(updated below)
Some observations about the port controversy, Bush's shattered popularity, and one the many significant problems which Democrats have to resolve:
(1) When Iran’s President made statements recently about wanting to wipe Israel off the map, that anti-Israel sentiment was immediately held up as evidence that he was a dangerous, deranged madman whom we have to confront, even with our (somewhat tied-up) military, if necessary.
Neoconservatives have spent many years equating anti-Israeli hostility with anti-American hostility – arguing, for instance, that when it comes to “supporting terrorism,” a country is guilty of that crime not only by supporting Al Qaeda but also by supporting terrorists groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which focus their attention almost exclusively not on the United States, but on Israel. Neoconservatives have long conflated anti-Israeli terrorism with anti-American terrorism, constantly claiming that Saddam Hussein “supports terrorism” and then citing as evidence the fact that he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel, not the United States.
All of that is what makes the support which many of them have expressed for the UAE port deal rather baffling. As has been noted many times, the UAE has a policy towards Israel that is as radical and hostile as any country in the world, including Iran.
A CNN/Sports Illustrated tennis columnist, Jon Wertheim, published a column yesterday expressing outrage over the fact that an ATP tennis tournament is currently being held in Dubai, UAE. Wertheim observed that Israeli players on the tour are barred from participating in the tournament because Israeli citizens are not even permitted to enter that country.
One can get a sense of just how radical the UAE is by reviewing its official website for tourists, which includes some information about the country’s entrance and visa policies:
General Information
There are several types of visas for visitors to Dubai.
Nationals of “Israel” may not enter the U.A.E.
Citizens of the Arab Gulf Co-operation Council member states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia) do not need a visa.
It isn’t just that Israeli citizens are barred from entering the country. Note the snide quotations marks around the word Israel -- because it’s a concept that is not real, that does not actually exist.
And notice the countries whose citizens can enter the UAE without even so much as obtaining a visa. The list includes Saudi Arabia, the country which gave us
The United States has previously insisted that countries which allow citizens of certain Middle Eastern countries to enter without visas are creating a security threat. Indeed, the U.S. invoked this rationale when it angered numerous countries around the world, including several Eastern European nations as well as Brazil, by refusing to waive vias requirements for entrance of their citizens into the U.S., and even imposing new fingerprinting and photograph requirements on those citizens.
The rationale given by the U.S. is that those countries have “insecure borders” because they allow citizens from various Middle Eastern states to enter their countries without visas. And yet the UAE allows Saudi nationals to enter with nothing more than a passport. No visa is required. That’s a country which we are going to allow to operate our ports?
(2) Back in early November, in the midst of the seizures which Bush followers were having over the insufficiently ideological Harriet Miers, CBS News released a poll showing that Bush’s approval ratings had sunk to 35%, a new all-time low. In response, a slew of Bush followers began shrieking that the CBS poll was so plainly biased and fixed, with National Review’s Peter Robinson proclaiming: “If this is the way you intend to re establish your network's credibility, save yourself a lot of trouble and simply re-hire Dan Rather.”
As I noted at the time, the following day the Pew Research Center released a poll showing Bush’s approval ratings at 36%. And that was followed by a slew of similar polls showing his approval ratings in the same range. In my naivete as a relatively new blogger, I wrote a post which asked whether those who attacked the CBS poll would acknowledge the unfairness and erroneous nature of their attacks (given that virtually other poll subsequently confirmed the findings of CBS), and then observed in a follow-up post that while a couple of the accusers did acknowledge their error in response to my post, most remained silent, slithering on to their next series of shrill attacks without any accountability and without any regard to whether the attacks are true.
This week we have deja vu all over again. A new CBS poll shows the President’s approval ratings at another all-time low, and Bush followers – who, even more than they hate “liberals,” hate facts which undermine their fantasies of the triumphant glory of the Commander-in-Chief – are swarming all over the place, insisting that the CBS poll is biased and false. They do so despite the fact that no less a Bush loving shill than Kellyanne Conway, who holds herself out as some sort of pro-Bush polling expert, has made clear that the CBS poll is methodologically sound, but no matter. Polls which reflect poorly on the Leader are bad, wrong and skewed – just like those little skirmishes in Iraq are nothing more than the inventions of a Bush-hating media. Facts that negate fantasies are simply discarded.
Bush is a popular and beloved Leader. Americans admire him and believe in his vision. They hate Democrats. Everything is going great in Iraq. Exactly on plan. There is peace, democracy and prosperity there. We are winning the war. We are defeating the terrorists. Freedom is on the march.
(3) Nobody has more of a capacity for leading his followers to believe the opposite of reality than Rush Limbaugh does. Here is what he told his audience of 20 million people back in November, 2005 in the middle of an angry rant about Republicans dissenting from the President’s decrees:
Now the Democrats don't do this. They are disciplined. They punish those who dare to cross them, not so on our side. We don't have any party discipline.
I’ve been meaning to write a post for sometime about what I consider to be one of the most serious problems which Democrats face in trying to undermine Republican hegemony. It is the fact that they are so divided on almost every issue that they spend more time fighting with each other and attacking each other than they do fighting the Bush Administration. The most vicious and effective attacks on DNC Chair Howard Dean, for instance, have come from other Democrats. By contrast, one cannot even fathom hearing a Republican express anything other than praise and agreement with Ken Mehlman.
Democrats are constantly attacking one another and muddling, and even destroying, their brand. To illustrate this problem, here is the vote breakdown by party on some of the most significant legislative questions to face the Senate during the Bush Presidency:
Vote to confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court
Republicans - 56-0
Democrats - 22 -22
Cloture vote on Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court
Republicans - 54-0
Democrats - 19-25
Vote on Authorization to use military force in Iraq
Republicans - 48-1
Democrats - 29-21
Cloture vote on Bankrupty Bill
Republicans - 55-0
Democrats - 14-30
Cloture vote on nomination of Priscilla Owens to appeals court
Republicans - 55-0
Democrats - 25-18
Just as Rush told his audience, those wild, rebellious Republican free spirits have no party discipline at all, while the robotic, loyal Democrats whip everyone into shape and dissent from the party line is severely punished.
This problem for the Democrats is profoundly serious. There is no way to articulate a clear, principled set of ideas to the American public when, on every major question, the party itself is divided and more interested in waging war on itself than on the Administration.
UPDATE: We have begun the Maine and Nebraska phase of our local campaigns to demand a hearing by the Senate Intelligence Committee into the NSA scandal. As the post below sets forth, it has become indisputably clear that the Administration is eavesdropping on Americans beyond just the limitations of the lawless NSA program that has been disclosed thus far, and almost certainly includes exclusively domestic communications. The need for an investigation into the scope of this lawless eavesdropping is more urgent than ever.
Jane Hamsher has posted all of the relevant information here, including all of the contact information you will need -- which is posted at Vichy Democrats -- to write letters to the editor or Op-Eds for local newspapers in Nebraska and Maine. Anyone in Nebraska or Maine or with meaningful connections to those two states (enabling you to use a local address) is enthusiastically encouraged to participate. Swaying either Sen. Hagel or Sen. Snowe to support Sen. Rockefeller's motion to hold hearings can make the difference as to whether these hearings are held.
I love watching those neocons struggle between their Israel loyalty and their Bush loyalty on the UAE deal. Watching Charles Krauthammer explain how great the UAE is is really a pleasure to behold!!
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteWhat you write here is undeniably true -- politically, the Democrats are a mess. But, somehow, there might just be some good news in that.
1) Democrats, traditionally, have always been like that, but, fortunately, so is the country. People's opinions don't always march in lockstep. You could call that disorganized, or you can call it open minded (I'm not, but I'm just saying that it's another way of looking at the problem you outline).
2) Yes, the GOP takes full advantage of their rigidity and the Democrats' lack of discipline -- but if it wasn't for the counterproductive public posturing of Democrats like Hilary C. and Joe L., Harry Reid could plausibly make the case that Democrats serve their constiuents first, not the party. It's a message that could resonate. Unfortunately, when hacks like Lieberman and Clinton triangulate, they aim to undercut Democrats, unlike Ben Nelson from Nebraska who simply goes his own way, without the anti-Democratic histrionics.
3) I do think party discipline is important, but until the Democrats can dominate the narrative, it's a necessarily rearguard action.
Of course, all of this could change overnight if Dems could craft a simple message.
Regarding point #2, you make a strong case that Democrats aren't unified. However, you seem to be calling for a greater party loyalty, which seems to be a complete backwards strategy to me. Instead of attacking the fact that Democrats don't have party loyalty, attack the fact that the party leaders can't express a coherent and principled vision. It really isn't that hard to come up with one: the liberal blogs do a pretty good job of supplying one, for example.
ReplyDeleteOnce that vision has been communicated strongly, the issues party loyalty will resolve themselves.
"[W]e are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield." — George Orwell
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you seem to be calling for a greater party loyalty, which seems to be a complete backwards strategy to me. Instead of attacking the fact that Democrats don't have party loyalty, attack the fact that the party leaders can't express a coherent and principled vision.
ReplyDeleteI think Democrats need to stop attacking and condemning people in their party who actually stand up to the Administration. Lots of Democrats spend their time on television defending the Administration and attacking the principled people in their party. By contrast, Republicans spend all of their time on television attacking Democrats and articulating a coordinated message. That is a huge liability for Democrats.
The ones who are guilty of this are the ones eager to show how "reasonable" they are by serving as attack dogs on their own party.
Just ignore him and he'll OD and get burried in a piano crate.
There are few individuals with more political influence in this country than Rush Limbaugh. Trying to ignore him is a strategy that is as futile as it is counter-productive.
Bush followers align themselves with very extreme views and people who are continuously dishonest. "Ignoring" those people is exactly what Bush followers want. That way, their radical alliances can stay hidden. We should spend a lot more time - not less time - highlighting the corruption, dishonesty and true radicalism of people like Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, James Dobson, Pat Robertson. Allowing the Bush movement to maintain alliances with those people and reap all the benfits while not forcing them to pay a price for relying on such radical elements is exactly the mistake Bush opponents have been making, in my view.
Why would you possibly want to ignore Rush Limbaugh when you could -- like the Democrats did so successfully with Newt Gingrich and others - use his false and repulsive statements to show the true face of the Bush followers?
This problem for the Democrats is profoundly serious. There is no way to articulate a clear, principled set of ideas to the American public when, on every major question, the party itself is divided and more interested in waging war on itself than on the Administration.
ReplyDeleteIf I may offer a historical perspective...
My GOP was in the same position after WWII solidified the New Deal and big government until Reagan.
The GOP then and the Dems now held views which were only shared by a minority of voters. Instead of selling their ideas to convert a majority of voters, both of these parties tried to regain power by being a "me too, but only less so" party. The problem with this approach is that voters generally will vote for the real McCoy over the pale imitation.
You will occasionally win playing "me too" with people like Nixon and Clinton, but it never sticks.
However, if you are going to reestablish the brand as you so aptly put it and be honest to your base principles, the Dems are going to have to accept a period of time in the wilderness as did the GOP.
The GOP started its road to recovery of a genuinely conservative majority when Goldwater ran in 1964. He was slaughtered because only a minority of voters was prepared to accept his message at that time.
It took another 16 years of voter education to get the first genuine conservative President in Reagan and another 14 years to get the present GOP congress.
Whether you like it or not, this is a conservative majority country right now. It probably will be until the boomers retire and start demanding that their children and grandchildren provide them with the retirement for which they neglected to save. That will be the opening for the Dems if they return to their Euro social democratic roots.
However, with any luck, the Dems in 2020 will be as clueless as the GOP in the 50s and blow their first comeback opportunity.
I'm not sure this a winner for Dems to go on and on about the UAE managing the facilities (not security) at these ports. It's like we're buying into this idea that all Arabs are suspect.
ReplyDeleteAny arguments about the UAE's specific terrorism vulnerabilities (such as the ones in my post) as opposed to their general status as an Arab country is not susceptible to "racism" accusations from any reasonable person.
The mere fact that the UAE is an Arab country should not automatically subject it to security concerns, but that fact should also not immunize them from such concerns either.
“There is no way to articulate a clear, principled set of ideas to the American public...”
ReplyDeleteSo at least Mr. Greenwald is grounded in reality. There is a “public” that must be articulated to. I guess I don’t understand politics. I read where many, if not most of our ports have been controlled by foreign countries for years – including China!. Then I read about politicians of both parties raising a hue and cry about the UAE thing. Yeah, it bears some more looking into and disclosure, but what is all this other stuff? Is Israel an ally or what? Is the UAE? Since when must our allies agree with all our other allies? H*ll, EU countries have the same money and they don’t agree with each other all that much.
So I am sitting here thinking: “You know, instead of being a negative as many of the commenters here believe, the additional quotes of Howard Dean on Qand O have made me think that he isn’t such a whacko and maybe I could vote for him. If it weren’t for the whackos that appear to make up his base and to whom he will have to pander after he is elected. An example appears this morning in the commenter Dread Scott. Scott appears to believe that Bush supporters are a dwindling minority. Maybe he means :frothing at the mouth:” supporters, in which case he is probably right. Then he refers to “the majority” who are being abandoned. Finally, there is reference to myths that “most people” have rejected. He also says: “...make reality go away...”
Dread is obviously a city dweller who reads and believes the NYT and works in a “conservative free-fire” zone and believes that his views are the majority views when applied to all Americans.
Maybe that kind of ignorance is good for stoking enthusiasm and for raising funds. As for gaining any support from or converting someone with a firmer grasp on reality.....
I must take issue as well. I see little benefit from Democrats acting as Republicans. The votes on issues you cite are all Republican proposals. The more important phenomenon is the rote actions and the extreme lockstep actions of the Republican Party.
ReplyDeleteThis is important to note: The Republican Party of today is the party of the corporatists. Their loyalty lies not to their constituents (except on sharply honed wedge issues created whole cloth by their consultants) nor to the best interests of America but to the corporations, big business, the international entities. They are globalist and "free trade" is their mantra.
Owens, Roberts, Scalito, etc were nominated to the courts not for their views on wedge issues such as abortion. That's advertising. They were nominated because they are corporatists.
As for Bush, he embodies the breed. Bush is a well-advertised package. Those who blindly follow him (the Bush Cult) do so because he has been packaged as a celebrity. He's a Marlboro Man, a Dave Thomas, Moses packaged as Charlton Heston.
There is nothing transparent about corporatism. Not their accounting (Enron, World Com), not their actions (DWP deal and others approved by the CPAIC group). Corporatist rely instead upon two strateties to maintain control of the American people and especially the American people as voters and consumers: Information control and divide and conquer.
I think Glenn misses the mark in his post, jay brida's, charlie's (and Glenn's more recent) comments are more perceptive. Republican lockstep discipline is unhealthy, not something to admire or emulate but smacks of totalitarianism. The problem is not so much the division among democrats, but how these divisions occur. In a healthier party splits would occur along different lines for different issues, but I'd wager that among those who vote for the Republican side of those issues, you would see the same names again and again. These are Democrats in Name only or very close - and there are far too many in the party leadership that behave this way. The problem is not even that the leaders can't express a coherent vision and principled visions, but that they don't really believe in anything resembling a liberal vision and have no principles to speak of. If they are in some way dems at heart, they are absurdly defeatist and "triangulate" - i.e. play dead in the hope the enemy will be nice. If you believe you are powerless, you will be. They remind me of the appeasers before WWII.
ReplyDeleteOne technical note, that claim about Saddam is misleading. The truth is that he was giving money to Palestinian organizations that in turn dispensed money to the families of all Palestinians that died in the struggle. Suicide bombers were a small percentage of these numbers, and their families were given a greater amount than others. The claim as stated, and repeated frequently, implies Saddam was cutting checks to suicide bombers. Not quite true, Milan Rai gives more detail in Iraq: Ten Reasons Against War with Iraq. The specifics elude me now, I havent read it in a few years.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, one thing that has always amazed me is that our access and ability to find information is matched only by our ability to refuse to acknowledge it. It is a strange phenomenon. (In reference to people simply refusing to recognize polls, facts, etc.) Good post.
There are few individuals with more political influence in this country than Rush Limbaugh.
ReplyDeleteSo are you saying we should all send him hillbilly heroin daily?
The mere fact that the UAE is an Arab country should not automatically subject it to security concerns, but that fact should also not immunize them from such concerns either.
ReplyDeleteWRF? What about the idea that foreign companies should not "own" America's ports?
It is so pre-1776 to argue otherwise -- why do we need to play this game with the neocons?
It is a valid argument that foreign governments should not own vital national assets. If that govenment has been infiltrated by a known enemy of the US, that makes the takeover even more wrong.
The lies about "free trade" be damned...
The GOP then and the Dems now held views which were only shared by a minority of voters...Whether you like it or not, this is a conservative majority country right now.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind your minority & majority are about 1% different. There was no landslide victory. There was no mandate. Bush barely fucking won and it took some election interference and voter suppression to do it.
But, but, Bush got the most votes ever! Gee whiz! Guess who got the second most votes ever? John Kerry. Guess which incumbent "won" by the slimmest margin ever? King George! But, but, look at all the red states on our pretty map! Yeah, that's great. Maybe you can count buffalo and prairie dogs in your majority.
This "we're the majority" line is such a tired talking point because you're talking about a tiny bit more than half of the people who voted.
Right now, about 65% of Americans, a clear majority, are pissed about how this country is being run. I wish the Dems in charge would keep that in mind.
First, I wouldn't want a party who is divided for the simple reason that it has no underlying philosophical set of beliefs to unite it getting into power.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the point? Wanting an unprincipled group of people to act more "political" so they can get in office, for no good reason, to further no good end, is misguided, if one really loves this country and wants to restore it to sanity.
The solution is to assemble a group of politicians who have an underlying, openly stated, cohesive
and principled set of beliefs and to put them in office.
Bill Clinton advising the UAE on how to push through this Port deal while his wife speaks out against it is a screechingly blatant example of the moral bankruptcy which lies at the heart of the present Democratic Party.
Alan Greenspan is right. A Third party, or a rogue faction of one of the present two parties, may be the only way to go.
Alan Greenspan confined his observations to comment on how both parties have been taken over by their more extreme elements.
He could not, because of who he is and what position he held, also state the obvious, which it is clear he knows and is horrified by.
That is that the upper echelons of both parties are two sides of the same coin, equally corrupt, equally self-serving, and equally likely to continue the self-destructive path the United States is now headed down.
It is truly amazing that a Bush-kool-aid drinker like Kellyanne Conway wrote "it does conservatives and Republicans no good to ignore the evidence". THIS IS A COUP D'ÉTAT!
ReplyDeleteLast year on 'Real Time with Bill Maher' during a discussion on Iraq she had the audacity to state that pre-war Iraqi women were covered head to toe in burkas, and should therefore be grateful the U.S. invaded. No clearer evidence of an ill-informed, fantasy based view of the world needs to be found when one can't even distinguish Arab countries (read Arabs) apart.
Freedom really is on the march...only it's rightfully marching back into American politics and reclaiming power from dishonest, arrogant, and disturbingly inhumane Republicans. Pity that we must wait 9 months! Can you say 25% approval ratings? The basement is the limit!
Well, sure, but if you're going to resort to actual numbers to make your point, then surely you have lost the argument.
ReplyDeleteFacts are for losers.
Whoa.
ReplyDeleteconstantly claiming that Saddam Hussein “supports terrorism” and then citing as evidence the fact that he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel, not the United States.
Is this really a "fact"? Who said this? Did Saddam himself confirm this? Is this just an allegation by the Administration, or is it really a "fact"?
I can't state here why I ask, because the implications if this is true would be monumental, but could someone fill me in on the details of this, and where this information comes from?
Meanwhile, how much do people on this site know about the myriad and coming from reliable reporters
details of Osama Bin Laden's connection to the CIA?
This is indeed the problem of the Democratic Party. This also shows the reason the base needs to exert its power; dilution of a cohesive caucus.
ReplyDeleteDavid said...
ReplyDeleteBart: The GOP then and the Dems now held views which were only shared by a minority of voters...Whether you like it or not, this is a conservative majority country right now.
Keep in mind your minority & majority are about 1% different. There was no landslide victory. There was no mandate. Bush barely fucking won and it took some election interference and voter suppression to do it.
Keep lying to yourself. The GOP said the same nonsense about the "Silent Majority."
No Dem has received a majority of the vote for President since LBJ.
The only reason the 2004 vote was within 3 points instead of 6 or so was that the country was in an unpopular ground war. Even so, Mr. Bush received a majority of the vote.
The election was never really in doubt. I predicted the final outcome a year out.
Right now, about 65% of Americans, a clear majority, are pissed about how this country is being run. I wish the Dems in charge would keep that in mind.
Polls are showing people pissy about gas prices and the war lasting so long. However, the Dems offer no alternatives a majority of voters are willing to accept.
Your solution to the the energy question is not to produce more energy, but instead to kick mom and her kids out of her SUV.
Your solution to the war is not to win, but to cut and run.
By all means feel free to campaign on those ideas in 2006 and a 20 seat loss will show you where the country's voters actually stand.
There is no way to articulate a clear, principled set of ideas to the American public when, on every major question, the party itself is divided and more interested in waging war on itself than on the Administration.
ReplyDeleteWell, this doesn't fall into the catagory of "shit-happens." It is that way cuz it serves some purpose.
Was ralph right?
This is getting “curiouser and curiouser”. Bill Clinton helped Dubai on ports deal…
ReplyDeleteBill Clinton, former US president, advised top officials from Dubai two weeks ago on how to address growing US concerns over the acquisition of five US container terminals by DP World.
It came even as his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal.
Meanwhile, on CNN, the Wolfman is apoplectic reporting news of a letter sent to Hillary Clinton from Zim Integrated Shipping Services offering strong (an understatement) support (a near apotheosis of DP World) for the Dubai Ports World deal, with another letter to be delivered to Chuck Schumer. This stinks of Rovian subterfuge, circumlocution, and no-holes-barred geopolitical arm twisting. Evidently, this is about a strategic positioning to attack Iran. Cats and dogs sleeping together? W/T/F?
Now this news:
LONDON, England (AP) -- Britain's High Court has approved the takeover of British shipping icon Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. by state-owned Dubai Ports World, despite a last-minute objection by a U.S. company.
One would have to be blind not to see the chess pieces being moved to topple Iran. This is so surreal – an actual dystopian world being born right before our eyes – that even commenting on these events seems an exercise in futility.
For those who are dubious of the geopolitical maneuvering, take a look at this:
State Department creates new Iran office amid growing concern over regime
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The State Department is setting up a new office to deal specifically with foreign policy changes posed by Iran and to promote a democratic transition in the country, several State Department officials told CNN Thursday.
Traditionally Iran has been dealt with as part of a larger grouping of Gulf countries, but the officials said the new Office of Iran Affairs reflects a growing concern over actions by the Iranian regime and the need to devote significantly more personnel and resources to Iran policy.
"Certainly this signals the fact that we believe that Iran and Iranian behavior is one of the greatest foreign policy priorities we will be dealing with over the next decade," one State Department official told CNN.
Let’s “connect the dots” ourselves here, before we really are living in A Brave New World – after Hillary is elected, with the help of the Bush cabal, and she reveals her neocon conversion.
"Your solution to the the energy question is not to produce more energy, but instead to kick mom and her kids out of her SUV.
ReplyDeleteYour solution to the war is not to win, but to cut and run.
By all means feel free to campaign on those ideas in 2006 and a 20 seat loss will show you where the country's voters actually stand."
I hope someone is paying you to write this tripe. Otherwise, thanks for proving Glenn's thesis about the Cult of Bush.
Lease as when I "lease a car" and it is my "care, custody, and control?"
ReplyDeleteThe distinction you draw is an accounting gimmick and in no way means that are not "in control"
and the deal specifically exempts them from keeping company records in US which will make it difficult or impossible for other "stakeholders" to play their role.
It is a lie that they are just going to be "tenants"...
notherbob2 writes:So I am sitting here thinking: “You know, instead of being a negative as many of the commenters here believe, the additional quotes of Howard Dean on Qand O have made me think that he isn’t such a whacko and maybe I could vote for him. If it weren’t for the whackos that appear to make up his base and to whom he will have to pander after he is elected. An example appears this morning in the commenter Dread Scott. Scott appears to believe that Bush supporters are a dwindling minority. Maybe he means :frothing at the mouth:”
ReplyDeleteBelieve me -- believe me -- I understand what you don't like about some of the Democrats' base. But look at what we've gotten from Bush and his populist GOP nuts in the Congress, who pander to their base.
They led the nation, along with Terry Randall and a bunch of far right religious lunatics, in passing "emergency" legislation to federalize guardianship and end-of-life decisions in one Florida Probate Court. A Baptist, Republican judge in Florida had to live under armed guard, due to the death threats he was receiving from this GOP base. And the Bushies did nothing but fan those flames, which constituted an egregious attack on our judiciary, federalism and the rule of law.
Then there is the anti-science nonsense. Staffing NASA's PR dept with evangelicals who have no background in science, but who direct actual scientists to modify public announcments and their web sites to conform with so-called Intelligent Design "theory."
Then there are the Coulterites, who really see nothing at all wrong with dismissing every person who is not right-of-center as a traitor. And the GOP's up-coming Young Turk, Ben Shapiro, who seriously advocates passing an anti-sedition law that would criminalize any criticism of George Bush's foreign policies. How can civil public discourse take place in such a toxic atmosphere, generated by Bush's radical base?
I don't agree with Howard Dean on everything, but he is far, far closer to my understanding of sensible policy views then are Bush and Frist. If International A.N.S.W.E.R. also considers him a lesser evil than Bush, well, I cannot see how it would be rational to oppose him, anymore than when I overlooked Dobson and the fever swamps of pro-Bush Freeperville when I voted for Bush in '04.
""Your solution to the the energy question is not to produce more energy, but instead to kick mom and her kids out of her SUV."
ReplyDeleteNo. The solution is a combination of energy effeciency, new technology, and new energy souces, but no one with any support within the Democratic party is suggesting that we "kick mom and her kids out of her SUV" and put them into a Yugo.
How much are you paid to write this crap? Do you run it by focus groups before you post it?
Is this really a "fact"? Who said this? Did Saddam himself confirm this? Is this just an allegation by the Administration, or is it really a "fact"?
ReplyDeleteI can't state here why I ask, because the implications if this is true would be monumental, but could someone fill me in on the details of this, and where this information comes from?
See my comment above
One quick point, everyone says the state (UAE) owned company will only managing the ports with no role in security of the ports. Most security, actual security of the port itself, is handled by private security contracters, who also are the lowest paid people on the ports. The rent-a-cops are hired by manager of the port (in this case a state owned UAE company).
ReplyDeleteSecond, the 'majority' of people do not support the republicans or the democrats. When only (approx.) 50% of a population vote (less in non-presidential years), you have roughly 25% deciding who is placed in charge of our govt....
just some thoughts
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart: Your solution to the the energy question is not to produce more energy, but instead to kick mom and her kids out of her SUV. Your solution to the war is not to win, but to cut and run. By all means feel free to campaign on those ideas in 2006 and a 20 seat loss will show you where the country's voters actually stand.
I hope someone is paying you to write this tripe. Otherwise, thanks for proving Glenn's thesis about the Cult of Bush.
:::heh:::
Denial is not the proverbial river in Egypt.
Folks, you have created this Cult of Bush. George II is not all that important in the scheme of things.
Mr. Bush is simply another in a line of Presidents (including Clinton) who are trying to imitate Reagan.
Clinton enacted the Reagan free trade proposals.
Clinton signed off on the Reagan welfare reform and balanced budget ideas.
The Bush 2003 tax rate cuts are a smaller version of the 81 and 87 Reagan tax reforms.
The Bush Doctrine is the return of the Reagan Doctrine with a different opponent.
The Conservative movement did not start with George II and will certainly continue long after he leaves.
By making the Dem movement all about Bush, you are missing the opportunity to sell your own ideas.
Things are already moving past Mr. Bush an toward the new regime in 2008.
Any of the top 3-4 GOP probable presidential candidates lead over any Dem candidate by high single or low double digits.
You don't slow the Conservative movement by personally demonizing Mr. Bush.
However, don't let me dissuade you from your folly.
Democrats don't have to agree with each other all the time, and won't, but they should spend their energy drawing differences between the two parties. There's no need to take the intramural battles public.
ReplyDeleteHere are what I believe are legitimate reasons to oppose the port deal that don't get a lot of air:
ReplyDelete1. These guys were having tea parties with bin Laden in 1999 and now are our good buddies. Their allegiance is available to the highest bidder, and that may not be us in 5 years.
2. The royals of the UAE who own the port company are among the worst enablers and users of international sex trade/child slavery etc. They get women for their harems and these women disappear. Natalee Holloway may be in a harem in UAE for all we know. I don't want any sex traders making a profit from our ports!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
""Your solution to the the energy question is not to produce more energy, but instead to kick mom and her kids out of her SUV."
No. The solution is a combination of energy effeciency, new technology, and new energy souces, but no one with any support within the Democratic party is suggesting that we "kick mom and her kids out of her SUV" and put them into a Yugo.
Please...
The Dems want to raise the CAFE standards by over 10 MPG and include currently uncovered SUVs. This effectively kicks mom into a Yugo because the manufacturers will be barred from building enough SUVs like my Jeep for everyone in order to meet your standards.
Your new technology is nonsense like solar, wind and biomass.
To power a home, solar costs an additional $20,000. (I priced it when we moved out to Colorado).
You folks managed to convince the voters of Colorado to pass a mandate that 15% of electricity must come from wind sources that Kennedy is fighting in his own backyard. As a result, we can expect a 20% increase in our electricity bills. There are already rumbles that the voters were lied to...
Some of us are trying to wreck what's most likely a harmless business deal by airing out all the dirty laundry of that country? Why should these to things be tied together?
ReplyDeleteBecause it is a legitimate concern? Or conversely, if the bushadmin can run around and tell us how evil them Arabs are, how can they then, without, as we are learning daily, a thorough exploration of our new business associate (for the purposes of this deal) enter into this agreement without having this conversation?
It is becoming more and more obvious, to more and more people that the bushadmin will throw everybody and anybody overboard to make a deal that benefits them.
Who were the other bidders for this contract? How much did they offer? Where were they from?
One thing that I hoped to see in Glenn’s piece was the issue of the US – Israeli relationship. Our policies in support of Israel against the Palestinians are the crux of Arab hatred toward the US. That little tidbit gets left out of the videos of Imams railing against us. Racism works both ways, and can be argued to be valid both ways. I object to the treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. It smacks of racism. Arabs object to the treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. For “them” they are the wronged party. For me, I object to my governments’ and therefore my, by default, complicity in it. Are we both now to branded anti-Semitic? I don’t consider myself anti-Semitic, many Arabs, as shown by their policies and actions are. Do they have a legitimate issue that they would like addressed?
Democrats speaking with one voice would gain us little. To bury disagreements under the veneer of unity will never hold. I always wonder at Frists sudden about face on issues like this. What did the WH show him in those closed-door meetings? Never mind the promises made, what about the threats? I want my representative to represent me. To expect that 1 congressman is able to speak for the thousands eh/she represents in one voice, seems a bit far fetched.
I’m with Greenspan on the third party. We need at least 3. I get to vote for an independent for senate this year.
a couple points
ReplyDelete1. Let's not confuse strategy with tactics. Just because GOP tactics (lie, cheat, steal) are effective within the context of their strategy (win power at all costs) doesn't mean that we should blindly adopt their methods. I think our diversity is our strength. We just have to harness it.
2. Referring to your previous article about how Dems are Progs, True Conservatives, etc cobbled together: Just look at the minority leader's positions - he's no Dem at all. The votes you refer to reflect the true current breakdown in the senate: about 70 to 30 in favor of the entrenched status quo. Dividing up the vote by Dems vs GOP is counter-intuitively misleading.
To power a home, solar costs an additional $20,000. (I priced it when we moved out to Colorado).
ReplyDeleteBut you only pay for it once. Not monthly for the effective lifetime of the house. I'd argue 20k is cheap.
Let's see...in 2000, the majority voted Dem. In 2004, exit polls indicated the same and actual results were essentially a statistical tie.
ReplyDeleteWhere is this supposed "conservative majority"? And if this imaginary majority existed, why the hell would they back Bush, the least consevative Repub I've ever seen in high office?
Bart, how do Rove's balls feel on your chin?
PwapVt said...
ReplyDeleteBart: To power a home, solar costs an additional $20,000. (I priced it when we moved out to Colorado).
But you only pay for it once. Not monthly for the effective lifetime of the house. I'd argue 20k is cheap.
That is $20,000 in todays dollars in addition to what you would otherwise pay in energy costs for a system which does not work in the clouds.
The present value of the money you will pay in the future for energy is far less than the money you are paying up front for the solar system.
This is with government subsidies already factored in.
Bottom line, you will never recover your money, nevertheless come out ahead over your time in the home.
I think the comments here today miss a larger point, Glenn: Dems have frequently relied upon the "consensus" plan to formulate party strategy as opposed to the "top down" formula the GOP uses. I would argue that democracy is about consensus and until we, as progressives, have consensus on the direction we would like the country to go in, it's impossible for our political leaders to do more than respond to pollsters. We have to speak up, loudly, at all times in opinion pieces to newspapers and letters to elected representatives and especially in local party organizations.
ReplyDeleteWhat the GOP has done instead is formulate their platform around corporate agendas and communicate those priorities through religious and moral values and the trumpeting of Patriotic rhetoric.
If I can find the blog post I'll link to it later, but I read an interesting entry that basically said the dem party has done best when it adhered to principles that made things best for the average american. OK, I remember those days, but only just barely. Under Bush, the GOP idea of making things better for small business owners (but in reality for big business stakeholders) has been sold to average Americans as being good for them. I own a small business and hate paying taxes (especially now, to this administration), but I recognize the value of social services and wouldn't want my prosperity to come at the cost of someone else's. It's unfortunate that Dems are chasing this top down strategy instead of energizing the base at home by LISTENING TO IT. I think a lot of Dems feel disenfranchised by the idea of a nationally run party with platforms determined by pollsters and campaign managers. Howard Dean's web-based primary run was successful precisely because it tapped into the core democratic belief that every voice counts. These blogs are a perfect example of that -- the bloggers are continuing to gain popularity because they (we) are symbolic of an individual's ability to impact the American political process. To quote one of my favorite movie marketing campaigns (GLADIATOR): A Hero Will Rise. In this case, that hero is us. The Average American Citizen.
This port deal is a sticky issue precisely because it's cloaking the real issues at play -- our inconsistent foreign policy which bases itself in providing the maximum of corporate benefits to a select group of multinationals with influence and ties to the administration. If the oil and gas/energy industries as well as for-profit defense contractors influence on our system isn't checked soon, we'll be fighting off attackers who are bearing arms we supplied (oops, we're already doing that in Iraq and Afghanistan).
I'd like to find out who Cheney met with during his energy policy talks and trace their lineage in terms of political and corporate ties around the globe. I think our present foreign policy stance on Dubai and the ports deal might clear up immediately. Transparent government, let's look at all the investment and employment ties the administration has and clean it up.
Oh No! Just when Mr. Greenwald has done such an excellent job of portraying the Bush Administration in Gestapo-like innuendo and “possible” civil rights violations, six reports by the Justice Department's independent inspector general comes out and, well.... don’t go read this if you want to have a nice day. Seriously. Don’t believe me? Try these actual quotes:
ReplyDelete“...going back to what Sensenbrenner calls the Patriot Act's "stellar record", one would could argue that it was stellar despite at least 30 possibilities for abuse.
“Zero. That's the number of substantiated USA Patriot Act civil liberties violations. Extensive congressional oversight found no violations.”
“The good news is, no one apparently took advantage of those opportunities (although in the era of BushHitler Chimpy McHalliburton I'm not sure why [/snark]).”
Now just watch those “reasonable” Democrats cite this study when they resist Mr. Greenwald’s call for a full hue and cry on the NSA scandal. Well h*ll.
"However, don't let me dissuade you from your folly."
ReplyDeleteI notice you didn't answer my question - are you paid to write your foolishness or not?
Do you honestly think your strawman arguments are going to hold sway over anyone here? This isn't Ma and Pa Kettle Hour here, if you haven't noticed.
"You folks managed to convince the voters of Colorado to pass a mandate that 15% of electricity must come from wind sources that Kennedy is fighting in his own backyard. As a result, we can expect a 20% increase in our electricity bills."
ReplyDeleteYou're in Colorado, huh? I guess you missed the news that Xcel sold out its Windsource program in the state when the cost of windpower dropped below its normal grid energy sources.
Not that I would expect a propagandist/fool like yourself to actually understand such details, but we'll just let it stand that you just proved yourself to be clueless with absolutely no doubt.
Alaskan_Pete said...
ReplyDeleteLet's see...in 2000, the majority voted Dem.
No, algore had a half percent plurality of popular votes and a minority of electoral votes over in 2000. This is a remarkably poor performance for a VP running with peace and a four and a half percent unemployment rate.
In 2004, exit polls indicated the same and actual results were essentially a statistical tie.
:::chuckle:::
Exit polls which over count actual Dem voters are as much a fantasy as Gallup's recent weekend polls showing Bush tanking to 34% and the Dems leading the GOP by ten points in the race for the House.
The only real poll is when real voters put in real legal ballots into the box.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"However, don't let me dissuade you from your folly."
I notice you didn't answer my question - are you paid to write your foolishness or not?
I usually don't respond to insults. However, you can always sen me a check for the education which I am providing you...
Do you honestly think your strawman arguments are going to hold sway over anyone here?
There is always hope for you...
"However, you can always sen me a check for the education which I am providing you..."
ReplyDeletelol
I see. According to you, windpower will raise your electricity rates in Colorado 20%, even though here in reality, windpower rates from Xcel in Colorado are *lower* NOW than power from its conventional grid sources.
Don't quit your dayjob, "professor".
Oh, and your numbers about solar are also off -- laughably so. But, again, I wouldn't expect the likes of you to understand the complex economics of efficiency, power sources, intertie, and the like.
Keep to the laughable strawman propaganda and provide the much-needed levity that an unintentional jester provides for us all.
notherbob2 breathlessly posts:Oh No! Just when Mr. Greenwald has done such an excellent job of portraying the Bush Administration in Gestapo-like innuendo and “possible” civil rights violations, six reports by the Justice Department's independent inspector general comes out and, well.... don’t go read this if you want to have a nice day.
ReplyDeleteUm, that post at QandO is about The Patriot Act. If Glenn has posted about the PA per se, I don't recall it (he has addressed amendments - both passed, and proposed but unenacted - to FISA wrt the PA).Myself, I've never had much critical to say about it, and certainly not since the issue of Executive law-breaking arose. George Bush is in blatant violation of FISA.
That's what the discussion is about, notherbob2. By definition, Bush's law-breaking means he has violated the statutory rights of every person on whom he has surveilled sans warant, in violation of FISA. This has little to nothing to do with The PA.
We have to play with the system we got, at least for the moment. We are deep in a state of constitutional emergency. So call me misguided, but I'd rather have a group of people "further no good end" than our current group that only furthers the worst ends.
ReplyDeleteI understand and sympathize with the practical realities of this point you are making. But when I wrote "further no good end", by "good" I meant "exposing,condemning, dismantling and reversing" all of the most heinous activities of the current Administration.
I honestly, and reluctantly, but firmly believe that someone like Hillary Clinton or many other of the leading Democratic candidates would do nothing of the sort.
It would be putting lipstick on the pig, tranquillizing the pig for a while so it wouldn't oink too loudly, and then going on with business as usual.
No offense to pigs, who are adorable, lovable and intelligent animals, but I just use that analogy to make a point.
Which is why I believe that unless it is Russ Feingold, about whom I confess I don't know much but I know enough to see he is his own man, fearless, principled, and against totalitarianism, which is more than enough for me, I don't see any real gain, other than the slim hope that an opposition party in one of the houses will be able to perhaps effectuate some changes.
Certainly nobody here thinks that if the Democrats win the House, the Democratic party is then going to start all sorts of investigations and cry out against these illegal, immoral activities.
To think that would be as naive as Kellyanne. All that will happen is we will then be told, "Wait. We got control of one of the houses. Now we have to all work together to get a Democrat in the White House", and the candidate will probably be Hillary.
Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner for one simple reason. She raises the most money. That's because Democrats in this country do not give a sh*t about any of the issues which concern us here, or they would be giving that money to Russ Feingold, or Al Gore.
They give it to Hillary because they want someone in the White House who will open up the gravy train to them.
Do you honestly think Hillary Clinton believes, as you and I do, that there is a constitutional emergency going on in this country?
I think that if someone even suggested that to her, she wouldn't know what that person was talking about, and would consult her "advisers" to find out what her "position" is, and how best to work into her speeches some reference to the "crisis" to appeal to those voters she has been told care about that "crisis."
The type of change that is needed in this country to save it is way beyond just putting Democrats in as a "first step".
Who are these Democrats in contested races that might shift the balance in November? Has anyone done a survey to see what each has to say about the NSA scandal, the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the fraudulent War on Terrorism, etc.? If they can't speak out now, for fear of upsetting someone, why is there any reason to assume they are going to be one bit different than the craven cowards who now occupy congressional seats?
The only real poll is when real voters put in real legal ballots into the box.
ReplyDeletePrecisely. Democrats, as Glenn has so accurately pointed out, are divided and confused, devoid of credible leadership, and incapable of promulgating a national agenda. This fall, the architect will concentrate Republican resources so effectively that I predict we will gain seats in the House and hold our 55 seat majority in the Senate (with shifts here and there).
Democrats are politically flat on their backs.
...Feingold, about whom I confess I don't know much but I know enough to see he is his own man...against totalitarianism...
ReplyDeleteExcept, it appears, in Iraq.
"Except, it appears, in Iraq."
ReplyDeleteFunny to see a supporter (you) of totalitarianism in his own country critical of totalitarianism in another.
Some people just enjoy subverting their will to the "superman".
Myself, I'm still struggling with Bart's earlier assertion:
ReplyDeleteNo Dem has received a majority of the vote for President since LBJ.
Unless I'm much mistaken, Bill Clinton won the majority vote and the Electoral College twice (1992 and 1996).
That's reality.
And I note Bart grants that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, only to be denied the Presidency due to the Electoral College.
That's reality.
Indeed, I can think of only candidate in the last 50+ years that has lost the popular vote but still gained the White House due to the Electoral College: George W Bush.
That's reality.
If Bart is referring to an absolute majority (51% or higher) to win the White House via popular vote, I have to concede his point on purely technical grounds. I don't have the exact figures on hand.
"Unless I'm much mistaken, Bill Clinton won the majority vote and the Electoral College twice (1992 and 1996)."
ReplyDeleteBushites love saying that, conveniently ignoring that both 1992 and 1996 had a thrid party candidate with a substantial base of support. These are the same sort of people who believe that the budget surplus never existed, among many other reality-defying notions.
This fall, the architect will concentrate Republican resources so effectively that I predict we will gain seats in the House and hold our 55 seat majority in the Senate (with shifts here and there).
ReplyDeleteAs Glenn said: We are winning in Iraq. Freedom is on the march. Bush is a beloved and popular President. All is Good. America is Strong. Long live the President! HAIL BUSH!!
They sound like creepy zombies.
If patriotic Americans who care about this country are out there in the grassroots, David Shaugnessy gives them a voice.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to give up, but if the vision David Shaugnessy has for America isn't the vision we all get behind, I see nothing really good happening in time to save this country.
Practically speaking, it might just be good if the Democrats remain in disarray and shoot themselves in the foot yet again.
Since more and more people are coming to loathe the brand of Republicanism that has taken over, it just might come to pass that instead of people viewing their votes for a third party as "wasted votes", they might conclude that any vote not cast for a Third Party which cries out in defiance against all that is going on is the vote that would be "wasted."
"No Dem has received a majority of the vote for President since LBJ."
ReplyDeleteYou sure are whiffing them today, Bartster.
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/national.php?year=1976
You might also wish to pay attention to the 1980 election results, as John Anderson pulled 6.6% of the popular vote that year, so that despite Reagan having an electoral landslide (90% of the EVs), he barely managed a majority in the popular vote.
Perot pulled nearly 19% of the popular vote in 1992 and over 8% in 1996, and in 1996 Clinton missed a popular vote majority by 0.67% -- despite the presence of Perot and a much stronger opponent than Reagan faced in 1980.
But, alas, I don't wish to undermine your simple-minded propaganda. Rock on!
"Me too" is not a formula for good governance. Great for electioneering but lousy for actual governance.
ReplyDeleteOK, Bart, I'll play along with your gag for the purposes of advancing the discussion (and because I suspect I'll get a good laugh from your answer to my question).
ReplyDeleteI was always under the (apparently mistaken) impression that in order for a party to hold the Presidency after a two-term incumbent left office, it had to have at least one viable candidate.
Who are the Republican candidates for 2008?
I'm also struggling with Bart's other assertion:
ReplyDeleteYour solution to the war is not to win, but to cut and run.
Uh, Bart, the country isn't legally at war. To the best of my knowledge, no Declaration of War was introduced, debated or passed by the Congress.
Yes, there has been resolution to use force passed by the Congress in pursuit of ensuring Iraq disarms. Feel free to correct me, but that simply isn't the same thing as a formal declaration of war.
Nevertheless, the reality is we have troops on the ground inside Iraq; too few to effectively secure the country and without clearly defined objectives or mission.
As Bart commented several days ago, the original aim was to eliminate Iraq as a threat to the US, its suspected WMD program the primary justification for this threat.
We now know there are no WMD and that the Hussein regime had nothing to do with Al Qaeda (indeed, he was actually one of their targets) or the attacks on 9-11. The original plans never called for the creation of a liberal democracy in Iraq; that was simply an afterthought of a justification.
The presence of our troops is by all objective accounts accomplishing nothing there now and is, if anything, simply adding fuel to the insurgency.
Our troops have done the job they were originally sent to do. Time for them to come home. Call it "cutting and running" if you want.
I prefer calling it "recognizing reality and not wanting more Americans to die needlessly (Bart's brother included)".
I await Bart's inevitable refutation.
That is $20,000 in todays dollars in addition to what you would otherwise pay in energy costs for a system which does not work in the clouds.
ReplyDeleteThe present value of the money you will pay in the future for energy is far less than the money you are paying up front for the solar system.
This is with government subsidies already factored in.
Bottom line, you will never recover your money, nevertheless come out ahead over your time in the home.
I guess that may be true. But if we're going to figure everything in, lets talk about batteries, where you store electricity for those cloudy days, lets talk about those really sunny days when you're generating excess power that will turn your meter backwards, and conservation, that won't use as much. Bottom line there is a value, to people unlike yourself, in investing in efficiency and alternative energy. Does it make perfect business sense? no, but neither does the current method. Do I want to run a business? no I want to power my home efficiently.
I've often felt that in America today we don't so much have a two-party system as we do a one-party system (Republican) with a large majority who feel unaffiliated (who generally vote Democrat.)
ReplyDeleteCertainly there are voters who call themselves Democrats and who vote that way. Generally speaking though, they aren't anywhere near as cohesive as Republicans. I hear about divisions within the Republican party, (old-style conservatives vs neocons vs christian right and such) but generally they maintain a kind of uniformity that overcomes differences when it comes time to vote.
Democrats on the other hand are a collection of genuinely disparate groups that have much less cohesion when it comes to actually voting. I don't think it's always been this way, but it is now. I'd guess the change started in the 60s with the assassinations of the Kennedys and MLK. Not since then have Democrats been 4-square behind a candidate in ways that allow the various groups to feel strongly enough about politics to subsume their differences behind a popular politician. Clinton, of course, managed to bring enough together to win successive terms, but he achieved it by swinging fairly far to the right, losing some traditional support from the left but picking up some disaffected from the right. He won, and he even made some great strides just by making some very basic Democrat style tweaks to the tax system (basically making the rich pay a little more, which they used to do out of a sense of duty and moral obligation--unlike today's rich who feel entitled to what they have, as if God meant for them to be special--but thats another discussion.)
I truly believe the majority of Americans feel unaffiliated right now. They are waiting for someone to come along who can address the problems of today. I don't think anybody out there speaks to the real problems of modern American life--sinking real wages, massive differences between the top tier and all the rest of us, unaffordable health care, and on and on and on.
It seems like a perfect time for a 3rd party to arise, but there are so many systemic impediments to one that I think we're stuck right now with the 2 we've got.
The Republicans have managed to rally their troops around a giant media-driven communication network that keeps them on-point and in step. Where i live we get to choose between Rush, O'reilly and a local rightie in the morning. Afternoons we get Hannity, Lars Larsen or Rush again on the other channel. Nights are Laura Ingram(sp?) and Savage. I know I've missed a few. We don't get Air America.
I don't think we've openly addressed the massive advantage the Republicans have in elections due to this massive media blitz. The myth of the "liberal media" somehow persists. (If the media really were liberal, you'd never hear about the 'liberal media", you'd hear about the 'right-wing media." This seems so obvious I don't know why I don't hear it more.) I know Bart puts the MSM in the left's pocket, as a counterbalance to all these right-wing shows, but when FOX becomes center/right and the MSM bcomes cenetr/left, the Republicans have won. Imagine what they would have thought in the old days of the Fairness Doctrine if they heard all these right-wing talkers spewing Republican talking points right up to election day. I don't care how many millions the Dems save for commercials. All these talk shows amount to all-day-long commercials for the Republicans. And this is on top of the ones they buy for themselves to match the ones the Dems buy during the elections. The fact that both parties work so hard to buy airtime shows the advantage to whichever party gets the most. Even with all this built-in adavantage, Republican still lost the popular vote in 3 out the last 4 presidential elections.
If the Dems ever put up a leader who speaks to the issues of today, who can bring all these disparate groups together again, we might finally see ourselves in position to take back our govt from the special interests that now run things. The system is so corrupt we can't even start to talk about actual change that matters. Single pay health care works so well for the rest of the civilized world is not even on the table here yet. If they could hear the changes to the system most of us would back, the lobbyists in DC would choke on their $100 lunches.
Maybe a side-benefit to Bush's colossal failures will be that we'll finally demand the kind of change we all know we want to see. Neither party is offering anything close to the kind of overhaul of govt most of us know is necessary. We might have to sweep the whole lot out the door and start fresh. I don't care what party the new lead comes from, as long as it comes with the ability to put the people back in control and send the corporate henchmen packing.
Hey, I don’t want to get into a snark-fest with Hypatia, but the “breathlessly” remark hacked me off. less than a week ago Mr. Greenwald said: “...If it turns out that the Administration abused its eavesdropping powers, then that is a second scandal ...And given the history of eavesdropping abuses as well as the corrupt character of this Administration, I would not be surprised at all if they did engage in eavesdropping abuses, and would probably be surprised if they didn’t...”
ReplyDeletePardon me if I think that an attorney general giving these “corrupt characters” a clean bill of health on the PA weakens Mr. Greenwald’s case, at least with the person on the street if not also providing a cover for the “cowardly” Democrats. Or do I just have bad political instincts and this is irrelevant as Hypatia says?
Bush followers – who, even more than they hate “liberals,” hate facts which undermine their fantasies of the triumphant glory of the Commander-in-Chief
ReplyDeleteActually, they hate them both equally, because they are one and the same. Liberals are just those who happen to call attention to those terribly inconvenient facts.
Remember how the Nazis brainwashed the German youth and got them to turn into informers?
ReplyDeleteStudents protest teacher's suspension
Ahmad Terry © News
Overland High School students protest today, some in support and others against, a teacher who was at the center of a controversy over statements he made comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler.
Hundreds of students walked out of Overland High School this morning in protest after a controversy involving a geography teacher and his statements about President Bush.
Many of the students supported the teacher, Jay Bennish, who was placed on paid leave pending an investigation into his comments by the Cherry Creek School District.
"Freedom of speech — Let him teach," students chanted after they streamed out of the school, located at 12400 E. Jewell Ave., and crossed a pedestrian bridge to a park.
Bennish's talk about Bush's State of the Union speech was recorded by a student, Sean Allen, who took it to KOA talk show host Mike Rosen. In the recording, Bennish made a number of comments about Bush, including one in which he said he could be compared to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.....
School district officials have said that Bennish's comments were inappropriate and did not include opposing points of view.
If a teacher said the Administration was doing a fine job during these "difficult" times, he would be suspended if he didn't give an opposing view?
And WTF was that little cultist taping the speech for in the first place?
The roots of the Republican Party's attempt to squash all dissent grow deep, very deep....
"School district officials have said that Bennish's comments were inappropriate and did not include opposing points of view."
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many redneck teachers have called Hillary Clinton a "feminazi" in front of their students.
Doesn't the following article really say it all? Here's the money quote, then the article:
ReplyDeleteMoney quote: Schrier, a Republican, said he was "truly outraged" by the war crimes hearing.
"It's not un-American. We do have freedom of thought and freedom of speech. But we're a nation at war. Not only this teacher, but so many others in the nation, have lost sight of that," Schrier said.
Article: Bush goes on 'trial' in Morris
Parsippany students confront issues of terrorism and war
BY ROB JENNINGS
DAILY RECORD
PARSIPPANY -- President Bush is being tried for "crimes against civilian populations" and "inhumane treatment of prisoners" at Parsippany High School, with students arguing both sides before a five-teacher "international court of justice." The panel's verdict could come as soon as Friday.
Teacher Joseph Kyle said the "hearing"-- he preferred that term to trial -- opened on Monday in a senior advanced placement government class. The school's principal said he signed off in advance on the subject matter.
"I knew it was a sensitive topic. Morris County is a conservative county. Parsippany is a conservative district," Kyle, 37, a teacher at the high school since 1998, said on Wednesday evening.
Alumnus disturbed
Former county Sheriff John Fox of Parsippany denounced the weeklong hearing -- where students debated whether Bush is a war criminal and questioned classmates playing administration officials and the Army general who oversaw Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- as "terrible"and "disturbing."
"Those are young, impressionable minds those people have control over. We don't need those liberal academics doing what they're doing. I find that offensive," said Fox, a Republican who graduated from Parsippany High School.
Kyle declined to discuss his opinion of Bush, the war in Iraq or the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He said he isn't trying to show up the president.
"President Bush is often tried in absentia all around the world," Kyle said.
"All we hear in the papers is, war crimes this, war crimes that -- without even hearing a defense. It would be irresponsible for a teacher to pretend that isn't happening," Kyle said.
Defense begins
At the high school, prosecutors rested on Wednesday following testimony from nine "witnesses," Kyle said.
The prosecution list included Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen allegedly tortured by U.S. forces; international human rights attorney Michael Ratner; Larry Wilkerson, chief of staff for former Secretary of State Colin Powell; retired CIA foreign policy analyst Ray McGovern; and U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were called by the defense before the seventh-period class concluded, Kyle said.
The defense will resume its case today with eight additional witnesses and, possibly, a verdict -- decided by two English teachers, one history teacher, a guidance counselor and someone from the school's media department, Kyle said.
Morris County Freeholder Jack Schrier, a Republican, said he was "truly outraged" by the war crimes hearing.
"It's not un-American. We do have freedom of thought and freedom of speech. But we're a nation at war. Not only this teacher, but so many others in the nation, have lost sight of that," Schrier said
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteActually, they hate them both equally, because they are one and the same. Liberals are just those who happen to call attention to those terribly inconvenient facts.
ReplyDeleteHere's a fact. Liberals cannot win elections. Another fact: they blame their losses on everyone but themselves.
How is it, liberals, that (in your eyes) a half-wit incompetent without enough intellectual capacity to tie his own shoes keeps beating you at your own game? If he is so dumb, what does that make you? How can you chortle and guffaw about the president's so-called lack of mental capacity when he outwits you politically every single time?
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteMyself, I'm still struggling with Bart's earlier assertion:
No Dem has received a majority of the vote for President since LBJ.
Unless I'm much mistaken, Bill Clinton won the majority vote and the Electoral College twice (1992 and 1996).
Nope. 42 and 49% of the popular vote.
If Bart is referring to an absolute majority (51% or higher) to win the White House via popular vote, I have to concede his point on purely technical grounds. I don't have the exact figures on hand.
That is correct.
The point being that you can't be a majority national party if your candidates have not obtained a majority of the national vote at any time in over 30 years.
Once the other side catches on to the fact that you are, in fact, triangulating the natural thing to do is to take more extreme positions. Their folly, it seems to me, is that triangulation cannot be an everyday strategy when the practitioner is in a minority position. It's one thing to have the veto pen; quite another to have 40 votes in the Senate, and really have most of those votes be "moderate"--at least what I would call moderate, anyway.
ReplyDeleteOnce the other side knows what you're doing, they simply adjust their tactics and make their positions progressively more extreme. By so doing, they pull the triangle's "point" over to their side of the ideological divide. That's exactly what's happened with a whole host of issues. Triangulation with a bully pulpit is smart politics. Triangulation with a minority is electoral suicide.
Gedaliya slobbered:
ReplyDeleteHow is it, liberals, that (in your eyes) a half-wit incompetent without enough intellectual capacity to tie his own shoes keeps beating you at your own game? If he is so dumb, what does that make you? How can you chortle and guffaw about the president's so-called lack of mental capacity when he outwits you politically every single time?
Drat. You're right. Just when we thought we had him down, he pulls out of his hat a resounding 36% support in the latest polls. how does he keep doing it? The Architect must be some kinda genius to keep his boss riding so high with all the news about his failures. Now that such a vast majority thinks iraq was a mistake, you'd think his popularity would drop. I don't know how he does it.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Unless I'm much mistaken, Bill Clinton won the majority vote and the Electoral College twice (1992 and 1996)."
Bushites love saying that, conveniently ignoring that both 1992 and 1996 had a thrid party candidate with a substantial base of support.
That is correct. Perot drew GOP votes with his balanced budget message.
George I and Dole were also awful candidates.
George I won the office because he was Reagan's VP. Once he raised taxes and thus budget deficits, he got only a little over a third of the vote because his base deserted. I voted libertarian out of disgust.
Dole was had the charisma of a pet rock.
"The point being that you can't be a majority national party if your candidates have not obtained a majority of the national vote at any time in over 30 years."
ReplyDelete::snicker::
Carter won the popular vote with over 50% in 1976, dipshit. Keep whistling and pretend you don't notice the empirical beating you're receiving.
Suggestion - don't rely on foolish (and meaningless) talking points and try doing a little primary research. If you don't know what that means, "professor", feel free to ask.
So here's your talking point -- Clinton didn't get a majority of the popular vote in a 3-way race. Wow -- that's a real indictment of the Democratic Party and liberalism in general. You've really shown us the light.
Now tell us more about how wind power, which is cheaper in your own state than conventional power RIGHT NOW, somehow magically increases your cost of electricity by 20% in the future.
Better trolls, please. Next!
Gedaliya whined:
ReplyDeleteHere's a fact. Liberals cannot win elections.
As I saw pointed out above, we've only beat you in popular support in 3 of the last 4 prsidential elections. Liberals are embarrassed to acknowledge this sad fact. Hats off to you and yours.
A friend of mine is a brilliant woman; she has a head for facts and figures that I can only marvel at. Never forgets a name, never forgets a fact, and has that rare ability to gather a myriad of diverse information and create an imaginative solution to the stickiest of problems. But if I gave her an essay and told her to give me a title for it, she'd be lost. She is not creative in that way.
ReplyDeleteAnd I guess some people are good at getting elected, and absolutely lost once they get there. In such a case, I suppose what such a person would do is fake it, listen to advisors, decide on a course of action, and then insist that it is correct no matter how big a failure it turns out to be. He'll be admired for his strength of convictions, but only for a while. As W.C. Fields once said, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No sense making a damn fool out of yourself." And eventually, people will see the person as a damn fool, except for about 34% of the population, who have more stubbornness than brains and who put allegiance to person over allegiance to country. Even over allegiance to their own convictions.
Do you think anyone confuses a single man with the vast number of people who run his campaign?
ReplyDeleteBut Bush is the candidate! Even if you're right, and he is an Alfred E. Newman-like moron whose puppet strings are manipulated by an nefarious cabal of evil maniacs, he is the guy that beats the pants off you on every single issue, in every election, and has done so for his entire political career.
How do you explain this, Einstein? I mean, you folks are so "intellectually curious," and "rational," and "perceptive" Yet, some sub-human drooling idiot defeats you in every single contest, regardless of the issue, the time, or the place. One does wonder how you can continue, with a straight face, to maintain this fiction of intellectual superiority. It is truly a marvel of rationalization and denial, unprecedented in scope and scale, something that will stupify and baffle furture historians for ages to come.
Drat. You're right. Just when we thought we had him down, he pulls out of his hat a resounding 36% support in the latest polls.
ReplyDeleteYet he gets Alito confirmed, will beat the pants off you on the NSA program, and will get most of the rest of his agenda implemented throughout the rest of his term.
It's amazing how smart you liberals are. You manage to lose on every front against a candidate with only 36% approval. You are right. Such a feat takes genius.
I am not sure if this is in the thread above (I will have to read it later) but I found reference to this at Think Progress about a letter, translated by the United States Government and publicly available on the website of the West Point Combating Terrorism Center:
ReplyDeleteIn the Name of Allah the Most Compassionate and Merciful
Number (blank)
Date 14/ May/June/2002
Al-Jihad Qaida's [TC: Qaida: also means base in Arabic]
{Get the idolaters out of Arab Island} [TC: Gulf Countries]
To: Officials in the United Arab Emirates and especially the two emirates of Abu-Dhabi and Dubai:
We have come to know definitely that the Emirate country is committing acts of injustice against the striving youth of the Emirates and others who sympathize with us in order to appease the Americans' wishes which include: spying, persecution, and detainments. The United Emirates authorities have recently detained a number of Mujahideen and handed them over to suppressive organizations in their country in addition to having a number of them still in its custody. Undoubtedly, these practices bring the country into a fighting ring in which it cannot endure or escape from its consequences especially since the Emirates' social composition is the most productive, and very explosive.
You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned..."
So - they claim they have already infiltrated that and other entities in the UAE --
No worries on that Port Security at ALL! (*snark*)
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"The point being that you can't be a majority national party if your candidates have not obtained a majority of the national vote at any time in over 30 years."
Carter won the popular vote with over 50% in 1976, dipshit. Keep whistling and pretend you don't notice the empirical beating you're receiving.
I stand corrected. Carter did receive 50.1% of the vote.
Let me amend my statement...
"The point being that you can't be a majority national party if your candidates have not obtained a majority of the national vote at any time in over 28 years."
I'm sure that makes you feel better...
Now tell us more about how wind power, which is cheaper in your own state than conventional power RIGHT NOW, somehow magically increases your cost of electricity by 20% in the future.
Mr. Wizard, to make up 15% of the state's substantially larger power needs in the next ten years, the power companies either have to make billions in capital investment placing these windmills in the middle of nowhere on our eastern plains than then build the infrastructure to bring the power to the Front Range cities or they have to import the energy from other plains states.
We all should remember how importing power has kept California's bills the lowest (sic) in the nation.
There is no one in the state government or in the utilities who thinks that prices will not rise.
I did leave out one point that can help you out. This proposition had a codicil which allowed rural electrical coops like the one which serves our area to vote to opt out of this insanity.
Our coop is a non profit and had no ax to grind. Their experts told them that the prices would rise about 15-20% if we used this power.
The matter was put to a vote of the coop members and we voted this down with a 75% majority.
This just in to Huffington Post. It plumbs the full depth of the "lies" that Bush and his co-conspirators have been willing to tell to the American people. Note the whoppers Condi told. I really truly believe Bush is minor league in terms of depravity when compared to Condi Rice. I hope to write more about that in the coming weeks. Excerpt:
ReplyDeleteADMINISTRATION
What Bush Was Told About Iraq
By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.
The president received highly classified intelligence reports containing information at odds with his justifications for going to war.
The first report, delivered to Bush in early October 2002, was a one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate that discussed whether Saddam's procurement of high-strength aluminum tubes was for the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon.
Among other things, the report stated that the Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research believed that the tubes were "intended for conventional weapons," a view disagreeing with that of other intelligence agencies, including the CIA, which believed that the tubes were intended for a nuclear bomb.
The disclosure that Bush was informed of the DOE and State dissents is the first evidence that the president himself knew of the sharp debate within the government over the aluminum tubes during the time that he, Cheney, and other members of the Cabinet were citing the tubes as clear evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. Neither the president nor the vice president told the public about the disagreement among the agencies.
When U.S. inspectors entered Iraq after the fall of Saddam's regime, they determined that Iraq's nuclear program had been dormant for more than a decade and that the aluminum tubes had been used only for artillery shells.
The second classified report, delivered to Bush in early January 2003, was also a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, this one focusing on whether Saddam would launch an unprovoked attack on the United States, either directly, or indirectly by working with terrorists.
The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources....
On at least four earlier occasions, beginning in the spring of 2002, according to the same records and sources, the president was informed during his morning intelligence briefing that U.S. intelligence agencies believed it was unlikely that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States.
However, in the months leading up to the war, Bush, Cheney, and Cabinet members repeatedly asserted that Saddam was likely to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or to provide such weapons to Al Qaeda or another terrorist group.
The Bush administration used the potential threat from Saddam as a major rationale in making the case to go to war. The president cited the threat in an address to the United Nations on September 12, 2002, in an October 7, 2002, speech to the American people, and in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003.
The one-page documents prepared for Bush are known as the "President's Summary" of the much longer and more detailed National Intelligence Estimates that combine the analysis and judgments of agencies throughout the intelligence community.
An NIE, according to the Web site of the National Intelligence Council -- the interagency group that coordinates the documents' production -- represents "the coordinated judgments of the Intelligence Community regarding the likely course of future events" and is written with the goal of providing "policy makers with the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information -- regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to U.S. policy." (The January 2003 NIE, for example, was titled "Nontraditional Threats to the U.S. Homeland Through 2007.")....
The one-page summary for the president allows intelligence agencies to emphasize what they believe to be the conclusions from the broader NIE that are the most important to communicate to the commander-in-chief.
The President's Summary is among the most highly classified papers in the government. References to the summaries are contained in footnotes in the so-called Robb-Silberman report -- officially, the report of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction -- that was issued in March 2005 on the use of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. The White House has refused to declassify the summaries or to give them to congressional committees.
The summaries stated that both the Energy and State departments dissented on the aluminum tubes question. This is the first evidence that Bush was aware of the intense debate within the government during the time that he, Cheney, and members of the Cabinet were citing the procurement of the tubes as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program.
In his address to the U.N. General Assembly on September 12, 2002, the president asserted, "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."
On October 7, 2002, less than a week after Bush was given the summary, he said in a speech in Cincinnati: "Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen' -- his nuclear holy warriors.... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
On numerous other occasions, Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and then-U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte cited Iraq's procurement of aluminum tubes without disclosing that the intelligence community was split as to their end use. The fact that the president was informed of the dissents by Energy and State is also significant because Rice and other administration officials have said that Bush did not know about those dissenting views when he made claims about the purported uses for the tubes.
On July 11, 2003, aboard Air Force One during a presidential trip to Africa, Rice was asked about the National Intelligence Estimate and whether the president knew of the dissenting views among intelligence agencies regarding Iraq's procurement of the aluminum tubes.
Months earlier, disagreement existed within the administration over how to characterize the aluminum tubes in a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell gave to the U.N. on February 5, 2003. Breaking ranks with others in the administration, Powell decided to refer to the internal debate among government agencies over Iraq's intended use of the tubes.
Asked about this by a reporter on Air Force One, Rice said: "I'm saying that when we put [Powell's speech] together... the secretary decided that he would caveat the aluminum tubes, which he did.... The secretary also has an intelligence arm that happened to hold that view."
Rice added, "Now, if there were any doubts about the underlying intelligence to that NIE, those doubts were not communicated to the president, to the vice president, or to me."
If Condi Rice doesn't go to prison, there is no justice in this world.
Yo gedaliya,
ReplyDeleteRumor has it that Sanborn guy, the Bush appointee for Administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department is a former Dubai Ports World senior executive. Plus other rumors are saying this guy worked with John Snow at CSX about the time they were dealing with Carlyle. If true and big business/government trusts these UAE guys then we should trust em too, right?
Damn, I just breezed though 94 comments, thanks to collapsable comments and the Great Wheel Mouse.
ReplyDeleteBartilya: Whatever you said, it was wrong.
Gedaliya, shaking violently, her swollen red face twisting into a grimace of pain as her spittle-flecked lips quivered, screamed into her mirror:
ReplyDeleteHere's a fact. Liberals cannot win elections. Another fact: they blame their losses on everyone but themselves.
How is it, liberals, that (in your eyes) a half-wit incompetent without enough intellectual capacity to tie his own shoes keeps beating you at your own game? If he is so dumb, what does that make you? How can you chortle and guffaw about the president's so-called lack of mental capacity when he outwits you politically every single time?
The way Bush managed to turn a half-million vote deficit into a SCOTUS authored coup showed the kind of genius our Great Leader possesses. The way he's turned a catastrophe in Iraq into a chance to grab dictatorial powers takes a certain kind of leadership. We all feel so outwitted. How does he keep pulling this off?
To be so unpopular yet still act like you have the backing of the whole country takes a kind of vision you'd normally get glasses to fix. Not Bush. He keeps on behaving like none of his illegal acts will ever come to light. I personally feel like I'm watching something unprecedented in our history. A man who seemingly can do absolutely nothing right, who embarrasses himself and his administration in every single thing he's done, from starting a war to benefit his military industrial complex backers that fails to accomplish anything except to get us bogged down for a generation, to mismanaging a hurricane disaster at home in a way that forces him to get caught lying again, somehow keeps himself flying above 25% in every single poll around! In the face of such awesome genius, we surrender.
“some sub-human drooling idiot defeats you in every single contest, regardless of the issue, the time, or the place”
ReplyDeleteVery highly debatable. Plus there’s obviously a lot more going on behind the scenes of this figurehead than wingnuts realize. You’ve never worked in corporate management, have you? I mean successfully?
"The point being that you can't be a majority national party if your candidates have not obtained a majority of the national vote at any time in over 28 years."
ReplyDeleteThis is a "point"? Let's review the elections, shall we?
Since 1976, there have been 7 presidential elections. Republicans have won the electoral college 5 of those elections, and Democrats have won two times. Republicans have won the popular vote 4 times, the Democrats 3 times.
In the two electoral victories for the Democrats, there was a third party candidate with a substantial popular vote tally -- thus ensuring that no candidate who won would have one a majority of the popular vote. When a Democrat won the popular vote and "lost" the electoral vote in 2000 (with a partisan assist from the Supreme Court to achieve a 4 EV decision), there was a left-wing candidate who pulled 2.73% of the popular vote. The Democrat's popular vote tally in that year was 48.38%, so the combined "lefty" total that year was about 51%, and it is entirely plausible that the electoral vote would have gone to the Democrat had that other lefty candidate not been a factor.
The only time a Republican faced a third party candidate and won the election, as I mentioned before, he barely achieved a majority of the popular vote despite having a huge advantage in the electoral vote.
So, since you need this spelled out for you, your "point" is devoid of any meaning. It indicates nothing -- about nothing.
The fact of the matter is that the core supporters of both major parties probably garner between 30-35% of the support in this country -- and that's being generous. The "independent" vote is at least the same size, if not larger, than the other two, so to think there's some sort of huge base of support for Republican policies is to be deluded. Just look at Junior's approval ratings and you'll pretty much see how those numbers have washed out -- ie, having zero support outside of committed Republicans. And even that base is eroding.
Are the Democrats a weak party? Absolutely. But that doesn't logically lead to the notion that somehow Republicans are better or more in line with what people actually want or believe.
But, again, you seem to have a great deal of trouble dealing with both apprehending empirical reality, as well as analyzing any meaning that can be drawn from those facts.
I'm just glad to be of service pointing that out for everyone, as you do all the heavy lifting of putting your foot in your mouth repeatedly.
As for your comments about windpower, I only laugh that you can't even acknowledge that you have no idea at all what's going on in the market with respect to prices. But thanks for all the juicy specific details (ie, critique of renewables, specific estimates for cost increases, and the state in which you live) such that that pesky empirical reality could come knock your puffery down.
I'd suggest you quit while you're behind, but you seem to be a Navy Boxer troll who doesn't have sense enough to stay on the canvas.
"Allowing the Bush movement to maintain alliances with those people and reap all the benfits [sic] while not forcing them to pay a price for relying on such radical elements is exactly the mistake Bush opponents have been making, in my view."
ReplyDeleteAckkk!
Glenn, it's bad enough that we muddy the waters over the enemies within our ranks (Lieberman, Kline, Streisand), let's not muddy the water about our true enemies.
As it turns out, Bush is almost a gift to Democrats from our enemies. They are called Republicans. This long nightmare called “the Republican movement” long precedes Bush and, if we are not focused on fighting the opposition, it will long survive him.
Democrats should be united against the Republicans. Conflating the dishonesty and incompetence of the Bush administration with their Republican enablers in the Congress should be every Democrat's full-time vocation.
Maybe we could replace the donkey as a symbol with some Easter Island moai (statues) in recognition of our own self-destruction.
ReplyDeleteBrian Boru
Good catch Karen. Every time I put something in bold or italics or post an URL, I think of you! Thanks again.
ReplyDeleteThat letter is really eyeopening. Al Queda claims to have already infiltrated UAE security, the US knows about it, and still they went ahead with this Port deal.
These money mad globalists are like some alien species. They are hard to recognize as humans.
BTW, the letter, if it states true points, makes me a lot more sympathetic to Al Queda (who I personally don't think had anything to do with 9/11) than to the fascist UAE emirates. Is it possible that the membership of Al Queda are really people who think they are fighting for justice and an end to tyranny? I don't know enough about politics to know that.
Gedaliya closed her blood-shot eyes, got down on her aching knees and prayed to Almighty God to please let her have her victory over those who doubt the majesty and power of her Chosen One. Please dear God let it be true that:
ReplyDeletehe gets Alito confirmed, will beat the pants off you on the NSA program, and will get most of the rest of his agenda implemented throughout the rest of his term
But we'll see about that, won't we.
laughing gravy,
ReplyDeleteGreat leaders tend to successfully manage the talent they surround themselves with. Poor leaders tend to mismanage the cronies they try to protect themselves with. It happens at all levels in all human interactions.
Good catch Karen. Every time I put something in bold or italics or post an URL, I think of you! Thanks again.
ReplyDeleteThat letter is really eyeopening. Al Queda claims to have already infiltrated UAE security, the US knows about it, and still they went ahead with this Port deal.
These money mad globalists are like some alien species. They are hard to recognize as humans.
BTW, the letter, if it states true points, makes me a lot more sympathetic to Al Queda (who I personally don't think had anything to do with 9/11) than to the fascist UAE emirates. Is it possible that the membership of Al Queda are really people who think they are fighting for justice and an end to tyranny? I don't know enough about politics to know that.
But we'll see about that, won't we.
ReplyDeleteToday brought yet another victory...Senate passage of the Patriot Act with only "cosmetic" (in Russ Feingold's words) changes.
The vote? 89-10.
"I am intensely pro-life." - Gedaliya
ReplyDeletehttp://narrowcorner.typepad.com/the_narrow_corner/2006/02/south_dakota_ab.html
Yet, you're pro-war. Interesting how a mind can be so cleanly bifurcated like that.
Given the Senate passage today of the Patriot Act 89-10, do any of the diehard Bush haters on this blog actually believe there is even the tiniest chance that Congress will put limits on the president's NSA warrantless surveillance program?
ReplyDeleteI'm a Bush lover! If you don't worship him like I do, you must hate him. Hater! Bad!
ReplyDeleteSigned,
A Zombie
Gedaliya, since this is your pet subject du moment, why don't you share with us all the differences between the bill passed in the Senate today and the current law.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to take 15 minutes to compose the details in a thoughtful and coherent fashion.
Thanks!
-Your Fans
So is gedaliya’s a fundie nut? It’s always the same. Pork, social security, WOT costs and failures, fiscal policies, putting food on children, Deutsch, and all the rest get automatically respun into new realities. Namecalling, misdirection, declaring victory while in the jaws of defeat… are common to all folks but highly concentrated in this type. Meanwhile much of the 99% of the rest of the world that is not into fundie nuttery watches the self-delusional self-defensive flailing. Couldn’t be good for the witnessing effort.
ReplyDeleteGedaliya recoiled from the monitor. She couldn't believe her eyes. "It's not working," she shrieked. "These bastards just won't stop saying bad things about The Chosen One." She reached forward and with all her might heaved her great weight away from the desk. She tottered to her feet and went to talk to The Architect. He'd know what to do.
ReplyDeleteThe door to His office creaked as it opened. The Architect emerged from within and almost made eye contact with Gedaliya. Instinctively she hit the floor prostrate. She laid there for what seemed like minutes as he stood above her, panting. She noticed his argyles had little pink bunnies on them. "You may arise my child," he whimpered in that weird whispery voice of his. She never understood why a man so powerful could talk like such a wimp. She hoisted herself up with the aid of a couple interns, picking bits of carpet from her teeth. She told The Architect about this new site she was monitoring, and how the people there just won't accept The Truth. She showed him the days' posts.
He paused briefly, then squeeked again, "You gotta find a piece of good news for us in that huge pile." Then he turned and walked out. She got 30 interns to help her sort through the days news. Nothing but stories about failure and unpopularity. Finally a low-level intern said, 'I FOUND something!" "Good work," grunted Gedaliya as she shued them from her office. Wiping the greasy sweat dripping from her browridge, she leaned over the keyboard and began to type:
Today brought yet another victory...Senate passage of the Patriot Act with only "cosmetic" (in Russ Feingold's words) changes.
The vote? 89-10.
Glenn: typo; you spelled it Al Qeada.
ReplyDeleteAnother great post. I'm reduced to picking nits.
Gedaliya said...
ReplyDeleteGiven the Senate passage today of the Patriot Act 89-10, do any of the diehard Bush haters on this blog actually believe there is even the tiniest chance that Congress will put limits on the president's NSA warrantless surveillance program?
Yes.
"Another great post. I'm reduced to picking nits."
ReplyDeleteIt's your vocation.
why don't you share with us all the differences between the bill passed in the Senate today and the current law.
ReplyDeleteSure. Here are two links:
ACLU Denounces Patriot Act Renewal
An excerpt:
The current reauthorization bill would make explicit the right to counsel and the right to challenge an order under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, but does not expressly provide a right to challenge an order for being unreasonable or trampling on privileged communications between attorneys and their clients or doctors and their patients. Many other Patriot Act powers would remain in the law, without key modifications. The ACLU continues to be concerned about the lack of changes to the "sneak and peek" search warrant power - the vast majority of which are being used in routine criminal investigations - and other provisions.
More on the Patriot Act from the ACLU
"I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."
ReplyDelete- Will Rogers
I'm the person who posted all those Port stories on this blog about ten seconds after the news first came out, and was miffed with Glenn about his first post on the subject, when he said he was uncertain about his view on the matter, and when he failed to see how vitally important this could be to start the undoing of Bush.
ReplyDeleteHere are two quotes in today's NYTimes:
"The anger is coming from Republicans", said Rep. Peter King. "I have never seen an issue like this where it is across the board and so intense."
The article states "the port deal has exploded out of nowhere to become a major bone of contention in an election year that has not lacked major issues."
I knew this would be the big one because I knew how mad I was about it, and that had nothing to do with being xenophobic, or anti-Arab. Like most, I had no idea our ports and other stragetic interests were being sold off to foreign companies, much less foreign nations.
I object to the dismantling of this once strong, proud, innovative and competant nation and reducing it to a bunch of little pieces which are then auctioned off to the highest foreign bidder.
Now it is being reported that the chairman of Israel's strongest shipping line is stating he is strongly in favor of the Port Deal. Schumer is on TV basically defending the deal, while pretending to "have concerns."
What a hypocritical bastard.
Personally I think there is no more corrupt group of people than the supposedly pro-Israel Jews who gain the ear of the Dictator and encourage him to set in motion policies which incur the worldwide wrath of Arabs because of our blind support of Israel, right or wrong.
That would be one thing if these people were really motivated by concern for the people in Israel. They're not. They only care about the corportism, the economic globalism that will promote their own financial interests. They could care less if a business deal involves Islamics, Isrealites, or Martians. What's the difference? At the top levels, these pigs all eat at the same trough. They use those issues to raise money, like NARAL and PFTAW use the abortion issue to make money. They could care less about the issues. It's all about money.
But you can't talk about that in this country, because you are accused of being an anti-semite.
And if you're a principled, non fundamentalist, rational and open minded Jew outside of the inner circles, you are then accused of being a "self-hating" Jew.
Nobody has so effectively shut people up on an issue so drastically as the Jews and non- Jewish neocons, who are allied, have done in terms of anyone questioning this country's policies with regard to Israel.
Quicker than Gedaliya can whip out "Bush hater", they whip out
"anti-semite."
New Gallop poll just out. Majority of Americans disapprove of Bush (60%---38%) and the number who disapprove of Bush's handling of national security has gone up. But more still think Republicans will do a better job on national security.
Sure. Why not? With sell-outs like Hillary and Bill Clinton and Schumer in the party, Democrats cannot gain from this Port issue.
In fact, to their credit, Republicans are the ones who are really against it.
Since the Republicans are controlled by the neocons, and the Democrats are controlled by the "pro Israel" crowd, we have to throw both sets of bums out and put in an unbiased person who can intelligently make the case to the American people as to what the best policies are with regard to Israel. I don't know what those would be, but I'd like someone who isn't a crook surrounded by crooks to explain that to me.
I think Russ Feingold or Paul Craig Roberts would be great, and even though I don't know their views on our Israeli policy, I'd trust either of their conclusions.
The vote? 89-10.
ReplyDeleteYup. That's great. Just making the case for a third party. It's going to happen. I can feel it. And that candidate is going to win. I can feel it. And it's then going to be the real Morning in America once again.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering how politicians like Schumer who are funded mostly by Jewish people would get out of this one.
On the one hand, the bulk of Jewish votes don't trust Arabs. On the other hand, Schumer and crowd want this deal.
So he and his crowd get a top Israeli company to promote the deal, to allay the fears of all the Jews who had concerns and assure them this is no problem with Israel.
God, I wish they would wake up and think for themselves. They follow people like Schumer as blindly as the wingnuts follow Bush.
66% oppose Port deal, new Gallop poll.17% approve, 17% don't know.
ReplyDeleteGedaliya, I notice you have shifted your emphasis. You have been highlighting your Tokyo Rose side more lately. Taunt your opponents, laugh at their impotence, and predict their failure.
OK, hon. Let's get you on record. You think Bush is going to pull out this Port deal, that it'll slip away and people will forget about it?
Because if so, you're in for your first big shock. I'll be here to laugh. Hee Haw.
I'm the person who posted all those Port stories on this blog about ten seconds after the news first came out, and was miffed with Glenn about his first post on the subject, when he said he was uncertain about his view on the matter, and when he failed to see how vitally important this could be to start the undoing of Bush.
ReplyDeleteI hate when people take a day or two to think through complex issues of national security instead of immediately screaming at the top of their lungs the opinion which people want them to take.
What's wrong with Glenn? He didn't know exactly what his views were on the this story the day it was released.
Gedaliya said...
ReplyDeleteGiven the Senate passage today of the Patriot Act 89-10, do any of the diehard Bush haters on this blog actually believe there is even the tiniest chance that Congress will put limits on the president's NSA warrantless surveillance program?
If you call writing in Congressional oversight already provided for by the Constitution some sort of additional limit...
The DeWine bill ratifying the NSA program and providing for formal Congressional oversight will pass just before the elections by a margin very similar to the Patriot Act.
The Dems will be reduced to explaining how the "Culture of Corruption" in the DC cesspool is somehow a GOP phenomenon while Cash n' Carry Harry Reid admits to taking tens of thousands from Abramoff indian tribes.
2006 will be another status quo election.
Any small losses the GOP takes in 2006 will be more than madde up when Rudy & Condi crushes Hillary & some southern white guy.
actually believe there is even the tiniest chance that Congress will put limits on the president's NSA warrantless surveillance program?
ReplyDeleteQuestion is who the President will be. I doubt Bush will be in office a year from now.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe vote? 89-10.
Yup. That's great. Just making the case for a third party. It's going to happen. I can feel it. And that candidate is going to win. I can feel it. And it's then going to be the real Morning in America once again.
Run Ralph Run!
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteactually believe there is even the tiniest chance that Congress will put limits on the president's NSA warrantless surveillance program?
Question is who the President will be. I doubt Bush will be in office a year from now.
Who told you the Rove plan?
Cheney is going to resign and Rudy will be VP.
Then Bush will resign and Rudy will be President.
OK, hon. Let's get you on record. You think Bush is going to pull out this Port deal, that it'll slip away and people will forget about it?
ReplyDeleteI don't know if the port deal will go through. My guess is that it will not. If it does, however, when the president makes the announcment, he'll be standing at the podium with Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy gathered around him nodding their heads in assent as he explains how good the deal is for the United States.
Gallop: 59% of Americans do not think Bush Can Manage the Government Effectively.
ReplyDeleteChomp on that, Tokyo Rose.
PS. Bushco cut fines for mining company violations and then failed to collect even those reduced fines.
There are some people who, when they go on a killing spree, just kill more and more and more people until nobody is safe. Thank god we have laws which punish killers once they are caught.
Glenn posted something I disargee with fairly strongly, and I was reading the comments hoping to get a decent discussion of why the structure of or practices of the government of Dubai are germane to whether a company merely owned by them should be allowed to manage (NOT OWN, for those real cool aid drinkers out there) a few ports in the US. I'm pretty sure that concentrating on the practices of the government of Dubai make about as much sense here as examining the governmental practices of Germany before we allow DHL (owned in part by the German post office) to deliver packages here.
ReplyDeleteThe real story has nothing to do with Dubai. It's about the criminal negligence shown by the US government in securing our ports. after all, is a company owned by Dubai is going to inspect even LESS than the less than %5 of containers inspected upon arrival here? what, are they going to hire a non-professional security staff and fail to issue them photo ID cards? 'cause that's our current port security regime...
and it's about the rediculous cronyism that allows these deals to go through without even examining them at any length.
this issue is being driven by the Arab=badguy equation, and engaging it on that level - even to the relatively moderate point of examining the practices of the government of Dubai - is to admit that the arab=badguy equation is at least potentially correct. it's NOT, since it identifies a large group with the behavior of a vanishingly small minority of members of that group.
in any case:
The US has failed to secure its ports, and that failure has NOTHING to do with companies owned by foreign governments managing those ports: it is the direct result of actions taken or not taken by OUR government. basically everything else is the political equivalent of smoke and mirrors here: magically, the politicians who have actively worked against securing our ports get to appear responsible, concerned and competent, and they do this merely by virtue of appearing worried about someone else's actions, for which can't be held responsible. TA DA!
Gallop: 59% of Americans do not think Bush Can Manage the Government Effectively.
ReplyDeleteYet...the president keeps winning. Either the polls are simply wrong, or the Democrats are so impotent that the polls don't matter a whit.
Duncan Hunter says Port Deal is "no good."
ReplyDelete69% of Americans think opposition to Port deal is because it is "not in the country's best interests."
22% say it's because people don't like Arabs.
Gedaliya, I notice you have shifted your emphasis. You have been highlighting your Tokyo Rose side more lately. Taunt your opponents, laugh at their impotence, and predict their failure.
ReplyDeleteYes, I suppose you're right. I'm feeling a little feisty today. It seems that some folks here have a lot more trouble taking it than they do dishing it out.
Rep. Duncan Hunter's response to Israeli backing for the Port deal.
ReplyDelete"There is only one position we should listen to. American security interest. Don't listen to Israel. They shift alliances."
Zogby keeps crying out "racist". What a distasteful bagman. Of course, he has no real argument.
"Is Dubai center for radical Islamic fundamentalism?"
Coming up on Lou Dobbs.
"Yet...the president keeps winning. Either the polls are simply wrong, or the Democrats are so impotent that the polls don't matter a whit. "
ReplyDeleteGedaliya will be standing by the side of the field, waving her pom-poms and chanting "Go team!", long after everyone else has gone home ... or until they stop signing her paychecks.
FEEDING THE TROLL:
ReplyDeleteGallop: 59% of Americans do not think Bush Can Manage the Government Effectively.
Yet...the president keeps winning. Either the polls are simply wrong, or the Democrats are so impotent that the polls don't matter a whit.
you know, what exactly do you get out of posting this?
does it make you feel good to know that the president governs without the approval or confidence of the people?
does it make you feel good, personally, to think that merely because the opposition is a bit disorganized and underfunded, someone who most people believe to be incompetent gets to run the most powerful nation in the world?
have you actually thought about what it would mean if the majority were right? or do you just delight in thinking yorself smart enough to disagree, without even considering the alternatives?
speaking of which, why are you here?
you're a child who wanders into a room full of adults and screams "FUCK!" - you haven't thought about what you're saying, but you've mastered enough of the language to make people respond to you.
but don't be fooled by the response you get: it's not that people respect you or think you have said anything interesting. it's that you've injected idiocy into their conversation in such a way that they can't control themselves.
you're castor oil: nasty stuff that makes people shit uncontrollably.
maybe you think you're providing a service for the lurkers? maybe you think you're providing a much needed voice of dissent on a relatively homogenus forum? well, such social work is really only appreciated and effective when what you're saying isn't so obviously idiotic reactionary garbage that you haven't even bothered to take the shine off by thinking through yourself.
go away.
and people, don't respond to this ass.
END OF FEEDING THE TROLL
"Sure. Here are two links:"
ReplyDeleteThanks, cut-and-paste monkey, but I asked you to explain, in your own words, all the differences between the current law and the Senate bill, since you seem to think you're an expert on this subject.
Are you telling us that all you can dois regurgitate what Rush feeds you, then meekly run off to gather incomplete links when asked for your own thoughts and knowledge?
Say it ain't so!
John Derbyshire at The Corner just a bit ago:
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm with Bill Buckley and George Will. This pig's ear is never going to be made into a silk purse, not by any methods or expenditures the American people are willing to countenance. The only questions worth asking about Iraq at this point are: How does GWB get out of this with the least damage to US interests, and to his party's future prospects? I wish I had some answers.
Derb -- who holds some views I find repugnant -- has a background in science and math, and is a consummate rationalist. His mind and temperament are of the type that do not permit the whistling past the graveyard, denial and various other strained antics still seen in most Bush supporters commenting online.
Upthread we learn that an alum of Parsipanny H.S. is concerned for the "young, impressionable minds those people have control over" when students hold a "hearing", presumably researching all sides of the debate.
ReplyDeleteI'm more disturbed about the "young, impressionable minds those people have control over" when I read of a poll among U.S. troops in Iraq where 85% believe that they are there to "retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/ll attacks."
Are you telling us that all you can dois regurgitate what Rush feeds you...
ReplyDeleteUm. The links were from the ACLU. They have the facts regarding the differences between the two bills, and I assumed you wanted the facts.
Glenn, heres an article from Murray Wass that you might want to take a look at.
ReplyDeletehttp://hotstory.nationaljournal.com/
articles/0302nj1.htm
Rudy Giuliani's going to be our next President? The pro-choice fellow who -- while still married -- screwed his girlfriend in the Mayor's Mansion while his son slept in the bedroom next door? HE'S going to be President? How's the GOP going to explain THAT one to their core supporters, the folks who don't care about competency but prefer candidates who thump bibles, not mistresses? Is America a baseball game now, where all that matters is that "your team" won, even if "your team" is incompetent?
ReplyDelete"Um. The links were from the ACLU. They have the facts regarding the differences between the two bills, and I assumed you wanted the facts."
ReplyDeleteYes, I noted that the link was from the ACLU. I didn't make reference to where you were linking, but where you got your talking point. Since you need it spelled out, "Rush Limbaugh" is shorthand for the "right-wing echo chamber".
And you needn't assume what I wanted. I spelled out very specifically what I wanted. I said "Feel free to take 15 minutes to compose the details in a thoughtful and coherent fashion." What that means is SAY IT IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Since, if you have expertise in a given matter, you should be able to coherently and extemporaneously share your knowledge and analysis, with perhaps some brief references to the source of your factual information.
The point of this exercise was to demonstrate that you were lecturing people about a topic which you actually have no specific and/or meaningful knowledge about, and this was demonstrated beautifully. Thank you for your help.
"Is America a baseball game now, where all that matters is that "your team" won, even if "your team" is incompetent?"
ReplyDeleteYou just figuring that out now?
Dude - Junior's a deserter and he parades around in a flightsuit. If that's an effective method of expanding his popularity and power, you're dealing with some serious, widespread cognitive dissonance and absolute lack of concern for consistency, ie principle.
Do the "landlords" of the buildings leased by the CIA tell the CIA what to do?
ReplyDeletemoron - you flipped the analogy and "proved by point" precisely...
Those with the care, custody and control will do what they want to.
If the UAE is not even required to keep records in American soil -- they cannot be held accountable for anything.
Even if they do keep records in US,l doesn't mean we can actually see them or us any authorized authority.
After all, look that how cheney and company can fight and drag their feet on every demand for records and information.
UAE, once they are on control of the ports, can do as they please and have the full sovereignty of an Arab nation to back it up.
What you think the laws will say and what can actually be done are 2 different things.
... boy, need smarter trolls here. Most are just scrolling past the regulars ones now. Thanks everybody for doing your part to keep the threads readable!
bart said...
ReplyDeleteThe present value of the money you will pay in the future for energy is far less than the money you are paying up front for the solar system.
If the true cost of centralized energy production were actually charged, minus the massive subsidies and tax breaks, that would be far from true.
The point of this exercise was to demonstrate that you were lecturing people about a topic which you actually have no specific and/or meaningful knowledge about...
ReplyDeleteI lectured no one about anything. I simply wrote a post noting the renewal of the Patriot Act (it passed 89-10). Included in the post was a quote from Russ Feingold, who said the changes in the bill were "cosmetic." Feingold was one of the ten Senators to vote against the bill. I made no mention of any specific changes, nor did I pretend to know any details regarding the two bills.
You want to play a game of "gotcha." Well, I am sure that if I write enough posts here you'll have plenty of opportunity, since, being human, I make mistakes like everyone else. Unfortunately, this time you missed the mark.
Good luck next time.
Fox News Poll: 39% Approval for Bush, 69% Oppose Dubai Ports Deal
ReplyDeleteKind of says it all when the biggest mouthpiece for the lying liars proclaims this -- after all, their polling data had chimpy winning election by a landslide too. IF they are making this announcement -- the situation is worse.
Guess there is no need to really answer the trolls that repeat the chimperor's talking points now -- even the crowd that thinks Saddam was behind 9/11 does not support the smirking chimp.
They know that they cannot keep up on their bills, that we cannot afford chimpy's wars and taxcuts, and that their jobs could be gone tomorrow.
We are not out of the woods yet -- but the kool-aiders are in a serious minority now. Look for them to be dragged kicking and screaming into reality, but the lying liars and the MSM have lost their hold on much of America
Rejoice, but don't sit back. Now is the time for action
AND I DON'T MEAN ARGUING WITH THE TROLLS -- AMERICA HAS ALREADY DECIDED THAT CHIMPY AND HIS POLICIES ARE WRONG FOR AMERICA.
The only thing to talk about is what are we gonna do about it.
"Included in the post was a quote from Russ Feingold, who said the changes in the bill were "cosmetic." Feingold was one of the ten Senators to vote against the bill. I made no mention of any specific changes, nor did I pretend to know any details regarding the two bills."
ReplyDeleteOh, really? Then why would you be critical of both Feingold's comment and point out the fact that a good number of Democrats voted for the legislation? The intent of that was to indicate either hypocrisy or a "roll over" attitude on the part of Democrats, and if that's your belief, then you would need to know the actual details of the differences between current law and the Senate bill to be able to make a reasonable judgment that would lead to the conclusions you were making and the viewpoint you were espousing.
Translation: you don't know the difference between the bill and the law, so your comment about the vote is devoid of any meaning, since you have no clue what it actually signifies.
No "gotcha" necessary, since the point I wanted to make has been ably demonstrated and your outlook delegitimized (which apparently isn't a new experience for you).
I'm just wondering at what point you realize the futility of your efforts, unless you're willing to accept that you're simply a troll.
HEY WOW!
ReplyDeleteNever saw that collapisble comments. Saves a lot of wear and tear on the ol' mouse wheel, not to mention my hands and wrist...
I might even have to adopt a handle now!
But that will not change my point of view nor make me an "expert", even though I play one online.
Wouldn't rejoice too much about the polls, especially the ones saying that 7 out of 10 are against the port deal.
ReplyDeleteThey will cram it down our throats anyhow, steal midterm elections if they have to, and then proclaim they have "earned" the political capital they will need to end Social Security.
They didn't steal the 2000 and 2004 elections cuz they cared about what the voters had to say about our government or country.
The intent of that was to indicate either hypocrisy or a "roll over" attitude on the part of Democrats, and if that's your belief...
ReplyDelete"Roll over" and "hypocrisy" are your words, not mine. Clearly, despite Bush's low poll numbers, most Democrats (36 of 45) voted for the bill. The reason, I think, is clear: those Democrats thought it in the best interest of the nation to vote for the bill, so they did so. They should be commended for their vote.
...then you would need to know the actual details of the differences between current law and the Senate bill to be able to make a reasonable judgment that would lead to the conclusions you were making and the viewpoint you were espousing.
Even if I acceptted your premise, which I don't, what you write above simply doesn't follow logically. Why would I need to know the actual differences in the two bills to charge the Democrats with "hypocrisy" or with "rolling over"? Isn't Feingold's declaration that the differences are "cosmetic" enough?
"
ReplyDeleteUAE, once they are on control of the ports, can do as they please and have the full sovereignty of an Arab nation to back it up.
"
I'm confused as to why it matters that the UAE would have the full sovereignty of an ARAB nation.
Can you give me a reason that doesn't depend on identifying Arab with Badguy?
because unless you equate Arab with Badguy, any state owned company awarded a contract with these provisions would present the same threat to port security.
This is precisely the kind of off handed, knee jerk racism/nativism/isolationism/whatever that drives this debate away from the real issue of our country having done basically nothing to make our ports more secure.
it is beside the point entirely that some dudes who believe in a different religion than the majority of this country happen to run a country that owns a company that wants to manage some of our ports and that some other dudes who share the same religion as the guys who own the company happen to want to attak this country. do you not see how patently silly that argument is?
to repeat:
The central point here is that the US government is riddled with cronyism and incompetance and has failed to do its job and EVERYTHING else is a distraction.
Why are you still going on with this?
ReplyDeleteIf you don't know what's contained in a bill, and how it differs from current law, then you have absolutely no way of making a value judgment about what the vote tally indicates.
I've now said that many times, and if you don't get it by now, you never will.
You were making value judgments blindly, and I helped to prove it. You have done nothing but confirm my hypothesis -- that you spew talking points without knowing the facts.
That you're comfortable with that state of affairs tells everything anyone would ever need to know about you, and would then give the value of your opinions a big goose egg.
No one respects or cares what a mindless sheep baaahs at them.
Capice?
I said:
ReplyDeleteUnless I'm much mistaken, Bill Clinton won the majority vote and the Electoral College twice (1992 and 1996).
To which Bart replied:
Nope. 42 and 49% of the popular vote.
To which I respond:
And what did his opponents (ALL of them) get those two years? I'm quite sure it was under 58% and 51% respectively.
Your postulate that a 'majority party' must command a 'real' (ie 51%) majority of the voting public I'm afraid runs aground on the realities of our electorate. Elections (particularly the last two) provide a less-than-clear picture of the country's mood or beliefs, especially given how small a percentage of registered voters actually *go* to the polls, never mind how hard it is to guage their understanding of the complexties of issues today.
How many voters cast their ballots based not on the candidate's platforms or positions, but rather just an instinctive or philosophical dislike of their opponent? How many registered voters simply stay home out of protest of either or both parties and their stances? How many potential voters simply don't go because of work or geographical circumstances? How many properly cast votes are mis-counted or mis-recorded by human or machine error?
You see the difficulty here yet? Shall we factor in such ugly things as voter intimidation, voter fraud, and plain old ignorance?
Asserting such a thing as a 'national majority party' is to invoke an ideal that has little to no chance of ever existing in this country; we're too big, too diverse, and too spread out across the philosophical spectrum to agree on most anything except the vaguest principles (and even then, we're all over the map; national security for example can mean a dozen different things to an equal number of people, all of them legitimate to each of them).
As has been pointed out elsewhere, the modern Republican Party is very, very good at electioneering and campaigning, but has an abyssmal record of actual governing. The Democratic Party has the opposite problem. Indeed, all the major advances in society the last 70 years have happened under Democratic Administrations; all the disasters have been under Republicans. This one is no different.
Here's hoping we all survive it.
"Why are you still going on with this?"
ReplyDeleteNO - why are YOU still going on with this?
"You were making value judgments blindly, and I helped to prove it. You have done nothing but confirm my hypothesis -- that you spew talking points without knowing the facts."
If you believe this, why are you bothering to enter into a conversation with him/her/it? what did you get out of "proving" this troll "wrong?" do you feel all fuzzy inside and warm and superior?
Hehe - a sock puppet. I love it.
ReplyDeletef you don't know what's contained in a bill, and how it differs from current law, then you have absolutely no way of making a value judgment about what the vote tally indicates.
ReplyDeleteOh please. What drivel. An 89-10 vote in favor of the Patriot Act is a great victory for the president regardless whether I know every dotted i and crossed t in the bill. If the ACLU was against the bill, and Russ Feingold voted against it, and the hate-Bush left thinks it a disaster, I'm quite sure the bill is, on balance, good.
Oh, and I am curious: Do you know every line of every bill that you make a judgment about? If so, an example would suffice nicely.
Are all trolls Navy Boxers by definition?
ReplyDeleteBart sez [WRT NSA legislation]:
ReplyDeleteIf you call writing in Congressional oversight already provided for by the Constitution some sort of additional limit...
Huh??? It's not the job of Congress to uphold the Constitution against preznitential excesses; that's for the courts to do. But are you conceding that Congress does have the power to regulate Dubya's snooping (even if that role is not demanded of them by the Constitution)?
Cheers,
Bart sez:
ReplyDeleteThe Dems will be reduced to explaining how the "Culture of Corruption" in the DC cesspool is somehow a GOP phenomenon while Cash n' Carry Harry Reid admits to taking tens of thousands from Abramoff indian tribes.
Yeah. Right after they cart Joe and Valerie Wilson off to prison for outing themselves (or whatever crime it is that Freeperville sez they committed ... dissing the preznit, maybe?).
Cheers,
"i only just recently started in on the online conversation thing, and i'm still pretty amazed at the inventiveness of on-line discourse, whether in terms of content or, in this case, of structure."
ReplyDeleteI remember the first time I posted to a message board. I just assumed that people were there to exchange information on a given topic.
Hah! Was I naive.
The Internet seems to primarily serve as an outlet for people's mental problems, and I am amazed that more psychological study isn't done of online discourse, since it lays bare the most obvious of things about people.
Doing that in "meat world" is difficult because people rarely behave like they do when they feel they are protected by anonymity and/or physical distance.
I think we're learning about how to create better communities and keep out the trash, but until then, it's still an almost pure form of anarchy in which many people feel they shouldn't employ any self-discipline whatsoever.
Laughing Gravy said...
ReplyDeleteRudy Giuliani's going to be our next President? The pro-choice fellow who -- while still married -- screwed his girlfriend in the Mayor's Mansion while his son slept in the bedroom next door? HE'S going to be President? How's the GOP going to explain THAT one to their core supporters, the folks who don't care about competency but prefer candidates who thump bibles, not mistresses?
Seriously, you need to keep an eye on Rudy.
He has been doing the Evangelical circuit down in Florida and Georgia to standing ovations. They are asking him about 9/11, not abortion or mistresses.
You have to keep in mind that the evangelicals also have a disproportionate number of their sons and daughters in the military and they are looking for a strong war leader.
It is unlikely that the evangelicals will support Rudy's main competition, John McCain, who has burned his bridges with that group several times over.
All Rudy needs to do is shave off about 20% of the evangelicals. He should do well with business, northern Catholics and military vets.
"All Rudy needs to do is shave off about 20% of the evangelicals. He should do well with business, northern Catholics and military vets."
ReplyDeleteToo bad he's not a Democrat, because then his abhorrent personal behavior would be grounds for ceaseless character destruction and demonization.
Must be nice having no principles, then telling others how they need to have them.
You figured out how cheaper energy is actually more expensive yet? Or are you still trying to find some significance to relative parity between the two main parties over the past 30 years?
BART
ReplyDelete"The Dems will be reduced to explaining how the "Culture of Corruption" in the DC cesspool is somehow a GOP phenomenon while Cash n' Carry Harry Reid admits to taking tens of thousands from Abramoff indian tribes."
This is one of the particularly silly Republican talking points. I mean, it's just demonstrably factually wrong: Abramoff directed tribes to give more money to republicans. As a result of Abramoff's intervention, Reid and other Dems recieved less money from those tribes than they had before.
It's simply the case that the current "culture of corruption" is alost exclusively a GOP phenomenon, and no amount of spin can make the numbers add up differently. if you need convincing, check with any of the good government groups who keep track of those numbers for your benefit.
And it's ok to admit that political parties sometimes devolve into corruption. Tammany Hall was a Democratic product, and the current corruption in Washington is a GOP product.
but it's silly to ignore the illegality of politicians just because they happen to come from your party. if, as you claim, you really care about this country, why wouldn't you want to place competent, ethical people in government?
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteYour postulate that a 'majority party' must command a 'real' (ie 51%) majority of the voting public I'm afraid runs aground on the realities of our electorate. Elections (particularly the last two) provide a less-than-clear picture of the country's mood or beliefs, especially given how small a percentage of registered voters actually *go* to the polls, never mind how hard it is to guage their understanding of the complexties of issues today.
People who take the responsibility to vote are the only ones who count. If you are too lazy or don't care enough to cast a ballot nevertheless keep up with the issues, you have ceded your say to those who do.
How many voters cast their ballots based not on the candidate's platforms or positions, but rather just an instinctive or philosophical dislike of their opponent?
This is a good point.
So far as the office of President goes, the GOP has gone into every election with the built in advantage that a majority of voters do not trust the Dems to run the military.
This started after 1964 and I am sure this perception started with Vietnam, was confirmed with the opposition to the Reagan drive to win the Cold War and is getting a new injection from the cut and run advocates in the Dem leadership.
You really ought to check out Begala and Carville's book about resurrecting the Dem party. They are professionals who have learned from getting their butts handed to them for years.
How many registered voters simply stay home out of protest of either or both parties and their stances?
Not many. Many more people just don't like politics or politicians.
How many potential voters simply don't go because of work or geographical circumstances?
Unless you in living in a shack 50 miles away from the nearest town, that is a copout.
How many properly cast votes are mis-counted or mis-recorded by human or machine error?
Something less than 1%.
You see the difficulty here yet? Shall we factor in such ugly things as voter intimidation, voter fraud, and plain old ignorance?
You Dems really should avoid the subject of voter fraud. There is a reason why you folks fight ID checks looking for felons and illegal aliens. In 2004, Colorado tracked some hundreds of bogus absentee ballots from dead people to some Dem activist groups.
Asserting such a thing as a 'national majority party' is to invoke an ideal that has little to no chance of ever existing in this country; we're too big, too diverse, and too spread out across the philosophical spectrum to agree on most anything except the vaguest principles (and even then, we're all over the map; national security for example can mean a dozen different things to an equal number of people, all of them legitimate to each of them).
If you were correct, then control of the government would bounce back and forth like a ping pong ball. It hasn't.
No liberal from the NE has won the Presidency since Kennedy.
The Dems haven't held Congress since their conservatives jumped ship or were defeated by Elephants.
ReplyDeleteArne Langsetmo said...
Bart sez [WRT NSA legislation]:
If you call writing in Congressional oversight already provided for by the Constitution some sort of additional limit...
Huh??? It's not the job of Congress to uphold the Constitution against preznitential excesses; that's for the courts to do.
Try to learn something about your Constitution.
The only means to try and convict a sitting President for violation the Constitution and criminal statutes is the impeachment process.
Congress forced Nixon to resign with the threat of impeachment and impeached Clinton.
But are you conceding that Congress does have the power to regulate Dubya's snooping (even if that role is not demanded of them by the Constitution)?
Once again, if Mr. Bush pulled a Nixon and is using the NSA program to spy on political opponents, the only way to do anything about it is through Congressional oversight and impeachment.
However, if the President is acting legally, he has nothing to worry about except for ankle biters.
"No liberal from the NE has won the Presidency since Kennedy."
ReplyDeleteBaaaaaah!
You just have one meaningless talking point after another, don't you?
No Republican from Alaska has ever won the presidency. Oh my God! They're unloved losers! That proves it!
I have to hand it to you, though, that in small bursts ou demonstrate something resembling independent thought, though you slip right back into sheep mode and hunker down for the most part.
My suggestion would be to actually first ground yourself in empirical reality, then move on to the relevance of that empirical reality.
Or just regurgitate meaningless Rushian drivel and continue to be mocked for the vacuousness of your belief structure.
Your choice.
Bart -
ReplyDeleteSources please?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBART: "The Dems will be reduced to explaining how the "Culture of Corruption" in the DC cesspool is somehow a GOP phenomenon while Cash n' Carry Harry Reid admits to taking tens of thousands from Abramoff indian tribes."
This is one of the particularly silly Republican talking points. I mean, it's just demonstrably factually wrong: Abramoff directed tribes to give more money to republicans.
That is true...and irrelevant.
The Dem "Culture of Corruption" schtick is predicated on Abramoff only giving to Republicans. Problem is that Abramoff gave to both parties like any smart lobbyist. The GOP got about 10% more money because they are the majority party and control the committees.
As a result of Abramoff's intervention, Reid and other Dems recieved less money from those tribes than they had before.
:::heh:::
Actually, it was Tom Delay's intervention. With his K-Street Project, Tom tried to strong arm lobbyists to give only the to the Elephants if they wanted access. It didn't work very well. People like Abramoff simply funneled the Dems money through the tribes and not his office.
And it's ok to admit that political parties sometimes devolve into corruption. Tammany Hall was a Democratic product, and the current corruption in Washington is a GOP product.
Sometimes? My friend, DC is about as corrupt as it gets on both sides of the aisle all the time. Trips, dinners, vacations, campaign contributions which are spent on personal and family matters, renting houses for representatives...it goes on and on and on.
but it's silly to ignore the illegality of politicians just because they happen to come from your party.M
I agree. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this stuff is legal. You literally need a tape recording of the lobbyist asking the politician for a specific favor, offering money and the politician actually doing the favor. Bribery is very hard to prove. I am not sure there will be any convictions coming from the Abramoff plea deal based on his testimony alone.
if, as you claim, you really care about this country, why wouldn't you want to place competent, ethical people in government?
I figure they are corrupt. My solution is to keep the spigot of money going into that sewer as restricted as possible and keep them from regulating me to deal.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"No liberal from the NE has won the Presidency since Kennedy."
Baaaaaah!
You just have one meaningless talking point after another, don't you?
No Republican from Alaska has ever won the presidency. Oh my God! They're unloved losers! That proves it!
Alaska has no population. The NE has still has about a quarter of the country's population.
On Trolls and Trolling
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that the point of trolls is not to argue the Republican position but to keep Democrats from leaving the party? Or did I switch the D/R?
Is it possible that the man in clown makeup, sitting above a pool of water and hurling insults is just trying to get us to spend money at the carnival? Or at least not to leave.
No...I am just a fisher of men who believes the only way to define a bass is that it's not a catfish and vice versa.
I once had a dream, or what I thought was a dream. I dreamt that fish weren't ideas at all. But then it was my turn to throw balls at the clown in the dunking booth. I am definitely going to get him this time.
As to the Rush Factor, Glenn
ReplyDeleteAgain, I must disagree. The format for Rush, conservative radio, Hannity, Fox pundits, etc. is professional wrestling. Would those who love and engage in Olympic wrestling engage in conversation with professional wrestling; i.e. the WWF? I don't think so.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteBart -
Sources please?
For what in particular. We covered a number of topics and I was mostly giving you my opinion...
Bart -
ReplyDeleteSources concerning the non-voting elements of the electorate.
BART
ReplyDelete"I figure they are corrupt. My solution is to keep the spigot of money going into that sewer as restricted as possible and keep them from regulating me to deal."
ok. maybe we agree here:
corruption is bad and pretty much endemic to washington as a whole.
(i'm willing to concede that the "culture of corruption" thing is convincing only insofar as the democrats don't have a lot of power and thus kind of have an illusion of credibility: it's the "we couldn't effect policy so we're not as dirty as those who could" excuse.)
but um... that's really your solution? so you'd be in favor of: public financing of elections, removal of earmarking from budget appropriations, careful regulation of the appointment process (esp. with the aim of creating "non-political," policy advisors), creation of an independant group to control the ethical lapses of representatives (since e.g. the congress can't control itself and the DOJ isn't willing to do so either...), etc., etc.?
or, by "keep the spigot of money going into that sewer as restricted as possible" do you just mean not funding government programs in general?
Heck of a job, Bushie.
ReplyDeleteTorture Widespread in Iraq, Expert Says
Former U.N. Human Rights Chief Says Abuses as Bad as Saddam's
AP
SYDNEY, Australia (March 2) - Human rights abuses in Iraq are as bad now as they were under Saddam Hussein, as lawlessness and sectarian violence sweep the country, the former U.N. human rights chief in Iraq said Thursday.
John Pace, who last month left his post as director of the human rights office at the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, said the level of extra-judicial executions and torture is soaring, and morgue workers are being threatened by both government-backed militia and insurgents not to properly investigate deaths.
"Under Saddam, if you agreed to forgo your basic right to freedom of expression and thought, you were physically more or less OK," Pace said in an interview with The Associated Press. "But now, no. Here, you have a primitive, chaotic situation where anybody can do anything they want to anyone."
Pace, who was born in Malta but now resides in Australia, said that while the scale of atrocity under Saddam was "daunting," now nobody is safe from abuse.
"It is certainly as bad," he said. "It extends over a much wider section of the population than it did under Saddam"......
Bart:
ReplyDeleteSeriously, you need to keep an eye on Rudy.
He has been doing the Evangelical circuit down in Florida and Georgia to standing ovations. They are asking him about 9/11, not abortion or mistresses.
Two words: "Harriet Miers"
;-)
They may "like" him, but they ain't gonna elect him preznit....
Add in Rice, and you've managed to piss off the racists in the ranks too.... Noooooo. Ask yourself why, when push came to shove, it had to be white boy Scalito for the important slot.
Of course, that ignores the fact that while you might win the nomination with evangelicals, you ain't gonna win the preznitcy with just those kooks.
Cheers,
Bart:
ReplyDelete[Arne]: Huh??? It's not the job of Congress to uphold the Constitution against preznitential excesses; that's for the courts to do.
Try to learn something about your Constitution.
The only means to try and convict a sitting President for violation the Constitution and criminal statutes is the impeachment process.
Who said anything about "try and convict"? I was talking about the normal constitutional checks and balances. When you want to get outside of "normal procedures", one might posit that a 50mm might be just as effective at removing a miscreant, even if such a course is mentioned in the DoI rather than written into the Constitution.
Congress forced Nixon to resign with the threat of impeachment and impeached Clinton.
In Clinton's case, we're talking waaaayyyyy outside of "normal procedures". That was a Republican lynch mob, and an embarrassment. Fortunately the Founders were smart enough to set the bar high enough so that petty partisan politics wasn't sufficient capital for them to buy the rope.
Once again, if Mr. Bush pulled a Nixon and is using the NSA program to spy on political opponents, the only way to do anything about it is through Congressional oversight and impeachment.
You'd think that the "law'n'order" party would pay at least some attention to our legal system ... except that for them "law'n'order" is just a gross misspelling of "hypocrisy".
However, if the President is acting legally, he has nothing to worry about except for ankle biters.
Or a crowd with buckets of tar and feathers. Which seems to be getting to be around 2/3 of the population nowadays.
Cheers,
I'm confused as to why it matters that the UAE would have the full sovereignty of an ARAB nation.
ReplyDeleteWhat part of:
ARAB NATION MEANS US NATION DOES NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER VITAL, NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES
We are not talking about an ARAB OWNED COMPANY, we are talking about turning what should be a NATIONAL ASSET to another government....
They just happen to be arabs, there are reports that they have been infiltrated by Bin Ladin and Al Queda, and there are close financial ties to the bush family...
WHAT PART OF THIS DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND, IDIOT?
I just assumed that people were there to exchange information on a given topic.
ReplyDeleteHah! Was I naive.
Let me guess, ATRIOS? AMERICABLOG...
It could be the "know-it-alls" at firedoglake, but they tend to discuss topics as long as you pay proper deference to the clowns that play lawyers and "experts" online -- jane and reddhead.
Their speculation is almost all wrong and they have funny ideas about the democratic party -- something about it should be run like a corporation...
Totally ignorant of what the traditional the party once had for progressives....
But hey, if you get rid of the poor and are willing to goosestep with the "know it alls," guess FDL is great...
Bart:
ReplyDeleteSo far as the office of President goes, the GOP has gone into every election with the built in advantage that a majority of voters do not trust the Dems to run the military.
If truth be told, the Dems have done a much better job of running the military lately, getting far less people killed, and getting the jobs needing to get done done.
Panama and Grenada were all for show (or distraction), and bloody useless (and just plain bloody). Then there was Lebanon. And 9/11, for that matter. Iraq is a complete and sanguinary disaster.
Clinton never sent a soldier into combat that died from enemy fire, and he ousted Milosevic and the Haitian junta, and stopped the Bosnian war.
Cheers,
Glenn
ReplyDeleteI’ve been meaning to write a post for sometime about what I consider to be one of the most serious problems which Democrats face in trying to undermine Republican hegemony.
If you mean to use 'hegemony' in the sense of dominance, fine, but if you mean hegemony in the Gramscian sense then it is incorrect to say that the Republicans built or sustain such a hegemony. The conservative movement has worked dilligently for 30 years to construct a hegemony and the Republican party has benefited from that movement. You cannot capture the real nature of the construction (or, attempt to construct) a right-wing hegemony without focusing on the central role of the 'movement' in re-shaping the conventional wisdom and shifting the political center in the U.S.
Last word to Bart on this -
ReplyDeleteControl of the White House *has* bounced between the parties over the last 40 years, with Democrats winning five out of the last 12 elections; the only reason Al Gore wasn't our 43rd President (despite winning the popular vote) was thanks to the Electoral College.
Your point that no winning Deomcratic candidate has come from the NE since Kennedy is true, and utterly irrelevant. No winning Republican candidate has come from Wyoming, or New Mexico, or Florida, or Kentucky, or a dozen other 'Red' States. Regional population density is no guage for influence or determining who wins the White House (if it were, we'd have to call it the 'Blue House'). Elections are complex affairs, with no single determinate deciding the outcomes.
You should also consider the Democrat's control over Congress remained stable for the roughly the same time period until the Gingrinch Revolution in 1994, said 'revolution' having accomplished no major policy shifts or initiatives in comparison to the New Deal or Great Society.
Indeed, beyond fiddling at the margins of some of the entitlement programs, not one major initiative from the New Deal nor the Great Society has been terminated (at least that I can think of). This leads to the conclusion that the mood of the country is somewhere other than with the conservatives.
Can I back this up with hard numbers? No. Any poll will invariably have difficulties that can call it into question.
Do elections tell us anything? It tells us which candidates won (not necessarily how or how honestly) and who will sit in Congress or the White House. Beyond that, I don't put a great deal of stock in them as guages of the country's mood or philosophy.
Jeff Myers said:
ReplyDelete”And when a Democrat like Murtha for example, makes a simple, unequivocal statement, the establishment cannot apologize fast enough and cringes as if speaking truth is some mortal sin.
The Bush Administration on the other hand never apologizes, never admits the slightest mistake and makes even their most demonstrably false assertions in a tone of unequivocal certitude.
To the great mass of the uninformed who lack the time or inclination to read or delve into the issues, that unequivocal certitude translates directly into 'strength' and 'resolve' and 'right.'”
I agree totally, Jeff. And it plays perfectly to the “pusillanimous” frame Republicans have hung around Democrats’ neck.
The cure is so simple, so requiring almost nothing the Dems couldn’t start tomorrow (to be fair, some of them already get it): never apologize, never back down. Use every criticism of a past statement as an opportunity to reframe the original point more strongly. And, more often then not, that point should be just how bad for the country the Republican movement has been.
I made a point in an earlier post that it would be a saner approach to rein in US imbalances in domestic budgetary and international current account deficits financed essentially by non US financiers prepared to buy US Fed Treasury bonds than to fight the UAE re threats to national security. In the absence of any response to this, can I take the liberty to make a few further comments?
ReplyDeletethe real debate needs to focus on the sustainability of US political and economic strategies.
The political objective seems to be to maintain US superpower status to give it the right to dictate what should be regardless of the multipolar global plurality. This the US could do since 1945 while it retained the prepondering economic status until 1975. The world since then has changed a great deal, particularly so as European colonialism was no longer economically viable. Today the global political reality is very different. Ex colonies, whose independence struggles are largely overlooked, are no longer prepared to be colonies to be exploited and disenfranchised to enrich others.
Reality dictates that to maintain its unipolar dictatorial presumptions, the US needs to maintain a solid economic power base that dwarfs and cowards others to submission. This is hardly achievable when the US economic engine is kept afloat on the strength of international demand for a fiat currency backed by others’ productivity while US workers’ wages cannot maintain US corporate capitalism’s demand driven need to sustain sales without resorting to credit, again sustained by others’ willingness to underwrite that credit facility.
US corporates have ruined many overseas economies and have to date been unaccountable as in the Bhopal tragedy in India. The international demand for a paper currency (US$) cannot be maintained without reciprocal rights to others to acquire US assets, particularly when US ability to impose its will depends on those others’ willingness to accept US$ for their productive assets.
Another issue is that US touts the free market to break into overseas countries’ capital markets. The notion of free market needs to extend beyond finance capital and embrace all other factors of production, including labour. Currently finance capital commands the same price the world over but labour does not. We talk about labour arbitrage to create slave markets overseas that we do not have to see at home. The cheap bargains are nonetheless produced by ordinary human beings, who cannot afford those goods themselves. If we can extend the same dignity to human beings that we do to money, labour skills will command a uniform global price structure that finance capital does. This no doubt negates the need to displace domestic jobs and technology overseas.
I am not a politician, nevertheless, these are observations that a political campaign can capitalise on. I am also a foreigner, ‘alien’, a British (EU) and an Australian citizen of S Indian ethnicity with two beautiful jus soli Aussie daughters from a 18+ years of marital alliance with an Englishman, who have been in N America for two years, currently married to a Canadian, about to return to Australia and offer a perspective with different eyes.
Your readers can all ignore me but these are the issues that really matter to uphold US ntional interests. I have always admired your revolutionary declaration of a Bill of Rights and a secular constitution more than 200 years ago, an affirmation of Enlightenment principles since the Magna Carta although I favour the European Human Rights Convention and a Charter of Rights rather than a Bill of Rights for reasons beyond this post. But I am an alien.
I despair but I agree with Noam Chomsky and Arundhati Roy that the civic body politic can recover the visions of Tom Paine, Washington and et al. You do not need concentration camps, Spanish Inquisition torture practices and Orwellian language and Big Brother techniques to disempower enemies or discredit opposition but who knows, to uphold national strategic interests.
I also take on board your point that impeachment is an essentially political process, rather than evidentiarially given, perhaps the Constitution itself can be revisited to make it otherwise. My observation from living in five very different countries (including three years in Papua New Guinea) is that everything is mutable as strategic imperatives dictate.
Focus on the big issues, principles, or encourage a third coalition to keep the bastards honest and off their snouts from the pig trough.
think what i was trying to say was that don't focus on the technicalities that you can't carry to fruition but focus on the big picture of forming an effective opposition first that can use the technicalities - democracies can thrive with effective opposition(s), otherwise they degenerate. I guess i sense a lot of chest beating dissonance and intellectual disagreement but no coherent argument to coalesce an effective opposition. I will be away from this insanity soon but the world knows how indefensible US posture is - so please get your act togeher - what you face today is more serious than extramarital oral sex under the the desk.
ReplyDeleteadresse msnadresse msn de fille creer une adresse msn cree une adresse msn msn adresse astuce msnmsn astuce msn truc astuce msn truc et astuce truc et astuce msn avataravatar msn avatar gratuit avatar mangas avatar anime clin d oeil msnclin d oeil msn gratuit clin d oeil gratuit pour msn msn clin d oeil clin d oeil msn messenger clin oeilclin oeil gratuit clin oeil msn clin oeil msn gratuit clin oeil gratuit msn emoticone gratuitemoticone msn gratuit emoticone gratuit pour msn telecharger emoticone gratuit emoticone anime gratuit emoticone msnemoticone msn gratuit msn emoticone emoticone gratuit msn emoticone msn messenger emoticoneemoticone gratuit emoticone msn emoticone gratuis emoticone gratuite msn messengermessenger msn web messenger msn messenger 7.5 yahoo messenger msn 7.5msn messenger 7.5 telecharger msn 7.5 telecharger msn messenger 7.5 msn messenger version 7.5 msn messenger 7.5telecharger msn messenger 7.5 msn messenger version 7.5 telechargement msn messenger 7.5 msn messenger 7.5 plus msn messengermsn web messenger msn messenger 7.5 messenger msn msn messenger plus msn pluschanson parole chansonparole de chanson francaise parole de chanson francaisechanson francaise parole parole et chansonparole et traduction de chanson partition batteriepartition batterie gratuite partition clarinettepartition gratuite clarinette partition de chansonpartition chanson francaise partition musiquepartition musique gratuite partition flutepartition flute traversiere partition gratuitepartition piano gratuite partition guitarepartition gratuite guitare partition pianopartition piano gratuite partition saxophonepartition gratuite saxophone partitionpartition de musique rire et chansonradio rire et chanson msn web messengermsnnouvelle version msntelecharger emoticonetelecharger messenger 7.5telecharger messengertelecharger msn 7.5telecharger msn messenger 7.5telecharger msn messenger 8telecharger msn plustelecharger msntelecharger yahoo messengeryahoo messengerhennemodèle de tatouagepiercing languepiercing nombrilpiercingtatootatouageastrologie chinoiseastrologie gratuiteastrologieles chevaliers du zodiaquehoroscope 2006 gratuithoroscope 2006horoscope amoureuxhoroscope balancehoroscope belierhoroscope cancerhoroscope capricornehoroscope chinoishoroscope du jourhoroscope gemeauhoroscope gratuithoroscope lionhoroscope mensuelhoroscope poissonhoroscope sagittairehoroscope scorpionhoroscope taureauhoroscope verseauhoroscope viergehoroscopejeu de tarotsigne du zodiaquetarot marseilletarot divinatoiretarot en lignetarot gratuittarottirage tarot gratuittirage tarottexte de chansontexte chanson auteur traduction de chansontraduction de parole de chansonadresse msnadresse msn de fille astuce msnmsn astuce avataravatar msn clin d oeil msnclin d oeil msn gratuit clin oeilclin oeil gratuit emoticone gratuitemoticone msn gratuit emoticone msnemoticone msn gratuit emoticoneemoticone gratuit msn messengermessenger msn 7.5msn messenger 7.5 msn messenger 7.5telecharger msn messenger 7.5 msn messengermsn web messenger msn plusmsn messenger plus msn web messengerweb msn messenger msn web messengermsn web msnmsn messenger nouvelle version msnmsn nouvelle version telecharger emoticonetelecharger emoticone gratuit telecharger messenger 7.5telecharger msn messenger 7.5 telecharger messengertelecharger msn messenger 7.5 telecharger msn 7.5telecharger msn messenger 7.5 telecharger msn messenger 7.5telecharger msn messenger 7.5 gratuitement telecharger msn messenger 8msn 8 telecharger msn plustelecharger msn messenger plus telecharger msntelecharger msn 7.5 telecharger yahoo messengertelecharger yahoo messenger 6 yahoo messengermsn messenger plus telecharger msn plus telecharger msn messenger plus msn 7.5 plus msn web messengerweb msn messenger msn messenger web web messenger msn msn web messenger 7.0 msn web messengermsn web web msn web msn messenger msn messenger web msnmsn messenger msn hotmail msn plus telecharger msn nouvelle version msnmsn nouvelle version telecharger la nouvelle version de msn nouvelle version msn messenger msn messenger nouvelle version telecharger emoticonetelecharger emoticone gratuit emoticone a telecharger emoticone gratuit a telecharger telecharger emoticone gratuitement telecharger messenger 7.5telecharger msn messenger 7.5 telecharger msn messenger 7.5 gratuitement msn messenger 7.5 telecharger telecharger gratuitement msn messenger 7.5 telecharger messengertelecharger msn messenger 7.5 telecharger yahoo messenger telecharger msn messenger plus telecharger messenger plus telecharger msn 7.5telecharger msn messenger 7.5 telecharger msn 7.5 gratuitement msn 7.5 telecharger telecharger msn 7.5 gratuit telecharger msn messenger 7.5telecharger msn messenger 7.5 gratuitement msn messenger 7.5 telecharger telecharger gratuitement msn messenger 7.5 telecharger msn messenger version 7.5 telecharger msn messenger 8msn 8 msn messenger 8 msn 8 beta telecharger msn 8 telecharger msn plustelecharger msn messenger plus msn plus telecharger telecharger msn plus gratuitement telecharger msn plus gratuit telecharger msntelecharger msn 7.5 telecharger msn plus telecharger msn messenger 7.5 msn telecharger telecharger yahoo messengertelecharger yahoo messenger 6 yahoo messenger telecharger telecharger yahoo messenger gratuit telecharger messenger yahoo yahoo messengertelecharger yahoo messenger antivirus ligne antivirus gratuittelecharger antivirus gratuit norton antivirus gratuit antivirus and gratuit logiciel antivirus gratuit antivirus gratuitementtelecharger antivirus gratuitement telecharger gratuitement antivirus antivirus a telecharger gratuitement telecharger gratuitement norton antivirus antivirus pour scannerscanner antivirus scanner antivirus ligne scanner antivirus gratuit comment scanner pc antivirus mcafee antivirus softwaresoftware antivirus 0 free antivirus software affordable web hosting antivirus software apache avast antivirus software antivirusantivirus gratuit antivirus software logiciel antivirus norton antivirus avast antivirusantivirus avast avast antivirus gratuit antivirus avast gratuit antivirus gratuit avast avg antivirusantivirus avg avg antivirus gratuit telecharger antivirus avg gratuit antivirus avg gratuit avgavg free avg antivirus avg free edition avg gratuit bitdefenderbitdefender 9 internet security bitdefender 9 anti virus bitdefender bitdefender 8 comparatif antivirusantivirus comparatif comparatif antivirus gratuit comparatif logiciel antivirus comparatif and antivirus etrustlecteur dvd portableaperitifrecette aperitif aperitif dinatoire canape aperitif toast aperitif ?cuisinerecette de cuisine accessoire cuisine julie cuisine blague blondeblague sur blonde blague de totoblague sur totoemule paradiseemule plusemuleencodeur mp3enregistreur dvdgraveur dvdhp drivericqimeshjaquette dvdjavakazaa litekazaalecteur mp3logiciel a telechargerlogiciel antiviruslogiciel architecturelogiciel comptabilitelogiciel dessinlogiciel de gravuretelechargement logiciellogiciel de traductionlogiciel gratuitlogicielnero burning romnero expresspack codecripperserveur emuleshareazaskypetelechargement logiciel gratuittelechargement logicieltelechargement p2padresse msnastuce msnavatarclin d oeil msnclin oeilemoticone gratuitemoticone msnemoticonemsn messengermsn 7.5msn messenger 7.5msn messengermsn plusmsn web messengerachat dvd viergeachat dvdachat mp3autoradio dvdautoradio mp3baladeur mp3boitier dvdcd musiquechanson francaisechanson paillardeparole chansonhoroscope poissonhoroscope sagittairehoroscope scorpionhoroscope taureauhoroscope verseauhoroscope viergehoroscopehoroscope lionhoroscope gemeaujeu de tarottarotzodiaquelogiciel comptablelogiciel de dessinlogiciel de gravuretelechargement logiciellogiciel de traductionlogiciel gratuitlogiciel montage photologiciel montage videologiciel mp3logiciel gratuitlogicielnero
ReplyDelete