or [drink] dirty water” but they are lowering the standards that make the air cleaner and the water purer. They want to reduce the oversight on businesses, and that’s ultimately more important than wanting to drink clean water or breathe clean air. Simple as that.
And yeah, I’ll tell you that Democrats who campaign on environmental issues do, in fact, tend to vote that way. Feel free to check out the voting lists of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the Wilderness Institute, etc. The endorsements they make are predicated on voting records.
Whatever you feel about the environment as an issue, I think it’s pretty funny that you point to that as a made-up peripheral issue that the Democrats ride, when the GOP has become the party with its panties in a wad over gay adoption, a Spanish-language national anthem, Terri Schiavo and Elian Gonzalez, etc. etc. If what I breathe and drink is inconsequential, all the crap at the core of today’s GOP doesn’t even register on the radar.
RandyH
This is a very interesting discussion today. Thanks Tim F.
By the way, I found this blog during the whole Schiavo mess like many others here did and I’ve stuck around, rarely commenting but reading most posts.
My parents were both Goldwater Republicans and I could have been a Republican, but they ain’t the big-tent party that they used to advertise no more. I belong to one of the many demographic groups that they threw under the bus to satisfy the bible belt bigots (and now they’re doing it to immigrants as well.) So I am pretty independent. But I will vote a solid Dem ticket and work hard for the liberal causes until we can restore balance to government.
The Republicans are not hopeless. They just need new masters. If they could make an honest effort to move us to a public campaign finance system, removing corporate/fat-cat money almost entirely, then they can represent their people rather than their corporate pimps and actually become the fiscal conservatives that the true conservative base expects them to be.
Otto Man
Looking forward to it? Why wait? Just look at it now.
Punchy
I don’t see the Dems winning Congress this year. On what basis? Well, I see Diebold. Much less conspiratorial, I see an insanely nervous, paranoid, and weak gov’t that knows it just might get impeached if the elections take place. I foresee any and all measures necessary by this Admin to disrupt or obfuscate these elections, including some “surprise” attack on Iran.
Shorter: these NeoClowns will do ANYTHING to stay in power. Rig an election, postpone an election, declare martial law, whatever.
VidaLoca
TOSteve,
Heh. Point taken. Although when you say, “Yesterday, the 6th CD district in Minnesota nominated…” it makes it sound like that was some kind of party caucus or something, not a primary — would that be correct? My point being that the GOP may indeed by dead but this particular cell just hasn’t gotten the memo, and they won’t do so until they start losing a bunch of elections.
ppGaz
I wish it were so. But don’t discount the skill with which the GOP has leveraged the red state areas of the country into electoral and congressional power.
The system we have gives power to land, not just people. The states are a mechanism for a different kind of power when expressed at the national level. If North Dakota, which is losing population, ends up with eight people, guess what? Those eight people would have two senators in the US Senate. Okay, that’s gross exaggeration of reality, but it’s to make a point: As long as you can keep rural and exurban America riled up about queers and Mexicans and turrists, you can wield a lot of power in this country.
What’s really ugly about this is the fact that in order to carve out the nodes of power from the demographics, you have to divide Americans against each other, and that requires getting rid of any “common good” energy as described above by CaseyL.
D. Mason
I knew what Bush was about a year BEFORE 9/11, I didn’t vote for him even though I am a conservative. It’s really simple to seperate conservatives from republicans. If they voted for Bush, they’re Republicans. That’s not to say Bush is a liberal, he has some liberal traits but only as far as he represents the worst of both political parties. He is for big government all the way – the bigger the better. Centralised power in the Executive branch? You betcha! Gun control is ok with Bush. And of course he wants to give massive handouts to corporations and tax breaks to the wealthy. Free speech is a no no in George Bush’s America and so is privacy. Afterall, if you do things in private you must be a terrorist right? You see that’s the thing, just because you slap a label on something that doesn’t make it true. You can label George Bush a Conservative and that hardly makes it a fact. Darrell can label me a Liberal and that doesn’t make it true. You can name your dog Cat and he will still be a dog. Get it? I would love to see someone properly label Georgie but he seems to defy those little ideological boxes. But one thing is sure, he is not and has never been a Conservative, anyone who says he is is attacking Conservatism as an ideology.
That sounds almost as stupid as when some right wing blowhard talks about Liberals creating welfare millionaires and sending fruit baskets to Osama. It doesn’t sound true because it’s not true.
Par R
Paddy says:
There is, of course, another list that comes to mind, a list that includes among others: Alan Mollohan Cynthia McKinney, Cong. William Jefferson, Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean, Patrick Kennedy, The Rev. Al Sharpton, and George Soros.
While these may include “heroes” to many on the Loony Left, they scare the shit out of the majority of voting Americans. And they’re not even Martians….as far as we know.
D. Mason
You act as if those people you listed are somehow counters to the list of right wing heavy hitters from Paddy. Some of the people on your list have no potential for power whatsoever and some are bit players in the Democratic party. Why not go ahead and put Michael Moore on the list and maybe George Clooney too. While you’re at it don’t forget to give Osama credit for his vast power within the “looney left”.
Give me a break, if the choice boils down to – vote for Democrats and get some tax hikes or vote for Republicans and get nuclear war with Iran – it’s a pretty easy choice for me.
Par R
Me too.
ppGaz
Let’s see ….. tax hike, or war. Tax hike, or war.
Gotta tell you, I think about 33% of your fellow voters are gonna go with war. After all, nobody wants a tax hike, and like the man said last week, “They hit us on 911 … we have to have a response.”
See, your no-brainer is another person’s brainer.
Or something.
Steve
About three years ago! Yeah, right. The vast majority of Republicans have been in office a lot longer than three years. In fact, many of the legit conservatives, like Tom Coburn, are new in their jobs.
Tom DeLay didn’t suddenly morph into a non-conservative in the last three years, feeding you bullshit about how there’s no fat in the federal budget any more. It’s just that back before the GOP had undisputed control of the entire government, they were able to feed you a line about believing in smaller government and you bought it. Now that the exact same people are forced to back up their words with actions, you can see it was a sham all along.
There are a lot of small-government conservatives in America, but they make up only a small minority of elected Republicans, most likely for the reason that few people are motivated to do all the work to get into power just so they can give their own power away. But either way, the excesses of the last few years are not just a mistake that happened when a bunch of genuine conservatives somehow all forgot their guiding principles. They’re just a bunch of politicians who understood that mouthing conservative platitudes is a path to election.
Otto Man
I doubt this argument will work with Darrell. He’s convinced that the Nazis were leftists because they had the word “socialist” in their name.
He’s still working on how the East Germans could be communists since they called their state the German Democratic Republic though.
Bruce in Alta California
The question should be how do we fix the government? A lot of you have danced around the answer and a couple of posts pointed out a near solution.
Its the money. If you separate politics from money, you will be left with politicians that are not enslaved to corporate handouts. Once the chain is broken between politicians and their dependence on corporate donations, we will see politicians who will stand on their record. Of course there are criminals in all walks of life but crooked politicians should be the exception rather than the rule.
I just don’t know how to initiate that sea change.
james richardson
Read the story. Read the comments. Couple of random thoughts.
-The GOP (or it’s current variation) may be not so great at governing, but they’re great at running and great at winning elections. Dems usually gain ground after a significant period of the GOP in power. Coincidence?
-Isn’t it strange that the only people mentioning subpoenas and impeachment right now are Republicans? It’s because they have no conservative record to stand on. They stopped pretending and hitched their wagon to Bush when his poll numbers were high, and now that Bush’s numbers are in the tank they’re being pulled down with him. Since they have no record to stand on (save for big business), all they can do is bash Democrats, saying if the rubber-stamp GOP congress loses the majority, Bush may be held accountable for his actions. What kind of motivation is that?
-I’m glad other people called TBone on his odd opinions. Calling Dean someone lacking in depth, while failing to mention George Bush? Berating Dems for not giving the military a runaway budget, and sometimes reducing their budget, while failing to mention the end of the cold war? And he fails to explain why, if Clinton’s army was indeed so small and broke (a suspect charge itself open to criticism), why Bush and Rumsfeld chose to start a war with it. But we mustn’t forget that true conservatives want to stave government, save for the military; anything less than a blank check for them is nothing short of treason.
Shalimar
given the sad state of our government after 5 years of almost exclusive Republican control, the term “honest conservative” has become a bit of an oxymoron in the minds of quite a few Americans.
Since the rise of Limbaugh and his talk radio cohorts, alot of us have been associating “conservative” with “lying bastards” for more than 5 years.
There is, of course, another list that comes to mind, a list that includes among others: Alan Mollohan Cynthia McKinney, Cong. William Jefferson, Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean, Patrick Kennedy, The Rev. Al Sharpton, and George Soros.
Yeah, but only an idiot would think those lists are comparable examples of corruption. What crimes are you even accusing Pelosi, Jackson, Dean, Sharpton and Soros of? Just because you don’t like them doesn’t make them crooks.
Kimmitt
Tbone brings up a very important point — part of the reason the Repubs are still in charge is that the traditional media is still in the tank. A media which was even passingly interested in reporting on the genuine personalities and backgrounds of Democratic politicians would not leave anything resembling the impression that successful technocrats such as Howard Dean and Al Gore are unserious.
Psychologically, if one is predisposed to think poorly of Dems, it’s damn near impossible to get past the relentless slander of Democratic politicians (and lionization of Republican thugs such as Bush and DeLay) which is the bread and butter of traditional media.
james richardson
hmmm. ignore the crossovers.
Kimmitt
Shalimar — Sharpton’s got his issues, to say the least. Of course, he’s not even an honorary Congressman, much less a real one. Apples and oranges, once again; take a relatively powerless extreme figure and compare him to the highest-ranking Republican officials, and you can prove whatever you’d like to.
S.W. Anderson
That struck a chord. I’m not quite there, but I well know the feeling. I’ve seen it in others as well.
ppGaz
The SteakMan seems to me to be a bit of a court jester, prodding us with humor and sarcasm to think outside the conventional boxes. He has quite the wit and even when I don’t agree with him, I end up having a good time.
But my point is, I wouldn’t be too hasty in jumping to conclusions about what his actual opinions are … until he states them unambiguously.
Mac Buckets
Elimination of the Professional Pork-Delivering class through term limits?
Mac Buckets
How’s the condo in Bizarro World working out for you, Kimmitt?
searp
We make a mistake if we think the current problems have anything at all to do with political philosophy. Conservative/liberal labels have little meaning when the situation is that the current government is so incompetent that it is unable to govern.
I’d say a more appropriate dichotomy is governors/governed.
Regardless of political philosophy, the real problem is that our elected officials basically simply don’t care about governing. That is, there is a charmed circle of money people and elected officials that is self-referential – the ordinary voter is just a pain in the ass that has to be placated periodically. Viewed in this light, the red-meat political wedges make a lot of sense – they are pandering, purely and simply, and very temporarily. They don’t really care about those issues, they care about money and power. Who in their right mind thinks Cheney or Bush are populists, or even very interested in the opinions of the average citizen?
I can and have voted for honest conservatives who I thought had the interests of the country at heart. They are relatively rare among elected officials. Failing that, I vote liberal on the hypothesis that liberals tend to be peaceful sorts, more oriented towards policies that invest in the country directly as opposed to tax rebates to corporations, and, on the whole, more willing to be inclusive. That is, given a choice of mediocrity, I will choose liberal every time. Less damage done.
ppGaz
Good idea. But the last time we saw a wave of interest in term limits was 1994, wasn’t it? How did that work out?
Seriously, I don’t have the numbers, but how many of those Contract On America term-limit-huggers actually observed their self-imposed limits?
ppGaz
Sometimes you need to get your head outside of the rightmonkey echo chamber, Mac.
Take a look at the Alterman blog of May 5, here’s an excerpt. Whatever you think of Alterman, it’s pretty obvious from even a cursory examination of the facts that the media is beyond sycophantic and addicted to its cozy relationship with the powerful. This has nothing to do with right and left, it has to do with sucking up, and conflict of interest. It has to do with basic integrity.
The Beltway media is pretty much the Tim Russert/Tony Snow phenomenon in action, raising butt kissing and football-luxury-box journalism to new heights.
CaseyL
I don’t think term limits is the answer – not least because just about every single Congressperson who won election based on a promise to retire after X number of terms reneged on their promise… and got re-elected anyway. Plus, term limits penalizes the truly public service-minded as well as the parasites.
Much better to eliminate private funding of political campaigns altogether. Make it all publicly financed, and set a cap. This is criticized as a freedom of speech issue, which has always mad me angry. The SCOTUS made a huge, huge mistake when it decided free speech = money, because that had the natural consequence of making corporate First Amendment rights outweigh those of actual human beings. (The 19th Century SCOTUS decision that corporations were legal “persons” is possibly the Worst SCOTUS Decision Ever, measured by long-range unintended consequences.)
ppGaz
CaseyL … let’s agree for the sake of discussion here that corporate strangleholds on government are a huge problem. Exactly how we express it or define or demonstrate it, we can leave for another time.
It seems to me that trying to attack it at the money stream is going to fail, precisely because it attacks the beast at its most powerful point. The money is the thing, and the hold that the money and power have over the people who are addicted to money and power is too strong to break it without a sledge hammer.
However …. isn’t the term limit, with its shortcomings and warts, a convenient way to break that bond of money and power? It forces the system to let go of the insider-old boy thing and opens the door to reform and new brooms sweeping clean. In other words, it’s a play that is basically a run around the defense.
It’s true that it isn’t perfect, but aren’t we letting perfect be the enemy of good here?
Thoughts?
waddayaknow
Bruce in Alta: In my opinion you have peeled the onion back almost enough to expose the ultimate corruption inherant in our two party system. In recent politically diverse conversations the reoccuring theme has been that at levels high above the wealth range where the millionaire pundits earn their income using their fat brushes to paint the ‘other’ side as the anti-christ (so to speak) there appear to be forces at work that have definite ties to organized evil of massive proportions. For instance a GOPer will not hesitate to bring up Papa Kennedy’s rum running days and his aquisition of great wealth through organized crime channels, which when passed down to/through the generations of his ‘family’and ‘friends’ still gives the sense that the underground wealth/power of drugs, gambling, and prostitutions of various types are benefiting the Demo party in an overall sense. On the flip side the good ole Prescott Bush and the Harriman ‘family’and their BCCI, Iran Contra, guns, drugs, bombs, corrupt big-oil, and easy use of war to enrich those on that side of the equation bring the sense that the GOP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ‘War Inc.’. While both views leave out the grass roots element of citizens who honestly hope for and work toward a ‘better’ world for their children, our current system seems to have turned it’s back on all of us in the lower ranges of privilege and income range. What do we hope for? To see the most corrupt current meathead get his/her due at the hands of the (hardeharhar) ‘liberal media’ (which appears to me mostly owned and operated by and for War Inc.)or the media display of the next ‘Blue dress’? Unfortunately it appears so to me. How can we separate the criminals from the political process when the political process seems to be fully integrated into the business as usual processes of criminals who are so wealthy and powerful that it appears to myself and others that it is their opinion that nations and institutions are a private playground and the remaining 98% of the populace are simply pawns, dupes, and rubes?
Pb
The Other Steve,
More like Frodo Bagman…
VidaLoca
Mac,
They were chewing over the very point that Kimmitt’s raising last night, over amongst the Jane Hamshers of the Left. You may not agree with everything in the post but it does help to explain the overall mediocrity of political coverage these days.
Ancient Purple
I said:
D. Mason responded:
You are flat out wrong, Mason.
The county health department regulation issue was brought up on KFYI-AM radio here in Phoenix the last time Ron Paul ran for President on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. The local Libertarian Party chief was cornered on that question on the air. He stated that he would be in favor of abolishing the County Health Department since that is not a mandate of the Constitution. The caller asked him what happens then to ensure that people eating in restaurants don’t get sick and the LP chief said that when enough people get sick, business will taper off and they will either clean up or go out of business. Ron Paul sat there silently and didn’t say a word.
Additionally, you only have to read the platforms of various state LP platforms to see that what I said was dead on target. Here is a clip for you from the Pennsylvania LP platform:
Link.
Also, feel free to do a Google search on Libertarians and County Health regulations for some great angry blog writing about the intrusion of government.
Ancient Purple
Two problems:
1) The SCOTUS said the states can’t put term limits on their members of Congress, and;
2) Many who made the term-limit pledge have suddendly had a change of heart.
Leading that change of heart is Arizona’s own political gasbag, Rep. Jeff Flake who suddenly found Jesus last month and declared:
God forbid you keep your pledge, especially if it isn’t “fashionable.”
What would the neighbors think?!?!?!?
Perry Como
Don’t forget Cindy Sheehan and Ward Churchill. Those two are the core of the Democrats.
ppGaz
You are right, of course. The problem with libertarianism in this country is that it’s been taken over by libertarian fundamentalists. They have no sense of balance, it’s all black or white.
Government exists for a reason, namely, that it provides essential services and protections that would not otherwise be available. Being rigidly anti-government creates the kind of insanity that you describe above. It creates opposition to water treatment, for example.
The county health dept and the water dept don’t interfere with liberty. Whereas, government opposition to contraception, does:
The War on Contraception
Pb
Ancient Purple,
I think term limits, by and large, have been a failure, however. It’s a trade-off between having a few old, entrenched, powerful Congressmen at the top (and a lot of middling, somewhat-entrenched Congressmen below), and having hundreds of irresponsible newbies at the bottom all jockeying for position and running the show without any discipline, historical context, or institutional respect that age brings. I’d rather have some mature members of Congress left, to act as a check on the rest.
b-psycho
Purple: Well those people are unrealistic idiots then, since the intention of the Constitution was never to micromanage such a purely local issue. While Ron could’ve easily checked the guy about it, I suppose at the time he probably was too shocked that someone would even make such a leap.
Although, I would ask at the same time what your expected outcome would be: would restaurants just all of a sudden quit using sanitizer to save money, simply because they could?
CaseyL:
If I were to attempt to agree with this any stronger my head would explode. That ruling could quite plausibly be blamed for all else that has happened since then.
Kimmitt
How did the Reinventing Government initiative affect the size of the Federal bureaucracy? What is the Success by Six program? How about Dr. Dynasaur?
In any sensible democracy, someone as plugged in as you would know the answers to these questions — or would at least know what the questions referred to. That’s my point.
Sine.Qua.Non
It’s a little funny that conservatives are crawling out of the woodwork “now” denouncing Bush, don’t you think? Sudden onset buyers remorse? Actually, I’m thankful people are seeing the light, but, it’s odd that no one seems to own up to their flagrant support of Bush for the past six years.
I’ve never understood why anyone voted for him to begin with. All it would take would be a good day or two of investigation on your own to find out why that wouldn’t be a good idea – before first-term election.
Ancient Purple
I don’t disagree with your analysis, Pb. However, it has always been my contention that we already have term limits and they are called elections. Yes, I agree about the trade off, but on the other hand I think the American public needs a good dressing down for being lazy about doing at least some minimal legwork on discovering who the people are who represent them.
Unfortunately, we live in times where a member of the public is more in love with his/her cell phone, car, bottled water, gourmet coffee, and bustling shopping mall than they are about how public policy and legislation affects them.
james richardson
Sure… much like Tom DeLay and Pat Robertson are the core of the Republicans.
Ancient Purple
Not necessarily. However, they would cut corners.
I can only speak for the restaurants here in Maricopa County (Phoenix-metro) and the fact that every restaurant can go to the website and print out a copy of the checklist the county inspectors use. With that list, they could simply go through it every day so that when the inspector shows up, you pass with flying colors.
However, even with government regulation, restaruants are still closed down by the county or have their business license suspended because the couldn’t bother to follow basic health regulations. Really, is keeping the can of insecticide away from the open food prep area that difficult?
Now, imagine if the county wasn’t there to enforce those regulations.
Ancient Purple
Tom DeLay was the United States House of Representative’s Majority Leader.
So, yes, he was the core of the Republicans until he was indicted.
Now we have Boehner and Frist.
If they aren’t the core of the Republicans, why are they the party leaders in the U.S. Congress?
CaseyL
ppGaz, the problem with term limits (besides the SCOTUS decision, which I didn’t know about) is that it honestly does take a while to learn the job. Representative terms are only 2 years; that’s not much time to learn the ropes. Any term limit which allows time to get up to speed and be effective is probably going to be long enough for the corrupting effect to take hold, too.
There’s also the seniority system to consider. If we do away with the seniority system, in order to accommodate term limits, then what other method should be used to decide the leadership positions, or who gets which seat on which committee? At least seniority is a neutral, easily-defined criterion.
So that leaves public funding. Public funding of Presidential elections was passed in the wake of Watergate, due to public revulsion and an activist, reform-minded Congress. If we really do get another activist, reform-minded Congress this year, we might at least try using public revulsion at the Culture of Corruption to push for public funding of Congressional races as well. And – very important – not allow opt-outs, which has undermined the purpose of publicly funding Presidential campaigns.
D. Mason
I can only speak for myself but I have disliked George Bush from day one. The problem is that anyone who said anything about dear leader was painted a liberal commie. It’s just now getting to the point where you can speak out against Bush and also be conservative.
Zifnab
Well, firstly, no one said the term limits had to be short. Setting a 5 or 7 term limit for Congressmen would give them more than enough time to get aquainted(corrupted).
But there’s a question of whether the 96% re-election rate is the root cause of corruption or merely a symptom. Surely, the class of ’94 didn’t need long to jump on the gravey train of K-Street. And with the two-party (often one-party) stranglehold on politics, there’s a question of whether candidate turn-over will make any sort of lasting effect when every new candidate is just another pig feeding from the party troff.
I think Casey has the right idea with publicly funded elections, but there’s still the issue of a two-party system. If both parties want to be corrupt, publicly funding both of them doesn’t really root out the problem. And when it’s a two-party system writing the rules, you can garrantee them both writting in huge barriers to entry.
Andrew
This is sort of the like being in the non-combatant logistics brigade of 101st Fighting Keyboardists.
ppGaz
CaseyL, can’t disagree, really. I’d only add that the crux of it, seems to me, is to show voters how to vote for their true interests. Voting for things like “defense of marriage” or “family values” is a dead end proposition. Those things are driven by imperatives that add no actual value to government, and in fact, take value away.
When people know what their real interests are, then they can make better decisions. The other thing you have to do is GOTV. A better GOTV effort in 2004 might have saved us from the debacle we are trapped in now. For that matter, a better GOTV in 2000 would have done even better.
Voters need to understand that crass emotional appeals are probably not going to pay off in actions that actually advance their true interests.
By crass appeal to emotions, of course, I mean “John Kyl’s campaign.” You have be here, and hear it, to believe it. You’d think the asshole were running for minister of the local evangelical church fundraising committee.
D. Mason
‘
That seems like a pretty ignorant thing to say, but whatever makes you happy.
CaseyL
ppGaz, I wonder if that whole “values” thing is a consequence of Democrats abandoning the working class. Here’s my theory:
The Democrats used to fight for blue collar interests: unionization, minimum wage, safe work conditions; plus education and job training assistance. The “price” of that support was to also support the Democrats in matters not necessarily near and dear to the blue collar demographic, such as racial and gender equality.
Then the Dems decided to get on the corporate gravy train. They supported the bills in the 1980s that served corporate interests at the expense of the working class; they also went along with cuts to programs that helped low- and no-income families. In the 90’s they stood by as Clinton triangulated his way through domestic policy, adopting many Republican themes as his own: GATT. NAFTA. Welfare reform. Meanwhile, the Democrats absorbed more groups whose focus was “Identity Politics” – esp. gay and transgender groups.
So, from the blue-collar and low-to-no income perspective, the Democrats were no longer interested in addressing issues that mattered to them, AND were catering more and more to groups who were anathema to them. There was no long a trade-off; no longer a reason to support the Democrats’ economic agenda even if their social agenda bothered you.
Then along comes the GOP with its wedge issues. The GOP wasn’t going to address blue-collar and low-to-no income economic needs, but neither were the Democrats. And the GOP was willing – nay, eager – to despise and punish the same groups the blue-collar and low-to-no income demographic despised. It was a choice between a political party that didn’t listen to your concerns at all and a party that listened to something.
So blue collar, devout, socially conservative voters went to the GOP.
I want to make clear that I don’t think gays, transgenders, and so on are somehow illegitimate interest groups. I surely don’t feel that way at all. But the Dems gave away half their constituency when they decided not to fight their economic battles anymore.
That was a huge mistake – for the blue-collar and low-to-no income folks as much as for the Democrats. I hope the Dems realize this, and once again make the have-littles and have-nots an important constituency.
DougJ
I think the biggest reason I stick with the Repubs is because the people out front of the Dems remind me of cartoon figures.
Why not just write “don’t listen to me, because I am not a serious person”?
What if I told you “the main reason I don’t like George Bush is that I think he looks like a monkey”? Would that make you want to hear more of my political wisdom? Or would you conclude that I was an idiot?
Al Maviva
Nothing sudden about it. This isn’t a sudden surrender and adherence to the Democratic Party’s values by conservatives. We still think nationalized health care, ever sgrowing entitlement programs, and the big book of Democratic social policy dogma are odious. It’s just that the Republican Party voters generally consist of four blocks – social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, “git the gubmint off my back” conservatives, and defense hawks. If the party cannot do any of those missions effectively, there is no reason for us to vote for it. You don’t adhere to party discipline, the party is supposed to adhere to voter discipline. We support the Party as long as it does our will, when it stops doing so, it’s time to kick it to the curb. Up until recently, most conservatives I know have been willing to gamble that the Republicans are the lesser evil. That’s not the case any more, a lot of us think that the party is Democrat Lite – letting the entitlement camel’s nose under the tent with the prescription drug benefit and No Child Left Behind; being neither fish nor fowl on defense, afraid to either surrender and beat feet out of the middle east and everywhere else in the world, and afraid to do what needs to be done to fix the situation. Afraid to tackle social issues like gay marriage and euthenasia head on and stand up for traditional values, yet afraid to follow a principled libertarian approach (that I would support equally) and let the states decide social questions. We get massive spending in the name of defense, but no coherent defense strategy, a classic dissolute “throw money at it” ‘solution’. And ohh, the pork and regulatory / police intrusions into our business. The illegal immigration issue was the final straw that demonstrated we’d be better off with genuine no-borders tax and spend social libs, rather than ersatz ones. We will put up with everything else, but they have to at least try to be credible on national defense. Once the Republicans lose that, they are sunk.
No, we’re not throwing our support behind the Democratic Party’s ideas. The base is simply withdrawing support from Bush and the congressional Republicans because it has gotten so bad, they have sold us out so badly and gotten so far away from the limited government ideals we stand for, that we can no longer keep supporting them. That’s the crux of it. If withdrawing support from a political party when it does wrong in my eyes is unprincipled, then so be it, I’m unprincipled, and so are a lot of other conservatives. The principles are more important than holding power, they will survive even if Frist and Hastert don’t, and in fact a Dem sweep might even produce a conservative revitalization as it did in 92-94.
Par R
DougJ writes:
I think many of us already have views as to what the correct answers to DouggyJoy’s questions are…
DougJ
Don’t call me “Douggy Joy”. It’s too obviously spoofy. Actually, I think you should come back with a different name. You’ve blown your cover but you had some good moments. I think I know who you are anyway.
Choose a name that sounds like kind of like Brian next time. Maybe “the other Brian” or “OCBrian” or something like that. You’ll think of something.
And good luck.
Ancient Purple
But there seems to be little definition as to what those “principles” are. I see nothing in the discussion of Republican principles that lead me to believe anything other than you all stabbed Goldwater in the back and shoved his corpse through the grate at the curb.
Where were you exactly, Al, when Bush was piling up huge deficits and then giving breaks to the richest people and the greediest of corporations? Where were you when Bush was declaring war and telling us that the best thing we could do was not buy bonds or sock away cash, but to get in our gas-guzzling SUVs and hit the malls for Prada shoes and Gucci handbags? Where were you when Bush was touting how there are three equal branches of government, but the President was more equal than the other two?
At worst you all praised Bush and clawed at each other to see who would get to be his shill first. At best you all sat on your hands hoping to God that he would come to his senses and show some glimmer of conservatism (whatever that is in today’s day and age).
If Pelosi or Dean or Schumer or Reid say one thing you dislike, you launch on them and rip them apart. Yet, you gave Bush five years and now bestow on us a nice little missive about how you all are withdrawing your support from the GOP until it becomes the GOP.
Wow, Al. It only took WMD’s, Iraq, Shiavo, NSA, being hated abroad, Brownie, Chertoff, DeLay, deficits, Cheney, Scotter, Santorum, Frist, Hastert, tax breaks for the rich, and a host of others before you finally stepped away and refused to give your support.
Pardon me if I don’t applaud.
ppGaz
In a divided country, a million votes, which is a very tiny slice, is the difference between success and failure at the national level.
Fledermaus
OK. It is nutjobs like this that make the libertarian party so hard to take seriously.
Jess
Why is Dean contantly held up as an example of lefty extremism? He is actually quite moderate in his positions (although not in his rhetoric), many of which overlap with traditional conservative/libertarian views. I agree that there are many reasons why he was not a viable candidate, but an extremist he’s not. One of you (Al? I’ve lost track) was saying that the Dems all look like cartoon figures; maybe that’s because their opponants constantly feed you the cartoon versions of Dem positions and you don’t bother to do your own research and think it through for yourself. I think you’ll find that most liberals share a lot of the same values of the traditional conservatives/libertarians, or are at least willing to listen and compromise with those positions. It’s the neocons and crony capitalists that we despise.
DougJ
Jess, you’re being too reality-based here. Dean is helped as an example of extremism because he’s from Vermont and because of the Dean scream.
If you look for reality-based answers to questions like these you’ll be sorely disappointed.
Jess
Oh right. I keep slipping…thanks for setting me straight. By the way, Crooks&Liars has a nice clip of Dean squaring up against DeLay. Quite entertaining.
DougJ
I just noticed that The Anchoress is a PJ Media blog. I think I understand what PJ media is now. It’s an FBI program intended to contain potential domestic terrorists by encouraging them to keep blogs.
The Other Steve
Too much to read and respond to. I got about half way through the comments, and decided I need to make a point.
The one bone of contention that I have with most Democrats is there belief in this conundrum… That corporations should have no say in public policy, and yet at the same time should be paying more in income tax.
I believe it is this attitude more than anything else which has caused the complete utter collapse of our political system. I still go back to Tsongas who asked the question how can we claim to love jobs if we hate business?
There is a proper role for corporate influence, and the Democrats goal should be to make it clear what that is. Whether you like it or not, they are a part of our society. You cannot like just their tax dollars, and their opinions when they agree. You must also be able to accept their criticism on policy and either work to correct it, or point out the counter argument towards it.
The idea of fixing all of our problems by way of just changing the law, is a fool’s mission. We’ve been there before. Over the past century we have fixed the law at various times to check influence. In all situations, IT HAS FAILED TO ACCOMPLISH SAID GOAL.
These arguments come from a point of defense. A point of weakness. They’re whining. Get over it.
I wish to raise one more point. Morality affects more than just the issues Republicans like to talk about. Morality also involves how a person who has money ought to behave. The lack of willingness to relate to this point in the Democratic party is also a weakness. I came to this conclusion after listening to someone talk about China, and how the Mao regime’s disdain for religion has left a society bereft of answers of how to deal with new found wealth. But that is a post for another day.
The Other Steve
One more thing…
Who is the “working class”?
The Democrats didn’t abandon the “Working Class”. They just haven’t realized that it’s shifted under their feet. If you want to talk to the “Working Class”, I’ll give you a hint. You will only find a minor subset at an AFL-CIO meeting.
The rest of us are having coffee at Starbucks, rather than pints at O’Briens.
Once Democrats come to realize that. Once they start talking about issues of concern to the working class, for example… child care, or changes to a school year to accomodate the Working Class rather than a 19th century Agrarian economy. Then they’ll be talking to the Working Class.
ppGaz
Heavy spoofiness!
When did worrying about the fact that this government is basically just a pimp for corporations become “corporations should have no say in public policy?”
Did I miss an espisode of The Situation With Tucker Carlson?
james richardson
Because… unlike the core of the Republican party, they’re not under indictment?
DougJ
It’s all bullshit and spin — it’s silly to speculate about whether or not the Dems desserted the working class or whatever it is any of you is saying. The public only knows what it hears on television. I don’t say that with any sort of condescension — I myself only knew what I heard on television until I started using the internet for my news a few years ago.
Could the Dems have done more for working people? I’m sure they could. But they sure as shit have done a lot more than the Republicans ever would. And the protectionist measures that the would-be populist Lou Dobbs of the world favor are unlikely to help anyone.
It’s just another bullshit talking point that the Dems have lost the working class because they didn’t put out for them. That’s not to say the Dems haven’t put out enough for the working class, but to say that reality is largely irrelevant here.
The Republican party has morphed into something completely bizarre — if you look at the record, it’s clear that the only interest is enriching the super wealthy. Yet people like John vote for them because of “fiscal responsiblity” or God knows why, southern whites vote for them because of coded anti-civil rights messages, rurual Ohioans vote for them because of gay marriage, scared suburban house wives vote for them because of 911 fear-mongering, it’s just a big grab bag of reasons. There’s no sense to any of it — it’s all bullshit except for the enriching of the super-wealthy.
james richardson
Alas, Tom DeLay is a core of the current Republican party, and his indictment is all the more telling. Democrats to a lesser extent have their versions of corruption, but they’re either personal issues, or when professional they are asked to step down, like Dean did today, or we call an investigation into their actions, like Pelosi did recently. When was the last time (or ever for that matter) you saw a Republican call for an investigation into one of their own? Specter’s just postering for the midterms and to ensure he gets adequate pork in the budgets for his state.
And no, Democrats don’t hate business. They just don’t like to wate for global supply-side economic booms to trickle down to the middle class and the poor. I hope Al Maviva and his bitter, angry liberal-hating peers at coldfury are right that the GOP is sick of their current representatives in Congress. Maybe they’ll stay home on election day. Democrats sure won’t, and then we’ll Mehlman’s scare-tactics disproved as we spend our time cleaning up after the Republicans while Bush sweats out his final two years in the White House.
james richardson
Alas, Tom DeLay is a core of the current Republican party, and his indictment is all the more telling. Democrats to a lesser extent have their versions of corruption, but they’re either personal issues, or when professional they are asked to step down, like Dean did today, or we call an investigation into their actions, like Pelosi did recently. When was the last time (or ever for that matter) you saw a Republican call for an investigation into one of their own? Specter’s just postering for the midterms and to ensure he gets adequate pork in the budgets for his state.
And no, Democrats don’t hate business. They just don’t like to wate for global supply-side economic booms to trickle down to the middle class and the poor. I hope Al Maviva and his bitter, angry liberal-hating peers at coldfury are right that the GOP is sick of their current representatives in Congress. Maybe they’ll stay home on election day. Democrats sure won’t, and then we’ll see Mehlman’s scare-tactics disproved as we spend our time cleaning up after the Republicans while Bush sweats out his final two years in the White House.
ppGaz
That’s one way of looking at it … but I don’t think it’s the right way.
Instead, imagine that rich and powerful interests sat back and said, let’s look at the demographics here, and let’s manufacture a coalition that gives us 51% of the votes, and thereby, 100% of the power. Voila. It took a while to build it, but build it they did, brick by brick, and district by district. They worked hard, they built a machine of propaganda, they got out to the grass roots, and they constructed that 51% engine of power.
Bizarre? Actually, it’s rather elegant and completely diabolical. It’s powered by people who care nothing about the “values” and other emotional issues that fuel the coalition … and this may be their downfall. The people they used are starting to catch on that they’ve been used.
Is there sense to it? Of course there is, it’s one of the great bullshit machines of all time.
DougJ
Okay, that’s a pretty good summary of what I was trying to say. Here’s what I mean about “no sense to it”: the gay marriage, flag burning, deficit spending — and so on — is not part of any political philosophy. It’s just a grab bag of issue for winning elections. I don’t believe that the grass roots of the Republican party was clamouring for most of these things. There’s certainly no grassroots saying “put us farther into debt!” Politically, it is easier to run a deficit than not because balancing the budget requires spending cuts or tax increases, both of which are unpopular. And remember with gay marriage that the base didn’t even take to it at first; no one really cared, if reports are to be believed, until they were bombarded with direct mail and sermons from GOP operatives masquerading as men of the cloth. It’s a manufactured issue, designed to raise turn-out.
Here’s what I’m trying to say, albeit long-windedly — it isn’t just that the Republicans built a machine and a constituency out of pure bullshit, it’s that the constituency continues to run mostly on pure bullshit, not on issues that it deeply cares about. There’s some truth to the idea of framing — certainly Republicans are more likely to oppose gay marriage than Democrats are. But they don’t really care that much about it until they’re whipped into a frenzy by the right-wing propaganda machine.
ppGaz
That’s a very good point. Who dreamed, ten years ago, that something called “defense of marriage” would win votes in a national election? It’s manufactured stuff, base emotional appeal. It taps into a need to be heard and to have an emotional need filled … it’s diabolical, and powerful. Hey, look at the result: They got the keys to the country. That’s something.
stickler
A long time ago, a very wise man told me the story of the Golden Rule. He said this would explain much about how our world has always worked, and how it works still.
The Golden Rule?
“Him what has the gold, makes the rules.”
This may or may not give some folks a little insight as to how the GOP got where it is today. If you don’t get it yet, Google up something about “Scaife” or “Inheritance Tax” and see what pops up.
Kewalo
CaseyL, I agree with you about term limits. It didn’t work with the Contract with America and it can’t be legislated so it is esentially a dead issue. It also seems to me that the congress has to come up with new campaign spending laws, supposedly the public owns the airwaves. So, lets give X amount of time to each candidate and then limit the amount they are allowed to spend in total and that includes what other people spend on their campaigns. If this is challenged in court, well, SCOTUS has been known to change it’s mind. Can you see what I’m getting at?
I also mainly agree with your assessment of the dems with a slight quibble. The dems really didn’t desert the unions. If you remember back the republicans started demonizing the unions and in fact, really changed alot of minds about them. You can still hear that discourse today. Not all of it is untrue, but the union I belonged to really helped me out as a woman and I’m still grateful. But I not really sure the dems actually gave them away as didn’t know how to keep them.
ppGaz
Uncle Remus?
kdaug
Thanks, guys… I’ve been looking for a new, succinct catch-phrase for the last 6 years, and you’ve nailed it for me.
“Diabolical”.
I like it. It’s got legs.
Ancient Purple
First, corporations should have a say in public policy. However, far too often, the corporations each have a megaphone and the public gets its mic turned off. I get my chance to have my voice heard once every two years. Lobbyists representing corporations get heard first and more often because they can afford to take Mr. Senator or Ms. Representative to Ruth’s Chris Steak House for dinner. I can’t.
Second, I don’t hate business. I hope to have my own someday. What I do hate is business with unvanquished greed. There is something terribly disconcerting about the fact that one person can retire with a $400 million golden parachute while there are people who cannot get basic health care because they cannot afford it or their company claims they can’t give it to them so they can make a profit for the “shareholders.”
America did quite fine for decades when CEOs and Chairmen of the Board were making only about 20 times what the average worker was. Now, for upper management, the sky is the limit. Sorry if I am a little peeved at the senior manager who dismisses complaints about morale, benefits and salaries in the workplace with the condescending “You outta be thankful you have a job” mantra.
Do you remember the hatchet job Costco Warehouses took a few months ago in the WSJ? Costco is Sam’s Club main competition. They offer good wages for their staff, excellent benefits, plenty of room for advancement, and a staff loyalty that is the wet dream of HR directors. They also give a nice return on their earnings to the shareholders. Wall Street analysts said that the CEO should 1) cut staff salaries, 2) cut their benefits, and 3) make the employees work harder.
In other words, screw ’em. The CEO and the shareholders deserve more of the pie while the workers get less.
That is the type of business I hate and they type that I will continue to bash. CEO’s don’t need more in their paychecks and workers don’t need less. Convince me that businesses genuinely care about the people that keep the business running and we can talk.
I do love my job. That, however, doesn’t mean that my workplace can’t be much better with better pay, benefits and the like.
Beej
Who was it who said that in a democracy, people mostly get the government they deserve? Was that Winston Churchill or Will Rogers or someone else? Whoever it was, they were dead right. With due respect to those who see removing corporate money from the equation as the remedy for many, if not all of the sins of government, publicly funded elections are only going to postpone the problem, not solve it. Who lobbies Congress most heavily and effectively? Who provides jobs with outrageous salaries to retiring or defeated politicos? Public funding of campaigns is not going to end this.
If people really want to be heard, if they really want things to change, then “the people” have to take a little responsibility. Which do you think has more effect on a Congressperson’s vote: the heavy lobbying of corporation X or several thousand phone calls from VOTERS in the home district all urging the Congressperson to vote a certain way on pending legislation? Problem is, most of us don’t want to be the one to get out there and organize that phone campaign. Shame on us.
Al Maviva
Ancient Purple, what did you do when the DLC-controlled democrats started disappointing you? Did you vote Republican?
Then why do you expect me to repudiate the things the Republicans have done that I think are good?
DougJ
Beej — shame on the public to some extent. But more than that, shame on the elite Washington press corps. People like Tim Russert and Joe Klein have sold the public down the river for the price of access to the White House. If people like Al Maviva could see beyond their Bush-worshipping, cultlike ways, that would admit that this is the case.
In fact, the Mavivistas will soon turn on Bush and claim they were duped by the media into thinking that he knew what he was doing. It won’t be true in their case, any more than it was true that the media duped Jim Jones’ followers into following Jones to Guyana, but I think that there are plenty of Americans who honestly have been duped by Russsert/Matthews/Klein/Brooks into thinking that this president wasn’t a complete idiot.
Slide.
Krugman nails it in today’s column (Times Select):
.
TBone (TBone's War Journal)
ppGaz said:
Unambiguously as possible, and this applies to both parties):
– I want politicians to stop pandering to special interest groups and focus on important core issues, like the economy and National Defense. I don’t care who we sleep with, what language our ancestors spoke, or how light/dark our skin is… WE are all Americans, period. The constitution gives each and every citizen unalienable individual rights, so there is no need to purposely separate Americans into groups and cliques. It’s divisive and wrong. Likewise, if you feel like you have a special need to be different, and want to have the whole country kiss your ass because you represent 6 percent of the population, you need to rearrange your priorities and get with the program. There are more important issues to be solved than who should marry who, or saving the California spotted sand flea.
– We need to stop pork barrel spending. Write legislation that solves the problem at hand exclusively. Stop trying to slide in millions of dollars of bullshit establishing a rain forest in Iowa, etc. We need to monitor our legislators and enforce this standard at the ballot box.
– We need to stop denying our own faults. Just because someone criticizes our party official for drunk driving, don’t sight a rival party member’s fuckup and say, “You have no right to criticize our guy because your guy did X.” That doesn’t address the problem. Address the fault, without speculation or lies, and seek to solve it. It justs makes us all sound like partners in a terribly dysfunctional marriage. We are all guilty of hypocrisy at some level or another; but we should endeavor to be as fair as possible, erring on the side of the USA, not our party.
– We need to stop taking freedom for granted. The Roman empire fell for a reason. The United States of America can fall too. If we don’t take a realistic stance on the current National Security / terrorist-war situation, we are going to wake up to a nightmare. Too many folks are just willing to go along fat-dumb-and-happy believing everything will be fine, or that the war is something confined to the television set in their living room. Sometimes harsh times call for harsh measures. The sooner people realize that, the better off we will be. Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Stop smoking the peace pipe and believing everything should be nice and polite. Sometimes bad people need to get an ass-whuppin’. I’m not advocating allowing the jack-booted thugs to camp in our living room, or that we go and invade every country that gives us a problem, but I think we need to be prepared to act militarily when we have to. We should also stop allowing certain domestic elements to subvert our nation because we are too politically correct to stop them (see pandering above). If you don’t like being an American, then don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
– Lastly, we need to stop identifying ourselves with a particular political party, and start identifying with the candidate. I would vote for a Democrat if he had some character and substance; I’m not talking about just looks or charisma either. I’m almost ashamed to say I voted for Perot once upon a time; but I felt he was serious about running our nation with discipline, instead of like a politician. I think if Perot wasn’t a squeeky voiced, short guy, he might have won. Too bad he didn’t, because Perot is a solid guy. We need character and conviction, not slick partisan politics. We need real debate about serious issues like Social Security and taxes; not the party line bullshit about how the rich are getting over (my household income is above 100K, and I’m certainly not “getting over”) or about how old people are getting screwed. Everyone is going to get screwed unless we take this stuff seriously, and then take some kind of positive action. That means fully educating ourselves on the facts of an issue before engaging our mouths, and then heckling our representatives.
Thanks for letting me spew.
The Other Steve
The polling I’ve seen on the Union issue is that the public doesn’t really much care about Unions because Unions don’t care about the public.
At one time they did, when they fought for 8 hour workdays, etc. Now they just fight for themselves, generally at the expense of other workers.
That’s the perception, and I’m not sure it’s not correct.
The Other Steve
Ancient Purple, I think you have the right idea. That the problem is not corporations, but some corporations. That there are others who behave correctly.
The Other Steve
This is all well and good. But I don’t think that matches reality.
The people who voted for Bush in 2004 did so entirely because they’d been played Emotionally. From a logical, rational standpoint Bush was a bad candidate. The people who don’t allow emotions to cloud their judgements realized this.
But this isn’t new, candidtes have been playing this game for 200 years.
There’s a lot of things we should do. Then there is reality.
I don’t know of any way to train people to not vote based on emotions, but rather logic.
DougJ
We need to stop taking freedom for granted.
By wiretapping more people and sanctioning torture. Let’s not forget — the only threat to our freedom is from terrorists. Warrantless wiretapping, signing statements that allow the president to interpret the law however he likes — none of those things are a threat to freedom.
I’m afraid, T-Bone, that you don’t have a clue about what freedom means.
ppGaz
Tbone for president.
We need a break, elect the steak.
ppGaz
He’s a cut above.
But sometimes, he’s a little too tough.
ppGaz
Do you think that due process is about taking freedom for granted, bone?
The Other Steve
I don’t know about Ancient Purple. The people who whine endlessly about the DLC, largely voted for Nader in 2000.
Ancient Purple
Actually, Al, I did vote for some Republicans and I have voted for third party or independent candidates. I have never been and never will be a straight-ticket voter. If Barry Goldwater was alive today and running for the Senate, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. I worked on his last senatorial campaign because I believed he was the best candidate to have Arizona’s voice heard in Congress. Even though he and I had different views of policy, he was a principled man and one I admire.
In other words, Al, you won’t answer my question.
Where were you, Al?
D. Mason
T-Bone, even though I was too young to go out and vote for him at the time I totally agree about Perot. Maybe for slightly different reasons. While I do believe he would have brought a certainly degree of level-headedness to the White House, The main selling point for me was that he would have loosened the grip that the democratic-republicans have on our nation. I wanted it to happen so bad. I wanted to see what America could be like if it weren’t being distracted at every turn by shiny wedge issues. For as long as I can remember, politics has been about hysteria and wedge issues. Policy on the other hand was all business, big business, corperate handouts, catering to the economic giants, shaping foriegn policy to suit corperations, turning the nation as a whole hostile towards workers. It’s still easy to spot – they can’t shovel tax money into the oil companies pockets fast enough to make themselves happy. Work days are still getting longer and pay checks are getting even shorter. And yet, there was this funny looking little man, talking about *gasp* actual policy, not just abortion and how to best dumb down American kids. To me it didn’t matter what kind of a leader *he* was because he represented an oportunity for a change in the system. For me it would have been like the American revolution. Alas, it didn’t happen.
ppGaz
Well, all due respect, the man was not up to the job. He has a huge ego and a bad attitude to go with it.
Nobody can argue that the manufactured-issue politics of the two big parties is an insufferable form of torture, I can’t see how replacing it with something like Perot is an improvement. I think the allure of the independent outsider fades quickly when these people have to govern.
See Aaahnold and Jesse Ventura for two good examples. It’s one thing to be outside of the political tank, it’s another to be so far outside it that you can’t govern.
Another example? Jimmy Carter. Brilliant, good man. Lousy pol, Washington ate him for breakfast.
Ross Perot would have been an unmitigated disaster, in my view. Dangerous beyond even the standard set by GW Bush.
Par R
DougJ says:
You know things are pretty bad when Doogie Joyboy makes far less sense than ppGaz. His post here is filled with outright lies (John has been very clear in his posts here for many months that he’s disgusted with the Republican’s lack of fiscal responsibility). And as to the anti-gay themes that bother DogBoy, his own Democratic party has its major base group, blacks, opposed to gay friendly initiatives. And the rest of his childish rant is drawn from DNC talking points from the last 30-40 years.
ppGaz
John has made it very clear that he won’t vote for the other party. That’s what DJ is referring to.
If you spent less time trying to be a spoofy hack and more time actually paying attention to what goes on here, you’d know that.
Par R
ppGaz writes:
Notwithstanding the “interpretation” accorded Dog Boy’s comment by dim bulb, ppGaz, the words are very clear for those who speak English. I was obviously wrong in according ppGaz an intellectual level above that of Doogie Joyboy. Personally, I’m beginning to think that the latter is merely a pseudonym used by ppGaz in his ever expanding efforts to spoof us.
ppGaz
Clear, and wrong.
ppGaz
Easily cleared up … just write to John Cole and ask him.
tBone
My completely unambiguous position is that having another person with my username is a pain in the ass because people keep getting us confused.
For the record, Tbone is the guy who thinks that:
tBone thinks that Tbone has the kettle on speed dial.
Tbone also thinks that:
tBone completely agrees, but for entirely different reasons.
Hope that clears everything up.
ppGaz
Oh sweet Jesus, there are two steak men?
Okay, which one of you is the witty, clever one?
Which one of you do I give the Beggin Strips to?
Which one of you is aged beef, and which one is a soy product imitation?
tBone
I vote for Tbone. He has some hilarious material:
Krista
Christ, if we didn’t already have to keep track of all these Steves…
ppGaz
Hmm. Tasty, but spoofalicious.
My suggestion is that every BJ regular begin posting in the name of a cut of meat on a regular basis.
I myself will be Vealshank.
Who else wants to join in?
Vealshank
I am preparing my unambiguous position statement.
Meanwhile, can I borrow a piece of twine?
ppGaz
That “awaiting moderation” thing is just dumb, really guys.
But anyway, my Vealshank material is gold.
Gold, I tell you.
I see a whole new career ahead.
ppGaz
What purpose does it serve? We have spoofers spoofing spoofers here, so obviously the moderation thing isn’t working.
So what’s the point?
ppGaz
Here’s the point: People willing to go around the IP address traps can get away with anything here, and do, and are, as we speak.
How else would a DougJ be able to pull of thirty different spoofs that we know of?
The Other Steve
I don’t know. I debated between Clinton and Perot in ’92. I think Perot added a very valuable element to the debate, but it didn’t appear to me that he was entirely serious, and I think his opposition to NAFTA was largely because he already had business interests in Mexico.
But regardless, Perot did make a difference in that he changed the debate onto the deficit as an issue.
After Clinton won, it was the deficit that became his primary issue, and he worked to correct much of it. Although I think that Clinton had already had this position going into ’92, the effect of Perot was to make it a more nationally recognized issue and less of a partisan one. This allowed Clinton and the Democratic Congress to pass the legislation needed to put us back on course.
A point I’ve made before, and something I’ve realized.
It’s not about winning elections.
It’s about influencing direction.
Perot lost the election, but influenced direction. That’s what counts.
vealshank
Could I borrow a piece of twine?
ppGaz
Spare me from “moral victories,” please.
The party that controls the congress and the state houses can ruin your country and your life. Well, like now.
Unless the Constitution was an exercise in penmanship, it’s all about winning elections.
tBone - The Original Angus
It prevents spoofing to the 4th degree (spoofers spoofing spoofers spoofing).
DougJ
Vealshank needs a web page.
vealshank
What time is the annual roast?
The Other Steve
For all his faults, Ventura could at least govern. His main problem is he picked fights with the media.(similar to Arnolds problem of picking fights with everybody) Giving them all “Weasel” badges instead of “Press” and so forth. They went after him with a vengeance, and the he couldn’t take it. Granted, I think he had it easy on the governing side because of years of budget surplus.
He vetoed every social wedge issue bill to come across his desk. Prayer in schools, etc. And while he himself was not articulate, his press release from his staff explained why in very nice detail.
His main legacy on the positive side is the Hiawatha Light Rail. As well as a tradition now, that if we run a surplus the government gives out property tax refunds in the summer(renters get the rebate rather than landlords). Better plan than lowering taxes, or spending more money in many ways.
Naw, I’d vote for Ventura again, given the choices we’re usually given by the two parties.
The best Republican Governor this state has had in the past 30 years was Arne Carlson. The only reason he even got on the ballot was because the nimrod the Republicans nominated(Grunseth) had to withdraw a few weeks prior to the election because he had been caught having skinny dipping parties with his 14 year old daughter and her friends. Needless to say… Grunseth was a ‘Moral Issues’ Republican. Arne Carlson who came in 2nd in the primary had been a more moderate fiscal conservative type.
The Other Steve
So why didn’t Bush’s Social Security Plan pass?
Checkmate
ppGaz
Well, governing is also about image and message. After all those years, I still don’t get what his message was. “Fuck you,” maybe.
We have a tendency to lose track of what the proper roles are. “The press,” whether we like it or not, is us. We don’t get to ask these guys questions and challenge them in public. We rely on the press to do that for us.
Ventura’s shoddy treatment of the press is the other side of the coin of the flaccid, worthless press we have in Washington, DC right now. You either have dysfunction as in Ventura’s model, or dysfunction as in the Tim Russert / Tony Snow model. One is “kiss my ass” and the other is “yes, please, where can I kiss it.”
ppGaz
First of all, there was no plan. Did you see him submit a plan?
Second, his campaign to sell the idea was a collossal failure. Every time he opened his mouth, more people ran away from it.
ppGaz
What, is this “Cracksmoking Monday” where you live?
ppGaz
People who live in places where they have to string chains waist-high in parking lots to find the parking spaces in the blizzards …. shouldn’t try to tell the country how to manage its affairs. Such people are imbalanced.
Minnesota state tree: The salt barrel.
vealshank
I never seem to have enough thyme.
D. Mason
When politicians say “fuck you” to the press it gives the press an incentive to expose every speck of dirt they can find. More politicians should take that route.
ppGaz
Except in Washington, where the response is, “Am I bent over far enough?” Unless you kiss powerful ass in that town, you don’t get on the talk shows, and make the money.
Cyrus
I agree with this, but it doesn’t really deal with the problems you’re complaining about. The appropriate question on race issues is not, “Should we separate people into groups and cliques?” The only relevant question is, “Given that people are separated into groups and cliques, and always have been and probably always will be, what should we do about it?”
Should we ignore it? In any other situation, you’d call that approach “unilateral disarmament” and notice problems with it, but not here for some reason. Should we do something legislative but not affirmative action specifically, or should we rely on education and try to change peoples’ opinions on race, or should we accept racism’s negative effects as inevitable, or what? Well, that’s the question. But saying “affirmative action is just as bad as Jim Crow” gets us nowhere.
And while we’re at it, I want a pony.
And this is where you descend, in my estimation, from being wrong on these issues but well-meaning and probably right on others, to being nuts. The cryptoislamodhimminazis do not threaten our freedom or our sovreignty. Not in any way, shape or form. Our lives, maybe, but our freedom? They are a decentralized, disenfranchised group with an utterly insignificant number of supporters on this continent and sinking levels of approval among those who do support them. What are you afraid of, that 50 years hence there will be a nuclear-armed caliphate unless we invade every country that looks at us funny?
Ever since the end of the Cold War it has been obvious to everyone with a brain that while we might get attacked in various ways, there has only been one threat to America’s existence or freedom that could materialize in our lifetimes. And that is people who are willing to say
ppGaz
Government, like Justice, must be blind.
“People” can separate and join up and do whatever they like. Government must be blind to that stuff.
The question is, how do you get people who are joiners and tribesmen to construct government that is blind to the social constructs and treats each person equally and fairly?
Well, you might start by insisting that government and religion don’t mix, for example.
John S.
Well said, Cyrus.
Sadly, I cannot support you for President until you go by a meaty pseudonym.
Is Ribeye taken yet?
skip
Von Clausewitz knew the answer: the fearsome enemy at the border. Don’t change horses in mid torrent etc. That and the numbnuts issue like flag burning and gay marriage.
One last ploy: convince the rabble that YOUR party won’t take their money away when they (inevitably) win the lottery.
And it is hard to be sanguine about future enlightenment when we see so many Americans believing in such lunacies as the “excellence” of US health care. I mean, the cold, hard numbers are all there already, but the people refuse to see. Their minds have been clouded. The average American voter formed his geopolical Weltanschauung during the Superbowl halftime flyover.
Faux News
I wanted to do that “Turkducken” thing but some Red State Greek or Kurd would send me nasytgrams here on BJ. So I will settle for “Tofu Hot Dog”. It has the East Coast Elitist theme I was looking for.
The Other Steve
People who live in places where they worry about the battery in their car overheating shouldn’t try to tell the country how to manage its affairs. Such people are imbalanced.
The Other Steve
Socially liberal, fiscal conservative.
Frankly, it’s a message the Democrats could win with. The only reason some people don’t trust Democrats today is because they always seem to come up with ways of spending more money, just for the sake of it.
Clinton had the right idea. Take a look at what we’re spending now and make sure we’re spending it efficiently before looking for more money.
It’s a nice counterbalance to the privitization crap, which is all about graft and corruption.
FreeRangeChicken
We are protected from Realism by our Oceans. We don’t interact with other cultures, or other nations.
We have been raised on the Excellence of America Rhetoric, we are the best at everything.
To publicly state that we may not have the best healthcare system is to attack America and everything we stand for.
Clouding the healthcare debate is the fact that we DO have the best healthcare for the top 50% of Americans. The standard GOP response is that we are better than Canada, and that is true if you have good insurance, or can afford the Mayo clinic. We are far below the Canadian standard for the other half of the country.
DougJ
I may come in as Soy Latte.
Chuck
Sort-of-but-not-totally anonymous is the convention on these Internets of ours, so maybe I’ll go with something that could be a real name and even starts with the same letter…
D. Mason
People who assume others are idiots based on the actions of their quirky neighbors shouldn’t try to tell the country how to manage it’s affairs. Such people are imbalanced.
D. Mason
it was a few years ago, so don’t expect a link but I saw a poll once showing a surprising number of Americans identified themselves as just that. Too bad we have Socially fascist fiscally retarded.
ppGaz
I think “Hamilton Burger” and “Frank Furter” are still available.
The former is copyrighted by Earle Stanley Gardner, but the latter is public domain, AFAIK.
We also have Phil A. and Link.
Gratefulcub
Speaking of healthcare…..
I realize that you have to accept advertising from everyone and anyone, but anyone that believes John Edwards is more of a threat to US healthcare than Bill Frist is crazy.
The biggest of the laundry list of Bush created myths is that healthcare costs are increasing exponentially due to trial lawyers and frivilous lawsuits.
I manage the budgeting and cost accounting process for a chain of hospitals. We pay the malpractice insurance for each employee. We have never, not once, thought “If we could only get this malpractice number down……”
RED.HERRING.
~FreeRangeChicken
Chuck
We have to be careful with polls, unfortunately. People say that because it sounds nice but they haven’t thought it through, or they want it on the federal level but not on the state/local level, or they believe it but value one much higher than the other… I wish that was how most people thought, and it’s not hard to believe given the fortunes of certain politicians, but I’d need more evidence of it than just a poll.
ppGaz
Sure, but weren’t you also in charge of ordering the leeches?
tBone
Too many meaty monikers here for my taste. Does the forum software support unpronounceable symbols?
-TPFKAt (The Poster Formally Known As tBone)
vealshank
I just hope I don’t seem jerky.
Bone-In RibEye
All this talk of steak is making me hungry.
Ryan S
Cause not even the Repubs could swallow that pill.
John S.
Since when, exactly? Democrats haven’t had the power of the pursestrings in how many years? Maybe people don’t trust Democrats from 20 years ago because of their spending, but that doesn’t really say much about them today.
Perhaps you should work on your verb tenses.
vealshank
I’d like to announce my new book, “The Vealshank Redemption”, which is really all about finding my true self in the meat case.
I hope you’ll buy it, read it, and enjoy it.
V.
Ryan S
OK. I’ll be Chickenwing.
canuckistani
Dibs on “chicken wiener”.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The supporters of the right have fought too hard and hated too much to be able to admit that they were wrong. They would rather that millions perish in extreme agony than admit that George Bush is a failure as a president.
John S.
Because Bush’s ‘pills’ have a tendency to grow from the moment it is placed in your hand until the time it reaches your mouth. By the time you actually go to swallow it, it could end up being 65% larger than its original size.
Chickenwing
Rightwing…. Leftwing?
We’re both tasty.
ppGaz
Heck, they’d rather that millions perish in extreme agony than admit that Stephen Colbert was actually funny last week.
Perry Como
▒
char test
Perry Como
Indeed it does.
ppGaz
I sense a flap coming over this.
Chickenwing
Nah! We’re both finger licking good.
Just don’t call me buffalo, or I’ll have ta throw you in the frier and, lodge a bone in your throat.
vealshank
Does this dressing make me look fatty?
DecidedFenceSitter
Damn Extinct Winged Buffalo
tBone
That’s the best time to strike – when his wingnuts are exposed.
╦
ppGaz
I thought TBone was a Tuberculosis Hotline.
Chickenwing
Hey, I don’t appreciate your ‘Bird-Hateing’ ‘Bird-Bashing’. Why do you hate Poultry.
President two-in-the-Bush stands for coop-values. Like no oversized omletes, and no same sex roosting (unless its hen on hen action, then only if its televised).
You just wait, he’ll show those foxes.
That’s just TBones same dry over-done arguments. Whats wrong your momma not give you a pepper rub when you where cut.
(WOW. I think I hate myself now.)
The Other Steve
Dems still control the pursestrings at the state level in my locales.
and sadly, every year we get into the same argument “We should spend more for X”. Whether or not it’s a noble cause, they never seem to argue. It’s always “more spending”.
Kick that habit, and maybe they’ll get back to arguing for noble causes.
For the record, when I think fiscal conservative, I generally think keeping expenses in line with revenues, and trying to keep both as small as possible. It means having a good wholesome debate on funding priorites, not the Grover Norquist Drown Government bullshit.
ppGaz
Don’t be too hard on yourself, wing.
You are working for chickenfeed.
RSA
D. Mason wrote:
Does this show anything about Republican supporters? I mean, I can say, “X is an asshole,” where X is any given Democrat, and I won’t automatically be accused of not being liberal, or being a traitor, or being anything in particular except perhaps disagreeable. For some reason I’m reminded of Martin Niemöller.
Pb
The Other Steve,
But what do they spend it on? In my state, it’s mostly health care and education–in fact, we finally got a state lottery in place, ostensibly for education… remedial math education, perhaps.
John S.
And compared to federal spending, that accounts for what?
You’re somehow trying to argue that Democrats are still the ‘spend like a drunk’ party because your city or county leaders spend money and are – gasp – Democrat. Meanwhile, your Republican-controlled federal government has been spending like a teenager with daddy’s American Express card for many years now.
And yet, you’re more concerned about the Democrats in your state and what they spend? Interesting logic you have there.
Ancient Purple
That may be true in some instances, but don’t forget the other extreme.
Since my fiance lives in Orange County, CA, I can’t even begin to tell you the number of people who reside there who are quick to complain about the condition of the I-405 freeway (it is terrible!), but are also quick to say they don’t want to have to pay for any repairs.
Any bond issue in that locale is DOA. Another case of people wanting the Golden Life, but not wanting to pay for it.
I agree with you that we can’t have rampant spending for the sake of doing so, but by the same token, the whine of “I already pay enough in taxes” is just as passe.
tBone
Are you implying that the current Republican party is largely composed of lock-step Kool-Aid slurping drones? Obviously you’re a raving moonbat.
Bluedart
The only leverage that we as citizens have , is to balance the power between both parties, and have them fight it out, forcing compromise between the two. I for one can not vote republican until both houses are democratic. Objectives are simple:
1. Have the Dems win back 1 or both houses of Congress.
2. Neutralize the Bush agenda for the remainder of his term.
3. Hold the Bush administration responsible for the mess they created. Hold hearings, and or investigations, and if they are found to be negligent of having upholded their constitutional duties, then move forward to remove. Let’s not be obsessed with impeachment, but seek the truth without trepidation.
D. Mason
While it certainly does say something about republican supporters I have to somewhat disagree with you when you imply that criticising liberals is all that much different. An example I can give off hand of why this is wrong is a recent experiance I had at Americablog – a very prominent left wing blog.
John Aravosis, the site owner, had made a post railing against Howard Dean and the DNC because they fired the gay liason who happened to be a friend of Mr. Aravosis. He strongly suggested that they had fired this guy because his domestic partner had written an open letter calling for the gay community to withold funding from the DNC, and compared that act to what happened to Valerie Plame. By compared I mean he said “It’s Valerie Plame all over again.”. Well in the comments section the shit hit the fan because plenty of people thought this was a gross over-reaction. Some were very offensive to the guy and some simply disagreed politely, but it didn’t matter because he quickly started deleting any dissenting comments, banning the posters and painting anyone who disagreed(politely or not) with him as assholes, homophobes and the like. Before long his supporters showed up and made sure that anyone who disagreed knew their place as a “heterosexist”, “breeder”, “bigot”, or “self-loathing closet case”. My point? Leftists love to use the exact same tactics, it just so happens that to them “liberal” isn’t much of an insult.
RSA
Okay, I’d gotten the impression from your original post that the problem among rightwingers was more pervasive. That is, if I get told off by some group of liberals, I can go and hang out with a more (or perhaps less) tolerant group of liberals. You originally wrote, “The problem is that anyone who said anything about dear leader was painted a liberal commie.” So find another group of conservatives who were also saying nasty things about Dear Leader. . .but were there any such? Or is tBone’s Kool-Aid observation right?
D. Mason
Hmmmm, well I guess the problem is more perceptable among right wingers because their party is in power(and thus ripe for criticism) right now. And yes, I knew a few other conservatives who didn’t care for Bush but they were also painted as liberals on several occasions. I have been ridiculed as a liberal on this very blog. I don’t mind it because being called a lefty on a right wing blog and being called a rightly on a left wing blog just makes me more confident in my opinion that political extremists on both sides of the aisle are (in addition to being bat-shit insane) almost identical – especially in their frothiness.
The Other Steve
Try this…
go over to instapundit, or michelle malkin and write a comment questioning loyalty to Bush.
Oh wait, you can’t write comments on most righty blogs.
D. Mason
Yeah. I hate that shit.
tBone
I think there’s a lot more to it than this. Dems can be just as rigidly doctrinarian and petty as the Repubs (as in your example), but overall they seem to have much more freedom to deviate from the party line without being ostracized by their peers. The current GOP has folded up the Big Tent and replaced it with a one-man mummy bag, and God help you if you touch the drawstrings.
HH
FYI the truth about the so-called “lies” about Clinton admin trashing – http://www.frankenlies.com/lies/tone.htm
TBone (TBone's War Journal)
Just to clear this whole cut-of-beef thing up… I am the first TBone here. Ask John. Nyaah nyahhh! ;-P
So you can be “Poke Chop” or something else you faker. Or the rest of you can call me “Capital ‘T’ TBone”, and the poser can be called “Small ‘t’ tBone”…that might work too.
tBone
Who you callin’ small?
Darrell
For the record, I NEVER said that or anything close to that. It wasn’t me, period. Out of carelessness and/or stupidity, Otto Man associates that position with me, when it must have been made by someone else. I have never even participated in a debate about whether or not Nazis were leftists.