If there is any politician who has a right to blame George W. Bush, it's John McCain. In 2000, the one man standing in the way of McCain's quest for the presidential brass ring was Bush. In 2008, the one man standing in the way of McCain's quest for the presidency is Bush (and his sub-30% approval rating and 90±% nation-going-in-the-wrong-direction rating). Sure, McCain's opponent this time around is Barack Obama, but the Bush legacy of incompetence and cronyism--ladled with a big helping of economic crisis--is going to crush the McCain campaign into little tiny bits. A good debate performance won't change a thing. I'd like to be wrong, but the electoral map paints the picture.
There were several major presumptions the GOP held that George W. Bush frittered away during his time in office: We had better answers on the economy, we were superior to the Democrats in national security, we knew how to control spending, we were the party in favor of a smaller and more retrained government, and we were the more ethical party in the wake of the Clinton years. All gone.
Bush did not impose enough fiscal discipline while in office, then a mortgage crisis happened on Bush's watch, followed by a financial markets crisis. There goes the economic presumption. Bush blew it on Iraq, first by screwing the pooch on WMD intelligence and then by mismanaging a war for three-and-a-half years, costing us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of our money. There goes the majorities in both houses of Congress, there goes Donald Rumsfeld and there goes the presumption that military-friendly Republicans knew how to run a war.
During the Bush years, we doubled our national debt and our president signed one big spending bill after another. Our budget deficit is going to be around a half a trillion. So much for controlling spending. In terms of ethics, we've had Rovian campaign tactics, an administration that was okay with violating international conventions on detainee treatment, and presidential appointees whose politicizing was only exceeded by their gross incompetence.
Bottom line, we deserve to lose, but given the substandard performance of the Democratic majority in Congress, not by much.
So how to go forward? To me, the first step is new leadership, especially in the House. Second, we need to challenge Barack Obama if and when he moves too far to the left. I predict he'll have a decent honeymoon period, given the dismal approval ratings of the Reid-Pelosi Congress. Back in 1993, Bill Clinton had more serious challenges with Congress because his Congressional counterparts weren't hyper-partisan lightweights. Obama has a natural advantage, not only of winning this election but of confronting fellow party members while in office, if he has the stones to do it.
What else? Plenty. Militarily, the GOP can stand behind the Petraeus plan for Iraq and a similar counterinsurgency plan for Afghanistan, and we can challenge Obama if (and perhaps when) he guts our military presence in Iraq too quickly. Conservatives should push for a more highly trained and adaptable and versatile military, combining high tech with high training.
Ethically, we need to clean house. Given the 2006 electoral aftermath, quite a bit has been done already, but we can do more and better. This is another reason why we need new leadership. We can't adequately combat Democratic corruption if allow corruption in our own party.
Fiscally, we need to focus on eliminating waste, and we can do so by re-allying with Citizens Against Government Waste and the Concord Coalition and other similar groups.
Philosophically, we need more conservative think tanks, and those think tanks need to re-think what conservatism is all about. To me, we need to recognize that 20% of our economy is the government, and that it needs to be run competently while at the same time we should try to restrain its growth and intrusions. On immigration, conservatives have lost the argument. We should settle for comprehensive reform and try to work in as much border control as can be had. Conservatives should work to expand political and economic freedoms, both domestically and abroad, and protect rights.
We've lost the debate on health care, and I honestly have no idea what a conservative model for health care is. We've partially lost the debate on taxes. When it comes to income taxes, Obama prevailed. Because of this, we should push for tax simplification and for reasonable reductions in taxes on business and capital gains.
Communications-wise, we could use a conservative version of Media Matters and ThinkProgress to challenge the narratives and storylines put out by a non-conservative media (only 7% of national media were self-described conservatives in a survey a few years back). We need better internet forums (the 3.0 version of Redstate sucks, for example). We're going to be in the wilderness for a while, so conservatives are just going to have to get more chatty and more activist. In talk radio, Rush Limbaugh and others were influential in growing the conservative movement, but they also dumbed it down. We need fewer Hannitys and Levins and more Medveds and Bennetts. We need fewer slogans and more complete thoughts. Rush Limbaugh needs to untie the half of his brain that's tied behind his back.
Just a couple of thoughts.
--
"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
--
"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
Any "new" GOP will need to repudiate the
(#130538)"live in a bubble" approach to political life (or maybe life in general):
I wonder if she is aware of the gathering storm awaiting her return to Alaska.
In Palin's own words:
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Before the body is even cold
(#130464)Bobby Jindal
Anyway, I've surfed "Sepia Mutiny" before. There is interesting stuff here about the South Asian presence in America.
Joshua Trevino shall be pleased.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
I'd put the favorite...
(#130496)... as Mike Huckabee. The other Bush, Romney, Jindal and Palin pick up the rear.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Is there any reason to believe McCain would have made
(#130403)a better President in 2000 or 2004 than he would today? I don't see any.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
He seems much less well now.
(#130582)From a base competence perspective, McCain seemed a lot healthier, especially in 00.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
Much, much, much better...
(#130429)No torture.
Action on global warming.
Katrina not flubbed so badly.
No big tax cut for the rich (he opposed it back then, remember.) More spending restraint. Hence, a healthier fiscal outlook.
And people think I'm crazy when I say this... but I don't think McCain would have pulled the trigger on Iraq.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
That wasn't the question, really
(#130434)Not asking if BD thinks he would have been better or worse than Bush; the question was would McCain '00 or '04 have been a better president than McCain '08. It was an age/experience/record/party kind of question.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
He would have been a better president than Bush
(#130413)I'm pretty sure about that. For one thing, it's a low bar. For another, the fundies didn't like him, always a good thing. He was also eight years younger than today and lacked an oil agenda quite literally in his DNA.
Would he have been good? I don't think so. Better, almost certainly. If there would have been an Iraq war with McCain, the occupation would have been better. I'm pretty sure Rumsfeld would not have been around. Heck, there might have been no 9/11 to begin with, since the fantastically inept Condi Rice would not have been anywhere near a national security role.
His economic policies would have been approximately the same. He would have been less worse with the environment. He would not have trampled over the Constitution and his torture policy would have definitely been completely different. The international standing of the US would be far less diminished.
And he would have much better represented average American values than bush, especially the non-religious fanatic center-right working class (Reagan Democrats).
Life sucks sometimes. 2000 should have been his time. But in politics, timing is everything. Obama knows this. I think even he understands he's going in a bit too young, but he also knows that it could be a question of now or never. McCain's "now" was 2000, but the GOP chose the worse man. The question is why. The GOP ought to really think about that.
This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.
I don't think he would have been good, either.
(#130435)But probably for different reasons than yours. And I am of the impression that his views on environmental issues were newly minted for this campaign. If, however, you are saying "if McCain ever had a time, then 2000 would have been that time", I agree.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Actually...
(#130455)...well before the campaign he had made some encouraging (for a Republican) environmental noises. Not much actual accomplishment, but certainly not the kind of bushian rhetoric meant to smother all meaningful debate. Even slightly better would have been significant, over time.
If your question is how he would perform today compared with 2000, that's kind of hard to say and best left to a someone familiar with his health. I get the feeling his mental capacity is somewhat lower, but I'm glad to see he is by no means senile, as I had previously feared. What he will look like by age 80 is another question. My dad is 82 and doing fine. Still, he's got this thing I notice in many older people who remain sharp: he's not a good listener and tends to disregard all kinds of issues that people today care about.
I think, a president should start between 50 and 60 years old, give or take. Old enough for experience but young enough to be a part of the times.
If time takes away neurons it does give experience. Has McCain learned anything since 2000? Who knows. I'm stupider than when I was 20. My memory is not the same. But I made mistakes back then that I wouldn't today. As has been noted, life is backwards. You have vigor and reflexes when you are too ignorant to use them properly. Some people gain wisdom quickly for whatever reason. This is as huge an advantage as it is rare.
This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.
No
(#130411)But judging how he performed as a Senator, it's clear to me that he conducted himself much more as a conservative than Bush did.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
He didn't have the same parameters to deal with
(#130418)Senators primarily represent their home state. Let's face it, the only Republican president who did the fiscally responsible thing by raising taxes (Bush I) was a pariah in the party. Much easier to do what Reagan and Bush II did: talk about cutting spending but avoid that problem and cut taxes as a solution to everything.
I blame it all on the Internet
Irrelevant
(#130494)McCain is in a safe seat and Senators have a tradition of being more independent. As Senator, McCain had choices to make on various issues and pieces of legislation, and his choices were consistently more conservative than the ones Bush made.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Is it fiscally responsible to raise taxes at least once/term?
(#130436)Not joshing you, just want to know whether you think every president will/should have to raise taxes at least once.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
It's fiscally responsible
(#130440)to make sure the gap between revenues and spending doesn't get out of whack. Since Clinton's the only one who even tried to narrow the gap, the other recent presidents fail at that. I hear a lot of talk about cutting spending from Republicans, but none of them ever seem to get around to actually doing it.
I blame it all on the Internet
We hear a lot about cutting spending from Obama
(#130448)yet he's shown no sign of that in his brief time in national office. And he uses the old "what's a few billion dollars here and there?" to justify his support of earmarks, like a lot of liberals do. It will be interesting to see whether he actually performs the line-item budget review he has been promising. By your lights, that should be done before any new spending is implemented, right? And the money he raises by increasing taxes should go to paying down the deficit as well?
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
As someone who voted for Bush twice
(#130472)you don't have a leg to stand on here. Obama gets at least one term before you can say anything without being laughed at. And McCain, for all his talk about earmarks never me a defense budget he didn't like.
It took Clinton two terms to reverse the not nearly as severe situation he inherited. I expect the same will happen with Obama.
I blame it all on the Internet
In Terms of Proportion of GDP
(#130644)Are we really that much worse off with respect to the budgets of 1990-1991? Sure we are in straight up dollar figures, but I think if you were to adjust for inflation and for proportion of deficit to GDP, the bank bailout is going to be somewhat more expensive than the S&L bailout was, but not really that bad.
And really, you should give Kasich some credit for his contribution in bringing the federal budget from deficit to surplus.
We are looking at a $2T deficit for 2009
(#130698)That's way bigger than anything we've had before, by any measure.
This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.
Jes like I said, the bailout bill added $2.2 trillion to the
(#130708)statutory public debt ceiling. What a remarkable coincidence.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
For $2.2 trillion
(#130729)I want a damn toaster. Or free checking.
They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist...
-- General John B. Sedgwick, 1864
I ain't overdrawn... I still got checks... woohoo!
(#130720)I think I'm gonna go out and max out a credit card tomorrow.
Wow
(#130700)Assume no recession in '09 and GDP holds at 13.8 trillion.
A 2 trillion deficit will be 14.5% of GDP.
In the past 40 yrs., 6% is the next highest.
the 700 billion by itself is
(#130651)the equivalent of the entire budget deficit of a 90, 91, or 92 as a % of GDP.
here's the relevant data:
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
Our highest deficit as a % of GDP over the past 40 yrs. was '86 -- 6%.
Consider that our total GDP is roughyl 13.5 trillion, our 2008 fiscal year deficit was nearly .5 trillion and we're going to add in the bailout on top of that.
09 looks set to have the highest deficit by any measure.
It's just counter-productive to focus on earmarks
(#130463)It's what, 0.5% of the budget?
- Slash defense spending (that's nearly half a trillion by itself)
- stop funding the war (approaching a trillion?)
- chuck medicare part d ($40b/yr?)
- slash subsidies
- slash DHS ($35b) and shift more immigration costs to petitioners
Does the VA really cost $40 billion per year? And the interest alone on our debt $261 billion/yr? Medicare and medicaid have surpassed half a trillion per year?
No, it's important because it is deeply symbolic
(#130468)of politicians' attitudes that it is their money, to do with as they like, and screw the people who paid it into the treasury. The question is now whether something is right; it's whether there is any "controlling legal precedent" against it.
I know you can walk and chew gum simultaneously; let's assume politicians can, too. None of the above budget issues, however monstrous, is stopping anyone from stopping earmarks. In fact, some politicians have already done it, proving that it is possible.
There is absolutely no justification for earmarks, whatever their cost to the taxpayers. Obama used the same argument you are using during the debate last night to avoid the issue; he either doesn't realize how many people are offended by earmarks, or the earmarks themselves are more important to him than any negative press he gets for the handouts.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Deeply Symbolic?
(#130647)That amount funds about six weeks of Iraq.
THAT is deeply symbolic to me.
People I've explained that to have been going on the assumption that "earmarks" were the bulk of the Federal budget. And I think McCain has not gone out if his way to explain that it isn't.
And I'll tell you this...in a macro conversation, earmarks are seen as bad to the people, except of course, the ones that are earmarked for their own benefit. It's like the unpopularity of Congress, except for "their guys"..they're great!
The solution to earmarks
(#130501)is to vote those who over indulge out of office.
Efforts at lobbying for intervention by the Federal executive would appear to be an abrogation of States Rights and the right of the people to be heard through their elected representatives. Which would seemingly be at odds with even more deeply held symbolic attitudes within the conservative movement.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
As I said, it's the focus that I find counter-productive
(#130484)Yes, earmarks are problematic, but the McCain campaign talks about it as though eliminating earmarks would balance the budget. I don't have confidence that a McCain admin would take $3.2 trillion in outlays vs $2.6 trillion in receipts seriously when they focus their rhetoric on pork.
agreed
(#130407)Plenty of people saw right through his maverick act a long time ago.
"I endorse governor bush."
"I endorse governor bush."
"I endorse governor bush."
"I endorse governor bush."
"I endorse governor bush."
"I endorse governor bush."
The organization Obama (with Axelrod and
(#130387)creative contributions from Howard Dean) has fashioned will also be a significant legacy from this election.
How shall that organization measure up?
We don't know, yet. However statistics from early voting and turnout percentages among groups such as ages 16 - 26 and African American voters shall be significant data points.
Howard Dean's 50 state strategy shall also be studied, especially if the DNC does move many millions of dollars into state level races, as is rumored. After all, 2010 shall be a re-districting year and control of state legislatures affects gerrymandering power.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
This kinda stuff still needs to be stamped out
(#130300)McCain-Palin robo-calls:
In this context, not much room in the middle.
Of note: Find me some Obama robo-calls that are as outrageous and we can issue joint denunciations.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Well
(#130312)Considering that the more they do this, the lower McCain's poll numbers go, I think Obama is more than happy to let it continue.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
Maybe you can do something about
(#130290)this kind of thing:
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_buck16.3d67d4a.html
Obama still might lose, so cheer up and have fun with the completely non-racist GOP.
Ha ha
(#130294)Obama on a food stamp featuring fried chicken and watermelon, and the creator says:
"It was just food to me. It didn't mean anything else."
Better to be thought an idiot than a racist, I guess.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
!!!!
(#130292)But no worries -- the sender doesn't think in racist terms:
Steven Palmer Peterson
Oh this sort of nonsense is only good for the Dems.
(#130304)The dumber his enemies appear, the better Obama does. And let's be fair here, such nonsense is just about par for the course on the public golf courses of politics these days.
This sort of nonsense makes me cringe. Isn't it enough that Obama's winning, that the inexorable crushing-down of the world we knew under this financial crisis has driven people into the Democratic camp? Do we really have to point out Obama has stupid enemies? McCain has stupid enemies, too.
I, for one, am sick of the Republican Party. But I'm not sick of Conservatives. It's fundamentally un-American to kick a man when he's down, we just don't do it. As of now, I'm going to try to avoid smacking John McCain around with all the stupidity of his followers, with one exception, if Sarah Palin says dumb things I'll be all over it.
It's just not right to beat down an otherwise honorable man. If we Democrats ever hope to elevate the tone and tenor of this campaign, it will begin with the American arm we've always extended to a man when he's down.
I like what Obama said today, "I'm not running against Bush, I'm running against the Bush policies McCain has supported." Now that's a subtle argument, because McCain has not supported every last one of Bush's policies.
I don't blame McCain one iota for this
(#130318)-- but I do think differently about McCain/Palin when they don't address the freaky shouts at their rallies.
Obama tells people to be respectful at his rallies when they shout relatively mild partisan rhetoric.
Steven Palmer Peterson
Also,
(#130297)no one really listens to Limbaugh, and he has no effect on anything.
Smile, Grand Old Party! Maybe, just maybe they'll have a look in the mirror if Obama wins.
No one really listens
(#130351)no one really listens to Limbaugh, and he has no effect on anything.
In which case, how come he pulls down those big bucks? And is said have so many devoted listeners? What was he paid for his last, multi-year contract, $70 million?
Can't ALL just be Wingnut Welfare!
Sarcasm
(#130426)you missed it.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
People listen, but no effect
(#130425)30% of the country is still a big market, certainly worth 70 million to reach. The business makes sense, but it's more therapy than it is punditry.
Five thirty eight gives us a snap shot....
(#130285)http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/538s-battlegrounds-as-of-mid-october.html
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and yo
Obama hasn't won yet
(#130274)Personally I won't claim victory until it actually happens.
This place is my vacation.
Likewise. -nt-
(#130278).
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
The Republican Party will win elections again,
(#130272)when Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and the current economic crisis have faded from memory. Right now the Republican Party is the Party of mindless aggression, fantastic levels of corruption, systematic torture, failed warmaking, indifference to the loss of an entire city, and failed economic policies. The Primary and General have given it the moniker of the Party of Fundamentalism.
Now, Bush is still at 25%, which tells you something about the sickness that pervades our political culture. So I see the Repubs limping along for a long time, reliant on the votes of the dead-enders and people who hate paying taxes so much they'll vote for absolutely anyone who promises to lower them, consequences be damned.
The Republican Party is a symptom, not a disease. Our body politic has been under the weather for some time.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
Do you ever get tired of caricaturing the "people who disagree
(#130400)with me are evil idiots" guy on SNL? It really isn't very funny anymore.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
People who torture people systematically...
(#130414)...are evil idiots. So, yes, on that issue, disagreement = evil idiots. You can vote for the guys if you want. You can stump for the guys if you want. It's your vote. But I will die never having voted for a guy who instituted an international gulag for the purpose of systematically torturing detainees, many of whom were entirely innocent.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
That's different from what you said above
(#130437)about a quarter of the populace being - oh, never mind.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
well, a quarter of the populace
(#130443)supports the administration that's been shown to have authorized systematic torture.
Right, so they are all sick and evil, too.
(#130444)I almost envy such a simplistic view of the world. Everything is so much easier when you have that view - no difficult thoughts to reconcile. Almost like being a kid again.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Where's the nuance in ok-ing several hundred
(#130449)waterboardings, Abu Ghraib, and so forth?
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
So blindly writing off a quarter of the country os OK with you?
(#130459)And that is somehow supposed to be nuanced? How is that mindset any different from a far-right nutcase who automatically and blindly hates everyone who supports a particular Dem politician?
One of the surest indicators of the kind of hyper-partisanship that's been discussed here is the absolute certainty that someone who thinks differently is automatically wrong. That mindset provides zero incentive to ever ask an opponent why they think the way they do. It's both lazy and childish but like I said, it protects people who think that way from ever having to come into contact with others who are significantly different from them. Which makes for an easy, comfortable, smugly self-righteous lifestyle. Like Jane Fonda (or whoever it was) asking how Nixon possibly could have been elected, since everyone she knew voted for McGovern.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Hm, I didn't say that.
(#130460)But I'm not about to apologize for the Bush Admin's use of torture, or for people who do apologize for it.
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
No one has asked you to.
(#130466)I believe that simply writing off several million people because they don't share moral outrage over a particular issue is a huge mistake, and a sign of a very basic level of arrogance that sometimes gets characterized as "elitism". And that's exactly what some are saying here.
Anyway, I'm done on the subject. If anyone wants to curl up inside their comfy liberal cockleshells and laugh at the redneck rubes as they shuffle by, fine with me; just means I'll have more shine to drink when those rustics share theirs with me.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
I've got tomsyl's back on this one
(#130505)The real problem is not the offhand dismissal of a quarter of the country (more than half, actually, if we go by the more honest criterion of "people who voted for Bush"); the real problem is that nothing is black-and-white. Torture is wrong, yes. But what is a moral response to living in a country that tortures? Is merely voting against the torturers sufficient? What about advocacy? Organizing? Nonviolent resistance? Driving a truckload of explosives into the Lincoln Tunnel?
A moral case can be made for the necessity of any of those things, depending on one's working assumptions. So before you write off half of the country, keep in mind that someone is writing you off also.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
Track back to #130433
(#130508)Link
No one can be written off. Ever. And I do not see a call to write off anyone by the people tomsyl was responding to.
Therefore, what portions of tomsyl's back do you have?
We all need to DISCUSS torture and this arbitrary 25% should participate in that discussion.
The discussion should be torture policy not personalities.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
I have his back
(#130513)in the sense that I agree with him that many of the posts in this thread are sanctimonious, self-serving, and indefensible.
I'm not sure you understood my point. You are willing to condemn those who voted for Bush as evil, or at least "morally lazy". What about someone who organizes a march on the White House? Do they have the right to condemn you as morally lazy?
The bottom line is that there are always, always other considerations involved. For instance, a great many of the people who voted for Bush in 2004 were convinced that John Kerry was a far more evil man, who would have done even worse things.
"The discussion should be torture policy, not personalities" -- I agree, but when you start condemning people, you are making it about personalities. It's a little late to make that distinction now.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
Deep end, off of
(#130475)sorry, not sharing moral outrage over torture is a an admission of complete failure as a human being. Next you'll be saying that Nazis weren't all bad (and spare my the Godwin cites, torture is directly comparable to what the Nazis did in kind if not in scope).
There's no excuse for it. It's not elitism, it's learning the basic morals that makes one a functioning human being.
I just reread your comment and mine. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you - you're not actually defending torture and the people who approve of it, are you? And you're the one who brought up rednecks, I don't care if you're a machinist in NC or a stockbroker in NYC, torture and support for it shows a basic failing as a human being.
I blame it all on the Internet
Sorry to do this Hank, but you need to take a week off.
(#130521)Better now than election week, and you already have a warning.
Can you let me know if blocking your account will interfere with, you know, keeping the site from hosing?
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
Ha!
(#131721)Cojones indeed, sir! Hope Hank's not too pissed.
"Unfortunately the universe doesn't agree with me. We'll see which one of us is still standing when this is over." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
He's not defending the people who approve of it
(#130486)He's defending the people who support the administration in spite of it. The people for whom it's a negative mark but not one that outweighs the "benefits" of the admin.
Plus, I think our own Bernard said something before about not caring about the torture program, since it's unlikely that anyone he cares about would be affected.
Too much of a deal with the devil for me
(#130488)it's kind of funny, because I always hear how it's liberals who indulge in moral relativism. And yes, I'm familiar with Bernard's solipsistic view on the world.
I blame it all on the Internet
Good Lord
(#130470)The same argument was made in the defense of racism. Well gee willikers, just because several million people don't share moral outrage over a lynching, ain't that a sign of elitism iff'n you do?
No kidding you're done on the subject. Enjoy your moonshine.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
torture is negotiable?
(#130445)uh, ok. Sorry, tomsyl, we just live in completely different worlds, and we should stop this thread here, especially given your last sentence and where that'll probably take us.
Take it wherever you like.
(#130453)If you honestly believe that the quarter of the populace that still support Bush are by definition sick and evil, your remaining opinions are insignificant to me.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
jesus, dude
(#130474)Thanks for that.
I tried not responding in kind, but if that's how you want it, then I guess if anyone is willing to support an administration that's been running a systematic torture program, then their remaining opinions are insignificant to me.
IIRC, Hannah Arendt has written on the banality of evil
(#130458)People who without a 2nd thought or complaint support policies that are indeed evil, such support given more from moral laziness than any active sickness or inherent evil.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
You know absolutely nothing about the 25% of the country
(#130462)that apparently thinks Bush has been more positive than negative for the country. And you will never know, either, if you view those people as disposably ignorable as PM et al do. Which is more your loss than theirs.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
That's not what I said.
(#130584)What I said was that Bush was so manifestly awful that it is absurd that he has an even 25% approval rating -- and that part and parcel of this awfulness is the institution of systematic torture.
You said that I was characterizing people who disagree with me as evil. I responded that policies of systematic torture are stupid and evil, and yes -- people who disagree with me on this subject partake in that.
This is a big deal. We are going to live in this country with these folks, and we need to figure out what is so wrong with our political culture that either:
1) Anyone still doesn't believe that we established an international network of torture chambers, or
2) A nontrivial number of people believe that we should be systematically torturing detainees.
Because it creeps me out that a quarter or so of my neighbors (fewer in sane places like metropolitan Honolulu) apparently think that it's cool if the President points a finger at me and I disappear into a torture pit. Or if not me, then the guy next to me, because he isn't a citizen and/or has a good tan. And if they don't think it's cool, they're voting for a guy who thinks it's super-awesome.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
Some clarity before this thread gets reignited,
(#130598)tomsyl hasn't said a word about defending torture or people who are willing to defend torture. His point is that dehumanizing all Bush voters on this one basis is extremely intolerant.
Draw a Venn diagram. Surely there's a pretty good overlap between the Bush Voters circle and the Just Ducky With Torture circle -- your problem is with the JDWT people, not the Bush voters in general. To be fair, the JDWTs probably have some overlap in the Democrat party as well (I'd guess it's smaller, but the point is not to make the assumption).
Other circles with a good deal of overlay would be The Uninformed, The Unconvinced, and the Somehow Convinced Dems Are Worse (yes, they're out there).
Long story short: if you find someone that's Just Ducky with Bush admin torture policy, give em hell (within the posting rules if it happens here). But don't assume all Bush voters include that group.
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
If that's tomsyl's point,
(#130680)then why is it in response to anything I said? I didn't attempt to dehumanize anyone, even vaguely.
More to the point, if tomsyl wants to decide what I'm saying instead of letting me say it, he should man up, grab my password as a mod, and post under my name. Do it right.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
I think most of this is about tomsyl refusing your call to
(#130703)denounce Bush supporters because you think they're objectively pro-torture. Some are, and as he says, he has denounced those people. Others are appalled by the torture revelations, but continue to support Bush for other reasons they may believe are more important.
SNK's note about right-to-lifers is very much at point here. A pretty good chunk of people in this country think voting Democrat is objectively pro-babymurder. Those people may or may not be ok with torturing random Pashtun shepherds, but the point is you don't know, and so you should be careful who you're lumping with whom. For one thing, you risk alienating potential supporters of your position -- a very Bush-like thing to do.
P.S. tomsyl, cd. you check your email, please?
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
What is with this thread?
(#130755)I didn't call upon tomsyl to denounce anyone. I simply stated that if he voted for Bush, he voted for a guy who instituted systematic torture -- and if he apologizes for those who voted (and would still vote) for Bush, he apologies for those who vote(d) for a guy who institutionalized torture.
I wish to hell I didn't live in a country which operated an international torture gulag archipelago. But if I have to live in one, I refuse to pretend that I don't, or that the guy who put that gulag into place didn't, or that millions of folks don't seem to, bafflingly, approve of that action.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
Well you're being more specific now,
(#130763)before it sounded more like a blanket condemnation, but I think now you can see reasons at least why someone might support Bush and be "objectively anti-torture."
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
Here is what you said verbatim:
(#130687)Right now the Republican Party is the Party of mindless aggression, fantastic levels of corruption, systematic torture, failed warmaking, indifference to the loss of an entire city, and failed economic policies. * * * Now, Bush is still at 25%, which tells you something about the sickness that pervades our political culture. So I see the Repubs limping along for a long time, reliant on the votes of the dead-enders and people who hate paying taxes so much they'll vote for absolutely anyone who promises to lower them, consequences be damned.
I'll leave it to any reader still interested in this to decide whether my capsule version of what you said is fair, as well as your OTT comments about me taking over your account and posting as you. Of what conceivable significance is my status here? And if it has none, why bring it up?
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Thanks Jordan.
(#130676)Note the assumption made by the loudest shouters that I am part of that 25% - I'm not.
At the risk of going OT, here's a short story. There are many competing groups in Hawaii who claim the right to take back land and power from the US in the name of sovereignty. A couple of months ago one of those groups took over Iolani Palace, closed the gates and put up handwritten "No trespassing - Kingdom of Hawaii" signs.
I have little sympathy for these groups, even though I personally would benefit under some of their schemes. But I thought it would be interesting to see what they hoped to accomplish by taking over a popular tourist site. So I went over there (it's across the street from my office) and started chatting with the guys manning the gates. Not only was it enjoyable, it turns out that under the laws they want to impose, my son and I would qualify for "Kingdom of Hawaii" passports. (Unfortunately the cops rousted them before I could get an application. Dang.)
Part of this obviously was a lesson to my son that the opposing side's views always are worth listening to, particularly since no monetary cost is involved. But mainly it was an interesting way of spending part of an afternoon BSing with some guys not that different from me, instead of working. In my book that is a net positive.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
That's great,
(#130682)but what does that have to do with calling (or declining to call) systematic torture evil, and those who implemented it doers of evil?
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
You are several months behind on this
(#130690)w/r/t my position that torture by our government is unacceptable. That subject was discussed ad nauseum in several threads, and you were an active participant iirc. So raising it again here as some sort of litmus test and insisting on some oath of loyalty-type statement from me before you will discuss my point is - well, what it is.
There is nothing "great" about the story I related to Jordan, even to Tony the Tiger. The only point is that it's interesting to talk to people whose position you oppose. And there's no down side; if you are sure of your case, they won't change your mind, and if you're not, maybe your mind should be changed.
That's all my comment was - no big news, brilliant views, wise epigrams, just a story.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
It's all fun and games,
(#130756)until the electrodes get attached to the genitals.
You keep conflating my attitude toward actual doers of evil with my attitude toward those who disagree with me. Remember, I'm the guy BD excoriated for finding Pat Buchanan consistently worth listening to.
Paint someone else with that brush. It's too big for me.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
I thought that's what you've been saying so far.
(#130767)Else why would you keep hammering on the torture point in responses to me?
My question repeatedly has been how you will know what is going on in this country without ever talking to anyone from that 25% that disagrees with you. If you've tried talking to those people to find out why they support Bush, then that either wasn't clear or I misunderstood.
We can go to the Koko Head rifle range anytime you want to find Bush supporters . . . %^>
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
One of my uncles. Vietnam vet. Concealed handgun
(#130787)permit holder. Texan. Big. Loud. Angry. Patriotic.
Hardcore Democrat.
But another uncle. Ex-marine. Rush Limbaugh fanatic. Bush supporter to the end. Let God sort em out.
Yet another uncle; chemical engineer, Catholic right to lifer, big reader, soft-spoken. Mildly dislikes Bush at this point, but won't vote Democrat for nothing but nothing.
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
I'm related to plenty,
(#130779)and I've been meaning to get out there sometime for their intro classes. Something to get to when the health calms down again.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
Bingo
(#130664)Another point is that a great many pro-lifers believe that abortion is literally murder. If you had to choose between torturing a few hundred suspected terrorists or murdering tens of thousands of infants, the moral calculus would get a lot more difficult, I suspect.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
No, they don't.
(#130757)They pretend to, but when asked about penalties, nearly all of them refuse to give abortion penalties similar to infanticide.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
What about enabling Bush supporters to better dodge
(#130601)the topic of torture?
Is that worthy of criticism?
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Supporting torture policy is un-American. Full stop
(#130467)But there is good and bad interspersed in everyone and therefore even those people who support Club Gitmo are not without redeeming qualities and opportunity for redemption always exists.
Every saint has a past, every sinner a future.
Nevertheless, what America has done and is doing at Gitmo (and elsewhere) is EVIL.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Is it cool to be a saint? Does the halo weigh a lot and heat up?
(#130471)Can you fly, or just levitate? I'm curious to know how the other half lives.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
There is good and bad mixed together in everyone
(#130479)Ain't no one living who is a saint.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Not Sick and Evil
(#130456)Just dim.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
You are late to the party and off-point.
(#130461)Go back and read PM's original post and you'll see that sickness and evil are the accusations here. Saying that people who still approve of Bush are "dim" is a much more doctrinaire form of arrogance and elitism than what is being discussed here.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Heh
(#130465)Nope. They're just dim. That's not arrogant. And given that I'm part of a very large majority on the subject, hardly elitist.
If it makes you feel left out, well, I'm sorry. But you make your choices, you live with the results.
Good luck with that.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
Actually, being left out of your group is the best news
(#130469)I've had all day. I'm going offline before I read something which could spoil that buzz. Meanwhile I suggest you try yodeling and counting the echos.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
King of the Hooples!
(#130473)Hey, everybody has their dream. And I'm guessing this one comes your way without a great deal of effort.
Congratulations.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
That's gonna be a week off, Harley.
(#130520)People don't have to be Deadwood fans to get the insult here.
Hopefully you & Hank will come back for the home stretch to the election relaxed, serene, and ready to leave the name-calling & fighting words at the door.
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
you just suspended Harley + HankP?
(#130539)Jordan, them's some big cojones yer bringin to the site on a Friday a.m.!!
A blow straight to the heart of the site's left-leaning commentariat.
Is this the dawn of a new age of civility? Or are we sliding down the slippery slope to banning every regular poster?
Only Jordan's cojones know the answer.
Someone's been burning up the phone lines again
(#130555)and said cojones are now at the mercy of the grasp of some malevolent individual, that's all I can figure.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Calls em likes I sees em.
(#130544)Seems like torture is the new abortion when it comes to topics people can't discuss without flying off the handle. I don't think it's a slippery slope, more of an effort to get people to shape up so we don't have to suspend anyone during election week (which we *will* do regardless, but it would be nice not to have to).
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
Just a mild razzin, Jordan
(#130554)And now some encouragement to keep suspendin folks. I think it's exciting.
and Hank if you're not too peeved I wonder if you could make a penalty box w. your name and/or pic. along w. the others on that hall of fame site statistics link.
The penalty box is fast becoming a major feature of the site and should be treated as such...
On the plus side,
(#130540)he's into the "H" section, so you're probably safe this round.
...but I wouldn't stand too close to hobbesist...
Heh- nt
(#130595)"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
I wouldn't be burying anything yet
(#130265)this election seems like it's pretty settled, but I think you're overdoing the failure of the Republicans. The big weakness of both parties is that they still rely on the personalities at the top of the ticket rather than core beliefs to go beyond the base. Big personalities like that are rare in politics, and it's not a good way of expanding the popularity of a party anyway.
The one thing that seems clear from this election is that right now the general public seems more interested in what a candidate and party is for rather than in the recent past where it was more important to register what you were against. I'm sure the economic problems had a hand in that, but in general it seems that when the partisans on each side attack partisans on the other side, the independents and undecideds just tune it out.
It's the Dems turn now to see if they can put together philosophy and execution to move the middle to their side. Will they take a Clintonesque trim the margins approach or a real clear the decks approach? It's not easy to tell right now but I'd guess the former, which does not really change the status quo. Until they do that they'll be vulnerable to a reversal in four or eight years. The problem for both parties is that it's painful and difficult to really try to change the status quo, and there's a real danger that you'll fail. Bush tried to implement a very Republican program without laying the groundwork, and we see what happened to him (in addition to his basic incompetance). Until one of the parties does that I think we'll continue to see a 50-50 nation.
I blame it all on the Internet
In favoring the candidacy of Barak Obama
(#130282)I believe we are witnessing genuine public demand for the practical and the pragmatic to dictate the operation of government and a need to discard the old politics of competing ideologies. It remains to be seen how successful Obama and the Democrats can be in meeting this need, but I believe the pent up demand for change is real and conservatives/republicans can either get on board and put in their 2c or be left behind, their choice.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
That's the question, isn't it?
(#130439)Is Obama the first post-ideological candidate? He certainly seems to be doing his best to downplay ideological differences rather than inflame them, and I saw much more of an effort to reach out to republicans in a lot of the words and expressions he chooses. Then again, that's how Bush ran and we all know how that turned out.
I blame it all on the Internet
Yep
(#130447)Only I knew instinctively from the git go that Bush didn't really mean any of it, I never gave him the benefit of the doubt and he proved me right. I have no such reservations or doubts about Obama, but only time will tell if he can deliver on the promise he embodies.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Republicans cannot control their elected officials
(#130260)Their officials push the envelope, constrained only by what they can get away with. They have an existential view of malfeasance: it’s not a crime unless you get caught, and even if you do get caught, the Weekly Standard will run ads “Save Scooter Libby’s Good Name!” It is a miracle that 25% percent of the country still believes Bush has been doing a good job, but there you are. It’s not mystery why McCain never sailed into George W Bush. Elections, for Republicans, have always been seen as personal mandate: respecters of men and not respecters of law.
In canine societies, there must always be an alpha dog and an omega dog. The Inuit call him the Dog of Least Respect and he does more than his share of the work. That Dog of Least Respect was John McCain, and Republican society, like canine society, will not tolerate dissent from within the ranks.
After the 2000 beating in South Carolina, McCain was there on the stand with Governor Bush. The reporters were asking how McCain felt about things. McCain’s response was to uncomfortably and slowly utter his endorsement, over and over into the microphone. “I endorse George W. Bush. I endorse George W. Bush. I endorse George W. Bush. “
GWB stood there smirking. “And I accept your endorsement.”
Politicians have always been forced to sing each others’ praises in defeat. There’s much to be gained from unity, and many are the smaller rewards afforded a political party after victory. So bitter was the primary fight which brought Abraham Lincoln to the head of the Republican Party he felt obliged to staff his cabinet from among his opponents. It was a bold move, but in Lincoln we see something which would always be true of the Republicans: they stay the course. The Democrats, by contrast, have never been similarly united, save only in opposition. Opposition from within is anathema to the Grand Old Party.
GWB is a small man by every definition of that word. National security became the province of Dick Cheney and Condi Rice, and they followed the Republican / Reagan / PNAC strategy to the letter. Let us have no talk about Republicans being superior on matters of national security, it is not true. Republicans talk big trash and know nothing of Big Sticks.
Bill Clinton, to his lasting credit, followed either consciously or not the axioms of Sun Tzu, created policy and delegated strategy to his commanders. The last Republican to wage a real war was Richard Nixon, who ended Vietnam by expanding it, invading Cambodia. Do not tell me of Reagan’s wars, he was a nancy boy whose ignominious withdrawal from Lebanon allowed our Muslim enemies to entertain thoughts of American weakness. Let us say nothing of his treacherous dealings with Iran and the illegal wars of Central America.
It was not George W Bush who frittered away his time in office. His staff frittered it away for him: that is the price of surrounding one’s self with Yes Men: they liked GWB going on vacation, especially Cheney. The deregulation of every sensible piece of regulation was not Bush’s doing: that was done by Congress, especially by Phil Gramm, a man McCain held onto to the bitter end. McCain could not bring himself to be the McCain of old. His GOP identity trumped his Conservative self.
Take heart: many are the Progressive Liberals who will be most unpleasantly astonished by Obama’s policies. Putin is not the only judo master on the world stage: Obama is as fine a legislative pugilist as we’ve seen in modern times, and he will not be the Wussy Liberal. Nor will he let down our military: I contend, based on the reputations of his military advisors, we will see a proper war on terror.
Petraeus is a kiss-ass. Yes he is. He needs to be gently shooed off the stage, probably to the Joint Chiefs, where he can do what he does best, play politics with the SecDef. Under his command, Afghanistan has gone from bad to worse and we have not come to terms with the Iraqi government on a Status of Forces Agreement.
There are three routes to wisdom: by reflection, the noblest, by emulation, less so, then by experience, the bitterest. There really is no salvation of the Republican Party.
The Conservatives hate ACORN, and why? They perceive it to be a movement to undercut legitimate voter registration. Allow me to moot this proposition: resolved: all the Republicans say of ACORN is true. I shall moot this proposition: the entire Republican Party is an undemocratic and criminal agency, intent on the abolition of our civil liberties, a facilitator of the circumvention of the Presidential Records Act, a defender of war criminals, whose intent and purpose is the creation of an American Caesar to whom we shall all be forced to do homage.
The GOP has outlived its useful life. It is time for a new Conservative Party to be created in its place, where honest men may caucus. Let the old GOP pass away and become a Tory Party.
Your musings about political crimes leads into a nice contrast
(#130301)between toe-tapping Larry Craig*, who was forced by Republican leadership to resign a week after getting caught, or Tim Foley, ditto after being busted for sending explicit emails, versus Dems like William Jefferson, who still holds office two years after $90K was found in his freezer, or Tim Mahoney, who got nailed for having two mistresses and is now "considering" not running for another term.
Apparently with Dems, it's not a crime even if you do get caught.
______________
Best Craig joke from Leno: "It's kind of ironic. The whole time he was copping a feel, he was actually feeling a cop."
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Absolutely right. But "Freezer" Jefferson's a different story.
(#130308)per Wiki, fwiw
Now, here you and I must agree. The Congressional Black Caucus has resolutely stuck by this nasty little crook. Pelosi hasn't. I should know more about Mahoney, but I'll stipulate to what you have to say on the matter. Freezer Jefferson is a disgrace to the Democratic Party and should be in jail this instant.
PS: I wish the Congressional Republicans were as exercised about abuses of power in the Executive.
I agree to a degree with your last point, particularly w/r/t
(#130319)a party whose tenets supposedly include strict construction of the Constitution and less, not more, involvement of the government in the lives of private citizenry. It will be interesting to see what steps, if any, Obama would take if he wins to dismantle the surveillance apparatus that is now in place. I'm betting that he will at best take baby steps, and least during his first year in office. He would not be the first president to naively believe he can simply reign in and control the country's intelligence agencies.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
I'm telling you, Tomsyl, we need a Conservative Party.
(#130326)Just plain old "Conservative Party". Not this untidy amalgam of Neoliberals and Libertarians and Neocons -- and here and there, a genuine Conservative.
If I were a political consultant, and nobody can be a better political consultant than someone who comes from the opposition. I'd urge the Republicans to split, and center the Conservative Party on someone like Lindsey Graham. The more I see of this guy, the more I respect him. He'd be able to pull in a good many of the Blue Dog Democrats. Let the Republicans take over the unwashed Ted Nugent / Sarah Palin rabble. The Democrats need some real opposition, I'm telling y'all, if the Dems get a grip on this country without some genuine Conservative opposition worthy of the name, there will be hell to pay.
You're being too kind to Graham.
(#130372)His role in the Clinton impeachment thing was loathsome, though I'm sure we could find some worse actors if we were to carefully review the facts. I kinda like it that he's a bit weird on a personal level, sort of like Jerry Brown, but without the occasional fling with a real woman. Graham (although not Brown) has a gay aura about him, which is why he'll never rise any further in the GOP. In fact, I've heard he's in a tight race with a paleo-con Democrat (recently resigned from the GOP over the immigration issue), and his lack of a proper strumpet to parade around with may yet cost him his political career in South Carolina.
Me: We! -- Ali
Blaise, you're right, but unfortunately I'm out of gas.
(#130345)Against my better judgment, I poured my heart, soul and money into a campaign by former Dem. Representative Ed Case to take away the Senate seat of the dodderingly senile Dan Akaka, one of the dumbest people in the Senate. Ed, a lawschool friend, had everything: sincerity, intelligence, looks, money and a genuinely independent spirit that actually led him to look at issues objectively before making up his mind and, mirabile dictu, to coherently explain the choices he made and the uncertainty of results. When he first took away an influential incumbent's seat in the State legislature, he did it by visiting every single house in his very large district.
There was only one debate, and it was widely watched. Ed beat Akaka like a red-haired stepchild, to the point where I almost felt sorry for the guy in a way you would pity an old uncle at the rest home. He used no notes; Akaka had two three-ring binders filled with post-its, and at one point literally turned to the wrong page and began reading a position statement completely unrelated to the subject being discussed. I even remember the details; the moderator's question related to the effect of the Jones Act on grocery prices in Hawaii, and Akaka began speaking about the work he has done with the Veterans Administration. It was pitiful.
To shorten a long story, Ed lost by a considerable margin; the local Dem Party strongly opposed him because he did not robotically follow their orders the way Akaka does. So that was it for me. I see some good conservatives out there like Hagel and "Dr. No" Coburn, but they are from far away states. Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer has developed what is by far the most comprehensive energy plan, far superior to anything McCain or Obama could even conceive of, and I'm getting up to speed on that and seeing how a non-resident can get involved. I'm content to let Washington go to the circle of Hell reserved for it by Dante. Eff em all.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
I admired Ed Case's politics.
(#130415)He managed to pull in the Progressive wing of the Party during his first House run, then stab them so hard once he was in office that they were burping razor blades. That was impressive. I have a lot of friends who he made very embarrassed.
Then he declined to run for Governor against Lingle, mainly because he felt the office was beneath him. In a year when the Party really wanted someone decent to put the flag behind, he said, "no thanks." He could have won that one. He could be governor now. But he had another plan.
He ran against Akaka, the only Native Hawaiian in Federal Office, a man with a 60-65% approval rating -- and his campaign boiled down to, "I'm just better than this old man, dammit. I don't care if he's done a lot for the state and I haven't. To hell with the governorship, I want a sinecure on the national level!"
Balls are good. Megalomania is a bit self-defeating.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
HG Wells' History of the World, (my first real history book)
(#130355)has a great line about the Popes of the late Renaissance, "tottering up to the Lateran to die"
These elderly fools like Akaka have the support of far too many similarly-minded dinosaurs. As with airline pilots, I'd set a mandatory retirement age on politicians.
It'll be interesting to see how things shake out
(#130245)There's inevitably going to be some circular-firing squad action in the wake of a McCain loss, but if they're going to lose - and it sure looks like they will - I wonder if the GOP shouldn't hope for a big loss*. A marginal one will allow those folks (Hello, The Corner!) who think that McCain just needs to double-, or quadruple-, or octuple-down on the tried-and-true GOP formula from '80 on to stay in the conversation. And that way, exile lies. The conservative movement has plenty of smart, young-ish men and women, devoted to recognizably conservative goals, but who would pursue them in a way that's not quite plumb with the line that the GOP's taken over the last 8 years. Given the emphasis on orthodoxy that's come from the Bush machine, they've been woefully underused, I think.
Ross Douthat made the prediction that the GOP will either become the populist party, or it will cease to be a party at all. A bit hyperbolic - and phrased in a way to all but guarantee that he ends up with egg on his face - but there's a grain of truth there. It does seem to me that a party for which populism is the red thread stitching together the otherwise disparate parts could radically change the American political landscape - provided that it has able representatives, that it eschews the worst excesses of populism, and that an Obama-helmed Democratic party gives it an opening.
[And not to sit around giving each other handjobs (in the words of the late great DFW), but this is a laudably honest, straightforward and pragmatic piece of writing. Thanks for putting it up here.]
* On the other hand, to the extent that a big McCain loss means downticket losses, and downticket losses mean significant Democratic majorities in Congress, that's a risky thing to wish for: you're basically taking the chance that Obama + the Congress screws things up significantly between 01/09 & 11/10. Probably a safe bet, mind, but heaven help you if you're wrong.
A man must be orthodox upon most things, or he will never even have time to preach his own heresy.
The Key Will Be The Senate
(#130255)If Obama wins, he'll be able to pass any budget he wants--including tax increases and other liberal priorities--with any majorities, because of the rules. Passing universal health care or other liberal boondoggles will require a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
As for screwing up, a strong Democratic majority might start trying to push back on gun control--this will not go well for them if it happens.
. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).
I can't even remember Obama talking about gun control
(#130268)and it certainly isn't a main theme in his campaign. I'm afraid that issue isn't really an issue anymore except among the survivalist crowd. Everyone else is too concerned about their jobs, pension plans and medical coverage.
I blame it all on the Internet
Only a broad theme that we should be able to keep hunters and
(#130273)rural americans rights and have a balance that cities are not war zones... Pragmatic IMHO one that is left to the states and local governments.... In fact we should cut federal crimes... Most of them should be prosecuted by state governments. The late chief justice talked about having to many federal cases...
The big three things are in no order Healthcare.. Most bankruptcies are directly related to this. Energy and Environmental policy and Infrastructure... We are like 16th in Broadband in the world our water systems bridges and Roads are second rate. The big question is keeping graft out of the system. (or at a low mean)... Not sure that it is possible for either party to keep it all out.... We have to raise revenue at some point.. 10 trillion and yearly deficits... At some point we have to peg revenue and spending and it has to be somewhat Bi-partisan. In fact revenue has to exceed spending and healthcare or wellness care will not have a payoff for a generation.... In fact I would love to see a real conversation on what kind of healthcare we should count on... 40% is one number I have heard that is spent on the last six months of life....
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and yo
Gun control?
(#130266)That minefield has been well and truly marked, so I wouldn't get your hopes up.
As for liberal boondoggles generally and health care in particular. The test will be not the ideological battle, but whether such schemes prove to be of any practical benefit to the majority and can they be paid for within budgetary means.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
That is a hope, not a prediction.
(#130295)Universal health care at this point is purely an ideological battle. On one side there are conservatives (like me) who say that health care is not a constitutional right but who are in favor of a system that gets more people into HMOs (and helps them keep coverage when they switch, or even lose jobs) coupled with a concerted reform effort to increase the amount of time physicians spend actually treating patients by dramatically decreasing paperwork. IOW, work within the existing system instead of junking it. Add the deep and justified doubt that the federal government is capable of doing anything efficiently or effectively once it is in effect nationalized, and that/our group will remain opposed to nationalization.
On the other side are liberals who have endless faith in the federal government's ability to do things that private industries are now doing, coupled with the apparent belief that it is unfair for me or my employees to have a good health care program as long as a single citizen (and probably even non-citizens) can't get the same care for free. The reductio ad absurdum of that view is a system like Canada's, where it actually is a crime to have private health insurance. The liberal answer, as always, will be to just throw more money at the problem, which is particularly easy when it's not your money and there is zero accountability w/r/t actual, objective results.
As Bob Schieffer pointed out last night, the state of the government-run (in this case, 90% liberal-run) public school system in this country shows the government is clueless when it comes to running huge, hugely expensive programs with any success. Screwed up as the private health care system is, the burden of proof is on the federal government to prove that it could do significantly better. And that is an insurmountable burden because the govt has no examples of success to point to. (Well, except maybe for the TVA.)
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Obama's proposal is not Universal Health Care
(#130402)or single payer in the same sense that Hillarycare was intended to be, and the ideological battle is over.
The vast majority understand the current system does not work very well and want it changed and they aren't as concerned about underlying ideological issues anymore. We pay far more for the health care we receive than in any other G7 nation because the system is inefficient, though leakage through private profits are far larger. So the next logical decision for government is to make health care a national priority like national defense and then decide how best to implement it. I expect there will eventually be a compromise solution involving Public/private partnership which keeps private insurance as the delivery mechanism but has the government as top dog riding herd on the industry to widen the pool and reduce costs, kinda like Obama has proposed. We don't leave national defense to the whim of the free markets or the demands of the profit motive, but the government does contract with private industry to procure all the expensive toys needed to get the job done.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Sparti, I dislike the present system as much as you
(#130409)probably do. Here in Hawaii it is anticompetitive in fact if not by design - the "independent" board that vets Mainland companies who want to compete here has five members, two are from the biggest (and supposedly nonprofit) HMO, HMSA, and one from Kaiser. So for some strange reason no one aoutside the state can meet the standards sufficiently to be allowed to come in here to compete with HMSA and Kaiser. That sort of nonsense ought to be prohibited at the federal level, regardless of whether the HMO is a nonprofit.
We've also spoken before about coding, which is a huge headache and money pit for medical service providers and is the result of the federal government's strictures on M/M reimbursements. That is something that could be hugely simplified, leading to an equally large reduction in overhead for doctors.
We now pay over $1100/mo for each employee (that's for a family of three) who picks HMSA over Kaiser (latter is ~650/mo), and that figure goes up by 12-16% per year, every year, like clockwork. A 25% reduction in cost would have a six-figure effect on our bottom line, so I am all for streamlining paperwork, cost savings, elimination of gouging and so forth as long as it doesn't reduce choice or quality of care.
And I don't object to the federal govt. spending large amounts of money on indigent health care, either; this is too advanced of a country for people to go without it, even if they can't pay. But I am extremely skeptical about the likelihood that government will help rather than make the existing system even worse while constricting choice.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
It's good to be skeptical
(#130424)But it's also necessary to separate the ideological from the practical and the pragmatic. Think of it as government intervening to set the conditions under which private industry can rise to the challenge to fulfill requirements while still making a healthy profit. The free market and self regulation aren't going to do it on their own we both know that, so what's the alternative?
Obama's plans to widen the insurance pool, to improve preventive care on the front end to reduce costs on the back end and to reduce costs generally, all sound like a good start to me. The devil is always in the details of course, but I have trouble understanding why anyone who understands the health care problem would oppose his proposals on purely ideological grounds.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Gun Control
(#130258)won't be high on the priority list for this group of majority Democrats -- too many pro gun rights Blue Dogs and Inter-mountain Westerners in the caucus and too many other more pressing needs, such as a health care re-do.
The federal legislature will not take any action on gun control
(#130261)I suspect this would be true whether the Democrats had 0, 50, 60, or 100 seats in the Senate. Gun control is too politically radioactive and will be left to the states and the courts from now on.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
Bushed?
(#130241)I'd put his influence back at #3, along with the general disillusionment with all things GOP.
No, McCain lost this race primarily for reasons attributable to his own actions: #1 the constant negativity focused on supposed deficencies in Obama's character, in the face of real and mounting voter concerns about the economy and the direction in which the country appears to be headed, and #2 the selection of Palin for VP, which totally undermined McCain's credibility once the electorate got a good look at her.
You gotta be kidding me.
Perhaps if you replaced 'more' with less, kept the conclusion and added a call for some much needed introspection, then you might be onto something.
Or you could aim to challenge the narratives and storylines put out by organizations like Media Matters and ThinkProgress, with factual counterargument devoid of partisanship. With the aim of establishing the gold standard in 'go to sites' for those seeking unbiased information, your call and good luck.
Otherwise, good post and I appreciate the apologetic tone.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
I'm with Spartacvs, BD.
(#130243)Republicans need to figure out how to win elections by being *less* partisan, not more. You don't need your own shadow media pushing conservative talking points, you need to become a powerful, trustworthy voice in the MSM, where people go for solid, probative facts, not spin. You need to occupy the center right, not the far right (who are in your pocket anyway). Screw the electoral math -- 50+1 partisanship is what destroyed the Bush Admin, every step of the way.
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
Partisanship isn't one-way
(#130248)Not when hyper-partisans like Reid-Pelosi are running Congress. It's not the partisanship I'm concerned about, it's the ideas and messages and messengers.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
My Guess is Clinton-Pelosi
(#130296)Clinton's strong support and massive base during this campaign makes me think that she'll be the de facto voice of the Senate Democrats -- or at least Obama will end up treating her that way and working largely through her to get things done.
Steven Palmer Peterson
Carry on
(#130286)the cliff is over there, follow the sound of crashing waves.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Please explain
(#130303)The partisanship is just as intense from your side. Why should the GOP unilaterally disarm?
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Why should they indeed
(#130389)when ideological martyrdom is so much more appealing?
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
So let me get this straight
(#130390)Democrats can be as partisan as the day is long with no repercussions, but if Republican exercise partisanship then we become ideological martyrs? That sounds highly partisan to me, and hypocritical.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
I remember 2 phrases from 2005
(#130450)"A generation of republican control"
"The majority of the majority"
The 2nd made the 1st impossible, and it was over a year later. There was a time, around 72 or so, where the democrats had to scrap things and start over because their movement had just become too toxic. That's where the Republicans are now. It's not a matter of partisanship, it's a matter of what you represent. The republicans represent 20% of the country that everyone else thinks is whacko.
Think of your opinion of "radical liberal", like Greenpeace, PETA, etc and that's how republicans look to the rest of the country right now.
Wrong on the facts
(#130493)This has been a 50%-plus-1 nation since 2000. This time around, it'll likely be a 54-46 nation, which is enough for the GOP to re-think what it's been doing.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
What the GOP needs to re-think
(#130828)Is the entire IDEA of 50+1. They're getting killed because they've played "us vs them" for so long, demonizing the "them", that now 54% of the country by your reckoning has been demonized as terrorist-sympathizers, commies, pinkos, or whatever by the GOP.
This was never a 50% + 1 nation. This is America, and frankly I find the concept insulting. You could maybe make the case that it's a 40 and 40 country, but that's it and you probably shouldn't even make that one.
The votes say otherwise
(#130843)Those are simply the facts. It's a two-party system. One party wins and the other loses. The reality is that a third are to the right, a third to the left, so what's left is a fight for the third in the middle, and the middle has been close to evenly split, although this time around I'm guessing the split is going to fall more towards your side.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
There are repercussions
(#130406)which will become more and more obvious soon.
Democrats should take the opportunity to learn and avoid repeating and with Obama at the helm, I have every confidence they will do a much better job than have Republicans from Gingrich on forward.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
BD, please don't equate Nancy Pelosi calling Bush mean names
(#130405)with the iron-fisted Republican congress and executive throughout this decade.
Accusatory speeches are in no way comparable with extending voting periods past 2:30am while you threaten party members to toe the line or else.
This false line of equivalence is insulting. Please stop.
She's every bit as partisan as...
(#130410)...the GOP leadership was, only she's more incompetent at it.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Get back to me
(#130423)when she starts bringing impeachment or even ethics charges against people for extramarital affairs. Or starts enforcing subpoenas. Or shuts down the government to get her way on spending bills. Or ...
I blame it all on the Internet
Pointing fingers is not hyperpartisanship
(#130421)You offer nothing to back up your accusations. Stop lying.
Posting rules, Username
(#130492)For saying I'm lying when I'm actually opining. There's no formal measure for weighing a person's partisanship. It's an opinion based on what a person has said and done over time. My judgment is that Pelosi is hyper-partisan, clouded somewhat by her incompetence and poor leadership.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
I don't think he is lying
(#130490)One reason I keep reading BD's stuff is because I get the sense he believe what he writes. He may be exaggerating a bit but that is a far cry flat out lying.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
Heh.
(#130416)I so wish that were true, BD. Because I hate the Republican Party and the pseudofascist incompetence it stands for, and I wish to hell Speaker Pelosi had shown a tenth the partisanship Speaker Hastert and Majority Whip DeLay did.
Partisanship is not taking impeachment off the table. It's not demanding bipartisan passage of an economic stimulus bill or letting it die without it. It's not letting the Republicans romp on FISA legislation.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
Please gin up some evidence as to this hyper-partisanship
(#130271)They haven't been all that terrible, in the larger scheme of things. They've not-so-quietly tamped down all talk of impeaching Bush and Cheney, though there's enough evidence to make the case for imprisoning half the Administration.
Maybe you see something I don't here. The dKos crowd, the true hyper-partisans, have been terribly disappointed more partisan actions haven't been taken.
Reid worse than Pelosi
(#130284)I didn't say they were courageous hyper-partisans.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
The courageous bit, no, the hyperpartisan bit, yes.
(#130287)Please proffer some evidence of this hyper-partisanship.
This I see: the Administration will not respond to subpoenas. I'd love to see the Congressional Sergeant at Arms in an open standoff with the Secret Service.
Pelosi on the floor when the bailout bill died
(#130302)For Reid, just about any ol' day. The most fitting example was when he was talking about the Senate seats the Dems would gain depending on how bad things were going in Iraq. Far as I'm concerned, I don't need to produce support. I've seen enough with my own two eyes.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
if merely accusing the other side is hyper-partisanship,
(#130322)then what in the world do you call actually locking out anyone not in lockstep and ramming your agenda through, as Hastert, DeLay, and Frist did for so long?
Delay was the worst
(#130334)Hastert and Frist not so much.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Hastert and DeLay and Frist destroyed the Republican Party.
(#130329)Pelosi and Reid are little better. The situation has gotten so partisan and so bitter, absolutely nothing of substance can be done. The legislative record of the last two years under the Dems has been disgraceful. They should have pushed back against the Executive harder and didn't.
Maybe someone can explain why they didn't push back harder, but here's my read: the Dems just wallowed around, letting Bush do pretty much whatever he wanted so they could run against his record this year.
And it seems to be working, this pusillanimous strategy.
In Egbe, my parents both had full time jobs. We employed servants to tend to the house. We paid them well, but they'd steal from us. So one would be caught and fired, I remember one girl name Fehintola. The others would confide in my father: "Remember that kerosene which went missing? Remember that sugar which nobody could find? Well, Fehitola did it."
My father would grimly observe: "You knew about these things and did nothing. Nor did you tell me. Why should I not fire you also?" That generally shut them up.
The same is true of the Democrats: they're all ready to blame Bush and the Republicans for this and that. They knew of these things, the Intelligence Committees were briefed about the torture and wiretaps and Gitmo and God alone knows what else we don't know. They did nothing. They were accessories after the fact. They do not deserve our praise, but instead our suspicion.
I would note that the video clip produced
(#130333)to promote "Crashing the Gate" by Markos Moulitsas ended with his giving a big kick to the rear end of a donkey.
Not an elephant.
Assuming Obama wins, we now need better Democrats in Congress.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
What incentives do the Dems have to improve and evolve?
(#130335)As the dinosaurs came to primacy in the Jurassic, they simply grew larger and larger. The poor oppressed mammals stayed small and inconspicuous.
The Dems will have learned nothing from this election. If anything, I fear bad habits will be reinforced. In an orgy of self-congratulatory back-slapping, they will forget the Progressives who elected them, did the legwork out there. It will be akin to the Republican Party's condescending treatment of the Social Conservatives after each election.
Kos would do well to keep a weather eye out for just such treatment from the Democrats. The trendy Netroots are becoming a power unto themselves, raucous and profane and detail oriented. The Democratic Party has promised much and delivered little: I do not expect them to get much done, especially not when it comes to rooting out the Freezer Jeffersons. That slimy little turd is on the ballot this year, and I fully expect him to be re-elected.
Obama has created a new army of
(#130337)strategic corporals all across America (especially in battleground states) with his Camp Obama program and the graduates of this training were recruited (in part) with the understanding that the skills they would learn would remain in their personal tool kit for future endeavors, be it state office, county elections or park district referendums.
The full impact of Obama's ground game GOTV effort has yet to be seen however early reports are that this organization blows the doors off any prior political organization AND is not indebted to or part of the pre-existing Democratic Party infrastructure.
A New Model Army of political operatives, as it were.
= = =
I've read elsewhere that Obama's campaign has explicitly copied techniques used by Rick Warren at Saddleback Church.
It isn't a campaign but rather a social movement and I predict that in 2010 the resources of Obama dot com shall be deployed against those Congress-critters (Dem or GOP) who are seen as obstructing progress.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Obama is a progressive?
(#130349)Man, there is going to be a lot of disappointment in the netroots if they really believe that.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
Obama is mildly progressive.
(#130417)The operatives he's trained are very progressive.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
A pragmatic progressive... Unlike Bill in his third way...
(#130500)Still Obama is a throwback to old small d liberalism... In the FDR/Kennedy view of the world. A pacifist he is not but I think he also understands the give and take of politics.... What is it Trevino talked about how you move issues....
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and yo
Obama is mildly progressive & strongly pragmatic
(#130503)and pragmatic used to be closely related to small c conservatism.
You know, accepting that pesky facts sometimes trump theory.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
I agree, Daily Kos will go ballistic
(#130356)at any number of Obama policies. Remember, Obama became the favorite of Daily Kos by virtue of not being Hillary Clinton.
Obama is also not indebted to Daily Kos for his success. His organization is his own.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
And let's not forget when the Kossacks drove off the Hillarites
(#130363)Once Obama won the election, the Reclist was larded with Come Back Little Sheba diaries about how Oh Can't We Just All Get Along Now, and much contumely blather of that sort.
The Hillarites haven't forgotten. Hillary's out there busting her hump for Obama, but she's going to get her pound of flesh come January.
Obama doesn't owe much to Daily Kos, IMHO
(#130366)Anyway, my wife was telling me about a commentary she heard asserting that the apparent personal reconciliation between Barack and Hillary (Bill is still miffed) was very telling about the personal character of BOTH Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and the word was that Obama was very wise and patient with how he participated in those efforts at reconciliation.
I was very pleased and gratified to see Hillary Clinton's superb effort on CNN last night.
Kudos to both of them!
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
That is so, uh, idealistic.
(#130346)I feel sorry for you when the truth sinks in. did you believe the same thing about the New, Improved Democrat Congress?
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
tomsyl, I am talking about organization
(#130359)in a value or policy neutral context.
Obama studied Howard Dean's campaign (and improved it) AND he studied how Rick Warren grew Saddleback Church and adopted many of the techniques Rick Warren and others in the Christian Right used to build their movements.
He simply amplified and enhanced those approaches.
How else did he knock off the prohibitive favorite, Hillary Clinton?
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
I don't question his success, just your rosy view
(#130367)of what happens if and when he actually takes office.
By the way and w/r/t the assumption by many here that Obama has already won the election, here there's a pidgin term, probably bastardized Japanese, pronounced bahchi, meaning that if you talk about something good as if it has already happened, it won't. so please keep saying "when" instead of "if".
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Win or lose, Obama shall remain the most powerful
(#130370)Democratic leader and if its POTUS John McCain, he ain't passing ANY of his favored legislation through Congress without Obama saying okay.
If McCain wins, he'd better be ready to negotiate with Obama on an almost daily basis.
PS -- This is a post mortem thread. Otherwise I would agree with you 100%.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
I'm curious that you think that, and hope you are right
(#130378)only because the existing Dem (and Repub) power structure in Congress is a huge impediment to any form of original thinking or action. But the entrenched veteran incumbents aren't going to give ground willingly, particularly to a first-termer who doesn't talk or think the way they do. How do you think Obama will pull that off - a dramatic power move, behind-the-scenes "my way or the highway" tete-a-tetes with Reid, Pelosi etc., some combination of those?
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Ginormous fundraising apparatus?
(#130382)Beating the Clinton machine and the GOP Wurlitzer at the same time? Being proven right (by popular acclaim at least) on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Katrina, the financial crisis? Hauling a possibly filibuster-proof majority on his coattails? Having all that JFK magic? Being a historic first Black President?
Not saying it'll be easy, but assuming he wins, he'll arrive at the WH with more pure political capital than any Pres. since Reagan.
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
Political capital
(#130388)Well, a President Obama better be getting some pretty good investment advice for said capital: such "assets", in Washington, have a way of dissipating like a springtime snowfall. And in Washington, unlike Wall Street, it's lot harder to leverage your capital: tho' the golden parachutes are pretty similar....
So true.
(#130396)You can't distill political capital and put it in a bottle; you either use it or lose it. And I don't see Obama having the influence of Bill Clinton post-office, particularly if he hews left after the election.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
He'll have plenty of capital
(#130398)Clinton's mistake was in going after DADT in his first term, a divisive social issue is second term stuff.
I blame it all on the Internet
This may be true, in which case there is some hope.
(#130343)But it still flies the Democratic donkey flag, and I'm not sure how grateful the Dems will be, once elected and seated. If they ignore the Kossacks et. al., they will rue the day, because the Progressives will go gunning for them.
Daily Kos is fickle and Obama does not seem to
(#130347)rely on that community.
I recall a number of instances of Obama campaign volunteers posting comments saying more or less get up off your rear and off Daily Kos and use Obama dot com to locate a place to go volunteer for a local field office.
Zack Exley from August 2007:
And as of today? Early voting amongst students and African Americans is shattering records. Jesse Jackson Jr has apparently done amazing things in the South organizing and motivating the black electorate.
President Obama will retain that same network to either assist or oppose those running for House and Senate in 2010.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
I get bushels of email from Obama.com
(#130360)But it's all geared to the presidential campaign, which by rights it should be: if Democrats are elected to the Congress, so much the better, but such isn't their focus right now. Only dKos seems to be caring about the House and Senate. Maybe, once elected, Obama.com can work on rooting out bad Dems like Freezer Jefferson.
Moveon.org, ActBlue and so on . . .
(#130365)But as you say, Obama's organization exists for one reason. Elect Obama.
But on November 5th Barack Obama shall still possess the most fearsome campaign organization in recent political history and I very much doubt he will simply disband it.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
"Most fearsome . . recent political history . . ."
(#130369)OK. We'll see. It's not "Clean for Gene", that's sure.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Er, so...
(#130350)... you think that President Obama is going to back a primary challenger against a sitting Congressional Democrat?
Really?
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
Not in a manner that leaves fingerprints
(#130353)But yes he shall have that power (and more to the point) between now and Spring 2010 he shall have the ability to quietly suggest to recalcitrant Congress-folk that he has such power, even if he would vastly prefer not to use such power.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Asking Congress to make tough decisions at any time is hard.
(#130315)But most difficult when the public is so dead-set against it. Abstractly, the bailout is needful, but when it comes to the implementation is fully seen, it's gonna be horrific.
Dunno what you think about how this will all play out, but this much I see: at Auschwitz, the hapless victims were sorted out into two lines: those who would die immediately and the rest of lives of horrific slavery and slow death. I can't help but see the banking system being unloaded from the cattle cars and swiftly divided.
Gonna be a whole lot of empty bank buildings come next year this time.
PS: Reid is a chump. Never liked the guy. All his kids are lobbyists, and I think he's as crooked as a dog's hind leg. He needs to go.
Hey BD, how about a bet on how long "Bush did it!!" lasts
(#130311)as an excuse for everything that goes bad if/after Obama wins and the Congress remains a Dem majority? I'm betting we'll see it being used as an excuse until at least 2010.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
That's not bad
(#130317)considering that Republicans were trying to blame the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 for the housing crisis.
To America's credit, I think that one has pretty much been laughed off by everyone except the hard-core wingnuts.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
Is that your best example?
(#130357)Because it's a weak one, considering the narrow ambit and quick death of the CRA meme. No, I'm thinking more like the libs here who were trying to blame Phil Gramm for the economic collapse because of a 100:1 leveraging law he snuck in back in 2000. There wasn't a single Dem in Congress that knew anything about it, of course, though you would think even a Congressman could figure something out in eight years.
Anyway, the "Bush did it" mantra will have a relatively short shelf life, in part because Obama has been telling people all of the magic things he will do immediately if not sooner. He's said absolutely nothing about constraints he will have to remove due to those diabolic Rovian stormtroopers. so people will put up with the excuse, but it won't be that long before you start hearing "where's the change we were promised, Mr. O?"
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Which magic things are that?
(#130834)Seriously, links and cites. Because the Obama I've been listening to has been fairly clear about the limits of his ability to pass certain types of legislation -- an attitude you praised him for, as I recall.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
That's the magic of George W Bush!
(#130316)And you're seriously low-balling it. I'd estimate 2014.
Obama will not only get elected on Bush's record -- he'll get re-elected on Bush's record.
Steven Palmer Peterson
You reminded me of the best burn of the debate: McCain
(#130348)telling Obama that if he wanted to run against Bush, he should have filed four years ago. That one even got a grudging laff from the libs in my audience.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
That one felt a bit too rehearsed to me -
(#130361)- but I admired the attempt at baiting Obama into a mistake.
What was Obama going to say? Remind the audience that he wasn't even a senator then?!
Steven Palmer Peterson
DNR-DC
(#130379)Well, he could've said that he was only 8 years old, barefoot and living in Hawaii . . . oops that was the Ayers rejoinder.
All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz and I'm fine.
Yep, as we are reminded of Nixon's "I am not a crook"
(#130352)John McCain isn't George W. Bush. If Rolling Stone is to be believed, Bush was the better pilot.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Most people got it, Bill, Even if you didn't.
(#130358)-
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Yep, McCain burned his ownself with that
(#130362)nt
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Right, Bill, whatever you say.
(#130364)And the sun shines out of Obama's posterior, so he can do no wrong. Got it.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Don't believe me, just watch
(#130373)The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Uh, Bill, I was referring to the debate.
(#130376)As in events that happened then. During the debate, that is. In real time. When it actually was taking place. Not some post-debate, reactionary spin, however creative. But hey, go with the monotonicity, man.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Whatever short term gain McCain may have earned
(#130385)from his snarky comment (if any) it is more than offset by giving Obama an ideal counter-punch opportunity.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Hyper-partisans
(#130269)Are you familiar with the phrase, "Majority of the majority?"
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
You're absolutely right, BD
(#130263)Partisanship is not the problem. Partisanship is a necessary and welcome part of a two-party democracy.
What both parties should be fighting right now is populism. A reinvigorated conservative intellectual movement would be a great asset to the country right now.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
wwell-put, snk, for two reasons:
(#130313)First, there should always be a tension between two or more factions within the legislative branch imo, for the simple reason that when they all agree on something without comment it is either trivial, or we are about to get screwed royally.
Also and more pragmatically, if the Dems win control of the executive and keep control of Congress, it is better to be able to share blame when things don't go according to plan in terms of the economy. I'll be surprised if it takes less than two years for our economic outlook to improve significantly, and there will be further shocks in the interim. To a degree the Dems can get away with the mantra that economic problems are Bush's legacy, but people are going to get tired of that pretty quickly.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Economic problems are Bush's legacy?
(#130331)Bush is merely a symbol. Setting aside personalities the US government spent $5.5 trillion more than it took in over the last eight years.
Now (well, on 5 November 2008) we need to discuss with specificity what the government does not expend going forward so we can stop the bleeding and start paying down that $11 trillion.
In total sincerity, I believe earmarks are a big symbolic problem but are essentially irrelevant to solving the overall problem.
In my opinion, taxes need to go up -- politically, that means "soak the rich" but as Joke Line (Joe Klein) wrote today the top 5% has been systematically strip mining the middle class for the last eight years (if not longer) so reversing that to some degree is hardly unfair.
Spending cuts? Okay it isn't November 5th yet however long term America cannot afford to spend as much on our military as the rest of the world spends, all combined. Not unless we start demanding tribute, an utterly infeasible rhetorical suggestion.
That means we shall need to re-define our global strategy and our global interests.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
That table was set previously
(#130253)when Hastert and company would hold House-Senate conference committee meetings and not let Democrats in the room.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Ideas would be a good start, was my point.
(#130251)The Rush Limbaugh age of antiliberalism, Rovian attack politics, and Cheney's 1% Doctrine have been colossal failures, and never were strong on ideas to begin with.
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
Great post
(#130239)If only Republicans would listen, which I seriously doubt. You are an outsider in your own party. But maybe you should also reflect on your willingness to indulge in Ayers and other related nonsense, which is a symptom of the sickness.
As stated above, our democracy needs decent opposition, and will not get it from the current Republican Party unless it reforms itself.
And it is worth noting that Bush has more badly screwed up the war in Afghanistan, and in a way that probably makes the situation irreversible. The Iraq war was just stupid -- in conception and execution, and will not result in anything that meaningfully promotes our long term interests. Yeah, nice that Saddam is gone, only to be replaced with an unfriendly and Iran-friendly regime plagued with long-term Sunni-Shia tensions that destabilize the region. I do not know that we could have avoided that result -- hence another reason why the war was stupid from conception.
But Afghanistan looks worse, and more dangerous. Also, its instability is contributing to Pakistani instability, which is the true looming disaster should it go radical.
Realize that this is not about COIN, which is itself simply a form of grand tactic (and is already being practiced in Afghanistan to the extent possible with limited troops). COIN is always subservient to the larger political goals that underlie the insurgency conflict, and subservient to the proposed political solutions. What is the dominant political conflict in Afghanistan, and the proposed political solution which COIN would then attempt to implement in fighting an insurgency? A subject for another post, but I think the key questions for shaping future policy.
Just can't agree
(#130246)The Ayers issue is relevant, as is Wright, because they are examples of Obama being too comfortable with left-wing political extremists who are way to the left of the American mainstream. In my opinion, Obama is too liberal, but the problem McCain has is that more material is needed to convince people that Obama is too liberal for America.
A COIN strategy in Afghanistan is a strategy, not a tactic or a "grand" tactic, whatever that means. My solutions for Afghanistan are here.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Too bad you cannot apply your insights about the Party
(#130433)to your own failings. Your nonsense about Ayers demonstrates that you feel free to indulge in the same failed thinking.
Go google Grand Tactics if you want to understand the military use of the term. And while you are at it, learn the military distinction between tactics and strategy. Guerrilla warfare is a form of tactic for fighting wars. COIN in response to it, and is a tactic. (Or a grand tactic as the term is used to describe a higher order of tactics for battlefield use of force.).
If you don't think that...
(#130491)...scrutinizing a politician's associations with controversial figures isn't an accepted practice in politics, then you're not thinking, dm. The failed thinking is yours. Think Hagee and Keating when it came to McCain. But if you want a good example of failed thinking, Plumber Joe was picked at random in a rope-line and he asked Obama a question. When Obama gave an answer that put the freshman Senator in a poor light, the liberal knives came out on the plumber, giving Roto-Rooter a whole new meaning.
As for grand tactics, I understand the military term, and it's clear to me that you don't understand COIN doctrine, or that it's a strategy. It is simply idiotic to equate COIN doctrine with Grand Tactics. To quote Sun Tzu in The Complete Art of War:
Here's a question: Have you read FM 3-24? If you haven't, you should. If you have, you should read it again.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Anyone see Letterman last night?
(#130498)Letterman: Do you know Gordon Liddy? Did you attend a fundraiser at his house?
McCain: I know Gordon Liddy, he went to prison, and he paid his debt. I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy.
Now G Gordon Liddy broke into a psychiatrist's office and destroyed the place, in an attempt to cover up the theft of materials related to Daniel Ellsberg.
Give this Ayers thing a rest. It's not working, and it's just embarrassing to see people like you resort to this sort of nonsense.
What part of "accepted political practice" is so hard to grok?
(#130606)If Letterman wants to tie McCain to Liddy, so what? McCain's already been to tied to Hagee and Keating and others, all done for political reasons in order to diminish McCain. Even Obama himself said it was legitimate that people ask about his associations with Jeremiah Wright.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Liddy, Liddy, Liddy on the label, label, label
(#130610)Adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great? Really?
Like this?
From Steve Chapman's column and Chapman is reliably right of center . . .
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,3136852.column
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
McCain tied himself to Hagee and Keating
(#130609)Not so Obama in respect to Ayers, their interaction was minimal and began long after Ayers had been accepted back into polite society even by Republicans.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
He's tied, by his own choice,
(#130804)by his over half-dozen year long association with Ayers, no matter how much Obama has tried to distance himself from it.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Sure you want to keep going there?
(#130815)Because the Democrats could just as easily start talking about the GOP's mindless coddling of Cuban terrorists like Eduardo Arocena, leader of Omega 7. Omega 7 set off about as many bombs as the Weathermen, and, fortunately, were just as inept.
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
Like I said,
(#130842)it's all fair game. Back when I was a CPA, I lived and breathed GAAP, generally accepted accounting principles. In this case, it's GAPP, generally accepted political principles.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
GAPP is an awfully low standard, BD.
(#130847)It doesn't inspire much confidence in your candidate if bogus associations are the very best a smart, energetic guy like you can find to offer.
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
What bogus associations?
(#131051)They were real and well-established and longstanding. I don't think it should be a primary focus of any campaign, but at the same time I don't think it's unreasonable to scrutinize a candidate's relationships with controversial figures and ask questions, especially when it comes to the position of Leader of the Free World.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Does "palling around with terrorists"
(#131252)sound like a question to you?
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
"Palled" may have gone too far,
(#131264)but he was not above having political and working alliances with said terrorists over a number of years.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Terrorists plural?
(#131272)Aside from Ayers, what other terrorist has Obama been palling around with?
I'm curious.
Ayers and Dorhn
(#131380)She was on the FBI most wanted list and convicted.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
The following persons were on the same board:
(#131111)I actually met Dr. Ikenberry, as he was the Pres of my undergrad Alma Mater during my tenure there. Is it seriously your contention that Dr. Stan Ikenberry, President Emeritus of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, is connected to domestic terrorism through his association with William Ayers via the Annenberg Chicago Challenge? Do you really think that the former President of my University is a terrorist sympathizer? Alongside the Nixon Administration economist and the official appointed by the Republican Governor?
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
None of those board members are running for president
(#131262)Obama is. Obama was chairman for four years, and Ayers ran the main operational arm of the Challenge. The non-profit blew through $160 million in the process, with little to nothing to show for it. They worked together, crafting failed education policy.
Also, I didn't say Obama or anyone else working with Ayers were terrorist sympathizers. It is simply a fact that Obama worked with an unrepentant domestic terrorist and self-described small "c" communist. It speaks to Obama's judgment that he would work with a left-wing political extremist over these years. It also speaks to society in Chicago that a scumbag like Ayers would be embraced by its liberal hoity toities.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
You don't know Jack.
(#131376)Both you, Bird Dog, and Tomsyl, and all the other right-leaning posters here simply do not and likely can never comprehend the enormity of the evil that was perpetrated by our country in SE Asia. Ayres helped end that war. So did guys like myself, who committed countless acts, even illegal ones, that threw sand in the gears of our ghastly war machine. Pity our actions were not 100 times as concentrated, and 100 times as effective. William Ayres is a patriot, and an American hero. Full, F**king, Stop. :-|
Me: We! -- Ali
Bwhahahahaha!
(#131725)William Ayers is a thimblewit. Full stop. Abbie Hoffman without the sense to kill himself because everything he ever believed in has been ground into dust.
Anyway, what was your big contribution to throwing "sand in the gears of our ghastly war machine"? How much lift did you manage to generate under the Pentagon, anyway?
Bernard "Pro Ghastly War Machines" Guerrero
"Unfortunately the universe doesn't agree with me. We'll see which one of us is still standing when this is over." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
Obama's going to have to work with...
(#131277)...all manner of interesting characters when he gets elected, even torture-loving theocratic racist morons like Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA). Taking your characterization of Ayers as given, you could view him as training for dealing with the wastes of human flesh your Party regularly sends to the Federal level.
Where was this outrage when Bush started appointing war criminals such as Negroponte and the folks who armed the Iraninans during Iran-Contra such as Elliot Abrams, and John Poindexter? Oh, wait, Bush is a Republican, and so are the other terrorist arms runners. Problem solved.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
Seriously, where the hell do you get off?
(#131279)The more I think about this, the madder I get. Ayers was charged (credibly) with damaging a lot of government property and endangering a number of people's lives. The gentlemen Bush appointed (not just worked with) were charged and pardoned for running guns to Iranian terrorists.
Take your selective false outrage and shove it up your hoity-toity. Ayres did bad things for good reasons back before I was born. You made nary a peep when people who did terrible things for awful reasons were thrust into positions of national power.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
That's A Week, PM
(#131386)For rather blatantly violating "comment, not the commenter." As usual, you're free to appeal to Jordan and Tomsyl.
. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).
Posting rules, PM
(#131379)For telling me to "shove it up your hoity-toity".
Also, the following sentence of yours is a lie: "You made nary a peep when people who did terrible things for awful reasons were thrust into positions of national power."
Far as I'm concerned, you should get a week for that.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Nary a peep
(#131644)If you find Obama unelectable for his associations with Ayers, then it follows that Bush is similarly unfit for the presidency after thrusting Abrams, Poindexter, Negroponte, et al back into positions of national power. Where are your calls for impeachment?
John McCain was a member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, of which Elliot Abrams was also a member. Not only that, but McCain is very proud of being endorsed by Oliver North. Half a minute of googling turns up two associations with convicted anti-American felons. By your own metric that also makes McCain unfit for office. Nary a peep though.
To add --
(#131385)His "nary a peep" observation is spot-on. Nailed it. I've read thousands of your comments over the years, and have never seen as much as a tip of the hat to those that protest the murderous excesses from right wing side of the fence. I believe you're actually not outraged by Ayres at all, but merely use him as a talking point.
Me: We! -- Ali
Not spot on
(#131396)Not even close. There are countless examples where I've taken my party to task for its misdeeds. What PM wrote is a smear, and you add to the smear by making such an assertion. As for your telling me to "cool it", I'm cool as a cucumber, but no one is going to stop me from talking about whatever I want to talk about. Whether you and others get exercised about it is not my concern.
Answering your other comment, why is pointing out the Obama-Ayers relationship tantamount to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? I said nothing un-factual. Why is bringing up that issue an abuse of my right to exercise free speech? Why do you think that I have to have "outrage" in order to write about a topic? Could it be that you're self-projecting?
As for my purpose for continuing this topic, first of all, I didn't bring this topic up. My only claim is that an examination of Obama's working and political alliance with an unrepentant domestic terrorist and left-wing political extremist and self-described small "c" communist is a legitimate avenue of inquiry for a presidential candidate. I see nothing controversial in favoring such scrutiny, and I don't see how that is a talking point. The same scrutiny was done with Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party, but the difference is that most of those claims were smears, and they were smears advanced by some of our own Forvm members.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
You must realize...
(#131382)...that your continuous yelling of "FIRE" in a crowded theater may elicit harsh responses. That's what you're doing here. Cool it Bird Dog.
Me: We! -- Ali
Was this sequence as cleverly planned as it might appear?
(#131372)-
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Technically, for running guns....
(#131281)....to a state in the midst of a war with another state. Not like you get a lot of terrorists looking for spare parts for F-14 Tomcats. It was almost Lincoln Brigade-ey, really. :^)
"Unfortunately the universe doesn't agree with me. We'll see which one of us is still standing when this is over." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
True. But then they turned around and used the proceeds
(#131283)to finance gun runs to terrorists* in Central America.
-----------------
*We called them Guerrillas back then. Or Freedom Fighters.
Chicago not "Real America" apparently...
(#131268)"It also speaks to society in Chicago that a scumbag like Ayers would be embraced by its liberal hoity toities."
My eyes are rolling...
Annenburg and the other Republicans, friends of Reagan included, are now "liberal hoity toities"?
You're confusing the Annenberg Foundation,
(#131378)which was founded by a Republican benefactor, with Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was co-founded by a left-wing political extremist. The CAC was given scads of cash by the AF, which has no links to CAC except for said cash blown through. The AF is not liberal or conservative, far as I know.
Is not Ayers lauded in Chicago liberal hoity toity circles?
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
You consider the Annenberg Foundation to be Republican?
(#131286)How much do you know about it and its works?
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Did I even say that?
(#131290)No..I didn't.
"The Annenberg Foundation, a charitable family trust, was created on July 1, 1989 by media magnate and former Ambassador to the Court of St. James's Walter H. Annenberg. Initial funding of $1.2 billion came from the sale of Triangle Publications, the last media property held by Annenberg. The foundation is based in St. David's, Pennsylvania. Currently, The Foundation has a priority on granting funds for reform of elementary and secondary public school systems. The Foundation oversaw the funding of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Since its founding, it has awarded over 5,200 grants, which total in excess of $2.8 billion. [1]
The Foundation is known for many cutting edge programs and especially for coining and developing the concept of Project Based Philanthropy. A recent example of this is Not A Cornfield Project in Los Angeles.[citation needed]
The current president, chairman and sole director of the Foundation is Leonore Annenberg, widow of Ambassador Annenberg, and a former United States Chief of Protocol. Their daughter, Wallis Annenberg is the vice president."
From Wiki.
The founder and his wife were friends of Reagan. As has been pointed out many times in this very forum, others that served along side Ayers are GOP members, again with ties to Reagan and other GOP presidents.
So the "liberal hoity toities" line falls quite flat. I certainly do believe that conservative people can and do believe in education and donate their time and money to good causes, as the Annenberg Foundation has and continues to do so. Is the foundation somehow political, GOP or Democratic...I don't think that was implied by me at all. The fact that members on the same board as Ayers and Obama can come from different political viewpoints is to be commended...except in 2008 in a hotly contested Presidential race.
They may be hoity toitites", but all liberal? No.
Hoity toity..well, la dee da!
Well, it seemed implied
(#131302)but you made it clear that it wasn't, so my bad.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
There's nothing to distance himself from
(#130810)which would explain why he doesn't appear to be trying very hard.
Perhaps you might want to consider the unfortunate ties being created by your repeated comments pushing this smear.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Let's be fair, here, and let him explain why it's not a smear.
(#130813)We all know a few people we wish we didn't. Sometimes we meet them around the Thanksgiving table, sometimes we have to do business with them, sometimes they're old college roommates or something of that sort. In any event, everyone knows a scumbag or three, and we sorta haveta shine on their scumbagginess.
William Ayers was a bad apple, yes he was. I believe he's mended his ways, and if he has repudiated the evil he did, he doesn't seem especially repentant. I know I'm not repentant for the things I did, back in the day, when I was on the other side of the Bill Ayers conflict.
In those days, I was a fiery, skinny little Republican who understood the threat of Communism. I enlisted for my war, told the Army I was a missionary kid who already spoke French and could learn any SE Asian language they could throw at me, and they found useful work for me to do, oh yes they did. And the people I worked with at the time, the so-called Anti-Communists were just crooked opium warlords with their own agendas. Not a whole lot different than the warlords we're dealing with today in Afghanistan, or the crooks we put in power in Iraq.
So who's got the unsavory associates? I do. I felt then, and still feel the USA makes horrible friends who did horrible things and the net result is attacks on the USA by outraged murderous zealots like Osama bin Ladin and Bill Ayers. So just how bad can Bill Ayers be? As bad as Osama bin Ladin, who makes uncomfortably accurate points about American support for tyrannous regimes.
Our usual response to those who would tell us of our own injustice and support for terrorism is to point out we don't kill innocent people by flying passenger aircraft into skyscrapers. But how different are we, really? We've managed to wreck Iraq in our efforts to save it. We replaced the manifestly horrible Saddam with an even more sinister regime, essentially a franchise of Hizb'allah in all but name, who deal with Iran's nasty regime all the time. The Iraqi Government runs a vile secret mukhabarat which deals with its political enemies in ways which make Abu Ghraib look like a Sunday School picnic.
So Bill Ayers set off some bombs. We dropped three times more bombs on SE Asia than we did in all of WW2, including the megatons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki thrown in for good measure. Are we especially apologetic for that? Not even a little bit. Were civilians killed in those raids? Without question.
So when I hear people get outraged over Bill Ayers, I think about Vang Pao and what we knew about him at the time, and our association with every tinhorn dictator and despot. As long as they weren't Communist, we put up with them. Our scruples are not so nice today, we now connive with Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have tolerated the rise of a demonic heroin regime in Afghanistan.
And John McCain is all about supporting the goddamn Iraqi regime and Karzai in Afghanistan, Maliki kisses Ahmedinejad on both cheeks and rolls out the red carpet, quite literally. I find these associations troubling.
There's also that little matter of Saakashvili in Georgia, which decided the Smart Thing to Do was to lob artillery shells at Russian-supporting cities. McCain can't hump his leg hard enough.
The trouble is, Barack Obama isn't saying anything about these associations, either. I'd worry more about those associations than I would about some "washed-up terrorist" who now works with people of all political stripes to better the lot of poor children in Chicago. At least Ayers isn't dropping JDAMs on civilians and making excuses for it now.
So that's what your party thinks the election is about now
(#130806)You're the party of Joe the plumber + pallin around w. terrorists.
There's nothing there but fomenting unrest and appealing to the dumbest segments of the pop.
Did you notice when this stopped resembling a serious election?
I don't think there's anything wrong with Joe the Plumber
(#131303)In fact, he's one of the few interesting characters to surface w/r/t the election, though that may be because some day in the distant future I may lose my hair, too. It's been amusing to watch some Dems actually argue that he was a McCain plant. And the surfacing of the Obama "the government wants to share your wealth with others" POV helped to clarify the differences between the candidates to some degree.
The vicious attacks on the guy's personal life, OTOH, weren't funny at all. They show how low some Obama supporters are willing to go to win this election.
Anyway. it's hard to call the Republicans the party of plutocrats and the party of Joe the Plumber, at least in the same breath.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Vicious attacks?
(#131367)Um, wasn't Joe lying a lot?
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
Posting personal information on the internet is vicious.
(#131369)You wouldn't stand for it if it was you; no one would or should. The people snooping into the guy's background were Obama partisans who were doing it in reaction to the adverse public response to the "spread the wealth around" statement Obama made to the guy. Even if you think the guy lied about that and put words in Obama's mouth, will you defend the widespread publishing of tax, mortgage, marital and other personal information of that guy? Because that would really surprise me, since you seem like a privacy/personal liberty type.
Whether the guy was telling the truth about his own situation or not isn't something I'm interested in debating, nor do I see its relevance. But if you think your view of his veracity supports publication of his personal data, say so because that would be worth a discussion.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Au contraire
(#131341)the plutocrats within the Republican party have relied on the likes of "Joe" for quite some time, but perhaps Joe's self inflicted public embarrassment will help ensure that situation changes going forward.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
"Self-inflicted public embarassment"?
(#131370)Actually, the more the Dems and the media try to beat on the guy, the more popular he becomes AFAICT. It's now at the point where any sound strategist on the Obama side would completely walk away, which seems to be what they've done.
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
Ignorance is bliss I guess
(#131373)and if it weren't for John McCain catapulting the poor unfortunate onto the national stage at the last debate, "Joe" would have been much better off remaining that way.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
No, I was just answering a comment about associations
(#130840)And questioning a politician's past association is well-established fair game, and it's a practice played by both sides. As for what my party thinks, they'd better start thinking about what they will do in the minority for the next several election cycles.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
exaggeration + demagoging are well-established fair game also
(#130852)Doesn't mean we should do it here.
... how to put this. Just b/c some people started talking about Ayers + ACORN when McCain's poll #s began tanking doesn't mean we have to. I'm annoyed by anyone who i perceive to be playing along.
2 wars, a financial meltdown, a projected 2.2 trillion deficit, etc. etc. Why is anyone w. an ounce of self-respect talking about Ayers + ACORN? Putting aside the divisiveness of it all, it's just stupid.
I'll explain.
(#130853)It's all they have.
There you have it! Happy to be of service! Expect to hear more about acorn and ayers for the next few weeks!
Go America! She's just like us!
Well, Obama didn't invest a lot of time or effort
(#130844)in trying to tie McCain to Keating and the public seems to have reacted to Obama's more consistently positive campaign quite differently than they have to the McCain campaign's all negative, all the time efforts. Might be a lesson to be learned right there for starters.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
I know it's just rhetoric
(#130845)but MCCAIN WAS, IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE KEATING.
No need to "tie" him to Keating... Sheesh.
There was a tie,
(#131050)but not a big enough to persuade the Democrats' chief counsel to go forward on McCain and Glenn. It should have been the Keating Three. The other three Democrats merited ethics charges according to Bob Bennett:
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
I bet it was horse trading..IMHO McCain got out of jail free to
(#131102)save john glenn.... They were probably both just a guilty.... Just speculation on my part but plausable....
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and yo
OK, reminding then
(#130848)But then why bother given the unambiguous ties to Bush and McCain's own dumb decision to pick Mooselini and hire Rove's would be successors to run the mother of all negative campaigns? The smart play was to step back and let the McCain campaign implode under it's own crushing weight of negativity.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1077a1ScoringtheDebates.pdf
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
The perfect line
(#130851)for a justified attack on mccain would be "without john mccain, the keating five would be the keating four."
When the Republican Primary began in earnest?
(#130817)Seriously, what a bunch of sad clowns.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
I was thinking after the Republican convention
(#130824)and McCain's poll #s started diving.
Before there was at least something reasonable that sometimes got discussed -- Iraq, federal spending + McCain's skill at brokering bipartisan compromises.
Now it's centrally about ACORN's threat to the fabric of democracy + Obama's ties to terrorism.
Total joke.
The COIN strategy
(#130438)is a political strategy, to hopefully bathe in the afterglow of a military tactic fronted as strategy.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
You might look at his legislative record.
(#130270)He has sponsored or co-sponsored hundreds of bills.
Or you could undermine your argument by insisting that the particular smears by association you like are totally okay, while the other smears are character assassination, etc.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
What makes you think I haven't
(#130277)His legislative record is solid-core liberal.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Wow.
(#130281)What's the ratio of diaries on Obama's legislative record vis a vis Obama's associations with Wright and Ayers on this site? Because this is one of the more substance-oriented places on the intertrons.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
In Illinois? Or just the Senate? -nt-
(#130280).
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
Abortion policy - if the GOP sticks to "reverse Roe v Wade"
(#130236)they won't be getting their mojo back anytime soon. Scary Islamic terrorists bought the GOP some time on this, but time is up.
A majority of Americans do not want to return to the era before Roe v Wade, and especially pre-Griswold.
Set aside quibbles about whether Obama has been dishonest about his prior stances and talk abstract policy -- what is unacceptable with what Obama said last night about abortion?
Strong prohibitions on 3rd trimester abortions (genuine health of the mother exceptions);
Strong programs directed at unwanted pregnancy prevention (not merely abstinence);
and we all agree the abortion debate is over.
= = =
Federalism? NO ONE is pure or consistent on federalism.
Neither Left or Right
McCain wants Roe v Wade reverse on federalism grounds but also wants to reduce a State's ability to regulate the financial industry and the health care industry.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Strong Third Trimester Prohibitions Will Go Nowhere
(#130242)As soon as Obama or a moderate Democrat suggest such a thing--assuming that they ever did--NARAL and Planned Parenthood will clear their throats loudly, and the usual suspects will kill the idea dead.
Claiming Griswold is under serious threat is just silly--largely because the privacy argument *did* make sense there, even if Douglas' specific reasoning was a lot of self-indulgent drivel.
. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).
Verdict's still out on a lot of this. Also, McCain deserves some
(#130234)share of the blame for the Bush fiasco, on two counts. One, he's been in lockstep with Bush economic policies (except on the matter of earmarks) and foreign policy (except for hollering for a COIN approach to nation-building, for which he deserves enormous credit). He can't credibly claim to offer a change from Bush on matters of policy.
Two, he has wholeheartedly embraced Rovian politics in this campaign. McCain could have very plausibly run as the anti-Bush Republican after winning the primary. Instead, for reasons unknown to me, he was forced to swear on the bible of tax cuts all the time and nasty 50+1 wedge politics. McCain eliminated his own considerable strengths all by himself. So he has no legitimate claim to bring change in politics either. Basically, he shot himself in the foot by adopting Bush policies & Rove politics, then campaigning on "change." People aren't that stupid. McCain has himself to blame.
As for your predictions: health care and tax increases are definitely not done deals. I think the move in the direction of Hillarycare is a lot more plausible today than it has been since the Johnson era (doctors are on board this time), but there are enormous obstacles and a gillion things that can go wrong with any implementation. And tax increases are still an electoral death sentence, thanks to Reagan et al.
Going forward, I will be joining you in constructive criticism -- it will take a lot of us to rein in the worser impulses of the Democrats, and correct for their blind spots. I sincerely hope the bitter enders in your party don't decide to spend the next four years trying to Gingrich Obama out of office -- there's too much at stake to waste four more years on character politics.
And McCain could still win this thing.
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
Whither immigration policy?
(#130232)When was the last time anyone talked about immigration policy on the national stage?
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
What conservative immigration policy?
(#130264)Nobody wants to talk about it, probably because views on it don't split down party lines. The last debate resulted in what, a little more employer verification?
Business conservatives want amnesty and lots of work visas, and SoCons want a wall and deportation. Which one (if either) will be the new Republican platform?
easy enough to answer
(#130309)Read the platform: http://www.gopplatform2008.com/
also:
http://theforvm.org/diary/bird-dog/in-spanish-most-cant-hear-you-lie#comment-121805
Bill Bennett? Nope , he can't help the GOP now
(#130220)Daniel Larison? Okay, get more guys like Larison and Dreher and maybe a conversation can be re-started.
= = =
Okay, here are a few initial thoughts:
Iraq? Maliki wants us gone, like yesterday. How do we simultaneously stay in Iraq and assert that Maliki is the legitimate leader of Iraq, representing the will of the Iraqi people?
Afghanistan? Special forces and little else. Target the snot out of al Qaeda but as for local tribes, NO ONE in the history of the world has conquered and held Afghanistan.
Why are we different?
We did take our eye off the ball many years ago, but that is water over the dam, today.
Health care? Too much of every health dollar spent goes to people with MBAs or accounting degrees and too little goes to doctors and nurses. Health insurer profit margins are being artificially propped up by the economic equivalent of an oligarchy.
Ask doctor what an uninsured procedure costs and he or she will tell you. $7000 for a nose job, etc . . .
Ask a doctor what an insured procedure costs and they have no real clue. It all depends on the slices shared amongst the various middle-folk.
K Street is blocking serious reform, here.
Therefore we need to hold Obama to his primary pledge -- NO ONE who works in the Obama Administration can accept employment as a lobbyist until after Obama leaves office.
These same rules need to be extended to Congress. If someone works on a Congressional staff, no K Street gig until the elected official leaves office (or maybe a two year window or something like that).
Budget -- It shall be impossible to not raise taxes on the top five percent or three percent of American wealth holders and earners.
Dubya engaged in massive class warfare (reverse Robin Hood) and if we are to balance the budget that needs to be undone.
Cutting Social Security benefits (disavow accumulated trust fund federal obligations) would simply be an additional reverse Robin Hood policy that will guarantee gridlock between the Left and the Right.
Military spending How can we continue to afford spending as much on our military as the rest of the world combined? How is that even remotely sustainable?
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
I'd listen to Larison if...
(#130235)...he left the Buchanan sphere. He soils himself by allying with such an isolationist and borderline racist. Dreher is OK. So is Frum.
Al Maliki may have a bigger impact on troop withdrawals than Obama, and it's worrisome that he's dragging out the negotiations.
We completely disagree on Afghanistan. Special Forces has not been without problems in Afghanistan. Hunt-and-kill may work in some situations, but it's not an effective long-term strategy. Our focus on counter-terrorism hasn't done that well because the populace outside of Kabul does not have security. Without good security, we can't get good intelligence. Without good intelligence, too many civilians get killed.
On health care, I honestly have no opinion. It's an issue I've told myself to study, but I haven't gotten around to it.
We're not that far apart on the budget.
For the military, once Iraq winds down, we're going to have to take hard looks at our commitments abroad. But right now, Iraq needs to wind down and Afghanistan needs more effort.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Maliki will have more say than either Obama or McCain
(#130238)The trick for POTUS #44 (whoever it may be) shall be to leave Iraq saying "I intended to do that" just like a cat who falls and looks around as if to say "I meant to do that"
But that kinda is my point.
America lacks the military and economic power to remain a sui generis hyper-power unilaterally deciding when and where to intervene and how long to stay.
Balance of power geo-politics has returned.
= = =
I find BlaiseP persuasive with the notion that Kabul and rural Afghanistan are essentially two different countries.
I would also say, the Western Westphalian notion of "nation state" is scarcely applicable to Afghanistan and the adjacent mountains of Pakistan.
Deny global terrorists a safe haven and we've done just about as much as is feasible.
I fear Obama may be too invested in the notion of "winning Afghanistan" -- there is no winning Afghanistan, there is merely denying al Qaeda a secure base of operations and if we interdict and suppress their ability to operate globally, we've won.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
American Conservatism doesn't work
(#130219)Its fundamental problem is that you can't have a huge military and be a champion of small government at the same time. If you can justify a very expensive military, especially during peace time, then you can justify a very expensive [fill in the blank]. You also have to pay for a huge military. The only way to do that, in the US anyway, is by collecting tax revenues.
Why don't you come over to our side BD? Regardless of its size, competent government is the most important thing a leader or a party can provide for its citizens. Democrats understand that. We fall short quite often but our governing philosophy actually can be applied in practice. As long as the Republicans have to pay homage to the small government gods they will never be able to practice what they preach.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
"The only way to do that...is by collecting tax revenues."
(#130237)Oh my god, I wish I had a butterfly net. You must be one of the last political commentators walking the earth who hasn't figured out Republicans don't have to pay for anything. Who needs taxes when you can sink yourself up to the eyeballs in Chinese & British debt?
: P
See Norquist, Grover to get a handle on *real* GOP economic policy. Massive debt is the only politically feasible way they can hope to shut down entitlement programs and forestall new ones. Meanwhile, emergency spending & national security spending can keep going on Uncle Sam's credit card. Breaking the government *is* the plan.
You can take your pick: tax & spend, or borrow & spend. Guess which one wins more elections.
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
I've been hip to that fact for a while
(#130256)The Republicans among us don't seem to understand or admit it however. I saw John Cole converted. I think BD can be too. He seems to be seeking answers about what went wrong with conservatism. The answers are simple for anyone who wants to see them.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
A huge military is unsustainable
(#130222)without collecting tribute from the rest of the world.
5% of global population
25% of petroleum usage
50% of military spending.
This cannot be sustained and $11 trillion in debt proves the point.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
On a side note if you post this at red state will you get the
(#130218)Bam stick? or is it the Moe boot? I miss Moe from the old days but I heard he is pretty quick to ban even moderates....
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and yo
It'll be at Redstate in a diary,
(#130230)and at Swords Crossed, sometime later today.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Looks like they chopped one down in this meme already
(#130233)http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/16/101255/98/269/632323
Someone found the back door to the post... It is off the front page...
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/brad_smith/2008/oct/16/time-to-get-real-and-save-the-senate/#c57704
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and yo
The Obama Moe Bam Ah?
(#130223)??
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
One of the better and IMHO honest posts ever written here..
(#130217)I also think that your party would do well to listen to this criticism. I have some hope with the intellectual side of conservatism. I have less hope on the evangelical side and the fusion is still IMHO the toughest issue moving forward.
The democratic party would do well to open up transparency and run a good government. I am not sure what it will mean moving forward. One thing that conservatives should relish is that borrow and spend will limit the change that can be done. I have always held that it was in part done on purpose with just that fact in mind.
Still I welcome radical centrism... Or moderates..... Healthcare in a global market is an anvil around business that has to change.. Markets have to have transparency and regulation to provide confidence. In the end if the middle class does not grow then we will have greater and greater problems...
Gingrich is one of the few conservatives that I have read that has any ideas that address the real problems ahead... I predict that he will run in 2012.....
McCain was up against it but he did himself no favors... His VP pick was the end IMHO... Up until that moment he had a shot... The economy did matter but it was not the only problem...
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and yo
On RS
(#130215)Autumn of a presidential election year is maybe not the best time to roll out a brand new web platform.
let's hope the repubs are listening to you
(#130212)I'm all for a strong opposition party to keep the majority honest. Regarding your last paragraph - one can hope, right? Blame for the Republicans problems can be spread pretty wide but the insane rhetoric of the marketing arm can take a big share. Unfortunately there are already cranks proposing an impeachment action against Obama for, get this, ACORN. Christ, please kick those guys out of your party. Or at least hide them in the basement instead of pandering to them.
You won't believe me...
(#130209)But I share your hopes. It's in the country's interest -- and in a weird way, the Democrats' interest -- to have a vigorous and coherent opposition.
Couple of points... I don't think the reform will come from the house, although there are smart Republicans in the house. They will be lost in the caucus there, and when the members from moderate districts lose their jobs, it's the crazies that are left predominant.
My other comment is that Media Matters was based on AIM... a conservative organization. A lot of our success has come from aping conservative mechanisms, and in some cases, improving on them.
Finally... study David Cameron and the conservative government in England. A conservative resurgence won't be a carbon copy, because America is not the UK. But the example should be instructive.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
No Republican could have won this year
(#130207)That takes nothing away from Obama, who did after all defeat the Clinton machine in the primaries, and there was nothing foregone about that conclusion.
McCain was in an impossible position vis-a-vis Bush. I'm not sure it's fair to say that he can "blame" the man -- blame him for his dirty victory in the 2000 primaries, maybe, but once a Republican President is in office, there's only so much a Republican legislator can do if he wants to keep his job. (Let's not forget that Bush was not always as unpopular as he is now.)
Your prescription for conservatism is spot-on, and I fervently hope, for the nation's sake, that it is followed.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
Yes - well said, BD
(#130221)And while I pretty much agree in principle with SNK's analysis: a better-run campaign at the top of the ticket might serve to make it more of a close contest, at the least, and help stanch the bleeding down-ticket. As it is, it's beginning to look like it will be a Dem blowout for the House and Senate as well; Sen. Obama's coattails may just have gotten considerably longer. And the poor quality of the campaign run at the Presidential level is, IMHO, a direct factor. I agree that the various negatives attached to the fading Bush Administration were/are a tremendous handicap for any Republican running this year: but the clownshow Sen. McCain has let his campaign turn into hasn't helped the Party in the least.
And yes agree 100% about the need for a consistent, coherent and principled "conservative" (/Republican) opposition in Congress. And in the idea-sphere as well. One wonders, though, if that will be even be possible in the near-term; given that the balance of power in the Republican caucus will probably gravitate into the hands of the RSC gang: a clique whose main critique of their Party's efforts so far is that they haven't been rigidly ideological and exclusionary enough. And who seem poised to try to relive the Gingrich-era glory days of "government by investigation".
Oh, and a rump "Republican" electoral base concentrated in a few limited areas of the country, and whose activist core are the sorts whose main reading material are the Left Behind series - and who don't recognize it as fiction.
An uphill climb, IMO: the 2010's may prove about as long (and as productive) a decade for the GOP as the 1930's.
Well Said, Bird
(#130206)Tho' I'm not sure Bush is entirely at fault for McCain's collapse. Unless you count his hiring of an entire load of Bush hacks to run his campaign.
And that's really the problem. McCain has ran an absolutely awful presidential campaign, lurching from one message to the next, never finding any kind of consistency in this regard, and letting his inner Drama Queen make far too many important decisions, from anointing Palin to suspending his campaign.
On a personal level, he may simply be too eccentric for the job. The latter is why the press always loved him. But there's a thin line between eccentric and downright weird. All those tics, grins, blinks, and snarls sunk him every bit as much as Bush's manifold failures.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
McCain was the GOP's best shot
(#130225)But there is a disconnect between conservatives and McCain, which was why he went with Palin, which in turn says something about too many of my fellow conservatives. I don't think any other conservative could have done better, except for a McCain-Jindal ticket.
I agree that McCain screwed up by hiring Schmidt, but give credit to the Obama campaign. They've been effective at painting McCain as "erratic" while a comparatively inactive Obama is self-portrayed as "steady". Dan McLaughlin is one of the smarter front-page bears at Redstate, and he nailed it on the Obama talking points.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
McCain had to be erratic
(#130291)I agree that McCain was their best chance this cycle.
But -- and replying to Harley here more than BD -- I don't think we can blame McCain for seeming erratic. When you're starting out deep in the hole, you're just going to have to go all over the map trying to dig yourself out.
But there was no way to dig himself out -- so he just had to flail around more and more. At best, finding a calm and consistent theme would've meant that McCain would lose calm and consistently.
That said, McCain does seem to have some personality issues when the pressure is on and the more charming candidates have had a 100% track record for a long time once it gets out of the primary. I think a Gore/McCain race in 2000 would've went to Gore (not because Gore is charming, but because it was already close and McCain lacks as much charm as Gore).
Steven Palmer Peterson
What's with the past tense?
(#130293)Election is still a few weeks away, you know.
I'll go ahead and call it now.
(#130305)In fact, I was calling this election for "Generic Democrat" last year -- so I'm sure as heck going to call it for Obama after looking at the maps!
I know Joe Biden just sent me an email saying "Anyone who tells you this election is already decided is dead wrong."
But I'm not a politician or running for office so I don't need to be polite or humble or cautious or whatever.
And Obama ain't leaden-voiced, "I'll spend half my global warming movie making a precious, sepia-toned campaign commercial for myself", record-burning wife Al Gore.
Steven Palmer Peterson
Yep, That's True
(#130259)The Obama campaign is one of the best run I've ever seen. But McCain's problems go well beyond that. Part of the problem? The old GOP killer attack angles may be, well, out of date:
I'm one of those liberals who winced at every one of the Golden Oldies, I simply couldn't believe that they had lost their magical powers.
But it seems as though they have. Which suggests the GOP needs to find an approach more appropriate to this century.
(The above quote from Ezra Klein.)
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
Yep, new angles needed
(#130276)Some of it sounded pretty old and misplaced. They just don't strike the same chords anymore.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Message discipline is not just for Republicans anymore
(#130227)Obama learned that by watching Republican success stories.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
I don't think it's been said clearly enough...
(#130211)He probably would have lost anyway, but McCain's campaign has been the worst Republican campaign of my adult life.
Before Schmidt, it was an undisciplined, gaffe-a-day disaster.
After Schmidt, it was erratic, wavering and without any strategic direction.
If McCain had kept Murphy and Weaver, and if they had run an unorthodox, independent-ish campaign, they might be behind by 3 or 4 instead of by 8.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs