So, President Bush gave his big speech last night designed to mollify his rage-fueled base and to stem the tide of his rapidly collapsing presidency. The speech is done and the reviews are in. How did he do?
Michelle Malkin: "platitudes, non sequiturs, and recycled rhetoric I've been deconstructing the last five years."
John "The Rocket" Hinderaker: "He had his chance and he blew it . . . President Bush is being destroyed by vicious people who hate him. So far, he hasn't seemed to notice. Apparently, he doesn't think he needs any allies. He certainly didn't win any with tonight's speech . . . . President Bush doesn't have many chances left to salvage his second term. After tonight, he might not have any."
(As a bonus, definitely don't miss the unbelievably patronizing summary by The Rocket of his conversation with his "African immigrant" driver last night after the speech, in which Rocket "patiently" tried to explain the real issues to the immigrant driver, only to be "sure he'd forgotten everything I said by the time he left my driveway").
Paul "Deacon" Mirengoff: "President Bush did wimp out, and fatally so I think, on his fourth point, i.e., what to do about illegals who are already here. . . . This means that Bush's proposal taken as a whole is probably self-defeating."
Ankle Biting Pundits: "Whether he likes it or not, the president did not carve out a 'centrist' position at all. He articulated one of the two conflicting positions in this debate. And by pretending to be a 'middle grounder' I believe he cheapened his argument."
Misha at Anti-Idotarian Rottweiler: "long on blather and emotion and amazingly short on actual solutions. . . . Take your 'virtual' fence and your hi-tech vaporware coupled with your amnesty plan and shove them up your ass, Jorge."
The good news for the President is that he is prevented from ever reaching zero on the approval rating scale thanks to the existence of Hugh Hewitt, who swooned: "President Bush did exactly what he had to do tonight . . ." But after he posted that, Hewitt fundamentally reconsidered his assessment as a result of his interview with Julie Myers, the nepotism-based appointee at Bush's Homeland Security Department:
My interview with Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Julie Myers staggered me, undoing in a handful of minutes my confidence in the president's commitment to border security first. Either the president's team had not communicated effectively with sub-cabinet appointees about the fence, or the president doesn't really believe in the fence, because Assistant Secretary Myers is clearly not a proponent of the fence.
So, by the end of the night, the President's speech even made Hugh Hewitt angry. Does the White House do anything right anymore? If this speech wasn't going to serve up some of those extremist measures necessary to satisfy Bush's rabid, voracious base, what was the point of it?
It was a mushy, uninspired speech with little that was new, so it wasn't going to win the president any converts. But for the same reason, it had the effect of exacerbating the Right's growing dissatisfaction with Bush by getting their hopes up, only to then rub their noses in the fact that the president is never going to embrace their views on immigration, which they have decided is now The Paramount Issue. What did the White House hope to gain from any of this? One thing is clear: the longer and more prominently immigration remains on the table, the better it is for Democrats.
Finally, as a follow-up to my post from yesterday, Jesse Walker at Reason offers up some interesting speculation as to why the Right, which has long agreed to ignore Bush's immigration softness, has suddenly decided, now, that this issue is of critical importance.
UPDATE: There are a few more unhappy people who have spent the last five years as enthusiastic Bush followers but who are now infuriated by the president:
Mark Levin, National Review: "I didn't spend 35 years in the conservative movement for this. . . . This is pure idiocy, and it has the potential of being far more damaging to this nation than any big-government power-grab perpetrated by any previous president and Congress."
Dave Riehl: "Unfortunately, visitors to a Bush '43' Library may have to cross the border into Mexico to take it all in. In a speech which was as much a eulogy for the so-called Reagan Revolution, as it was an unfortunate beginning to a pending political battle on immigration, President Bush all but declared himself irrelevant to the conversation. In essence, the sitting President of the United States through (sic) up his hands and declared, 'No mas.'
John Hawkins, Right Wing News: "After the speech last night, I took a look around the right side of the blogosphere to get a sense of what people thought. The reaction was probably -- oh, let's say somewhere between 75-90% negative and to be truthful, as often as not, I got the impression that the bloggers who said they liked the speech were reading out of the old "root, root, root for the home team playbook" rather than genuinely being enthused about what Bush had to say."
He's pulling a Clinton and trying to make it look like he's pandering to the middle?
ReplyDeleteWhy give the speech? These guys listen to right-wing radio and watch Faux News all the time. They have no perspective as to the sentiments of the country at-large and believe their own propaganda. As a result, they believe they should/can continue to punk the wingers while actually acting solely in the interest of the business/globalist that put them in power.
ReplyDeleteAssrocket...My cab driver was completely disoriented by this. I could tell he didn't believe it. Like nearly all African cab drivers, he listens to public radio all day long. Twenty minutes with me wasn't enough to overcome years of liberal indoctrination. He simply wasn't able to absorb the idea that President Bush might not be a racist who hates immigrants. I'm sure he'd forgotten everything I said by the time he left my driveway.
ReplyDeleteOne thing's for sure, Assrocket. He knew you were a racist and he won't forget it. Now he knows the difference between a faux dumb cracker from whitebread Connecticutt and the real thing.
Now Glenn, you neglected to observe that Jeff Goldstein, who commented in Jesse Walker's thread, is absolutely sure Walker doesn't really find any merit in what you wrote yesterday:
ReplyDeleteThe error in Greenwald’s thinking is transparent: to believe his theory, you must believe that conservative concern over illegal immigration is something new, or, as Greenwald would have it, opportunistic—a way to sate a (genetic? essentialist?) need to have a clearly-defined enemy (preferably brown) at all times, and to then demonize that enemy.
But of course, conservatives have grappled with the illegal immigration problem for years and years; that it is now being foregrounded by the media is simply proof that the concern has reached a certain pitch, --and that, in addition to being embraced by conservatives, immigration reform has been championed by populist blowhards with large audiences like Bill O’Reilly, who see in the issue an opportunity to establish some “conservative” street cred.
Obviously everyone knows the immigration issue has been around, basically forever. The question Jeff doesn't want to address, is WHY it suddenly moved front-and-center on the list of "pressing political concerns," and WHY Bush supporters are drawing up articles of impeachment and excoriating him in vicious tones, such as they usually apply only to Bill Clinton? Why, Jeff? Why now?
Answer: It allows them to vent sheer, unbridled rage at a president who has failed, but not direct that fury at the failed policies they supported, and often still do.
Misha at Anti-Idotarian Rottweiler: "long on blather and emotion and amazingly short on actual solutions. . . . Take your “virtual” fence and your hi-tech vaporware coupled with your amnesty plan and shove them up your ass, Jorge."
ReplyDeleteBush the uniter?
Hmm. I'm beginning to think the whole immigration thing was ginned up to give the base an excuse to desert Bush while pretending it has nothing to do with losing the war in Iraq, corruption, incompetence, and the utter failure of conservative theory to transplant in the real world.
ReplyDeleteHypatia ... Answer: It allows them to vent sheer, unbridled rage at a president who has failed, but not direct that fury at the failed policies they supported, and often still do.
ReplyDeleteSuch a keen, perceptive and smart gal... most of the time.
Yep...this is all just an excuse for the mouthbreathers to jump ship.
ReplyDeleteIts just not in a bully,er I mean a Republican's nature to ever admit they might have been wrong about anything.
Clue for all the blowhards...an alky can't start down the road to recovery till he admits he has a problem.
But as a fox conservitive love wallowing in his own ignorance, so does said individual revel in his intolarance and short-sightedness. Of course all of these things are cut from the same cloth, and can be used to sew a really nifty clan hood.
"platitudes, non sequiturs, and recycled rhetoric I've been deconstructing the last five years."-Malkin
ReplyDeleteThat is the most delousional thing I have herd in a while, well, not counting certain posters here.
I thought this from Dave Riehl's blog post was pretty funny:
ReplyDelete"Without an overwhelming majority of Republicans in the Senate, and many of those now appearing to be far from conservative, it is quite possible that Democrats will be able to hide from any responsibility for our current government's failures, saddling Republicans with most of the blame, possibly leading to electoral victory for the Democrats in the Fall."
You know, this is so transparent that I'm starting to wonder what the White House talking points were. Did they direct Republicans to distance themselves from Bush in preperation for the 2006 midterm elections? Or is that just what they wrote the speech for...
ReplyDeleteIf Bush were serious about border security and immigration, he would have been hiring large numbers of Border Patrol and INS officers over the last four years. Instead, he's proposing to use National Guard (from where? with whose permission?) to do the job. I understand 'posse comitatus' may apply here also.
ReplyDeleteSorry wingers, this presidency, like the WWF, is big on drama theater, and retoric. In fact that is all it is. A simple look into GW's past would have told you this. We are witnessing the inevitable collaspe of all show and no substance. While you can fake it for a while, you cannot run a country on talking points. The only people that have really lost are the American people. It has been a wildly sucessful presidency for thoes who have been lining their pockets on the backs of the American people.
ReplyDeleteI think the real issue here is that Bush is so completely caught up in his delusions that he thought he was going to lead the Republicans to a more reasonable position on immigration with this speech.
ReplyDeleteGood Morning Glenn,
ReplyDeletethanks for all the uh, gems. The kids at Red State were "very disappointed" he didn't come out with guns a blazin'
Ms. Malkin should know it's Same Ole', Same Ole'!
O/T reminder to all: Russell Tice will be testifying before the Senate Armed Services Comm. tomorrow - he has stated his intent to inform the good senators that all disclosures to date are the mere tip of the unconstitutional iceberg
I think this speech is going to go down as a watershed moment for this Presidency...
ReplyDeleteThe moment when even his base looked at him and said "What is he talking about?" "Is he serious?" "Come on, you are really messing up the TiVo for my season finales."
He took a bad plan, and took it public in a big way. And I don't think it fooled anyone.
And the liberalization of George Bush will commence in three...
ReplyDeletetwo...
one...
The problem with using the mob's bloodlust for power is that it is hard to satiate. W blew his chance in Iraq, and now they're even hungrier, having been denied their catharsis. Even they have given up on expecting Iraq to turn out the way they want, so they've gone looking elsewhere for their thrill. And it's got to be big, to make up for previous disappointment. The 'namby-pampy' right-wing corporatist stuff isn't enough to satisfy them any more; nothing short of fascism will do.
ReplyDeleteSo now after 3 years of inept policy decisions regarding terrorism and the Iraq War, after 3 years of labeling liberals as traitors or unpatriotic for not "standing with the President" and after three years of mindlessly defending this man to the DEATH on issue after issue(Abu Gharib, torture, Halliburton no-bid contracts, 9 billion dollars missing from the CPA, NSA wiretapping, rendition flights to torture friendly countries, Downing Street Memoswidespread violence in Iraq on a daily basis, an impending Civil War, no credible port security, D and F from the 9/11 commisions in regards to improving Homeland Security) the RW blogsphere has given up on him because he wont deal with a problem that has confounded 3 other Republican Presidents over the last 26 years??????
ReplyDeleteWTF!!!
I mean reading comments on LGF, NRO, and Malkin, people are ready to impeach this man for his lack of action on the immigration issue...
The funny thing is that Rove brought this issue up to rally the base (its basically the gay marriage of the 2006 midterms)
Well he got more than he bargined for....and it finally exposed this Adminsration and Republican party for what they are.....ALL talk no action, happy to cover up the problem with a speech or a PR offensive than to actually deal with tough policy decisions....
ITs good (and hilarious) to see the other side of the aisle waking up to what we on the left have known for a long time ..this adminstration is incompetent and self serving....
I am running out of POPCORN over here!!!!
Defense Tech provides this review of the Bush border plan:
ReplyDeleteOverall, this proposal has all the marks of being costly and ineffective. And this analysis doesn't even cover the issue of the National Guard already being overstretched as a result of the war in Iraq and the Guard's disaster management responsibilities, which is also a concern. If border states want to spend their own money sending their National Guard forces to the border, fine. But the federal government shouldn't pay for it. Instead of wasting money on stopgap measures, we should accelerate the increase in Border Patrol agents, technology investment, or what is probably the best bet strictly from a cost standpoint (although detestable for symbolic reasons), building a complete border fence.
What are they complaining about? They voted for him.
ReplyDeleteAnd just outta curiousity, what does LGF have to say about it all?
Bush doesn't have to take extreme measures to mollify his base. I'm a Democrat living in L.A. with a fairly tough stance on illegal immigration. I listened to right wing talk show hosts yesterday rip Bush apart for his mealy-mouthed speech. I know that what most clear-headed people are asking for isn't all that extreme.
ReplyDeleteBasically, they just want Bush to enforce the law. That means:
1.) Workplace enforcement. You don't have to deport anybody, you just make sure that they can't get jobs anymore. Starting fining businesses that use illegals, and the job market for illegals will dry up. As a result, more Americans will be hired and wages will increase.
2.) More border patrol. So far, Bush has failed to add the Border Patrol agents that Congress has already funded.
3.) Stop "catch & release". Bush needs to use his authority and influence as President to ensure that other countries will accept back their citizens that cross here illegally.
4.) Drop the "guest worker" plan immediately. I think this is an area where Republicans and Democrats could definitely find common cause. Guest worker programs are counterproductive, immoral, and almost impossible to enforce. If we can't deport any illegal immigrants right now, how will we deport guest workers who have overstayed their visas? What if they have kids here, will we still send them home? Are they really temporary, or will they be some sort of permanent underclass that doesn't have full rights? Who will ensure that businesses aren't simply outsourcing labor through this program and using it as a tool against American workers? And finally -- why should the U.S. government be importing 400,000 workers per year when millions of Americans are unemployed?
Everyone knows that Bush is in the pocket of big business on this one, which is why he won't lift a finger to do any real enforcement. This National Guard ploy is a joke, since the Guard won't even have the ability to arrest anybody. If Bush wanted to really get control of this issue, he would start widespread workplace enforcement with major busts and fines to businesses. But he won't, so he will lose on this issue.
What's the deal with all of these supposedly "conservative" pundits and bloggers all up in arms over illegal immigration? Why don't we just let the market sort this one out? Why all the government regulation and intrusion into the free market? If I want to pay my workers sub-standard wages, why can't I? To hear all this talk about an "invasion' and a 'crisis' on our borders, you would think it was muslims moving into this country.
ReplyDeleteBasically, you have roughly half a million people a year risking their lives to come to this country and clean up your shit, feed you, pick your food, and the best part is none of them can organize or are protected by any labor laws. So why are conservatives so angry? You'd think they would have no problem with our country's own form of wage-slavery. Business is business right? I think the reason we have such an "emergency" right now is because one: they can't stand uppity brown people, and two: they've grown tired of "operation Iraqi freedom" and the "war on terror." It's gotten tough to keep up the bloggin' campaign, either we're standing bravely with Iraqi patriots as they form their new government, or we're not being suffienctly genocidal--I mean I think there are still a few Iraqi men over the age of twelve still breathing--so what now? Most of the country is sick of the glorious struggle for freedom, so what do we do now? Well, drum up some fake conflict that involves clearly defined heroes and villians, Us and Them, white vs. brown and presto! You have a brand new "war" a full on "clash of civilizations". Get on board everyone! The Southwest is being colonized by Mexicans! They want to take over America! White men of the world START BREEDING!!! (white women please take notice of this and do your duties accordingly)
The critics rave...
ReplyDelete"What the administration has spent the last couple of years doing is explaining that need the wogs to give them some path to citizenship, so that lazy, fat Americans don't have to pick vegetables. He stayed away from that line of reasoning this evening. But, that seems to me like a politically-motivated conversion, rather than a statement of Mr. Bush's core principles.
...The bottom line: The American people in general, and the Republican base in particular, simply don't trust the president on this issue. The president's past positioning on this issue, I think, adequately explains why." -- Dale Franks at The QandO Blog
"The President is really out of touch on this issue, and since he's not facing re-election, he thinks it's ok to sell the American people down the river over this. But he has to remember, there are 435 members of the House of Representatives that ARE up for re-election, along with a third of the Senate. They go along with the President on this, they can kiss their re-election efforts good-bye.
That means, basically, that the Congress will be changing hands in November. And on January 3, 2007, the Democrats will be sworn in. On January 4, 2007, you can count of Democrats holding impeachment hearings. At this point, I'd almost support that. That's how p*ssed I am right now." -- Iowa Voice
"The only new thing in the speech was sending some unarmed National Guard troops to help the Border Patrol shuffle paper. The more appropriate headline would be "More Mush from the Wimp." -- Mark Krikorian at The Corner
"This is the same speech he's delivered countless times. Does he expect a different result? Is he intentionally trying to drive his popularity down to 20%?" -- The LoneWacko Blog
"Delivery feels a bit more Mr. Rogers than commander-in-chief. I mean we have an emergency—our borders are out of control and during a time of war. You don't get that sense. Get me Jack Bauer. I'll stop now." -- Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner
"President Bush keeps trying to find the middle ground, on this and many other issues. But sometimes, there isn't a viable middle ground. This is one of those instances. President Bush is being destroyed by vicious people who hate him. So far, he hasn't seemed to notice. Apparently, he doesn't think he needs any allies. He certainly didn't win any with tonight's speech." -- Power Line
"George W. Bush is an “open-borders” president, and it’s clear that no one, not even the base of voters his party needs to keep power will change his position. We need to keep the pressure on this congress and those who are coming up hoping to take residence in the White House. We must secure our borders and everything must be done to see that this happens. Bush’s half measures won’t do. We need to press on and demand a better plan." -- PunditGuy
"Our political class has lost touch on the immigration issue. The president is supporting the Senate immigration bill that may be the worst single bill in American history. The Heritage Foundation estimates that if passed as is, the Hagel-Martinez bill could invite in as many as 200,000,000 legal immigrants in the next 20 years through amnesty and family chain migration, while doing nothing at all to stem the tide of illegal immigrants.
The impact of 200,000,000 immigrants in 20 years’ time is mind-boggling. No country on earth could remain the same country after taking in so many immigrants so fast.
....Tonight’s speech was a wasted opportunity to regain any of the stature he once had, and probably the last one he will get during his time in office. It’s a shame. He is a good man. He is just dreadfully wrong on this issue." -- Bryan Preston at Hot Air
And just outta curiousity, what does LGF have to say about it all?
ReplyDeleteLGF wants minefields and machine gun nests on the border.
Nothing Like getting mauled by the *very best* the Right-Wing-Nutters have to offer...eh?
ReplyDelete*snark*
On to an Impeachment (as opposed to a verbal Lynching) from his own *base* - and I'll hold the rope.
Fronts NYC said...
ReplyDeleteWhat's the deal with all of these supposedly "conservative" pundits and bloggers all up in arms over illegal immigration? Why don't we just let the market sort this one out? Why all the government regulation and intrusion into the free market? If I want to pay my workers sub-standard wages, why can't I? To hear all this talk about an "invasion' and a 'crisis' on our borders, you would think it was muslims moving into this country.
Ahhh, but that's only part of the base. There's a much larger part of religious evangelicals, rednecks, and red-staters who think W is one of them and the guy they could share have a beer with. Bascially, the ones who went crazy over gay marriage and wanted the alleged party in favor of small goverment to do a big goverment thing, ban gay marriage on the Federal level, not State level. Those made up a huger portion of Bush's 51% than big business and now they are experiencing voters' remorse.
Can I just say how pathetic all these comments are. We know the right hasn't been listening and with these comments they prove it, but the sane/non-believers have been making similar comments for years and on a whole host of issues. And it is not just a case of the boy who cried wolf - though the right would like to think so. Glad that for once - if only for a brief moment - the right and all their talking heads see that the emperor has no clothes.
ReplyDeleteEven though we know that RW bloggers are motivated by disain for brown people, one has to admit that the first line of defense again terrorist infiltration is our seaports and our borders.
ReplyDeleteGW bush - soft on defense.
Sorta has a nice ring to it!
He sure didn't inspire his base to GOTV in November, did he?
ReplyDelete1.) Workplace enforcement. You don't have to deport anybody, you just make sure that they can't get jobs anymore. Starting fining businesses that use illegals, and the job market for illegals will dry up. As a result, more Americans will be hired and wages will increase.
ReplyDeleteThis is why Bush is screwed on this issue. He can't do that. His real constituents--capital holding Americans--want a supply of workers outside the formal, regulated labor market.
Immigration laws are like speeding laws or marijuana laws. Their not serious attempts to control the activity the purport to prevent.
You can now fine every single speeder who uses EZ-Pass on the NY Thruway. Calculate average mph, and if it's over the max, fine him. We don't do this.
Marijuana is widely avaiable, and while there are showy seizures and examples made of a small percentage of low level dealers, there is no serious attempt to stop use.
These laws exist, in the first case, to set a low bar. If they set the speed limit at the 70-75 mph that people actually (and safely) drive, then 80 wouldn't seem so bad.
In the second case, the law exist in order to tell people who irrationally concerned about some practice that the government is doing something about it. It's not a real law. It's a symbol of a law.
That's how it is with immigration. There are people, mostly imo, nativist who want something done about illegal immigration. So laws get passed, token efforts are made to enforce the laws, and business goes on as usual.
Now, for some reason having to do with the president's other failures his former? supporters are realizing that there is, and never has been, any serious attempt to prevent "illegal" immigration. You're quite right that actually holding employers accountable would do the trick. But it would also mean paying the minimum wage, overtime, workman's comp and be subject to possible OSHA complaints.
That is simply not going to happen. He's having the same problem with the religous right. His actions have been almost entirely symbolic, because actually implementing their program would destroy any chance of the republican party winning again.
This is apparent, for example, because when formally asked by a group of USReps whether he supported a woman's right to contraceptive services, he refused to answer. He can't give a substantive answer, because he's screwed either way.
He's in exactly the same boat here. He cannot respond to immigration issues with anything other than symbols and gestures. For some reason, that no longer works.
I happen to think the reason is that they're out of excuses. They own the whole federal apparatus, and they still haven't set up stockades along the Mexican border and illegalized the pill. The wingnuts have been played, and I think they are coming to realize that.
Where would Jesus cross the border?
ReplyDeleteThe amazing thing about GW Bush is that he has managed to be a spectacular failure by either conservative or liberal standards. I would have thought this an impossible feat....
ReplyDeleteGlenn Greenwald said:
ReplyDeleteOne thing is clear: the longer and more prominently immigration remains on the table, the better it is for Democrats.
Well, I definitely disagree with this statement. It does not necessarily follow that what is bad for President Bush is good for Democrats.
What is the Democrats' plan for improving enforcement of immigration? I would be all over and supportive of a proposal that punishes the employers for hiring undocumented workers, but I haven't heard the DC Jackasses embrace that. How is not having a plan and not talking about the issue going to help?
No, keeping immigration as "The Issue Of The Day" works to provide a contrast between Republican congressmen and the President. Thus, it will increase (or at least stabilize) voter turnout for Republicans, and that is decidedly NOT good for Democrats.
Rule of law!
ReplyDeleteNo, keeping immigration as "The Issue Of The Day" works to provide a contrast between Republican congressmen and the President. Thus, it will increase (or at least stabilize) voter turnout for Republicans, and that is decidedly NOT good for Democrats.
ReplyDeleteYou are assumming that the immigration issue is more than a manufactured media event. Port security is more important to national security but that's been put on the backburner while you listen to Lou Dobbs dribble and drone on about something as relevant as gay marriage and other wedge issues the pukes toss out there. Does a rung bell make you salivate?
"One thing is clear: the longer and more prominently immigration remains on the table, the better it is for Democrats."
ReplyDeleteI think the principle of comparative advantage applies here. Immigration is a lousy issue for Bush: but Iraq, corruption, Plamegate, Katrina, Social Security, Medicare Part D, and the deficit are all *even worse* issues. So on balance, if he can move the debate on from issues which he has already screwed up, to issues which he hasn't screwed up yet, then it's a net plus.
And of course it gives the opportunity for lots of good photo-ops posing with the troops, without the danger of going any place where there's actual shooting.
I can't see that it's going to save the House in the midterms though. And once Dems have subpoena power, it's all over.
No, keeping immigration as "The Issue Of The Day" works to provide a contrast between Republican congressmen and the President.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why they're focusing on it. Its the first opportunity they've had to throw GW under the bus, and they're not going to pass it up.
Somebody convinced Bush this would be a good speech and that he was a "decider" on this issue. The Decider, with his overinflated ego, doesn't realize he's getting played. Somebody is throwing him to the wolves. They've decided it's time to cut their losses now just in time for the next round of elections.
ReplyDeleteNo surprise. If he was a smart dictator there would be a massive Stalinist-type purge in his administration right now.
Glenn, thank you for wading through the cesspools of slime to bring us these wonderful words.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe these traitors, cut-and-runners and wimps don't support Dear Leader's God-Given Vision of a milk-chocolate America with a virgin-white delicious center, protected by a crispy brown fence to keep out all them dark chocolate foreign flavors.
How low can you go, GWB? And who hates America now, morons of the right?
So what does this do to the Bush Cult theory?
ReplyDeleteSo what does this do to the Bush Cult theory?
ReplyDeleteThat one's easy. Bush is now a liberal.
What I want to know, and what Bushie left out of his speech was when the next step is to begin. First step: send the troops to the border (so maybe they can have a few unfortunate incidents with corrupt Mexican "law enforcement" or military who are making a little extra money running illegals and/or drugs over the border). Second setup: run the fence, lay sensors. Third step: lay mines. Forth step: build guard (sniper) towers and shoot anyone crossing from the Mexican side. Fifth step (and THE golden step; the end-all-be-all truly desired step): start shooting anyone trying to cross from THIS side to THAT side, ie, escape the new American police state.
ReplyDeletesaid mr furious: The moment when even his base looked at him and said "What is he talking about?" "Is he serious?" "Come on, you are really messing up the TiVo for my season finales."
ReplyDeleteI think that moment has come and gone already. Or, as Dave Chappelle would say, "Mars, bitches. Red rocks!"
Day without a Patriot
ReplyDeleteIssues:
1) Stop the War in Iraq
2) Find and Arrest bin-Laden
3) Stop Spying on Americans
4) Close the torture houses
Action
People supporting these issues will simply stay away from work. Excluded--for now--are people who provide vital services.
For those willing to do so, silent mass march on the Capitol, the White House, and the Pentagon.
For others, possible actions while taking the day off could include
* Writing a letter to the editor in opposition to one of the issues.
* Inviting friends and acquaintances into your home to discuss the issue.
* Running an advertisement in the newspaper that notes the issues and why people should endorse them.
* Reading a book that covers one of these issues.
* Engaging in on-line discussion groups to discuss these issues.
* Monitoring the national news and send emails to correct misstatements of facts or refusal to adequately cover the event.
* Putting a US flag out. If you don’t have one buy it and fly it from a window.
* Publishing photos of the Iraq carnage at your blog. If you don’t have blog create one and publish the photos.
(Suggestions for further actions requested)
Operational Guidelines
Do not be provoked into countering negativity with negativity. While anger and indignation might be warranted, this is a day for education. Be informed to inform; be educated to educate; be Socratically open to questions to Socratically ask questions.
Counter-Attack
Companies that threaten or take action against employees who opt out of working on this day are to be published on a national web page and people encouraged to boycott the company and its services/products.
So what does this do to the Bush Cult theory?
ReplyDeleteMARK - I honestly never imagined when I wrote that post how ingraned it would become in the minds of so many Bush followers. They (you) never stop talking about it.
For the 100th time - on the very day that I wrote the post, many commenters noted, and I agreed, that the cult-like reverence for Bush would begin to disintegrate once he weakened and it became clear that he was too weak and unpopular to support the movement. They would then turn on him and depose him and seek to replace him with a new leader.
Thereafter, several other bloggers -Digby, Atrios and Dave Neiwart among them - wrote posts making the same point, modifying my post with that addendum, with which I agreed.
Ever since he dropped below 40% - and he is now at 29% - that is what has been happening. Harriet Miers was the real start. Dubai was next. And we now have open warfare. Dissent of this type was never seen for the first four years of his presidency - except from those who were deemed outcasts - which is why the open conflict during the Miers nomination was so notable. Because it was so new.
Please try to explain this to Tom Maguire, Jeff Goldstein and that circle - slowly and clearly - so that I don't have to repeat this explanation every week for the rest of my life to the hordes of people who come here from those blogs and excitedly and with great self-satisfaction make this same "point" over and over like they've discovered the cure for cancer.
Really, if someone comes over and says nothing but 'what does this do to the Bush cult theory', there is no reason not to delete their comment. It certainly adds nothing to the level of the discourse here, it's just ingenuous needling based on a stupid talking point. Same caliber as 'Gore invented the Internet'.
ReplyDeletesorry, 'disingenuous' needling, should have been...
ReplyDeleteIt's the Greenwald Bush Cult in action! I can't wait to see how many of these folks get labeled as "liberals" for daring to disagree with Bush.
ReplyDeleteFor the 100th time - on the very day that I wrote the post, many commenters noted, and I agreed, that the cult-like reverence for Bush would begin to disintegrate once he weakened and it became clear that he was too weak and unpopular to support the movement. They would then turn on him and depose him and seek to replace him with a new leader.
ReplyDeleteThat's why the "cult" theory was such baloney, right from the beginning. What use is it to say, "Conservatives worship the cult of Bush, but they'll immediately abandon him at the first opportunity"? That's a theory that can never be falsified, no matter what happens. If conservatives support Bush, they're cultists. If they oppose Bush, it's because they've turned the cult in a different direction. Riiiiight.
FROM John Podhoretz, in the Corner, today:
ReplyDeleteThe Inability to Stomach Disagreement [John Podhoretz]
The immigration debate is a very heated and passionate one, and the heat and passion on the part of those on the restrictionist side have been useful tools for pushing the conversation in your direction. But there's a difference between heated disagreement and the insistence on lock-step uniformity. Suddenly, immigration restriction has become one of those issues about which one is not permitted to disagree, because to disagree is to join with the forces of Evil.
Those who favor a less restrictive policy are said to be bought and paid for by Big Business, to want to oppress poor American minorities who can't earn a decent wage, and to seek the cultural destruction of America. Chief among these villains, it appears, is the president of the United States, whose efforts on behalf of conservative causes — from faith-based policies to stem-cell research to a strict-constructionist judiciary to entitlement reform and massive tax cuts — have all fallen down the memory hole.
He is not a conservative, my e-mailers tell me. He is Jorge Arbusto, an agent of the Mexican government. And neither, by the way, am I, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and someone who left mainstream journalism to toil in the fields of conservative media when conservative media weren't cool, to put it mildly. . . . .
But the fact is that a more expansive view of immigration policy has long been part of the mainstream of the conservative movement — indeed, Ronald Reagan himself held such an opinion. We are moving into very dangerous territory here — territory in which it has been declared that there is to be no debate, no discussion, and no heterodoxy any longer. This is how political-intellectual movements become diseased and sclerotic. This is how they die.
________________
I love how he is just now discovering the tactic whereby there are "issues about which one is not permitted to disagree, because to disagree is to join with the forces of Evil" - now that the tactic is being used against him.
To the last anonymous: "Stupid talking point" is a perfect description of the "cult" theory.
ReplyDeleteThe irony is that Glenn had a smidgen of a decent point: Conservatives have, on occasion, defended Bush even as he engaged in unconservative actions. They're hypocrites. Just as liberals often defended Clinton against charges of sexual harassment. They too were hypocrites. But they weren't "cult worshippers of Clinton."
That's why the "cult" theory was such baloney, right from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteGlenn understated their compulsion with this post of his. To this day, the amount of attention which that one single post receives from right-wing and pro-Bush bloggers is seriously amazing, almost scary. They don't stop talking about - in their comments section, on their blog, and over here.
Why don't some of you give some thought to the reasons why that might be.
The evangelical Xtians are pretty conflicted about the immigration issue, it seems. If true, then Bush is alienating some part of his evangelical base. According to CBN News:
ReplyDeleteBut other evangelical Christians are torn between a biblical belief in law and order, and the commandment to love one's neighbor.
When Marc Galli, the editor of Christianity Today, wrote an editorial praising illegal immigrants, he received a flood of angry emails.
Galli said, "The feeling was that if we allow illegal immigrants in and if we don't hold them accountable -- the illegal immigrants that are here -- we are going to have anarchy."
"What's concerning to some evangelicals,” said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, “is that immigration has gotten out of control. And there's the illegal side of immigration - not the legal side - that causes concern."
But in the end, Vallet believes her response to the immigration debate is in line with what Jesus would do.
She said, "There is law, of course, but there is also this thing called grace."
Glenn understated their compulsion with this post of his. To this day, the amount of attention which that one single post receives from right-wing and pro-Bush bloggers is seriously amazing, almost scary. They don't stop talking about - in their comments section, on their blog, and over here.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't some of you give some thought to the reasons why that might be.
Reason 1: It's insulting and outrageous.
Reason 2: It was patently false. As we're seeing right before our eyes, conservatives are not and never have been afraid to disagree with Bush on any number of issues (think George Will, who has excoriated Bush over education, campaign finance, and the Iraq war). Nor could Glenn ever find more than a handful of instances on the entire Internet where someone (including anonymous bloggers) used the word "liberal" to describe any conservative who disagreed with Bush.
Now you tell me, do you like patently false and insulting descriptions of liberals?
I suspect that the goal of this little charade is to allow the House Republicans to stand up to the president, show they aren't rubber-stamps, and refuse to pass the "lib'rul" McCain-Kennedy.
ReplyDeleteThis should enthuse the extremist base and nativist independents to return a Republican House to make sure that the country is saved from Bush's alliance with the Lib'ruls on immigration policy.
Pretty clever. Remember that everything is about politics with Bush, never actual policy.
I posted this one our own little discussion board, but I'd like to reproduce it here. So far, I've not seen any argument that could change my mind on immigration:
ReplyDelete"For starters, the vast majority of immigrants come here to work and try to make a better life for themselves and their family. Yes, due to our socialist population and the policies they have enacted, these immigrants place an added burden on the State, but it is less of a burden than the Americans on these same systems. In addition, the majority of the immigrants that are placing a burden on the system are at least producing a huge benefit to our economy and, in turn , make us all more wealthy than we otherwise would have been. That is because they increase our purchasing power by working for less wages than the average American is willing to work for. It is a misnomer to claim that they do jobs that Americans won't do - they do jobs for wages that Americans won't work for. Do they drive wages down? Sure, but that isn't how wealth should be measured anyway. If your wages increase by a factor of 2, but prices increase by a factor of 2.25, you are less wealthy than you previously were. That is an oversimplification, but you get the idea.
Second, and more importantly for me, I think it is immoral and unChristian to take the stance that just because you happened to have been born here through the grace of God, certainly through nothing that you yourself have done anything to deserve (I'm not talking about you personally, the collective 'you'), that you somehow have the 'right' or authority to draw an imaginary line in the sand and forcefully keep people from tying to make a better life for their families. Who gave you that right? What if it had been you born into poverty in a third world country and your best and possibly only means of providing something better for your children were to hop a fence into a better place where you could actually work and earn a living? What is particularly appalling to me is the ridiculousness of getting here legally. If it weren't next to impossible to do, people wouldn't be jumping fences quite so often.
I'd do it in a heartbeat, no question.
Wouldn't you?
Also, all of the same fear-mongering as it relates to immigration currently has been used during every single wave of immigration in the history of this country, and it has been repeatedly proven false".
To be clear, I'm an anarchocapitalist, certainly not what currently is classified as a liberal.
Without wanting to spend much time on the issue, in re: Glenn's "theory" of the Bush Cult...I think it must be taken as merely a description of the general behavior of Bush's supporters, rather than as an iron-clad diagnosis and as such, it was accurate enough...For his entire term, Bush has acted contrary to what we have been led to believe are the tenets of conservative ideology, i.e., small, non-intrusive government, being fiscally responsible, upholding the principles of the Constitution and the rule of law, being ethical and honest, and so on. Yet, so long as his violations of convservative principles was justified with jingoistic rhetoric and fear-mongering, the conservatives, by and large, rooted for their man. Now that everything is commencing to fall apart around Bush, as his incompetent and ad hoc governance (sic) almost was certain to do, and as the less insensate of Bush's followers start to see the damage he's done, the seal has been broken, as it were, and those who should have renounced Bush years ago finally are finding their topic(s) on which they can now justify their abandonment of him.
ReplyDeleteTruly principled conservatives who believed in their platform, and there are some, would have been critical of Bush from the beginning. Instead, we're witnessing the herd follow the herd.
Northerner,
ReplyDeleteYou are too funny! To look back now and provide some examples of conservitaves speaking out against bush, "think George Will, who has excoriated Bush over education, campaign finance, and the Iraq war" with a straight face is seriously side spliting. The conservitaves that spoke out against bush were ignored, smeared and tossed aside by the bush cultists in short order. "Even conservitaves can be wrong" was often used. To try to step away from that now and pretend that bush criticism, in any form, was not ridiculed and outright rejected, is at least in keeping with the lack of creditibility of the bush cultists.
I've also been baffled about why the Right is suddenly on this immigration thing so hard. I agree with those who write that it's not really a completely natural issue for them, as it pits business against nativists, and the current base against people they'd like to add to their base. Moreover, it has no culture war aspect - most Latino immigrants, I'm sure, are Catholic or evangelical Protestant.
ReplyDeleteI figure that Glenn and others are right about many of the causes; I'd like to add one. I think the isolationist tendencies within the American Right - historically very strong - are starting to be heard from again. As in - we can't fix the world, but we're going to keep our own little piece of it the way it used to be.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI think you're missing a key part of why this debate has come to the forefront now -- the in flagrante implosion of the Republican Congressional majority. There has been a passionate minority (Tancredo, etc.) of Republicans in the House pushing for hard-core immigration control for a while. As long as the White House could keep the muzzle on them they could keep the coalition together. But with the deep hit Republican unity has taken in the last months, the House was free to push its vicious immigration bill through, in turn sparking the immigrant rallies, in turn sparking the drooling right-wing globs to react increasingly hysterically to the dirty mobs.
anonymous said:
ReplyDelete[cfaller96], you are assumming that the immigration issue is more than a manufactured media event. Port security is more important to national security but that's been put on the backburner while you listen to Lou Dobbs dribble and drone on about something as relevant as gay marriage and other wedge issues the pukes toss out there. Does a rung bell make you salivate?
Actually, it's precisely because I believe this is a manufactured media event that I worry for the Democrats.
Getting sucked into this debate only serves to distract everyone, and the Democrats aren't very good at staying on message anyway. Since the DC Donkeys aren't willing to take a principled, differentiated stand on the issue, I don't see them being helped with this debate, which was my original point.
After the midterm elections are over, regardless of who's in the majority, immigration will immediately fade into the background, along with (as you mentioned) gay marriage and other Christian nationalist issues. Just you watch...
Truly principled conservatives who believed in their platform, and there are some, would have been critical of Bush from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteThank you. I have been called a "liberal" on THIS VERY SITE multiple times for nothing other than critiquing the never-has-been-conservative-even-for-a-second Bush.
Bush has NEVER been any kind of conservative. If you are just figuring this out: choke and die. Your obligation is to evalutate the deeds of your leaders, not their words, and you failed to do so.
You can label me as soft on immigration. I don't see why it's so important- immigration (in all its forms) has historically helped this nation, not hurt it.
ReplyDeleteCan someone please explain how militarizing the US-Mexico border is going to solve anything? What's the point? As long as the US economy offers better opportunities and better wages than Mexico, we will always have undocumented workers coming across, no matter how big our wall is or how many Border Patrol agents we have.
And since the Mexican economy is mostly out of our control, I don't see the point in trying to control the flow of Mexicans moving to America. These are hardworking, law-abiding, entrepreneurial people- the more the merrier, I say. What's the big deal? (Like I said, label me soft on immigration).
While I do worry about fostering a black market in labor in the US, I think that can be stopped (or at least controlled) by going after the employers. Isn't that enough? If not, why not?
I'm open to discussion, and I'm willing to be convinced that immigration is a big problem. Until then, the more the merrier.
"Truly principled conservatives who believed in their platform, and there are some, would have been critical of Bush from the beginning."
ReplyDeleteActually, we were called liberals, and people questioned why we hated America, when we happened to point out that the Emperor had no clothes.
The cult of Bush? He wasn't the only one who thought that he had been sent by God. And if Glenn couldn't find more than a few examples, that's just because he didn't hang out with Lucianne's crowd...
The speech is done and the reviews are in. How did he do?
ReplyDeleteYou might want to ask Michael Chertoff.
It does not appear that the righty blogs make up the base of the GOP when it comes to immigration.
ReplyDeleteZogby Poll Released: May 16, 2006
Bush Immigration Speech: Half Disappointed, Half impressed
Overall, 47% said they liked the Monday speech, while 47% said they were disappointed.
About seven in 10 Republicans said they generally liked the speech, while 29% said they were disappointed. Among Democrats, 70% said they were disappointed, while 19% said they liked the speech, a slightly higher percentage of Democrats than usually support Bush. Eleven percent of Democrats said they were undecided.
Independents were split down the middle, with about half liking the speech and half disappointed. Among moderates, 34% said they liked the speech, while 58% said they were disappointed.
The Zogby Interactive poll was conducted after the President’s Monday night speech, and included 805 interviews with likely voters who viewed the televised speech. It carries a margin of error of +/– 3.5 percentage points.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1111
While I share the glee of seeing Bush's "base" turn on him, I think we are all missing the danger in this. The base we are jabbing at here wants to go even farther to the right than we already have. And like it or not they are much better than we are at getting out the vote. We (that is rational humans) have yet to successfully defeat this voting block in any recent election.
ReplyDeleteThese people will gladly crucify W if it means pushing their agenda farther out. Yes, they don't have Karl Rove working for them (he works for the Capital holding division of the party), but they are surely learning how to do it on their own now. And they have the committed activists who will GOTV and swing elections - even if they are a minority of the population.
This isn't good news to me unless it helps to expose and box in the radical right into a permanent minority voting block status. I don't see this issue doing that. Marginalizing the radicals and reclaiming decent government will require sea change in the way this country operates and thinks. Unless Democrats can come up with a position that brings a solid majority of the voting population behind them on this, Republicans will eventually find a way to pray on people's fears and exploit it. Maybe not in 2006 or even 2008, but through the next decade.
That would be "Dan" Riehl.
ReplyDeleteI think the cognitive dissonance is beginning to manifest itself. RWers can't scream at Dubya for things they were complicit in, but when it all goes to h***, and they can't avoid that obvious fact staring then in the face, they have to rag at him for something to try and make him not what it ought to be: a reflection of themselves through a glass darkly. But in order to do this, we get the likes of WhirledNutzDaily trying to distance themselves from the disaster that is Dubya by screaming that he really should be taking lessons from history and emulating the "Final Solution"....
ReplyDeletePsychology. Psychology here, folks, not logic. Ummm, make that psychopathology. The melt-down ain't a pretty thing....
Cheers,
Shazam writes: While I share the glee of seeing Bush's "base" turn on him, I think we are all missing the danger in this. The base we are jabbing at here wants to go even farther to the right than we already have. …
ReplyDeleteThese people will gladly crucify W if it means pushing their agenda farther out…
This isn't good news to me unless it helps to expose and box in the radical right into a permanent minority voting block status.
Agreed. This whole phenomenon of sheerly deranged, hate-filled rage at Mexicans is quite alarming, and dangerous.Singing the national anthem in Spanish is so not a big deal, yet you’d think these Hispanics doing so were advocating a Stalinist take-over of the nation. Mob violence is simmering, I fear.
Unlike many here, however, I’m no left-winger, and I hold zero objections to Wall Street interests who appreciate the cheap Mexican labor. When both parties to an agreement are happy with the exchange, ain’t none of my bidness. But I’m also no right-winger, and certainly not of the populist/nationalist variety. Cultural syncretism is cool, and I welcome it.
Media Matters points out the five white guys sitting around a table at CNN discussing what to do with the "illegals." MM also notes that the major news outlets refused to run Sen. Richard Durbin's rebuttal of Bush's speech. Now how's that for balanced reporting?
ReplyDeleteUsing the immigration issue as a way to hold "the base" together just might work. To demonstrate this, engage someone in a conversation about the NSA scandal, particularly the capture of everyone's phone calling behavior. Then switch the topic to immigration. You'll find that most people who froth at the mouth about having their phone calls logged or worse, also will happily rave about how immigrants are destroying this country.
ReplyDeleteI haven't decided if Bush's speech was an orchestrated move or not. That's because immigration has a national security component to it, which makes the matter more serious than it was over the past few administrations.
ReplyDeleteThen there's the sheer numbers. When we had smaller numbers of migrants, the problem was easier to overlook. While there may be some positive elements to illegal immigration, they aren't obvious and readily grasped. The negatives, however, are very apparent.
What is very clear is that the Bush approach to this difficult and complex issue will be as successful as his approach to Iraq, Katrina, Health Care and Soc Sec reform, job creation, and the strengthening of the domestic economy - i.e., a fucking disaster.
northerner:
ReplyDelete"Conservatives worship the cult of Bush, but they'll immediately abandon him at the first opportunity"? That's a theory that can never be falsified, no matter what happens.
No. That's a "straw man". Glenn didn't say that; you did (and even put in quotes there with the dishonest implication it was an actual quote). Hope that helps clear things up.
Cheers,
northerner:
ReplyDeleteJust as liberals often defended Clinton against charges of sexual harassment. They too were hypocrites.
"Clinton's penis! Clinton's penis!" ROFLMAO.
But as to the alleged sexual harassment, Judge Wright dismissed the case on an embarrassing (for the hapless plaintiff's lawyers) summary judgement motion, stating that even if you took every statement of fact as being as Jones claimed them to be, there was no sexual harassment as a legal matter.
Cheers,
Paul go on..pull the other one
ReplyDeleteHypatia,
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to apologise for my comments of the other day.
We disagreed on something and I was disgustingly and inexcusably rude to you, for no good reason.
This isn't the best place to put an apology, but I'm putting it here so that you will have a chance to know I'm sorry.
"jade"
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteEveryone appears to have forgotten that the whole "Cult of Bush" post was about the severe misuse of the word "Liberal" which had morphed to include such Liberal luminaries as Pat Buchannan and Paul Craig Roberts.
ReplyDeleteGlenn was mistaken to think that this misuse was a result of Bush worship. It actually means "Insufficiently hateful" Thats why in the context of immigration, Buchannan will qualify as Conservative and Bush won't. On Iraq however Bush is Conservative and Buchannan is Liberal. Go figure.....
And the fact that they've been called for their hatefulness is why they keep the fight alive long past its expiration date.
From Josh Marshall's Talking Points: DHS officials try in vain to figure out the president's new immigration policy.
ReplyDeleteThere's a link in that statement that I can't duplicate but go read it. This is Katrina II. DHS has no idea what's going on, what the policy plan entails, or how it would work. It's another policy disaster waiting to happen.
My favorite line from today's DHS briefing about the border program, in response to "How long have you been working on this?": "We don't know how many helicopters we're going to put up, but we know to a near certainty that we'll have helicopters."
ReplyDeleteThey know they'll have helicopters.
You can't make this stuff up.
Bush has a cult of people who will not abandon him or criticize him no matter what he does until those people begin to abandon him and criticize him because of something he does, which is what we are seeing now.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I haven't been particularly fond of the debate about that post is because the criticisms of the argument are usually at about the level of this one, excerpted above.
The reason Bush's popularity has fallen is because Democrats and independents who stood behind him for the Iraq war and generally have now abandoned him. As a result, his approval ratings have plummeted. As a result, he is too weak and impotent a figure to make the movement that follows him relevant. As a result, even his hardest-core followers are now finally abandoning him, because he serves no more use.
It's fine to disagree with any of the arguments in that post. All I ask is that they be understood and not distorted beyond recognition before you "critique" them.
jade: No biggie. I have been known to lose my temper as well.
ReplyDeleteThis immigration thing is hugely important because it allows the 30%ers - those nut jobs who still support Bush in all the polls - a way out on their own terms. That is to say, the immigration issue has allowed the rump of the population who have been cornered into defending Bush -because to do so is less emotionally painful than allowing the possibility that that Iraq was wrong, even that voting for Bush was wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn calling for mass deportations and building a wall (as Glenn has pointed out these are politically impossible objectives) the 30%ers finally have a chance to join the Bush Haters, but on their own terms. The 30% who still support Bush are terribly damaged goods - and deep down they know it. This, finally is their chance to conform: to rejoin America without having to give in to the liberals. Immigration allows them to hate Bush and Liberals at the same time.
Anon wrote:
ReplyDeleteYou know, this is so transparent that I'm starting to wonder what the White House talking points were. Did they direct Republicans to distance themselves from Bush in preparation for the 2006 midterm elections? Or is that just what they wrote the speech for...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. The caravan is a lot smarter than the people who argue about the texture of the sand it travels over in getting to its destination.
The substitution of a Fascist Surveillance State for the Constitutional Republic that was America is right on track, courtesy of The Democratic Party, The Republican party and all their countless co-conspirators.
Maybe you haven't noticed that?
If it entertains you to talk about the texture of the sand I guess that's okay if it amuses you.
But I don't think it's all that wise to underestimate the intellgence of those who are getting away with hi-jacking an entire country right before your very eyes.
You think that is such an easy thing to do: to commit the biggest heist in history right out in plain daylight?
It isn't.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete> The only people that have really lost are the American people.
ReplyDeleteOh, Keith. I'm not so sure about that. I bet there are a lot of people in two countries in particular who feel they've lost as well.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletethe population who have been cornered into defending Bush -because to do so is less emotionally painful than allowing the possibility that that Iraq was wrong
ReplyDeleteI've spoken of this emotional pain before (on one occasion, I likened it to waking with a hangover) but I feel that's an important part of whats happening with the "middle third" of our Country. If there's any theme that's always resonated in our culture, its been that of the hapless underdog, overcoming the odds and beating the bullies in the final reel. Can anyone say "Bad News Bears" or how about "Mighty Ducks" or perhaps "The Longest Yard". Even in John Wayne movies, the Duke was always coming to the aid of someone who was unable to defend himself.
But all of the sudden, neither the hero nor the underdog role fits anymore. The ability to even think of the underdog role dissolved with the Berlin Wall. The hero role, we could still cling to. But now with Bushco in charge, we've lost our claim to heroism as well. If "shock and awe" wasn't enough then certainly Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo sealed the deal.
The disconnect between how we see ourselves and what we've actually become is what's driving the downward spiral of the approval numbers for Bushco.
Which of course is why the Hate ' r ' Us crowd is latching onto illegal immigrants as the new bogeyman. Because after all, what with this wave of non-english speaking job-stealers, maybe we can reclaim victimhood after all!
PS. Anybody here who isn't familiar with Tom Engelhardt should check him out. He does are wonderful job of analyzing how popular culture and politics interface.
Tom's Dispatch
I've only seen a short summary of his points in his immigration speech, but one of them jumped out at me: something about new forms of ID, and digital fingerprints. I hate feeling all tinfoil hattish as I do when I think so, but lately the tinfoil seems more and more accurate all the time: could part of the reason for his speech be getting this idea out there? I know here in Wisconsin, and a few other states, conservatives have been trying to get a requirement passed of showing a state DL/ID in order to vote, probably mainly in hopes of suppressing the minority vote. And I could imagine many other reasons why an authoritarian-leaning government might be fond of such things (cf. Australia's recent bill).
ReplyDeleteBush's handlers actually wrote him a speech that never required him to say "nuclear". That was nice of them. Too bad they didn't give him anything to say.
ReplyDeleteeuzoius said...
ReplyDelete"I suspect that the goal of this little charade is to allow the House Republicans to stand up to the president, show they aren't rubber-stamps, and refuse to pass the "lib'rul" McCain-Kennedy.
This should enthuse the extremist base and nativist independents to return a Republican House to make sure that the country is saved from Bush's alliance with the Lib'ruls on immigration policy.
Pretty clever. Remember that everything is about politics with Bush, never actual policy."
I suspect it's more about saving Bush from impeachment. The House is the one that impeaches, the Senate does the trial. No House turnover, no impeachment and Bush skates free for what he has done for six years. Even if the Senate goes Dem it's better to have two years as a lame duck than to get frog marched out of the White House.
Notice how the trolls are missing today? I imagine they want everyone to come to the conclusions they are reaching.
O'brian made more sense to Winston Smith than Bush did to us last night
ReplyDeleteIn the dweeb's September 14, 2001 Executive order, he said he was nationalizing the Guard and Reserves to protect 'America's Borders'. I didn't know at the time our borders included the 'green zone' in Iraq. Jinglenutz threw away enough money down the rat-hole of Haliburton to have more than compensated for the hiring of 6000 more Border Patrol oficers that he already cut from the budget two years ago.
And he got 'free' air time for that rhetoric?
Dick Morris: Bush's 'Great Speech'
ReplyDeleteArguably America’s most prominent American political consultant, Dick Morris tells NewsMax that President Bush’s key national address on immigration reform Monday night was "a great speech.”
"It included all the elements it had to,” said Morris, who noted the president is living through record low approval ratings.
But Morris conjectures Bush’s border plan may help lay the ground work for a comeback.
Morris is almost universally credited with piloting Bill Clinton’s stunning comeback re-election victory in 1996 after the Democrats lost Congress to the Republicans two years before.
As to Bush’s vital guest worker proposal, Morris sees it as "the key to keeping the GOP competitive with Hispanic voters.”
And leaving open paths to citizenship for those already in the country, albeit illegally, will serve to make "Latinos a GOP stronghold,” Morris advised.
Morris has warned that the Republicans risk losing its dominance in the near future if it doesn’t grab a larger share of Hispanic voters. Hispanics are rapidly growing in the U.S., especially in states like Florida, Texas, and other states once considered strongly GOP.
'The New Republicans' Are Leading a Revolution – But The Media Won’t Tell You About It
ReplyDeleteMeet “The New Republicans” – blacks, Hispanics and other groups that are joining the Republican Party as never before and leading a political revolution.
You won’t hear this story from major media outlets, but the latest edition of NewsMax Magazine is just out with its special report, "The New Republicans," featuring Ohio’s Secretary of State and candidate for governor Ken Blackwell.
NewsMax Magazine offers an exclusive in-depth look at these newcomers to the GOP and how they’re changing American politics – and the Democrats are scared to death.
The "New Republicans" edition of NewsMax Magazine is available by subscription and is also hitting newsstands across the country (including many Barnes & Noble and Books-a-Million bookstores).
In this blockbuster report NewsMax reveals:
How Ohio's African-American secretary of state, Ken Blackwell, played a key role in Bush’s re-election, especially when he championed putting the Marriage Protection Amendment on the state ballot in 2004 when establishment Republicans opposed the move.
The surprising number of Hispanics who are voting Republican – and why blue-state politicos are panicking.
Exclusive: a strategy memo from Dick Morris on how Republicans can become a permanent majority – and even stop Hillary – by wooing “new” Republicans.
The simple vow from Lee Atwater that has helped to revolutionize the Republican Party.
Why a lifelong Democratic black minister voted Republican in 2004 – and wants to hold the party “accountable” to the black vote.
The possible Republican presidential candidate who Dick Morris says “would destroy the Democratic Party.”
How African-American Michael Steele is making history in Maryland.
The dramatic meeting that shaped George Bush’s Hispanic strategy.
Republicans’ No. 1 priority for winning more of the black vote.
How Condoleezza Rice split with Bush over affirmative action but remains a presidential favorite anyway.
The “Black Contract with America on Moral Values” – and its wide-ranging demands.
The sinister “conspiracy” some Africa-Americans see in Republican overtures.
A top Hispanic Democrat’s challenge to Howard Dean about “the permanent decline of the Democratic Party.”
Profiles of Elaine Chao, Mel Martinez, Lynn Swann, Mario Diaz-Balart and other “New Republicans.”
And much, much more.
This blockbuster edition of NewsMax Magazine discloses how the Democrats are losing the loyalty of African-American, Hispanic and other minority voters, and how their shift to the GOP will bring far-reaching changes to the American political landscape.
100 Million More Immigrants in 20 Years?
ReplyDeleteThe immigration reform bill now under congressional consideration would grant amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants – but its real effects would be much more far-reaching, according to an eye-opening study by the Heritage Foundation.
The foundation found that the changes in immigration law would allow an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the United States over the next 20 years and "dramatically" change "the character of the nation."
Current law allows 19 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years, so the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA), based largely on a compromise by Senators Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Mel Martinez, R-Fla., would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the nation's population.
"The figure of 103 million legal immigrants is a reasonable estimate of the actual immigration inflow under the bill and not the maximum number that would be legally permitted to enter," the Heritage report by Robert Rector, senior research fellow in domestic policy studies, points out.
"The maximum number that could legally enter would be almost 200 million over 20 years — over 180 million more legal immigrants than current law permits."
The massive increase in the number of legal immigrants would result from several changes contained in CIRA:
The bill would grant amnesty to 85 percent of the current illegal immigrant population, or some 10 million individuals.
Those receiving amnesty could bring their spouses and children into the United States as legal permanent residents with the opportunity for full citizenship. Heritage puts their number at 6 million.
CIRA creates a new "temporary guest-worker" program that is, in fact, anything but temporary. These workers would be allowed to remain in the United States for six years, but in the fourth year they could apply for legal permanent residence status if they have learned English or are enrolled in an English class.
In the first year, CIRA would allow 325,000 people to enter the United States under the guest-worker program, but the number could rise each year after that. The Heritage report estimates the total inflow of workers under this program at 20 million over 20 years.
Guest workers could bring their spouses and children to the United States as permanent residents, adding another 24 million immigrants over 20 years.
The bill would substantially increase the number of naturalized citizens, and they would have an unlimited right to bring their parents into the United States with legal permanent resident status. Heritage puts their number at 5 million over 20 years.
The number of secondary family members, such as adult brothers and sisters, would rise sharply and add more than 5 million new immigrants over 20 years.
The bill would greatly increase the number of employment-based green cards issued to 450,000 a year, and these immigrants could bring spouses and children with them, boosting immigration totals by another 13.5 million.
The Heritage Foundation concludes: "Although illegal immigration is considered a major problem, the proposed legal immigration under CIRA would dwarf it numerically ...
"If CIRA were enacted, and 100 million new immigrants entered the country over the next 20 years, foreign-born persons would rise to over one quarter of the U.S. population ...
"CIRA would transform the United States socially, economically and politically. Within two decades, the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today."
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete100 Million More Immigrants in 20 Years?
I think the question that has to be asked here is with outsourcing, H1B, etc. how is this country going to be able employ that many people in that short a time? And even if they can be employed, with middle class wages already declining, aren't we going to start looking more and more like a third world country?
Those of you who saw the series Babylon 5 during the 90's may recall the fate of Lord Refa, who committed some terrible crimes, but was finally destroyed for the one crime that he did not commit. Lord Refa, meet George Bush.
ReplyDeleteGris Lobo said...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
100 Million More Immigrants in 20 Years?
I think the question that has to be asked here is with outsourcing, H1B, etc. how is this country going to be able employ that many people in that short a time? And even if they can be employed, with middle class wages already declining, aren't we going to start looking more and more like a third world country?
After the fall of communism some of us said, "0ne down, one to go." Who's laughing now?
Who's laughing now?
ReplyDeleteI am rolling on the floor after reading...
Anonymous @ 2:07said...
'The New Republicans' Are Leading a Revolution – But The Media Won’t Tell You About It
Meet “The New Republicans” – blacks, Hispanics and other groups that are joining the Republican Party as never before and leading a political revolution.
You won’t hear this story from major media outlets, but the latest edition of NewsMax Magazine is just out with its special report, "The New Republicans," featuring Ohio’s Secretary of State and candidate for governor Ken Blackwell.
NewsMax Magazine offers an exclusive in-depth look at these newcomers to the GOP and how they’re changing American politics – and the Democrats are scared to death.
And anonymous @ 2:02 who brings up Dick Moron, the toe sucker and nibbler is just icing on the toe cake...
Anonymous said...
Dick Morris: Bush's 'Great Speech'
Arguably America’s most prominent American political consultant, Dick Morris tells NewsMax that President Bush’s key national address on immigration reform Monday night was "a great speech.”
It's time for minefields and machine gun nests along the border!
ReplyDeleteNot with Canada, they are americans without guns, the other border!
MoveOn.org is pulling out all the stops to pass legislation that will regulate the Internet under a scheme known as "network neutrality."
ReplyDeleteIf liberals have their way the government will decide the future of the Internet.
Congress is considering imposing burdensome new "net neutrality" regulations on the Internet. These new laws would stifle innovation, investment and the very essence of Internet freedom.
This Congress would become the very first to regulate the Internet, undoubtedly opening the doors to a generation of increasing regulations, taxes, and bureaucratic control.
Please take a moment to draft a short note to your Congressman and Senator asking them to reject these unprecedented Internet regulations.
Tell them you believe that the Internet has become the powerful communications and economic force it has in such a short time because it has been free from government interference. To make sure the power and promise of the Internet continues to thrive and innovate, we need to keep it that way.
--InternetFreedomCoalition.org
?????????
The radical right doesn't like being reminded that they're MARGINAL.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the President *did* just hand them the promise of a federalized Minuteman brigade, and all they can do is whine. Ingrates!
net "neutrality"? said...
ReplyDelete"MoveOn.org is pulling out all the stops to pass legislation that will regulate the Internet under a scheme known as "network neutrality."
Net neutrality is already how the net is run. The troll above is from the multinationals trying to change it.
Congress is now pushing a law that would end the free and open Internet as we know it. Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment and the key to Internet freedom. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. So Amazon doesn't have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to work more properly on your computer.
Now begone AT&T troll
Anonymous anarchist said:
ReplyDeleteAfter the fall of communism some of us said, "0ne down, one to go." Who's laughing now?
Be careful, you may get what you wish for. And you just THINK you're going to like it.
Pootlius said...
ReplyDeleteIt's time for minefields and machine gun nests along the border!
A new Panama type canal from California to the Gulf of Mexico would work fine thank you. And it would serve a permanent commercial purpose as well.
If George hadn't already spent the money in Iraq we could have had it done already.
Mexico Threatens Suits Over Guard Patrols
ReplyDeleteBy MARINA MONTEMAYOR, Associated Press Writer Tue May 16,
5:03 PM ET
CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico - Mexico said Tuesday that it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops on the border become directly involved in detaining migrants.
Now this I gotta see. They not only march in protest in this country with their national flag now they are going to tell us what we can and cannot do on our side of the border.
Try getting a group together and march in Mexico with an American flag and see what happens. Guarantee you Mexican jails are no fun and there is no one phone call.
Great, Bush has not only given us $3 a gallon gas but now wants to give us $3 per mile roads too.
ReplyDeleteMay 16, 2006
Bush Administration; Time to Face Traffic
By LESLIE MILLER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP)
Moving people or freight around America just can't be done anymore without encountering one bottleneck or another, and the Bush administration said Tuesday that it's time to do something about the congestion.
The transportation secretary unveiled a strategy to reduce congestion that include PRIVATIZING roads, putting TOLLS on busy roads and designating corridors for
development to speed movement of truck and rail freight.
It encourages states to pass laws that let private companies invest in transportation and it promotes such technological improvements as "better real-time traffic information."
Yeah George, let's take roads funded with taxpayer dollars and sell them to private companies so they can charge us to use them. SHEESH!!
My goodness, you certainly do get your share of delusional worshippers, don't you?
ReplyDeleteAs much as it pains me to say it, Malkin has a point. The Chimperor's latest round of crass pandering is nothing new.
Gris Lobo @ 6:08 Be careful, you may get what you wish for. And you just THINK you're going to like it.
ReplyDeleteAnd 6:14
I am not an anarchist anymore. If you are not an anarchist in your 20s you have no heart. If you are not a liberal social Democrat in your 30s you have no brain. If you were ever a conservative, you never had either a heart or a brain. Neither pure communism nor pure capitalism has ever existed, except perhaps for Somalia today. Even the Soviet Union was better than that. Democratic socialism, social democracy, call it what you like, is the most prevalent, peaceful and successful form of democratic government/economic system on the planet. It's what the wingnuts fear because the robber barons told them to.
As far as your canal idea... there is a reason why they do canals at the thinnest point of land mass. Cost. A canal would be so much more costly by a magnitude you may have difficulty comprehending. and not just in terms of dollars.
This is the message that “Americans for Tax Reform” - capwiz.com - is telling their web page viewers. It is also linked to be rightalk.com:
ReplyDelete———————————————————————————–
Don’t let MoveOn.org, Nancy Pelosi, and the Democrats regulate the Internet! MoveOn.org and the far left are pulling out all the stops to pass legislation that will regulate the Internet under a scheme known as “network neutrality.” The House of Representatives will vote any day now! This regulatory scheme would give big government the right to regulate the Internet, a reversal of the “hands off” approach that has allowed the Internet to flourish for more than a decade.
———————————————————————————-
Following is the message they suggest their web-page viewers send to their representatives in Congress:
——————————————————————————–
As your constituent and an Internet user, I strongly oppose any effort to regulate the Internet by imposing a so-called “network neutrality” scheme. The Internet has revolutionized the American economy because of the “hands off” approach to regulation. “Network neutrality” would reverse that course, stifling innovation and raising prices.
I strongly urge you to resist the efforts of MoveOn.org and their ultra-liberal allies to regulate the Internet and to oppose a so-called “network neutrality” mandate. The future of the Internet depends on government keeping its hands off!
——————————————————————————
American for Tax reform? Isn't that Grover Norquist?
Bwahahaaahaaa!
The slaughter of the cowardly conservative Republicans has begun. I love the smell of a ballot bloodbath in the morning. Run away! Run away!
ReplyDeleteState’s top two Senate leaders defeated
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"As far as your canal idea... there is a reason why they do canals at the thinnest point of land mass. Cost. A canal would be so much more costly by a magnitude you may have difficulty comprehending. and not just in terms of dollars."
I understand about the cost. You should look at the post I was replying to for an explanation as to why I posted the canal bit.
Ridiculous vs. ridiculous
What you mean by a "real" conservative --- ie someone who actually believed in what conservatives merely claim to beleive --- would know the difference between appearances and substance and therefore would never call themselves "conservative".
ReplyDeleteReal conservatives are moderates, like Eisenhower, or Clinton, the best Republican president we've had since Eisenhower. They are never radicals.
I understand about the cost. You should look at the post I was replying to for an explanation as to why I posted the canal bit.
ReplyDeleteRidiculous vs. ridiculous
Understood. I take your word for it. I know you are not a kook. If cost wasn't a factor, the environmental impact would be. Still, it's an intriguing idea, just probably not feasible. All things considered, we should have invaded and annexed Mexico instead of Iraq. I'm a bit of a kook, and it doesn't bother me in the least.
Come to think of it though we could build two walls, and fill the center with water and alligators. :-)
ReplyDeleteOn a more serious note, I am for allowing everyone in that we can reasonably provide jobs for without turning the U.S. into a third world country.
ReplyDeleteConservatives know change and progress are inevitable and are usually content to just slow it down. Apply the brakes, so to speak, so in that sense they are reactionary. Today's "conservative" is a proactive radical not interested in applying the brakes. In fact, they have removed the brakes and all the forward gears, leaving just the reverse gear. They intend to drive us back to before the Magna Carta and beyond. Full steam behind.
ReplyDeleteAnything, anything, anything that undermines George Bush is a good thing for the country.
ReplyDeleteA simple vacancy in the top executive post of the nation would be preferrable to the enormous hope-sucking void that's there now.
Jim Culleny
Gris Lobo said...
ReplyDeleteOn a more serious note, I am for allowing everyone in that we can reasonably provide jobs for without turning the U.S. into a third world country.
9:16 AM
I would've preferred to use what power and influence we once had, but no longer do, to coax countries like Mexico to make reforms that keep the population there because they don't have to leave, nor do they want to. But that doesn't suit the current "business model".
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"I would've preferred to use what power and influence we once had, but no longer do, to coax countries like Mexico to make reforms that keep the population there because they don't have to leave, nor do they want to. But that doesn't suit the current "business model".
That would have been the ideal solution but it just never was going to work. Businesses are businesses and their only responsibility is to make/increase profits and increase shareholder value.
As soon as they got to Mexico under NAFTA they realized they were not going to have to raise wages so they didn't. Which pretty much killed the win-win notion that NAFTA was promoted under. Rather ironically Mexico has lost a lot of the jobs that went there under NAFTA. They have been relocated to China where the labor is even cheaper. The investors and the CEO's are all ecstatic but it pretty much sucks for everybody else.
The big mistake was in trying to use business as an instrument of social change.
The only way to solve the problem would be to tax the bejesus out of the rich in Mexico that siphon off all the money EXCEPT for giving them a big tax break for investing in job creating industries in country.
That would also work here but I don't see it happening anytime soon. More likely we are gonna get flushed down the toilet first. By my calcs it's gonna happen pretty soon too. Lotsa smoke and mirrors in the economy and we're still floating in the bowl; but we're just waiting for somebody to walk by and flip the handle.
Gee, what happened to that indictment of Rove? Did you people get it wrong yet again?
ReplyDeleteI believe I saw Mr, Leopold state that he was going to out his sources if they were wrong. Anybody seen that?
publius said:
ReplyDeleteAnd unlike say the Gay Marriage Amendment or the Flag Burning Amendment, [the public] began to realize how this problem is affecting the very core of our nation.
I don't understand what this means. I've seen lots of comments about how mass immigration will threaten to change the 'character' of this country, or the 'core' of the nation.
What exactly is the 'character' and 'core' of the United States of America? Publius, can you please define it for me? How does immigration threaten those ethereal concepts, in your opinion?
Are we not already a nation of immigrants?
net "neutrality"? said:
ReplyDeleteCongress is considering imposing burdensome new "net neutrality" regulations on the Internet. These new laws would stifle innovation, investment and the very essence of Internet freedom.
Net neutrality is already the foundational structure of the internet. Congress is considering legislation that would utterly destroy Net Neutrality, and some members are trying to attach legislation that would maintain Net Neutrality.
To those who are posting in opposition to Net Neutrality, I ask you: who hired you to post that bulls--t? Care to disclose your financial interest in eliminating Net Neutrality? Again, there is only legislation that is aimed at preserving Net Neutrality, not imposing it. But you "liars-for-hire" knew that already, didn't you?
I challenge any of you telco lobbyists to provide facts that prove me wrong. Otherwise, you corporate money grubbing lobbyist lying bastards for hire, F--K OFF AND GO BACK TO DC!
Tell them you believe that the Internet has become the powerful communications and economic force it has in such a short time because it has been free from government interference.
ReplyDeleteExcept of course for that creating and building it part...
DARPA
Tell them you believe that the Internet has become the powerful communications and economic force it has in such a short time because it has been free from government interference.
ReplyDeletephd9 responds...
Except of course for that creating and building it part...
A perfectly reasonable point, phd9, but imho, it was the development of the world wide web that really made the Internet into the "powerful communications and economic force" it is.
By www (as distingusihed from the Internet) I mean the technologies of HTTP, HTML, URLs, browsers, etc. These were, for the most part, privately developed (by Tim Berners-Lee and others, of course).
Of course, these would be nothing if not built on the foundation of the Internet, as developed by DARPA.
The list of Republican "Liberals" has just gotten much bigger.
ReplyDeleteCheck This Out
My understanding was that HTML was developed at CERN and Mosaic (the first graphical browser) was developed at the University of Illinois. Both, of course are at least partly funded by governments.
ReplyDeleteShooter242 said...
ReplyDeleteGee, what happened to that indictment of Rove? Did you people get it wrong yet again?
I believe I saw Mr, Leopold state that he was going to out his sources if they were wrong.
What sources? He made it all up.
He's really painted himself into a corner, hasn't he? I'm not going into the debate on human rights vs. "US rights" and I don't really think this impeachment talk is going to go anywhere. But, if it did, I'd say, "Whatever it takes!"
ReplyDeleteHail Mary Pass...incomplete.
ReplyDeletedevoman:
ReplyDelete[phd9]: Except of course for that creating and building it part...
[devoman]: A perfectly reasonable point, phd9, but imho, it was the development of the world wide web that really made the Internet into the "powerful communications and economic force" it is.
By www (as distingusihed from the Internet) I mean the technologies of HTTP, HTML, URLs, browsers, etc. These were, for the most part, privately developed (by Tim Berners-Lee and others, of course).
As is usual, plenty fo credit to spread all around. The DARPAnet was a neat tool/trick in the early
'70s when I first saw it. We have to hand it to the gummint/academia for developing both technology (and more importantly, standards, which were seen as important by those in a position to see the future and to see the value of standards as opposed to ad hoc, or worse, proprietary and commercial solutions to connectivity). Industry eventually went along (with some squeaks from some that wanted to push their own solutions ... AppleTalk [not the worst offender by far] still lives on in some places).
Academia did lots of the conceptual legwork on the things that were possible with connectivity, and in embracing the technology and the concept of global connectivity (they did this long before many industries saw the value in opening out to the growing network; even e-mail access outside of companies was slow in developing in the commercial sector; dial-up connectivity with hourly or even once a day feeds to/from the outside world was once par for the course).
Industry has to be given a hand in embracing (or acquiescing to) the notion of global computing and connectivity, with a tip'o'da hat to such as Sun Microsystems with their "The Network IS The Computer" slogan as their main thrust.
The browser/link/web idea of global data connectivity was thanks to both industry and academic efforts.
There were fights between those that wanted to try and co-opt the growing net for their own financial gain (AOL, for instance) and those that pushed for more openness ... same kind of thing that happens in, e.g., VHS versus Betamax wars. Everyone (commercial, that is) wants to "own" what ought to be a "commons".
As I said plenty of credit to spread around, and a couple raspberries for some of the folks that tried (unsuccessfully in the end) to put some roadbumps in the way.
If the gummint had gotten deeply involved later in the process, and started regulating carriers and access, we might have suffered. But the large commercial carriers now are a similar risk; they are once again looking for the dollar signs, and trying to pervert the flat and open network for their own financial gain. This needs to be resisted, and here gummint can help just as much as it could hurt by doing the same thing itself.
Cheers,
The coming tidal wave
ReplyDeleteIf there really is such a thing as a "Starbucks Republican" (aside from Rick Santorum), he (or she) lives in Chester County, Pa. The western exurban fringe of the Philadelphia area, it is a woody sprawl of bland subdivisions, gleaming office parks, and Ruby Tuesday's hamburger joints.
Overwhelmingly white and upscale, Chester County has voted for Bush even as Pennsylvania has become a "blue state" and Philly's other suburbs went Democratic. (In fact, the last GOP presidential candidate it shunned was Barry Goldwater in 1964.) Voters in Chester County normally care about three issues: Lowering taxes, reducing taxes, and preventing higher taxes.
That's why anyone seeking a Democratic tidal wave in 2006 need look no further. There was only one major special election in Pa. last night -- thus pitting a Republican against a Democrat -- and it was in Chester County. Check out what happened:
Andrew Dinniman has defeated Republican Carol Aichele to become the first Democratic state senator from Chester County in memory.
(...)
Usually, special elections are a boon to the established party, which makes this even more astounding. As some of you may know, Pennsylvania has been a harbinger before. In 1991, heavily favored former GOP Gov. Dick Thornburg lost a U.S. Senate election in a huge upset to Democrat Harris Wofford, as voters seemed to like Wofford's Clinton-esque healthcare ideas and disliked a president named Bush.
All we know is this...if Chester County is going away from the GOP, so is America.
cfaller96 said...
ReplyDeletepublius said:
And unlike say the Gay Marriage Amendment or the Flag Burning Amendment, [the public] began to realize how this problem is affecting the very core of our nation.
I don't understand what this means. I've seen lots of comments about how mass immigration will threaten to change the 'character' of this country, or the 'core' of the nation.
It's very simple. Substitute race and ethnicity (color) for character.
Have more white babies! Outlaw abortion for white women! Make it free and legal for non-whites! Don't shoot until they are not as white as I!
More good news from the Republican "al Qaeda" ("the base"): Some are talking about staying home in 2006 and 2008....
ReplyDeleteAnd they're turning on their own. Let's cheer 'em on...
:-)
Cheers,
"All we know is this...if Chester County is going away from the GOP, so is America."
ReplyDeleteDiebold to the rescue! By the way, is anyone doing anything significant to stop their takeover of voting machines?
More good news from the Republican "al Qaeda" ("the base"): Some are talking about staying home in 2006 and 2008....
ReplyDeleteAnd they're turning on their own. Let's cheer 'em on...
:-)
Cheers,
Is it wrong to actually feel pity for President Bush at this point?
ReplyDeleteyankeependragon said:
ReplyDeleteIs it wrong to actually feel pity for President Bush at this point?
Yes.
Is it wrong to actually feel pity for President Bush at this point?
ReplyDeleteDecide for yourself.
Diebold to the rescue! By the way, is anyone doing anything significant to stop their takeover of voting machines?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. Now one can use voting machines that elected a real dictator from South America. Hugo Chavez not only has gas stations here (Citgo) he has voting booths as well.
I wonder what people like Malkin are thinking when they turn against their President. Don't they know that the only reason people read their blogs is because they praise the Bush with every word?
ReplyDeleteWhat's that about the immigration issue having nothing to do with racism?
ReplyDeleteBill O'Reilly (via Media Matters):
That's because the newspaper [NYTimes] and many far-left thinkers believe the white power structure that controls America is bad, so a drastic change is needed.
According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will. This can only happen if demographics change in America.
An open-border policy and the legalization of millions of Hispanic illegal aliens would deeply affect the political landscape in America. That's what The New York Times and many others on the left want. They might get it. And that's the "Memo."
They said:
ReplyDeleteShooter242 said...
Gee, what happened to that indictment of Rove? Did you people get it wrong yet again?
I believe I saw Mr, Leopold state that he was going to out his sources if they were wrong.
Anonymous said...
What sources? He made it all up.
I said:
Guess again.
Is it wrong to actually feel pity for President Bush at this point?
ReplyDeleteWith or without pictures, I feel no pity. I'll leave that to God, if He so desires. Myself? I have none.
Shooter242 said...
ReplyDeleteDiebold to the rescue! By the way, is anyone doing anything significant to stop their takeover of voting machines?
Absolutely. Now one can use voting machines that elected a real dictator from South America. Hugo Chavez not only has gas stations here (Citgo) he has voting booths as well.
That's right, shooter. Chavez is the "newest" Hitler. We know, we know. And so is Evo Morales, huh?
Shooter, you've done shot your little bitty wad. Ta ta.
"Julie Myers, the nepotism-based appointee at Bush's Homeland Security Department": They're *all* nepotism-based appointees.
ReplyDeleteMalcolm said...
ReplyDeleteThis would appear to leave so many Americans drifting around with nowhere to go; maybe a third party candidate might pick up a helluva lot of votes from a diverse section of the electorate. I am not advocating this, just making an observation.
Malcolm, thanks for the input. I for one agree with you about a third party. Neither the Repubs or the Dems represent a majority of the voters in this country anymore. In fact more people are registered as independents (no party affiliation) than as either Democratic or Republican.
The truth is though that with the elections coming in November there really isn't time to get a third party up and going before then. Not to mention the roadblocks thrown up by both major parties to an upstart third. They feel like as long as they are the only two that amount to anything that you will vote for one or the other of them. So they bounce back and forth, first one and then the other but always with one of the two in control. That's why you will hear people refer to them as Republican and Republican Light.
Anyway I hope that a third party will emerge now with all that is going on, one that will actually represent the views of the majority of Americans. If they do I will work for them and vote for their candidates.
Guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. I think there is a consensus growing to have a third party. It's not just Bush's poll numbers that are in the loo but all of Congress too.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDelete"Is it wrong to actually feel pity for President Bush at this point?"
It's difficult if not impossible to feel pity for anyone that has stolen two elections and claims that God wanted him to be President.
Not to mention the total mess he has made of everything.
Ender, your reply to Malcolm reminded me of this famous story:
ReplyDeleteA woman at the end of the Constitutional Convention asked Benjamin Franklin: "What type of government have you brought us?"
Franklin replied, "A republic if you can keep it"
The Democrats now pose a bigger threat to this nation's slim chance for an acceptable future than even the Republicans. They have been entirely complicit in this Administration's horrifying assault on the Constitution, on our civil liberties, on human decency itself and now when the Republicans finally come up with that rare good proposal (which of course is only part of the solution--employer stiff penalties and enforcement is essential), a fence at the most vulnerable spots on the border, most Democrats are against it.
ReplyDeleteDurbin's rant that it would create a barrier between this country and Mexico represents the last straw of insanity.
Guess he never stopped to consider that we are two separate countries. At our airports nobody without a valid visa, passport or other documentation is even allowed to enter this country.
That's how it's done at the airports of almost (if not all) every country in this world.
They're all racist?
Partisan vote panderers, corrupt power brokers, evil madmen with anti-American personal agendas, companies which sell out our Constitution in exchange for power and $$$ and fools have taken over this nation and this comments section is increasingly becoming just a partisan slug fest as the country disintegrates before our eyes.
Everyone is battling for a larger share of a pie which contains within it the poison that is going to destroy this nation.
Prognosis? Guarded. Probably fatal.
ReplyDeleteEyes Wide Open said...
The Democrats now pose a bigger threat to this nation's slim chance for an acceptable future than even the Republicans.
A bit o' hyperbole, my friend?
A major part of the problem? Absolutely. I could even see an argument for refusing to vote for (most of) them until they get it together. But you think Albgore would've gotten us into this war? Or put those two bozos in the Supreme Court? Or played a guitar as we were losing a city? Or...
Feh, you know what this guy has done to this country.
Coming to a town near you
ReplyDeleteWe can have immigration, but we have to control the border and screen who we let in.
Mexico Voters Fear Nation on Edge of Chaos
By JULIE WATSON
Associated Press Writer
May 17, 6:12 AM EDT
MEXICO CITY (AP) -- Police enraged by the kidnapping of six officers club unarmed detainees. A bloody battle between steelworkers and police leaves two miners dead. Drug lords post the heads of decapitated police on a fence to show who's in charge.
A poll published Friday in Excelsior newspaper found 50 percent of respondents feared the government was on the brink of losing control. The polling company Parametria conducted face-to-face interviews at 1,000 homes across Mexico. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
The conflicts are "a warning sign," said Yamel Nares, Parametria's research director.
Security is the top concern for Mexicans, and Fox has struggled to reform Mexico's notoriously corrupt police. Meanwhile, drug-related bloodshed has accelerated, with some cities seeing killings almost daily.
In April, suspected drug lords posted the heads of two police officers on a wall outside a government building where four drug traffickers died in a Jan. 27 shootout with officers in the Pacific resort of Acapulco.
A sign nearby read: "So that you learn to respect."
Last week, Zapatista rebel leader Subcomandante Marcos said Mexico was in a "state of rage."
The masked leader said a May 3 clash that left a teenager dead and scores injured in San Salvador Atenco, 15 miles northeast of Mexico City, is an example of the growing tensions.
Marcos has been leading nearly daily demonstrations in the town following the incident, which began when a radical group of townspeople kidnapped and beat six policemen in a dispute over unlicensed flower vendors. Police responded with rage the next day. Television crews captured officers repeatedly beating unarmed protesters, and several detained women alleged officers raped them.
Hyperbole? Perhaps. They are both so bad it's hard to say who is worse. They're both deadly. Voting for any of them would be an act of self-mutilation.
ReplyDeleteTo wit: Digby identifies ten of the biggest perpetrators of the treason against the Constitution and the assault on America and his focus? That "conservatives" now call them "liberals" (they also call them neo-con Jacobins and traitors to America and other dead-on accurate descriptions of these ten.)
The "conservatives", whatever their motivation, sure got that right. That they are condemning these people now is the present relevant point and they are right in that position. At least they noticed.
Which Democratic Leaders have said as much? The Clintons? Feinstein? Kennedy? Schumer? Durbin? Paul Begala? James Carville? Markos the Obama admirer? Murtha? Who?
Al Gore gave one great speech and never another and became a one trick pony: global warming, a highly complex and legitimately debatable issue.
As if that is the main threat which is facing this country now. It's not. Just a good talking point to rally a base.
So much for digby. Strictly partisan.
PS. It seems extremely likely that Al Gore would have done a much better job at appointing SC Justices.
But that would not have been enough. If the wrong laws are passed, even the SC can not rectify that damage.
Notice how some very top, good Democratic lawyers even talk about the "breaking of laws" rather than the blantant, clear violations of the Fourth Amendment. Like Marty Lederman. They're willing to take Orin Kerr's word for it.
My own reading has led me to conclude that it is the old school principled Republicans (like Paul Craig Roberts) and the libertarians (like Justin Raimondo) who have the truest grasp about what is really going on and are speaking out most forcefully against it.
If I missed something, please direct me to one high visibility Democrat who is saying the same things in such a clear, concise, passionate, on target, consistent, non-partisan courageous way.
1:42,
ReplyDeleteGo away.
From a "Christian Conservative".
ReplyDeleteRise Up, Fellow
Enemies of the State
It's time for Americans to stand up for the Constitution and point out that Bush has done just about nothing to protect Americans from al-Qaeda terrorism while doing just about everything to attack our freedom. "Americans are asking, why do they hate us," Bush said after Sept. 11, concluding that "They hate our freedoms." Bush now seems dead set upon taking away their reason to hate us.
From a libertarian (I think that's what he is--I am not sure what if any "label" he puts on his thinking.)
Is America Becoming a Police State?
Yes, because perpetual war means dictatorship at home
The price of perpetual war is a police state, one in which a permanent state of "emergency" – the threat of a terrorist attack – is utilized to break down institutional safeguards, the system of constitutional checks and balances, that protect us from dictatorship.
This last article is a terrific read.
New Zealand is a tiny island. Not a good example.
ReplyDeletePlease don't encourage this "pining for paleoconservativism" retrogradism. He might as well vote for Barney the Purple Dinosaur. That's paleo, too.
Partisanship is no problem in a one party system. You want that? I don't think so. Let's just go staight to totalitarianism. You both would love that, I'm sure.
ReplyDeleteI'm a Partisan, just like Orwell, and damn proud of it.
ReplyDeletePartisan Review
"In his essay Why I Write, George Orwell clearly explains that all the "serious work" he had written since the Spanish Civil War in 1936 was "written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism"."
Ever wonder why the Soviet Union didn't have an immigration problem?
ReplyDeleteAs long as people want to come here, make them pay for the privilege of being here. Higher taxation on wealth and non sustainables like oil and gas, not higher walls. No civilization has ever survived by lowering taxes to next to nothing. Tax the wealth, not income of the worker.
In his essay Why I Write, George Orwell clearly explains that all the "serious work" he had written since the Spanish Civil War in 1936 was "written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism". So Nineteen Eighty-Four can be seen as a cautionary tale against totalitarianism, and in particular the betrayal of a revolution by those claiming to defend/support it (as Stalin did 1928 onwards). However, as many reviewers/critics have correctly pointed out, it should not be read as an attack on socialism as a whole, but on totalitarianism (and potential totalitarianism) in general.
ReplyDeleteOrwell had already set forth his distrust of totalitarianism and the betrayal of revolutions in Homage to Catalonia and Animal Farm. Coming Up For Air, at points, celebrates the individual freedom that is lost in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Orwell based many aspects of Oceanian society on the Stalin-era Soviet Union. The "Two Minutes' Hate", for instance, being based on Stalinism's habitual demonization of their enemies and rivals, and big brother himself bears a resemblance to Stalin. The motif of "2+2=5" is taken directly from a Soviet propaganda poster during Stalin's industrialization drive.
Bush is the new Stalin and this is the inevitable result of the so-called "conservative" revolution.
2+2=5 is analogous to reducing taxes on businesses and corporations and the super wealthy is good for the economy and the worker. Go away, EWO, until you extricate your head from your ass. Your long rambling rants just embarass you.
Will the Real Patrick Fitzgerald please stand up?
ReplyDeleteChicago would become the largest of 200 U.S. cities to oppose civil liberties "abuses" invoked by the USA Patriot Act under a resolution advanced by a City Council committee Thursday over the objections of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
"Repealing the Patriot Act would put that wall back up, which is a danger both to all of our safety and all of our civil liberties," Fitzgerald said
Mayor Daley appeared to sympathize with Fitzgerald.
"We live in a very challenging time. No one wants to jump on anyone's . . . civil rights and human rights. But 9/11 gave us a different perspective with regards to terrorism," the mayor said.
Aldermen who went on record against the Iraq war were not convinced.
"The danger is that we are slowly eroding our most cherished constitutional freedoms"....said Ald. Joseph Moore (49th).
Asked how many Chicagoans have been victimized by the Patriot Act, Ald. Freddrenna Lyle (6th) said, "The numbers could be astronomical or very small. We have no way of knowing, and that's what we're objecting to. These people are not entitled to a lawyer. They can be swept up off the streets. Their family does not have to be notified. You cannot even determine who they're holding, what department has them. They have no right to get a lawyer once they're in custody, and they can be held for indeterminate periods of time while charges are being made against them."
Signed into law on Oct. 21, 2001, the Patriot Act vastly increased the federal government's power to access private records, conduct secret searches, detain and deport citizens and eavesdrop on confidential communications between attorneys and their clients in federal custody. A proposed expansion of the act is now before Congress.
What? It's not bad enough already?
It's become increasingly obvious for some time now that Fitzgerald is a road leading nowhere. Just another decoy to distract.
Can someone please tell FDL?
richardcownie said...
ReplyDelete"One thing is clear: the longer and more prominently immigration remains on the table, the better it is for Democrats."
I think the principle of comparative advantage applies here. Immigration is a lousy issue for Bush: but Iraq, corruption, Plamegate, Katrina, Social Security, Medicare Part D, and the deficit are all *even worse* issues. So on balance, if he can move the debate on from issues which he has already screwed up, to issues which he hasn't screwed up yet, then it's a net plus.
And of course it gives the opportunity for lots of good photo-ops posing with the troops, without the danger of going any place where there's actual shooting.
I can't see that it's going to save the House in the midterms though. And once Dems have subpoena power, it's all over.
And to every other wishful thinker........What makes you think subpoena power means anything to a unitary executive?
“President's speech mauled by his base”
ReplyDeleteI search in vain for a statement by Mr. Greenwald that all of his recent blather about the base blindly supporting everything the President does was a crock. Yes, it is obvious that Mr. Greenwald was wrong, incredibly wrong, and he has not been shy about what a proper blogger should do when that happens. Yes, others have pointed out that Mr. Greenwald was in error: "So I guess this means [Mr. Greenwald’s]... weakened, ready-to-be-tossed aside Authoritarian Cultist theory has outlived its usefulness.”
Mr. Greenwald has, in the past, sanctimoniously demanded that right wing bloggers proven wrong stand up and admit it... perhaps I have missed Mr. Greenwald’s admission on this point?
Hi armegednoutahere. I understand your perspective.
ReplyDeleteBut as for "The Dems will at least be able to do that, I think.", I think you are being overly optimistic.
If I thought that was a real possibility, I'd be their biggest supporter. What is actually happening appears to suggest that possibility is really not very great.Then where are we?
You could argue, well, it's better than nothing. Maybe you are right. But I think every moment of focus away from the main issue, imo, the assault on our Constitutional protections, especially the Fourth Amendment, may be a moment ill spent.
Guess we will all get to see soon enough what is going to happen but I, for one, am not looking forward to it.
"anon" at 1:51: you first.
Mathematical Proof that 4 equals 5
ReplyDeleteIdentification with any political party is just a means to a higher, more universal end.
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson:
ReplyDeleteChange is the Choice of the Living
"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29
"My wish is to offend nobody; to leave to those who are to live under it, the settlement of their own constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:70
"We have not yet so far perfected our constitutions as to venture to make them unchangeable. But still, in their present state, we consider them not otherwise changeable than by the authority of the people on a special election of representatives for that purpose expressly. They are until then the lex legum." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47
"Our children will be as wise as we are and will establish in the fulness of time those things not yet ripe for establishment." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810. ME 12:394
"The generation which is going off the stage has deserved well of mankind for the struggles it has made and for having arrested that course of despotism which had overwhelmed the world for thousands and thousands of years. If there seems to be danger that the ground they have gained will be lost again, that danger comes from the [upcoming] generation. But that the enthusiasm which characterizes youth should lift its parricide hands against freedom and science would be such a monstrous phenomenon as I cannot place among possible things in this age and this country." --Thomas Jefferson to William Green Munford, 1799.
Experience Dictates Change
"The precept... is wise which directs us to try all things and hold fast that which is good." --Thomas Jefferson to William Drayton, 1788. ME 6:414
"I am a friend to the reformation generally of whatever can be made better." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wilson, 1813. ME 13:349
"Let us go on perfecting the Constitution by adding, by way of amendment, those forms which time and trial show are still wanting." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 9:419
"It is more honorable to repair a wrong than to persist in it." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to Cherokee Nation, 1806. ME 19:149
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40
"Those who [advocate] reformation of institutions pari passu with the progress of science [maintain] that no definite limits [can] be assigned to that progress. The enemies of reform, on the other hand, [deny] improvement and [advocate] steady adherence to the principles, practices and institutions of our fathers, which they [represent] as the consummation of wisdom and acme of excellence, beyond which the human mind could never advance." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:254
"I am not afraid of new inventions or improvements, nor bigoted to the practices of our forefathers. It is that bigotry which keeps the Indians in a state of barbarism in the midst of the arts [and] would have kept us in the same state even now." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert Fulton, 1810. ME 12:380
"Nature and reason, as well as all our constitutions, condemn retrospective conditions as mere acts of power against right." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:380
"The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to make it keep pace with the advance of the age in science and experience. Instead of this, the European governments have resisted reformation until the people, seeing no other resource, undertake it themselves by force, their only weapon, and work it out through blood, desolation and long-continued anarchy." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert J. Garnett, 1824. ME 16:15
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accomodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40
The Earth Belongs to the Living
"The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched nor modified even to make them answer their end because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do, had a right to impose laws on us unalterable by ourselves, and that we in like manner can make laws and impose burdens on future generations which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living." --Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816. ME 15:46
"I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self-evident: 'That the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;' that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it... We seem not to have perceived that by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independent nation to another." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:454, Papers 15:392
"Can one generation bind another and all others in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter unendowed with will." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48
"The generations of men may be considered as bodies or corporations. Each generation has the usufruct of the earth during the period of its continuance. When it ceases to exist, the usufruct passes on to the succeeding generation free and unencumbered and so on successively from one generation to another forever. We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:270
"These are axioms so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer; for he is not to be reasoned with who says that non-existence can control existence, or that nothing can move something. They are axioms also pregnant with salutary consequences." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Earle, 1823. ME 15:470
"Forty years [after a] Constitution... was formed,... two-thirds of the adults then living are... dead. Have, then, the remaining third, even if they had the wish, the right to hold in obedience to their will and to laws heretofore made by them, the other two-thirds who with themselves compose the present mass of adults? If they have not, who has? The dead? But the dead have no rights. They are nothing, and nothing can not own something. Where there is no substance, there can be no accident [i.e., attribute]." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. (*) ME 15:42
"A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48
"The laws of civil society indeed for the encouragement of industry, give the property of the parent to his family on his death, and in most civilized countries permit him even to give it, by testament, to whom he pleases. And it is also found more convenient to suffer the laws of our predecessors to stand on our implied assent, as if positively re-enacted, until the existing majority positively repeals them. But this does not lessen the right of that majority to repeal whenever a change of circumstances or of will calls for it. Habit alone confounds what is civil practice with natural right." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Earle, 1823. ME 15:470
"Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:42
"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396
"This principle, that the earth belongs to the living and not to the dead,... will exclude... the ruinous and contagious errors... which have armed despots with means which nature does not sanction, for binding in chains their fellow-men." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:460, Papers 15:396
Eyes wide open:
ReplyDeleteAl Gore gave one great speech and never another and became a one trick pony: global warming, a highly complex and legitimately debatable issue.
As if that is the main threat which is facing this country now. It's not. Just a good talking point to rally a base.
Well, it is true that woorying about global climate change (more accurate than "global warming") is berhaps being a bit short-sighted.
The eminent physicist, inventor, and polymath Freeman Dyson tends to keep the larger picture in mind, and proposed "Dyson spheres" be built to captupe all the heat from a fading sun at the end of it's thermonuclear life. But even he acknowledges that the long term problem is heat death for the entire universe. But then, Dyson is one of the most forward-thinking people around as well as one of the most brilliant scientists ever. Always glad to see that someone's not living for the moment and looking at the big picture for the sake of our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's....
Cheers,
notherbob2:
ReplyDeleteYes, it is obvious that Mr. Greenwald was wrong, incredibly wrong, and he has not been shy about what a proper blogger should do when that happens.
Ummmm, nope. He's been pretty much spot-on. He's got your number (as does Digby and others). OTOH, the RW wankers have been shown to be soooooooooo wrong about Iraq, the economy, the spying, the outing, the absolute sleaziness of the Dubya maladministration, anonanonanonanon.... Which is showing in polls, where the awful incompetence, greed, and corruption of the Dubya maladministratioon and the Republican party are becoming apparent even to a generally politically apathetic and uninformed public, thus the poll numbers....
Enjoy!
Cheers,
This from George Will:
ReplyDeleteThe phrase "values voters," which has become ubiquitous, subtracts from social comity by suggesting that one group has cornered the market on moral seriousness.
Link
After a friend of mine had told me about this column I told him that I could identity what's wrong with our country in on sentence.
It's being run by people who are immoral but smart in an alliance with people who are moral but stupid, all at the expense of those who are moral and smart.
"Ummmm, nope. He's been pretty much spot-on."
ReplyDeleteWell, we''ve heard from the chief slavish, suck-up, syncophant. "He's right even when he is wrong!"
If the left was smart, they'd be using this time as an opportunity to capture dissatisfied center, and even right, constituents.
ReplyDelete"Nothing Like getting mauled by the *very best* the Right-Wing-Nutters have to offer...eh?"
...instead of further alientating them.
But as sure as night turns into day, their egos trump good sense, every time.
Whether by design or not, Bush's speech and related machinations have the effect of giving GOP congressional incumbents some room to run *against* W. W cannot run again. He does not care about his numbers (ie, Rove does not care). Rove cares very much about losing the House. GOP House members will lose if the electorate associates them with W.
ReplyDelete