Electoral Roulette
What does the Democratic Party and loser-gamblers have in common? Well.....
Last week when I was in the Sandia Canyon casino outside of Albuquerque, I was watching a mark play the roulette wheel in the most bizarre fashion. He had bet just about everything available. He was sure to get paid off each pass of the wheel. And just as sure to lose a small percentage of his stake each time. I noticed, for example, that he had put $10 on each of the three columns of 12 numbers each. Because every number on the board is in one or the other of the columns, the winning bet pays only 2 to 1. If you bet all three, you will get paid every turn of the wheel but you will only make back your bet. You will put $30 down on the table. And you will collect $30. You can't win. But if a 0 or 00 comes up -- a one-in-nineteen chance-- you lose everything. Only a fool would take that tack.
Yet, that's exactly the "strategy" the Democrats are using now on the issue of the war. It dawned on me today that the Dems are hedging their bet in the same exact manner. I listened very carefully today to two separate interviews DNC Chair Howard Dean gave on cable news stations. And it matched up perfectly with what Harry Reid told me a week ago when I interviewed him in Nevada. The Democrats do have a position on the war; in fact, they have three. Or is it four?
When Dean was pressed as to whether or not the Dems favored withdrawal he gave no direct answer. He refused, if you will, to put his money on either red or black. Instead, he said, the Democrats were in favor of 1) "redeployment" of some of the troops to nearby countries so they could be recalled into Iraq in the future if necessary 2) sending some troops, the National Guard, back home and 3) maintaining a certain number of troops in Iraq to continue training Iraqi soldiers and police. In other words, Democrats are in favor of both staying the course and withdrawing as well as withdrawing but being in position to intervene again when and if necessary.
I can assure that this is just as cock-eyed a notion as was the betting strategy of the boob I saw at the wheel. Just as he was bound to lose, Democrats are also flirting with bankruptcy by not staking out one strong, identifiable position and sticking with it. I had been thinking for the past few weeks that the Republicans have so screwed things up that the Democrats were a cinch to take back the House. But after listening to Doctor Dean ramble and dodge and weave today, I'm beginning to think maybe not. Also, what's with Dean's demeanor? He was grimacing like someone had stuffed him with a jagged pole. And he kept repeating some transparent talking point over and over again: "You can't trust the Republicans with our national security."
I further understand that on Tuesday, perhaps, John Kerry will propose a resolution to withdraw all troops by July of 2007. Last week, he had said by December 31, 2006. I don't know about you, but if I were a GOP strategist I'd be jumping all over this shift as proof positive that the "timetable" was arbitrary. What changed in the last week to move back the deadline six months other than one more electoral hedge?
Is it so hard to come up with one position that is both clear and acceptable to all wings of the Democrats? Apparently so. And someone is going to pay the political price for this ambiguity.
Meanwile, Jo-Ann Mort has her memory jogged by the Democrats' just unveiled 2006 electoral proposal that they're calling New Directions. She remembers this was the same empty slogan and tedious laundry list the Dems came up with two decades ago -- a strategy that did nothing to brake their slide into political oblivion. She reminds the Democrats that: "It's not about laundry lists; it's about vision."
Correct. Let me know when you see some.
June 19th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
This is the same problem Kerry had in 2004, which he tried to disguise by using his Vietnam medals as a smokescreen.
The crazy left wants prompt withdrawal, which would likely be worse than the delayed withdrawal in Vietnam, which was followed by the Cambodian genocide and the repression in South Vietnam and the resulting boat people exodus.
Berkeley and Newton, Mass might support the crazy left and prompt withdrawal, but most Americans won’t. This is not 1917 Russia.
The “echo” strategy–we can lead the war effort without making as many stupid mistakes as Bush–is undermined by the constant noise of the crazies, and lacks both content and a credible messenger, such as Eisenhower was during the Korean war (”I will go to Korea” he said, but he didn’t say what he’d actually do. He had a real and recent record of military leadership, though, and so he was a credible “echo” opponent).
It’s not time for braying, yet.
June 19th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Ah, the tried and true: Democrats should run to the left.
Or maybe they should float a bill permitting the shooting, cooking, and eating of illegal immigrants.
When is a problem a problem? How many Americans even know where is France is?
We report! You *confide*.
June 20th, 2006 at 12:17 am
Its not hard to come up with “one position that is both clear and acceptable to all wings of the Democrats” Its impossible. On the one hand you have mainstream liberals like the Clintons and Obama and on the other you have the likes of Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich.
This is bad enough, but after that you have champion trimmers like John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, who don’t have enough brains to trim to the American center (as the Clintons do– God bless them) and instead trim to the center of the losing, bankrupt Democratic Party itself.
How do you explain to World War II submarine vets and laundromat attendents in Kingsport Tennesee that 9/11 was blowback for a half century of rapacious, capitalist, Orientalist imperialism? How do you explain that the Jihadis are just creatures of the CIA? How do you explain, from one side of your mouth, that Republicans fear-monger on the subject of Islamo-facist terrorism as you explain from the other side that Republicans are negligent on port and homeland security?
How do you explain that you will protect America by fighting the anti-anti-jihadi fight as you did the anti-anti-communist fight? How do you explain that Baathism is nothing like Islamo-facism?. How do you explain that invading, conquering and occupying a country of 25 million with 2,500 American deaths is a military defeat for America? How do you explain that you have a crystal ball, and know for a fact that Iraqis are incapable of democracy? How do you explain that you both deplore the Republican history of Realpolitk in the Middle East and deplore Republicans for not practicing Realpolitik?
How do you explain that Republicans can’t be trusted with national security? Don’t even bother. Any fool learns in Political Scince 101 that Americans don’t vote for politicians and parties; they vote against politicians and parties.
“Hi, I’m John Kerry, reporting for duty!” Salute!
Lose.
June 20th, 2006 at 2:06 am
Mr. Stott asks:
“How do you explain to World War II submarine vets and laundromat attendents in Kingsport Tennesee that 9/11 was blowback for a half century of rapacious, capitalist, Orientalist imperialism?”
The vets and launderers are probably smarter than you, Sam. They already know this and don’t need an explanation. What they do need is a demonstration that the person they’re voting for believes that–sans, perhaps, the rhetoric about rapacious imperialism.
“How do you explain that the Jihadis are just creatures of the CIA?”
Bin Laden was funded, coached and covered by the CIA very early on. This is a simple, well-established fact and requires no explaining. The vets and launderers know this, Sam. Why don’t you?
“How do you explain, from one side of your mouth, that Republicans fear-monger on the subject of Islamo-facist terrorism as you explain from the other side that Republicans are negligent on port and homeland security?”
The submariners and martinizers already know that while the Cheney-Bush team chases childish battlefield glory and permanent security state paranoia in Iraq, our ports remain vulnerable to sabotage. It’s simple, Sam and really requires little, if any, explanation, especially to someone intelligent enough to crew a WWII sub or fix a Maytag. And I’ll bet the submariner, who actually fought against fascism, even knows how to spell it.
“How do you explain that you will protect America by fighting the anti-anti-jihadi fight as you did the anti-anti-communist fight?”
The sub cruiser and shirt-presser already know that the Cheney-Bush disaster in Iraq has poured gasoline onto the bin Ladenist fires in the region. The place is on fire and they want it doused, not stoked. They, unlike you, Sam, also know that jihad isn’t the word you want here, because it refers to a broadly accepted part of Islamic tradition and religious faith. In the eyes of most of Islam, bin Ladenism has nothing to do with jihad. They also know that Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia–three countries the U.S. never went to Cold War against–were the first to break free. Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba–countries where the U.S. anti-communists were allowed to try their policies most aggressively are, alas, still run by communists.
“How do you explain that invading, conquering and occupying a country of 25 million with 2,500 American deaths is a military defeat for America?”
Again, Sam, you really don’t have to explain: the facts suffice. The sub vet’s lost a son-in-law in Iraq and, while he had hoped to retire on the money he’d make from selling his home, he can no longer do that, because interest rates shot up because Bush childishly chose to borrow to pay for the war, rather than increase taxes to match the increased spending. The launderer had wanted to send her daughter to a top university, but financial aid has been cut to pay for the war, and her landlord–falling behind on his third mortgage as interest rates rise–just raised her rent and she knows better than to even think about asking for a raise.
“How do you explain that you have a crystal ball, and know for a fact that Iraqis are incapable of democracy?”
Alas, no need to explain that, since our hypothetical voters recognize that as the right’s view, not the left’s. The left, not the right, knows Iraqis, like everyone else, are completely capable of building a democracy on their own. It’s the Cheney-Bush team that insists an invasion that’s killing many 10s of thousands is needed to force democracy down Iraqi throats. As a liberal, my position is that democracy will come much faster to Iraq if the U.S. exits as quickly as possible in an orderly fashion. That’s because I know full well the Iraqis are best equipped to themselves build the institutions needed to create a democracy. And I’d bet the Tennessean and his shirt cleaner would agree.
How do you explain that you both deplore the Republican history of Realpolitk in the Middle East and deplore Republicans for not practicing Realpolitik?
How do you explain that Republicans can’t be trusted with national security?
Three words: Iraq is burning.
“Any fool learns in Political Scince 101 that Americans don’t vote for politicians and parties; they vote against politicians and parties.”
At last, Sam speaks directly for himself. Congratulations…
June 20th, 2006 at 3:04 am
“The place is on fire and they want it doused, not stoked.”
Yet Darfur is not on fire? Nor is the Congo, nor Somalia?
When different world fires are compared, based on numbers being killed instead of news articles, where the US is supporting the growth of democracy seems better than having the US leave now.
Iraq is certainly more a mess than I hoped, and expected, it to be 3 years ago. Yet it is mostly Iraqis killing Iraqis, or Iraqis supporting foreign murderers to kill Iraqis. At 2500 deaths, and counting, Bush has lost his “A” and is now a “B” in my book, still very good.
The Left refuses to say how few Americans would have to die to have Iraq liberation be called a success; so naturally they hide this by calling every death a proof of failure.
Dems need to accept Bush’s Iraq war, and specify how to leave in an orderly way, even if it’s the same as Bush. Then run against Reps on other issues.
Bush and the Reps are running, and will probably be winning in Nov., based on a vision — long term winning in Iraq meaning a functioning Iraq democracy. Since Bush favors winning in Iraq, and many Dems hate Bush and Every Single Thing Bush supports, such BDS Dems favor NOT winning in Iraq the way Bush wants to. Yet they can’t agree on how to win in Iraq in another way — the argument that “there’s no guarantee that if we leave there will be a bloodbath”, as used by ‘71 anti-war Kerry, probably will be a lot less believable.
Of course, “U.S. exits as quickly as possible in an orderly fashion” could mean withdrawal tomorrow, or completely as Bush decides. In fact, I think that IS the semi-official Bush position, only Bush is more coherent by saying it comes as the Iraqis take over.
There are 18 Iraqi provences, the first one to be handed over to Iraqis will happen this month (has?). Looks like the right exit in an orderly fashion to me.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:22 am
“The Left refuses to say how few Americans would have to die to have Iraq liberation be called a success”
What liberation? Do you even read the newspaper? Two guys were shot the other day for wearing tennis shorts. Women in many areas are no forbidden to leave their homes alone and even then must wear a chador. Shiite death squads operate with virtual impunity. Summary executions are taking place very single day. The list goes on and on…
Liberty Dad: before you start putting yourself in position to give a report card to W, shouldn’t you at least the introduction to the first textbook?
June 20th, 2006 at 6:26 am
Well, it’s been a while since I got to the logical fallacy Argumentum ad crumenam: The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness
June 20th, 2006 at 7:27 am
Sure Democrats repeat mistakes for the same reason that they continue to support Communists and socialism–they think that nothing is wrong with the programs…just that the right people weren’t in charge of them before. That’s like saying that my dog is dead only because I keep taking him to the wrong veterinarians.
Keep telling them what’s wrong, Marc, because they’ll never take the advice as long as it’s people like you (traitors to their cause) who are the ones telling them. Maybe they need to find columinsts who will agree with their programs to put some life into their dead dog.
If that doesn’t work, they can have it stuffed and talk about how great it once was and then try to poison the neighbor’s dog, because they hate to see anyone else with something that they can’t have.
June 20th, 2006 at 7:38 am
“Sure Democrats repeat mistakes for the same reason that they continue to support Communists”
Woody, you really need to shut the fuck up. You add nothing to these discussions except to derail them with your mindless drivel.
June 20th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Also based on that dog story, I feel compelled to offer that 7:27 AM is too early to start drinking. Even I wait ’til after dinner.
June 20th, 2006 at 8:18 am
Sorry, reg. I respect your opinion so much that I’ll be sure to do what you say. I see how much more your comments add to the discussions, but I can’t match your four-letter word vocabulary.
June 20th, 2006 at 9:02 am
“because they hate to see anyone else with something that they can’t have.”
That’s it. I’m going out to burn a flag.
June 20th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Bill Whittle has it down:
Liberals haven’t had a new idea since the National Health Card, Conservatives would lose the next election if they ran unopposed, Western birthrates are plummeting, lawlessness is rampant, everywhere you look the seams are starting to crack, and above it all sits an Imperial Congress riddled with corruption, stone-deaf to the howls of public outrage, and looking very tender indeed at the merest thought of being held accountable for anything.
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000132.html
June 20th, 2006 at 9:04 am
There is no “war” in Iraq. The military defeated the regime of Saddam Hussein. They blew up all the bases. They wiped out his armies and airforce. The “war” ended a long time ago.
That’s what the military does, and that is what it is supposed to do. This nation building nonsense is a waste of our time and our military’s time. They have better things to do, like stopping those Taliban folks that are on the rise again, according to Tony Snow.
June 20th, 2006 at 9:08 am
What I find amazing is how much respect Democrats claim to have for common people.
Right up until the day after the election, then suddenly the middle class is a bunch of ignorant red-necks who can’t find France on a map.
June 20th, 2006 at 9:10 am
bunkerbuster: “What liberation?…Two guys were shot the other day for wearing tennis shorts.”
Do you even know what the word liberation means? The fact that two guys were shot for wearing tennis shorts by unknown assailants has exactly nothing to do with the question of liberation, one way or the other.’
And the fact that the population of Iraq voted against people, likely outsiders, who would do that sort of thing gives your argument even less sense. In the past, they wouldn’t have even been given the choice.
June 20th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Woody, you really need to shut the fuck up. You add nothing to these discussions except to derail them with your mindless drivel.
He seems to have yanked your panties up in the crack, which is an accomplishment of sorts. You wouldn’t know drivel from all that sh** spouting from that hole under your tinfoil hat.
June 20th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Well.
As for the OBL story, actually we backed the Northern Alliance people in the war against the Soviet Union. OBL got funds and weapons from middle eastern countries. After the Soviets left, we bailed, but the middle eastern countries did not. Ergo, OBL and his cronies took over. Not the Northern Alliance people who might have been a little better.
I am so tired of reading about that stupid lie. But it fits your world view so you agree to it. It is like these people who say the Right wing court gave Bush the election in 2000. How they can say Right wing Court and keep a straight face is beyond me. Besides, it was a 7-2 vote, 7-2 which means at least 3 liberal judges voted for it. Yes I am counting Souter and O’Connor as liberals, because they are. Of course, this was only based on how Florida was going to recount the votes. It was a 5-4 on when the recount should be certified.
After a statewide recount by an independent organization, Bush still won. Of course, I still hear that stupid, Bush stole the election from my Dem friends.
June 20th, 2006 at 9:29 am
The rationale of why they are doing this is obvious enough- the party is split and nobody wants to alienate either the ferocious left or the pragmatic center. The problem is that this problem is not going to go away. Come 08 Democrats are going to have to choose a platform and a candidate. Pay me now or pay me later.
If they had this fight now, there would be time to recover by letting one side or the other break from the party (which seems eventually inevitable) and then courting new converts with a unified and substantial message. Instead they will wait until the primaries and the party will go nuclear in front of the nation, horrifying middle America and dooming the cycle. Not only will this spur another 3rd party spoiler movement on the left, but the mainstream candidate will be forced left to try and staunch this, killing his or her chance to run as a moderate of any stripe.
June 20th, 2006 at 9:34 am
“Bin Laden was funded, coached and covered by the CIA very early on. This is a simple, well-established fact and requires no explaining. ”
Uh, maybe a link to a fact-checked source would be nice.
And while we are on the subject of Afghanistan, essentially, Kerry is suggesting the same strategy in Iraq that we implemented in Afghanistan. We helped to drive out the Soviets, then abandoned the country to the warlords. That led directly to 9-11. Maybe a little nation building would have been worth it then. But the left prefers Reagan’s policy now, despite how it worked out.
June 20th, 2006 at 9:43 am
Minor point: I’ve used that roulette “strategy” myself, but only for the free drinks. Because I don’t gamble in any serious fashion, my goal was always to make my $30 last all night; I didn’t especially care if I went home broke, since I was paying for people-watching, a little adrenalin rush from time to time, and (again) the free drinks. (Or are they free in all casinos? They were in Reno & Tahoe, the only places I’ve ever “gambled.”) As for the analogy, unless there are in fact free drinks, the Democrats are not even getting entertainment value.
bunkerbuster, willful obtuseness gets you nowhere:
The point, as I think you know but are ignoring, is that that position is not the American center’s. It may be the Democratic Party center’s; but it ain’t believed in the flyover states, nor in many parts of the “reality-based” (=”blue”) states. What is believed all over the country is that jihadists, Islamofascists, bin Ladenites, pick your euphemism for The Enemy – oppose Western society because of what makes it tick: the principles of classical liberalism, particularly the ascendancy of the individual, equality under the law regardless of race, creed, gender, or status, and the values set out in the Bill of Rights (which obviously aren’t in one-to-one correspondence with such values in other liberal nations, but it’s useful shorthand).
June 20th, 2006 at 9:46 am
Mark,
Excellent points. As you know I have been predicting this break up for a few years.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/10/socialism-has-died-it-has-not-gone-to.html
There are two issues splitting the party.
1. The war
2. Socialism
Of the two the war is more immediate so it will have a close in effect. Socialism is the more fundamental and so will be effective longer.
Wellstone vs Lieberman is the battle.
I think we will wind up with two parties a religious Republican ans a libertarian type party (name currently unknown). They will agree on economics and the war (may differ on implimentation). They will disagree on social policy.
So my take is: even though the Wellstone faction is currently larger, the Lieberman wing will be the foundation of what replaces the Democrats.
June 20th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Jamie:
You don’t think Congressmen get free drinks?
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s not about their side winning or losing, it’s about keeping themselves in the game as long as possible by avoiding a risky stand.
June 20th, 2006 at 10:03 am
[...] Marc Cooper has an interesting piece on how the Democrats are trying to hedge their bets on Iraq: Last week when I was in the Sandia Canyon casino outside of Albuquerque, I was watching a mark play the roulette wheel in the most bizarre fashion. He had bet just about everything available. He was sure to get paid off each pass of the wheel. And just as sure to lose a small percentage of his stake each time. I noticed, for example, that he had put $10 on each of the three columns of 12 numbers each. Because every number on the board is in one or the other of the columns, the winning bet pays only 2 to 1. If you bet all three, you will get paid every turn of the wheel but you will only make back your bet. You will put $30 down on the table. And you will collect $30. You can’t win. But if a 0 or 00 comes up — a one-in-nineteen chance– you lose everything. Only a fool would take that tack. [...]
June 20th, 2006 at 10:19 am
Having read some of the responses earlier, I thought to myself “Where’s reg when you really need him”. I then passed my hand over the keyboard twice with both eyes closed, waited an hour, cleared my throat and …. he’s back.
And blogging with undimmed ferocity.
It gives one faith.
Marc – in your really good Clancy Sigal review you wrote “Sigal has also delivered a eulogy for a combative, self-conscious, often violent American working class, whose two-fisted militancy has been buried under decades of hedonistic mass consumerism.” I think this beuatifully captures the reason for the current torpor of the Democrats. To a great extant the ground has been cut out from under them. And I don’t believe it’s all (or mainly) their doing.
The Iraq situation, as you’ve admitted in the past, is pretty damn complex. Why do you now think it would be such a fingersnap for the Dems to come up with one simple unanimous poition? Some of what you hear from them may be fecklessness but a lot of it is honest and understandable disagreement. Your post sounds like a pre-emptive explanation for election results not going the way you’d initmated they would. (Though why you thought the Dems with their myriad well-documented flaws were in a position to unseat the Repubs is itself a bit of a mystery.)
June 20th, 2006 at 10:23 am
in fairness to the Dems, Marc, I think they’ve had trouble coming up with a consistant answer because it’s a very difficult question. (What to do in Iraq.) On one hand, pulling out would seem to damn ten of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, to death by all-out civil war*. But staying mandates tolerating the continual drip drip of the unravelling. I recognize it makes the Dem party look wishy-washy (Isuppose they are) but I don’t have the answers to this one for myself so I sympathize with their plight. (I migh add, I’m unclear exactly what you are advocating? Should we stay or should we go – you gotta let me know.)
* Before someone admonishes me with a line like, “Don’t you think this is already all-out civil war?” let me say, no, I don’t. It can get much worse.
June 20th, 2006 at 10:34 am
“go nuclear in front of the nation, horrifying middle America”
I don’t think Middle America pays that much attention to politics.
June 20th, 2006 at 10:40 am
It’s remarkable that Bush has screwed up Iraq so badly that there are no good options but, with the help of our right-wing media, has managed to turn this into a weakness of the *Democrats* because they can’t agree on a good solution even though there aren’t any. Meanwhile he keeps talking about staying the course until we “win”, without ever explaining what it would mean to “win” at this point, and using the deaths of soldiers that have already happened to justify the deaths of further soldiers so that the earlier deaths wouldn’t have been pointless. At some point, when it’s politically expedient, he’ll declare whatever the status quo is at that time “victory,” and the media will fall all over themselves to anoint him a war hero.
June 20th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Sam,
“How do you explain to World War II submarine vets and laundromat attendents in Kingsport Tennesee that 9/11 was blowback for a half century of rapacious, capitalist, Orientalist imperialism?”
You can’t explain that the war was “blowback” to the vet and the laundromat worker – because it wasn’t. Bush was 100% right about Iraq and radical Islam. Evil does exist. There are people who wish to kill us and not because we deserve it. Your way of thinking is very narcissitic. Has it ever occurred to you that not everything in the world is a reaction to the United States? People do evil because of who they are, not because of who we are.
Try to face the world as it really is, not as you wish it to be. Humility helps.
Just so you know, I graduated from UC Berekely in French LIterature, cum laude; I know all about words and indoctrination .
June 20th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Ted,
Do what JFKennedy did. Run to the right of the Republicans on national defence.
Jeeze, you would think the Dems could learn from one of their own.
June 20th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Wow.That first post by Bunkerbuster is a classic.I was never a laundromat attendant but I did stock groceries for a while and I’m a navy veteran.I’m a former member of two different unions,a former child of a single parent home,I do not attend church,and I still have a blue collar job in a power plant.In short I’m the kind of person Democrats loudly claim to represent.And yet-the sure knowledge that people like Al Gore (moderate until after the election) and Bunkerbuster run the Democratic party has motivated me to send money to obscure Senate candidates in states I don’t even want to visit.I can’t even convince myself that these people like the United States and its people let alone want us to win in Iraq.But enough about me.Bunkerbuster,you should be aware that documents captured in Iraq indicate Zarqawi believed the insurgency was losing and their last hope was the Western media.This strategy goes back at least to the Philippine insurrection where those fighting against us hoped to prevent the re-election of William McKinley.Now guess who runs the vast majority of the media in this country? Ann Coulter? Nope! It’s people like you bunker! This is one reason why I don’t think you or your peeps like us here- your media allies don’t take notice of the de facto aid & comfort they give to the terrorists and adjust their coverage accordingly.They hope-like the Iraqi insurgents-that bad news out of Iraq will give the Democrats control of Congress and result in a Murtha-esque pullout.And if that does happen and results in a Vietnam style bloodbath-well,that’s all George Bush’s fault.He should have realized that we just can’t beat these people-isn’t that what you really believe, Bunkerbuster?
June 20th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Dreamer -
You praise humility, yet call yourself heroic and in the next sentence make sure to mention your ‘cum laude’ honors from Berkely. You say on your website bio that you’re against “altruism”, yet for “kindness”. You’re a man of contradictions and conundrums. You contain multitudes.
June 20th, 2006 at 11:53 am
–“How do you explain that the Jihadis are just creatures of the CIA?’’–
I wasn’t aware the CIA was around in 1786.
Learn something new every day.
June 20th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Ted said
“but, with the help of our right-wing media, “….. and regarding Bush “the media will fall all over themselves to anoint him a war hero. ”
OMIGAWD dude, you’re killing me. I blew Diet Doc all over the monitor. Do you have your own humor blog or do you just improv? Jeez..now that’s COMEDY y’all
June 20th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Not for reg
The Democrats built up their numbers by pandering to and grasping onto every faction & splinter group that they could: minorities, labor, feminists, gays, radicals, felons, draft dodgers, socialists, welfare cheats, limousine liberals, illegals, etc., and then they used duct tape and chewing gum to try to bind them together forever. They figured that none of them would ever disagree with the other and would all vote together. Now, the chickens have come home to roost.
If you build a party on people who only want “their” things rather than people who mainly care about what is best for their nation as a whole, then eventually the duct tape and chewing gum loosens as each group grabs and filches its wanted share from a limited pot of money and attention. So, the alliance breaks apart from in-fightng and disagreements over shares and policies.
Isn’t it better to claim a position and bring people to that rather than to claim groups and try to come up with a common position for all?
June 20th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
The common thread in all Democrat discourse since the middle 1960s has been an antipathy, an elitist disdain bordering on physical disgust, to all things homegrown American.
Democrats abjure free enterprise; free markets; free speech– free anything. JFK’s first act was an executive order repaying George Meany by authorizing public-employee unions, arguably the most destructive ukase ever issued by an American president. From McGovern’s blatant Communist sympathizing to Carter’s self-serving statist initiatives, the beat goes on: Foster dependency, reject Social Security reform, sabotage nuclear and fossil-fuel development, slander American armed forces on every possible occasion…
BUT: Castro and Ho, Sandinistas, Tikritis, Islamo-fascists in Baghdad and Teheran, thugs in North Korea, Venezuela –any overweening Statist apparat, you name it– have “absolute moral authority” to maim and slaughter in the tens of millions due to Americans’ glaring neglect of multicultural issues bearing on civilized society and the reign of law.
One example out of very many– Mexico, an authoritarian kleptocracy for, lo! these 200 years, devastates the Gulf of California with drilling rigs. Never a bleat. But the misnamed ANWR, a frozen tundra desert comprising half of one percent of Alaska’s North Slope, is subject to hysterical reaction as a pristine “environmental” belljar. Outright Anti-Americanism, anti-nationalism, a perverse and self-degrading sense of native inferiority, defines the smirking vulgarians dignified as Leftist partisans today.
Bosnia? Darfur? Rwanda? Forget Cambodian and North Vietnamese genocides, the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, the mindless oppressions of Iran, Syria, Saudi Wahabists… more daily terror and torture in each than in our Southern States’ whole history through 1865. Thanks, Kofi! Telling how Democrat slaveholders and segregationists handled that one. Robert Byrd still chuckles.
The Democrat platform for 2006 – 2008: Isolationism and defeat. Tax, regulate, spend. Tamp down fifty-years of failure in Education, Energy, Health Care, Social Security (sic), etc. Perpetuate incumbency by gerrymander, “campaign finance” suppressions, insulating Members from all scrutiny. Power-power-power: Not for any positive purpose but solely for its own sake, enjoining “umbras and penumbras” to abort, demoralize, paralyze initiative, render defenseless, ruin economically, subvert and weaken a still-living heritage.
Democrat verbalists play Humpty Dumpty in defense. But for some three generations now, this has been ye olde Democrat program, caged and hedged in obfuscation. Humorless cadres, a collection of extremist marginal constituencies, laugh only at those afraid to state it.
June 20th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Evets:
“Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others…the basic absolute (of altruism) is self-sacrifice…. why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that good? ” Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It
“We have every right to dream heroic dreams” Ronald Reagan, 1st Inaugural Address
I mention cum laude UC Berkeley, French lit to establish my credentials. I’ve read and heard alot of left wing talking points over the years (used to be a leftie, myself). Socialism etc. is predicated on wishful thinking – opening the door for the “masses” to be led around by opportunists like Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson etc. or creating situations where people are controlled by despots like Castro – always ready to tell everyone what to do for the “common good.”
June 20th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
As far as the ‘there are no good answers’ response: not a good answer.
If that is indeed the truth, then leveling with the American people is the responsible thing to do. Obviously we might expect a major political party to be able to select a ‘least bad’ scenario, right? Otherwise what good are they? I have the feeling that running on a platform that say “we dont have a clue what to do but at least we arent the other guy” isnt going to fly. People will choose a bad policy over no policy every time.
At the end of the day we either have to pull out or stay in. Leadership is about having a vision whether you are happy with the terrain or not. Throwing up your hands because you dont like the cards that are dealt is not going to inspire anyone.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
When Dean was pressed as to whether or not the Dems favored withdrawal he gave no direct answer.
Um. Yes he did, he said:
1) “redeployment” of some of the troops to nearby countries so they could be recalled into Iraq in the future if necessary
2) sending some troops, the National Guard, back home and
3) maintaining a certain number of troops in Iraq to continue training Iraqi soldiers and police.
What part of that is confusing to you?
June 20th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Whats up with all of these loony right wingers?
Where’s a black helicopter and a blue-helmeted UN operative when you need one?
June 20th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
salvage,
I get it. Bring the troops home by Christmas or next June. Except for the troops who will stay in Iraq and those who will be just across the border except when they are needed and the rest can go home.
They are against cut and run, but favor leave soon and don’t come back, unless it is necessary.
That is a policy prescription I totally favor except for the parts I’m against.
Does that make my position clear?
June 20th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Woody, don’t you get it? There’s really little difference between you and the Dems…you both support occupation of Iraq by the US now and forever…or longer.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
JCummings:
“Whats up with all of these loony right wingers?
Where’s a black helicopter and a blue-helmeted UN operative when you need one?”
Aren’t they in a meeting about holding a meeting in order to write a report about the report to write a really scathing letter to Ahmadinejad?
June 20th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
I actually liken the democratic strategy to a slot machine, keep playing the same one and eventually it will pay off.
(For fairness a dem could counter that that is the Buash strategy on Iraq, keep squandering soldiers lives awaiting the big payout.
This argument undercuts itself for not being able to decribe the ‘payout’, and denies that there is a coherent strategy on the ground. Militarily probably so, but politically not the case…)
Worth noting that while all this discussion about a timetable rages, the Iraqi’s have quickly provided one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901237.html
This is their national security adviser, establishing a timetable and its is on page 17…I know.
Can’t understand why it is not being touted as a success by the pro-war crowd…it is a significant demonstration that the Iraqi’s are developing a plan and their govt is asserting authority.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Dreamer -
I was joking. I figured you’d have some kindness/altruism distinction up your sleeve.
But in answer to “Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that good? †I would agree that it’s not good to be a sacrificial animal. I would also argue that the exaltation of self-interest which you seem to advocate makes a person nothing more than an animal. To the extent that they mainly honor our self-interest, Reagan’s dreams are not the dreams of heroes, but simply the dreams of animals. I think we can do better than that.
June 20th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Sorry we haven’t been around. We’ve been busy raping (and filming) children. I’m running low on bananas to pay them with, please send a care package.
June 20th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
M. Simon
No I don’t think you do, here let me help, you seem confused:
>Bring the troops home by Christmas or next June.
No, he said bring home the National Guard and I don’t think he gave a specific time, I would assume as soon as possible. That makes sense, the Guard have really been pushed beyond their training, some of them are on three tours! One tour there would be enough to snap most people, three? Speaks of how tough they are but enough is really enough.
Some would go back to bases in friendly or less angry nations as before the invasion, so really not that crazy an idea. If Iraq really went south they could rush in to help. Like teaching a kid to ride a bike you let them peddle but stop holding on? You keep on eye on ‘em until they’re stable? Then you go back inside and have a beer and realize how time flies?
Maybe get some Muslim nations to send in some of their guys? Be less of a target for the terrorists and the civilians might appreciate them more.
The ones who stay in Iraq will help the Iraqis in a low profile role. You do understand that the occupation is not very popular; this would take some of the wind out of the terrorist’s sails by lowering American visibility.
It’s not cut and run, it’s “let’s try something different because the current plan isn’t working very well and is making more problems than solving…†…
…
OOoooohh I get it now! Ah enlightenment.
You and others are being deliberately obtuse because you don’t want to admit that Iraq is going poorly, agreeing that a change is needed or even acknowledging that there might be another way would be tantamount to admitting that the Bush Administration really screwed up. Oh gosh that would cause some of your heads to implode wouldn’t it? Six years of hero worship leaves some serious psyche scars. That’s why you’re not the least bit miffed that bin Laden still breaths free.
Sorry, won’t bother you anymore, I know how sensitive you bubble types can get. You just keep on putting party before country, hopefully the adults will be in charge soon and that sort of silliness will stop.
Hey funny idea, if the Democrats do ever get back into power (that is funny, they couldn’t even beat Bush! Losers or what?) do you think then you’ll notice how badly Iraq is going and how bin Laden got away with mass murder? I thinking yes.
June 20th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Evets:
We are animals. And capitalism, which rightfully exalts self-interest, actually makes everybody richer – by default – because, with capitalism, it is in my self-interest to cater to your self-interest.
Because of capitalism, we are all happier. Not perfect. But happier. I don’t know anyone stringing tires together in a makeshift raft to float over to Cuba. Do you?
June 20th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Whackjob #6 writes:
“Now guess who runs the vast majority of the media in this country? Ann Coulter? Nope! It’s people like you bunker!”
People like me. Well, it’s a free country. If we run the media, it’s because we right and say and film the things the great people of this great nation want to see and hear.
The fact that the right-wing billions can’t buy press good enough to prop up the feeble logic behind this war is a comment on its own shortcomings. That’s why it’s so funny to hear wingnuts repeat it endlessly.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
from globalpolicy.org:
“Though it happened just over 20 years ago, today’s media has all but forgotten that Afghanistan’s Taliban was largely the creation of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) and a hard-drinking, party-loving Texas congressman who helped funnel billions of dollars in arms to “freedom fighters” like Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Mohammad Omar. The congressman was Charles Wilson, a colourful and powerful Democrat from the East Texas Bible Belt. During the 1980s, Wilson was a member of a congressional appropriations subcommittee. From that position of power, he funneled billions of dollars in secret funding to the C.I.A., which used the money to purchase weapons to help the Mujahedeen drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.
In those days, the Mujahedeen were viewed by the U.S. as “freedom fighters”, and were so-named by then-President Ronald Reagan, who praised them for “defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability.” In that Cold War environment, chasing the Russians out of the country trumped all other considerations. Among the weapons funded by Congress were hundreds of Stinger missile systems that Mujahedeen forces used to counter the Russians’ lethal Mi-24 Hind helicopter gunships. And there were also tens of thousands of automatic weapons, antitank guns, satellite intelligence maps. According to author George Crile, Wilson even brought his own belly dancer from Texas to Cairo to entertain the Egyptian defence minister, who was secretly supplying the Mujahedeen with millions of rounds of ammunition for the AK-47’s the C.I.A. was smuggling into Afghanistan.
From a few million dollars in the early 1980’s, support for the resistance grew to about 750 million dollars a year by the end of the decade. Decisions were made in secret by Wilson and other lawmakers on the appropriations committee. To help make his case, Wilson exploited one of the decade’s scandals, the Iran-contra affair, arguing that Democrats who were voting to cut off funding for the contras in Nicaragua could demonstrate their willingness to stand up to the Soviet empire by approving more money for the Afghan fighters.
Many Muslims from other countries volunteered to assist various Mujahedeen groups in Afghanistan, and gained significant experience in guerrilla warfare. Some of these veterans have been significant factors in more recent conflicts in and around the Muslim world. The effort was successful. On Feb. 15, 1989, Gen. Boris Gromov, commander of the Soviets’ 40th Army, walked across Friendship Bridge as the last Russian to leave Afghanistan. The C.I.A. cable from the Islamabad station to the agency’s headquarters said, ”We won.” Wilson’s own note said simply, ”We did it.” Pakistan’s then president, Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, who had allowed the weapons to move through his country on C.I.A.-purchased mules, credited Wilson with the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan. ”Charlie did it, ” he said. Thus, the largest covert operation in the C.I.A. history ended with Russia’s humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But in “Charlie Wilson’s War” (2003 Grove/Atlantic), George Crile notes that the U.S.-financed war against the Soviets in Afghanistan also helped create the political vacuum that was filled by the Taliban and Islamic extremists, who turned their deadly terrorism against the United States on Sep. 11, 2001. After the Soviet withdrawal, the C.I.A. tried to buy back the weapons they had supplied, but were largely unsuccessful. Until Wilson’s retirement from the House in 1996, he enjoyed a reputation as a relentless womaniser, perpetual partier, borderline drunk, and general roué. But Wilson’s questionable reputation proved to be a brilliant cover for his passionate anti-Communism. He was also an ambitious politician, perfectly willing to vote for military contracts in his colleagues’ districts in return for votes to support the Mujahedeen.
When the Soviet Union pulled its troops out, however, the Mujahedeen did not establish a united government. Its members broke into two loosely-aligned opposing factions, the Northern Alliance and a radical splinter group known as the Taliban. In the ensuing civil war for control of the country, the Mujahedeen was ousted from power by the Taliban in 1996. The Mujahedeen regrouped as the Northern Alliance and in 2001 with U.S. and international military aid, ousted the Taliban from power and formed a new government.
A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent Mujahedeen organiser and financier; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK, meaning Office of Services) funneled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the U.S., Pakistani, and Saudi governments. ”
June 20th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
The Republicans built up their numbers by pandering to and grasping onto every faction & splinter group that they could: racists, bigots, predatory capitalists, white collar criminals, polygamists, religious fundamentalists, etc., and then they used duct tape and chewing gum to try to bind them together forever. They figured that none of them would ever disagree with the other and would all vote together. Now, the chickens have come home to roost.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
To those who responded to me, thanks for the laughs. Americans really do need re-education camps. I don’t really believe that of course, but it baffles me, sincerely, and with no snobbery or feelings of rancour, what many Americans believe.
Thank you for proving my point.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
It’s weird how much the right talks about Socialism and how little the left talks about it. It’s almost as if it’s a paranoid fantasy.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
BB-
Wow. We should have seen what we were doing in Afghanistan…but we didn’t. (Not like the failure in Afghanistan was a significant factor in the fall of the Soviet union.)
More recently we should have seen the violence from ME agents was increasing, but we did nothing.
I blame every politician who cannot forsee the future. That would be easy and it would comprise all.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Dreamer -
“We are animals. And capitalism, which rightfully exalts self-interest, actually makes everybody richer – by default – because, with capitalism, it is in my self-interest to cater to your self-interest.”
I know the arguments (they’re not exactly news) but will counter Ayn Rand with the Talmud, which says “If I’m not for myself, who will be for for me. But if I’m only for myself, what am I?” This isn’t socialism, but neither is it Reagan’s unheroic dream.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Mavis Beacon:
Are you serious?
socialism is an economic system whereby a centralized govt. takes money from an individual citizen and then the government decides what to do with it. Sounds alot like taxation, doesn’t it? Democrats represent the party of higher taxation/bigger government. (think nationalized health care, preschool for all etc.) Hence, the label.
Just the other day Daryl Hannah was in a tree in South Central LA trying to force the property owner to stop his eviction of the farmer/squatters. Why? She said it was for the “common good” This idea has its roots in socialism. The rights of the many preempt the rights of the few.
There are many more examples in the news. Why don’t you try to think of some recent events involving govt. and money and/or property and see if you can classify them.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Warning DO NOT READ !!!
Cute, aunty woody coulter. But, while the Republican Party accomodates supporters, they don’t build numbers and coalitions from various splintered groups with no commonality except wanting government handouts.
The Republican base is more cohesive because it came together because of people with common goals. Think about that. Republicans didn’t bring together groups and told them to agree on common goals. It was the other way around. Republicans expressed their goals and individuals who agreed with those goals came together as a majority.
Rather opposite, Democrats found groups that they hoped would add up to a majority and made promises, sometimes conflicting, to them and achieved nothing but chaos in its ranks.
Republican values for America explain why labor leaders support Democrats (fat cats wanting deals and turned heads) but their union members vote Republican (blue collar work values and support for military.)
Marc expresses concern for the party with no direction. Get an acceptable direction, and people will follow. So far, the Democrats can’t figure that out.
But, it is possible and more likely that the Democrats do have an agenda but don’t want to make the real one public. Every election they count on concealing their true feelings and count on the accomodating press to not push for real answers. They just hope to do that long enough to get elected, then, after the election, they can go nuts with their socialist agenda and cannibalizing our military.
Example: It took the Swift Boat Vets to smoke out Kerry after the press decided to look the other way. Oh yes, Kerry agreed to open his military records but he still keeps forgetting to sign Form 180 to do just that. See…try to hold out on the truth just long enough to get elected. It just didn’t work that time because of the work of veterans that Kerry smeared, and they paid him back by exposing him. Yeah, Democrats think that our troops are baby killers.
People have caught on to the Democrats, and it’s going to take a major restructuring of that party for them to regain majority power. But, a restructuring won’t happen, and the mid-term elections are going to sllp away from them again. You watch.
Before any of you wild-eyed, irrational, impulsive, yellow teeth, left-leaning, spittle frothing, anti-individual, group identifying, government handout loving, anti-military, wealth envied, blame the U.S., Bush bombed the levees, kill the messenger Democrats lose it, think carefully. You know it’s true. Think before your write. The rest of you may express your views in a calm and rational method. (Which group are you?)
I just wasted 20 minutes.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
evets: great counter … the only one , I think.
Unfortunately, my good intentions can’t change another’s bad intentions. Evil and opportunism do exist.
The French used to say that if you were young and not a communist, you had no heart. and if you were old and still a communist, you had no brain.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
According to every system of moral philosophy, religion and theology, the rights of the many DO trump the rights of the few. Its amazing that Christians – of which I’m not – can contradict their own religous teachings with their annointment of capitalism.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Hi Bunker! Was that supposed to be a reply? I note you didn’t deny my central point-that for all practical purposes you and yours are on the other side in this war.I find it extremely odd that you would claim that you write (not “right”) what people in this country want to see and read when Fox news crushes its leftist competitors and Air America ratings are too low to measure.But hey-objective reality is just a creation of dead white males,right? And what right wing billions are you talking about? Those of Warren Buffett or Bill Gates? George Soros? Oops-all leftist! Or from the Ford Foundation? I don’t want to buy good press-I want the truth to be told.That’s why you folks don’t run the country anymore,Bunker-enough of the truth came out to get you thrown out of office in 1994.If the logic behind the war is so feeble why haven’t you guys been winning elections based on exposing it? Previous experience tells me this is the point where you resort to calling me stupid.Well,good luck convincing the American people that they are too stupid to understand why surrendering to terrorists is a good idea-because that’s what you advocate.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Heroic Dreamer,
Seems all that education didn’t teach you too much. If you think taxation=socialism, you’re completely out of step with the rest of the world. When most Americans say they oppose Socialism, they don’t mean they are opposed to any and all taxation. Certainly you can make a case that technically since taxation requires a centralized, redistributive goverment, all governments that tax are socialist, but it’s not an argument with any meaning. When people think of Socialism they picture completely equal redistribution. If you want to communicate better, you should recognize that distinction. If you want to peddle a fiction designed to frighten and not stimulate debate, keep on accusing Democrats of promoting Socialism.
Despite what Simon thinks, the people on the left don’t sit around fantasizing about how to turn America into a Socialist nation. They mostly imagine something closer to the social democratic governments of Europe (while preserving some of the more succesful elements of American economic policy).
As to Democrats meaning more taxes and bigger government, the last few years have really poked a bit of a hole in that classic divide. The Republicans have become the party of lower taxes and big government – an unsustainable combination.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
http://tinyurl.com/ejrmv
June 20th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Enough already about winning the redneck self-pity vote.
The biggest reason Democrats keep losing the White House in very close elections is that they’ve bought into the idea that they need to pander to undereducated, narcissistic rural and suburban voters who follow the talk radio/Fox News Channel instructions telling them that their Christian superstitions, Readers Digest version of history and homophobia entitle them to some kind of reverence and special regard.
Nothing on the American political landscape is more pathetic than a liberal pretending that they’re down with the redneck Christians’ anti-intellectual self-pity and moral self-aggrandizement. That kind of Hillarizing screams “SELL-OUT.”
What the Democrats need is straight talk without apology. (Let Howard Dean be Howard Dean) This is the one page for the Rove Republican playbook Democrats should imitate. The GOP thrives on baiting liberals at every turn and would never even begin to think about trying to win their votes. The Democrats should return that favor. Let the redneck gun nut snake handlers continue to vote Republican. If a winning coalition can’t be built without them, then liberal ideas just aren’t popular enough. I don’t think that’s the case, but if it is, then the liberal’s job is to go out and persuade people, not cave in and pander to them.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Jcummings:
Actually, you’re wrong. Christianity is not a religion were the rights of the many trump the rights of the few. The ability to exercise free will is at the heart of Christianity.
Mavis:
“As to Democrats meaning more taxes and bigger government, the last few years have really poked a bit of a hole in that classic divide. The Republicans have become the party of lower taxes and big government – an unsustainable combination.”
sadly, I agree.
“They mostly imagine something closer to the social democratic governments of Europe (while preserving some of the more succesful elements of American economic policy).”
The “enlightened socialism” of France, Germany, Sweden is socialism, plain and simple. And it’s not working. And it’s not peddling a fiction to say that Daryl Hannah’s notion of “common good” (her words) comes directly from socialism. Obviously, we need some government, and some taxes but I don’t consider that govt. and taxation is a panacea for social ills. Democrats do. This is a socialist idea.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Democrats Keep Betting on Failure in Iraq…
From John Fund at the WSJ: Trying to Get Even: (snip)
Fund analyzes all three assumptions of the “reality based” party and they don’t exactly look like chalk. Marc Cooper sees the same losing bets in Electoral Roulette:…
June 20th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Well Bunker looks like I was right-you pretty much said people like me are stupid.The real reason-by the way-Democrats lose elections is because people like me have noticed that people like you despise us.Go ahead Bunker- tell the American people what you really think.Nothing will take you to the fringe party status you rightfully deserve faster.The truth is-I know it hurts,Bunker- liberal ideas aren’t popular in this country.That’s why most liberals now call themselves progressives-they know the people have figured out what liberal means and won’t vote for them unless they disguise what they really believe.Hence all the clumsy a$$ kissing from Democrat politicians.Bunker,I’m surprised someone so smart and enlightened couldn’t figure that out-but hey-I’m glad I’m here to help you understand how the world really works.
June 20th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Salvage,
I’m sorry. I was confusing what Dean proposed with what Kerry has been proposing in the Senate where they actually vote on such stuff.
I guess your point is that the Democrats are totally behind the Dean position. Except for those in the leadership who are not. If that is your point I agree. If I am mistaking your position on Dem unity perhaps you could explain it better to me.
June 20th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Woody, we all wasted 90 seconds reading it. As to Kerry, yes, goals help…. but a little atrocity denial doesn’t hurt, does it?
June 20th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Mavis, you’re way off on how people understand socialism. We don’t consider it “an equal redistribution.” It does involve redistribution of the wealth at the point of a government gun, but it is never equally distributed–and the government takes a high handling fee for that transfer. It takes from producers and gives to non-producers, who lose incentives to become producers themselves, so the producers see the scam and want to also be non-producers leaving just me to pay for everything and I’m tired of it.
—–
Wall, you failed to heed the warning at the top of my comment and should take a speed reading course. Do like me. Scan everything that looks important to get the gist of it and then be accused of being illiterate when you fail to note a misplaced modifier. At least no one said that I lied by putting up that warning.
To touch on your comment, Democrats don’t help their cause with the American public when they call our soldiers baby killers and disdain everyone who salutes the flag. That’s not a very good way to build a majority. Also, they lose out when they pretend that European countires are superior to ours, even though we’re the envy of the world and the chosen destination for people wanting opportunity. In short, the left and Democrats have a well UNdeserved superiority attitude that the average American resents and rejects. I’m not saying these things to get a reaction. I believe that they’re true and should be useful to a party that needs to rebuild.
June 20th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
“Democrats don’t help their cause with the American public when they call our soldiers baby killers”
Is there some Newsmax article quoting some Democrat that you could back that bit of inane slime with, Woody, or did it come – as usual – straight out of your ass ?
This discussion – apparently driven by visitors from PJammies – is one of the most puerile yet. Mavis Beacon hit the nail on the head at “3:56 pm”. But “Heroic Dreamer (French Lit Cum Laude)” is a hoot – he could give the average college sophmore a real run for their beer money in late nite dorm debates. Gotta love the rough equality of the internet – a guy who offers (go figure!) bona fides in French Lit – and “cum laude” from UC no less – gets to prance around offering retreaded, reductionist bromides from old issues of The Objectivist in public and comes off sounding almost as shallow and wingnut – not to mention unconvincing – as Woody. One guy here – “xennady” – gets it right: “people like me have noticed that people like you despise us”. Yeah, that’s about right – we just can’t stand all of the self-pity coming from that corner.
June 20th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
As we attempt to digest the import and trajectory of this thread, let’s pause for a moment to admire the crystalline clarity of Bunkerbuster’s comment:
“Enough already about winning the redneck self-pity vote. The biggest reason Democrats keep losing the White House in very close elections is that they’ve bought into the idea that they need to pander to undereducated, narcissistic rural and suburban voters who follow the talk radio/Fox News Channel instructions telling them that their Christian superstitions, Readers Digest version of history and homophobia entitle them to some kind of reverence and special regard.”
As any academic hack is wont to say, this needs to be “unpacked.”
“Enough already about winning the redneck self-pity vote.”
Among the American thought police who furtively huddle in increasingly provincial enclaves like Manhattan, Berkley, Ann Arbor, Boston, Seattle, Lawrence, Chapel Hill, et. al, etc. etc. “redneck” is the only known acceptable ethnic slur. It refers to white people, most often Southerners of Scots-Irish background, who get their necks burned by the sun as they dig ditches, cut trees and put shingles on houses.
“The biggest reason Democrats keep losing the White House in very close elections is that they’ve bought into the idea that they need to pander to undereducated, narcissistic rural and suburban voters who follow the talk radio/Fox News Channel instructions…..”
Notice the shift here: it goes to the essence of creepy, scary, Left-wing hate and bigotry. If you started off thinking that rednecks are just dumb-shit laborers in Alabama you are now fully informed: rednecks manage Wal-marts in the suburbs of Buffalo and proffer full-sevice insurance coverage in Schaumberg, IL. They live in Danville, CA and take the train every morning to San Francisco. They are “rednecks” because they don’t vote at the pleasure of the author of this bigoted post.
“……narcissistic rural and suburban voters who follow the talk radio/Fox News Channel instructions telling them that their Christian superstitions, Readers Digest version of history and homophobia entitle them to some kind of reverence and special regard.”
“Christian superstitions…” Pure genius here: the author has managed to insult about 90 per cent of the American electorate and negate about 90 per cent of his own history, as a Westerner and as an American. Dieists like Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Abraham Lincoln never heaped such contempt and scorn upon Christians because they neither hated nor scorned Christians. They knew who their friends and countrymen were. They respected them. They also were clear on the fact that Science and the Enlightenment came from a certain civilization, not out of nowhere.
“…Readers Digest version of history..”
Well actually, speaking as a bookseller who knows what he is talking about, Reader’s Digest history books are pretty good. They get most of their facts straight and have expensive graphics. The objection here, undoubtedly, is that they fail to convey this author’s tenditious view of history. If you were passing out free books in Ghana, Burma or Mongolia would you decline to pass out books published by the Reader’s Digest? Yes? Would you burn them?
“…telling them that their Christian superstitions, Readers Digest version of history and homophobia entitle them to some kind of reverence and special regard.”
Homophobia! Here we really cut to the chase, dude. I am against persecuting fags and lesbians, am against arresting them, am against torturing tham and am against pushing walls over on them and against cutting their heads off. I am a typical American in that respect. How disgusting and sickening that you accuse America of hating homosexuals, when the enemies we are now fighting have no more brief for sexual freedom than they have for freedom of speech or religion, or any other freedom you can name.
Listen, you fool. Islamists and islamo-facists HATE homosexuals. They Kill them whenever they get the chance.
What a bizarre world this has become, that people like “BunkerBuster” can claim “progressive” credentials.
June 20th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
“I am against persecuting fags”
You’ve come a long way, baby.
June 20th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
“rednecks…proffer full-sevice insurance coverage in Schaumberg, IL.”
Who knew ?
June 20th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
“If you were passing out free books in Ghana, Burma or Mongolia would you decline to pass out books published by the Reader’s Digest?
Yes?
Would you burn them?”
No.
NO!
No, but if I did want to get rid of them (because, you know, they weren’t tendentious enough), it’s hard to think of a more diabolical plan than shipping them off to Mongolia.
June 20th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Three posts and not a single argument,, “Reg,” Trade mark: I post under a psuedonym because I am, “Reg,” a coward who spews obscenity and ad hominem under a psuedonym. Pretty rich stuff, here, “Reg.”
What do you object to? The fact that I unreservedly support the right of homosexuals to be and remain gay?
June 20th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Who said I objected to anything ? Except maybe being called a “coward” in the same sentence you protest MY alleged ad hominem.
I thought I took you about as seriously as anyone possibly could. Praised your unreserved tolerance of “fags”. Answered three of your questions. And marveled at your knowledge of the Schaumberg, Illinois insurance industry.
Some folks are never satisfied…
June 20th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
reg:
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
June 20th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
wow, reg is back.
June 20th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
An excerpt from today’s NYT, a glimpse into the vision of today’s Democrats–or rather, why they are going down to defeat once again.
“Senate Democrats have been loath to express their opinions publicly, determined to emphasize a united front. But interviews suggest a frustration with Mr. Kerry, never popular among the caucus, and still unpopular among many Democrats for failing to defeat a president they considered vulnerable. Privately, some of his Democratic peers complain that he is too focused on the next presidential campaign.
Mr. Kerry now describes the war in Iraq as a mistake, even though he once supported it. His critics say they believe the new stand reflects more politics than principle, and ignores other Democrats’ concern that setting a fixed date will leave those in tough re-election fights open to Republican taunts that they are “cutting and running” in Iraq.
The Democrats’ exasperation has increased in the last week, as they postponed a vote on Mr. Kerry’s amendment to try to fashion a broader consensus among themselves. Democrats up for re-election asked him not to propose a fixed date. But Mr. Kerry, several Democrats said, was unwilling to budge from that idea, even though his co-sponsor, Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, seemed willing to compromise for the sake of consensus. In the end, Mr. Kerry agreed only to extend his deadline, from Dec. 31 of this year to July 2007.”
June 20th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Heroic Dreamer – If it’s any consolation, I thought your explanation of the political philosophy of Darryl Hannah was the most insightful I’ve seen to date.
June 20th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
“Who said I objected to anything ? Except maybe being called a “coward†in the same sentence you protest MY alleged ad hominem.”
Your alleged ad hominem, “Reg?” Is anyone monitoring this conversation willing to say that you you don’t employ ad hominem as your modus operendi?
As far as I can tell, you don’t know how to make an argument without questioning the integrity or motivation of your interlocutor.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:13 am
“As far as I can tell, you don’t know how to make an argument without questioning the integrity or motivation of your interlocutor.”
Actually, that’s Woody. More often than not I will question the intelligence of certain of the commenters. “Moron” is my preferred judgement call when I read some of these weird screeds. Unless of course the author is “Cum Laude”.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:18 am
“Is anyone monitoring this conversation willing to say that you, Reg, you don’t employ ad hominem as your modus operendi?”
Absolutely. Reg has SCORES of lengthy, analytical, trenchant, insightful posts under his name here. You should know that, Sam, before you make a comment like that.
Reg, IMHO, calls him like he sees him, so he’s not afraid to call a shitstain by its most descriptive name…
June 21st, 2006 at 2:36 am
>I guess your point is that the Democrats are totally behind the Dean position.
Er no, we that’s not what we were talking about at all… we’re talking about how some of you are easily confused… huh, well there you go!
So the GOP is all behind Bush on Iraq now? Well they’d be the only ones cuz the American people sure ain’t!
But let’s focus, Dean’s ideas (and to be honest I’m not sure if they’d work, Iraq has been so badly FUBARed that at this point I don’t know what would if anything) you understand them now? Is there anything that you can’t wrap your mind around?
June 21st, 2006 at 2:59 am
> As far as I can tell, you don’t know how to make an argument without questioning the integrity or motivation of your interlocutor.
That sounds rather ad hominem.
June 21st, 2006 at 4:21 am
My position,
Guerilla wars take about 10 to 20 years to win. It is way too early to come to a conclusion.
My criteria for leaving Iraq? When asked by the elected Iraqi government.
June 21st, 2006 at 5:31 am
However convenient it is for some ideologues, it is a big mistake to view the war in Iraq as separate from the political culture of lies, bribery and religious bigotry that enabled it.
Can we, as a society, hold our politicians responsible for the atrocities in Iraq? If the answer is no, then how can we possibly expect that the “guerrilla war” which M. Simon figures takes “about 20 years” to win will EVER end. The right wing needs endless war. It thrives on fear and hate–the two words tattooed on the inside of Ann Coulter’s jutting forehead.
If the situation in Iraq did calm down, the U.S. would already be off to another war, “liberating” yet another sub-race deemed not capable of taking care of itself. This is what makes the Hillary Clinton attempts at “triangulation” so pathetic. She’s already been had, before even having the chance to lose the election.
Does anyone doubt for a millisecond that Cheney-Bush would have already attacked Iran or North Korea or Syria or Venezuela if it only had the troops and money and if only the Iraq war was “successful” and popular enough? If their policy “succeeds” in Iraq, why wouldn’t they want to try it elsewhere?
There is no conspiracy there–just read what the neocons and their wingnut fans here on this blog say. They really believe the U.S. is some kind of uber state with the moral priviledge to instruct the world on how to live, by brutal, high-tech force, as necessary. And if it doesn’t work out, if chaos and mass death are the result–as in Iraq–uh, well, just wait 20 more years–because that’s how long a guerrilla war takes to “win.”
The Iraq war isn’t an anomaly of bad planning and worse luck–it is the logical destination of the Republican Party’s need for a new Cold War and the Democrats craven unwillingness to confront that glaring weakness in consumer culture that allows wars against brown people to become such a popular diversion.
Bill Clinton proved that absent a bogeyman like the Communists and now the bin Ladenists, the GOP has no effective national rallying point. It loses elections. If only James Carville had written: “It’s the inchoate fear and hatred, stupid,” maybe they’d have learned.
Here’s a clue: if the U.S. isn’t sent packing in Iraq, the war will NEVER end. It’s too politically satisfying and empowering for the American right. If they can borrow and spend and direct the military and oil contracts to their friends, they have nothing but disincentives to allow the war to end. Just read the idiot ravings of people like M.Simon, who insist that it’s just “way too early” to end the mayhem. Yeah, they love the GOP formula of borrow-and-spend volunteer war. Nobody–nobody who’s voting in the next election, anyway–has to pay anything!
I draw the line at Iraq. The U.S. must be stopped there. I have no truck whatsoever with the radical Islamists. In fact, I see in their nihilistic narcissism the same irrationalities that haunt the American right-wing’s nationalist nightmare policies.
This is exactly why the suicide bombers cannot and will not be defeated by a coddled, self-pitying, self-aggrandizing, disillusioned military force that is constantly being told it’s fighting an endless replay of World War II, saving the world yet again from the most evil of possible evils.
So. Yeah. If you are narrow-minded or cowed or spun enough to insist that U.S. withdrawal in disgrace means “losing” this war, then you better believe, I want it lost yesterday.
June 21st, 2006 at 5:37 am
Michael Balter, on the Democrats, the NY Times must be getting their information from FOX, because what they said is correct. Democrats won’t come out and be honest publicly about their views, and it’s clear that they are putting politics over our war effort.
reg: Is there some Newsmax article quoting some Democrat that you could back that bit of inane slime…
Here’s a link for the Democrats and their supporters. Look through them.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=left+call+soldiers+baby+killers
But, if you want, here’s a Mother’s Day message where the Democrat supporters couldn’t even say a simple Happy Mother’s Day without invoking the title of “baby killers” on our soldiers:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/14/14205/1122
I’m sure that you can find others, even though you’ll certainly smear whoever wrote it, as you claim that I do but don’t.
Things were so much civil without you around, reg.
June 21st, 2006 at 5:58 am
“Things wwere so much civil without you arouind…”
Woody Says:
June 13th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
“… are you still molesting children?”
I noticed. Ahhh…the good old days.
June 21st, 2006 at 6:02 am
“I just wasted 20 minutes.”
We agree on something.
June 21st, 2006 at 6:17 am
Incidentally, did you read that Kos link you supplied ? Apparently not. If that’s what you hang your deranged assertions on you’ve proven once again you really are a scuzzy little moron who relies on namecalling when making things up. (I left off the part of your 6/13 comment where you alluded to a nonexistent “press conference” and claimed that the 9/11 widows enjoyed their celebrity more than they mourned their husbands. Why a lying wackjob who routinely accuses me of having something to do with Josef Stalin when his “arguments” are exhausted would ask for “civility” is beyond me. You deserve nothing more than to be exposed as a serial fabricator – not to mention a bigot – who’s too ignorant and blindered by wingnut ideology to conduct rational argument.
June 21st, 2006 at 6:19 am
“who relies on namecalling when making things up”
Sorry that should have been “who relies on namecalling when YOU’RE NOT JUST making things up”
Accuracy is very important.
June 21st, 2006 at 6:51 am
reg, you proved my point with your own lack of civility, lack of class, and lack of truth with selectivity. I’ve countered your little claims before, but you keep falsely repeating them. Your contribution consists of trying, and failing, to discredit people rather than debate their ideas, which you fear because they expose the shallowness of your own.
reg: …you really are a scuzzy little moron who relies on namecalling… Hmmm. And, you are?
June 21st, 2006 at 6:52 am
I really can’t debate with fuckwits, but whats the line about a camel and a rich man and an eye of the needle again?
June 21st, 2006 at 6:56 am
Bill Gates is a big funder of the Discovery Institute and theories “intelligent design.” I wouldn’t call him a leftist by any stretch. And Soros and Buffet are mildly liberal, thus seem leftist to the prevailing wisdom, but are in fact not leftists at all. They’d be taxed and expropriated if they took leftism seriously. Soros to his credit admits that under his ideal system, he couldn’tt get as rich as he is. I haven’t heard Buffet say the same, but regardless, mild rich liberals are not leftists. Big difference. They are capitalists.
June 21st, 2006 at 7:03 am
A rich man can own a camel but the eye of a needle sees not.
Actually I like Marx better: socialism will automatically follow when capitalism is no longe profitable.
June 21st, 2006 at 7:26 am
bunkerb,
I’m one of them old time liberals, you know – like the 60s, liberation by any means necessary. It was a good slogan then, it is a good one now.
I think GWB qualifies as “by any means….”
Your pal and fellow revolutionary comrade,
Simon
June 21st, 2006 at 7:34 am
“I’ve countered your little claims before”
Except, of course, you haven’t. Another blatant lie. When will the madness cease ? Anyone who follows the Coulter thread can see you’re a liar. And that’s not “ad hominem”. That’s just a fact.
June 21st, 2006 at 7:50 am
“I haven’t heard Buffet say the same”
Buffet, to his credit, supports fairer taxation. It’s no accident that the smartest, most successful entrepeneurs understand that at least some degree of basic fairness in the social contract is to their ultimate advantage and that the system has been very good to them. It’s the phonies like Dick Cheney and George Bush, who got rich off of crony capitalism and their ties to the political elite, sucking up taxpayer’s dollars via cost-plus contracts, profiting from eminent domain land siezures, blatant influence peddling and the largess of cartels who preach the sanctity of the “free market” and want to shift the tax burdern to the little guy who enjoys no such privileges or special access.
June 21st, 2006 at 7:57 am
reg June 21st, 2006 at 7:50 am ,
I know how to fix that: smaller government with less control over the economy.
Let us fix Kelo AND Raich.
June 21st, 2006 at 8:02 am
BTW reg,
The bottom 50% pays almost zero in taxes. The top 5% pays above 30%.
Now figure out why the rich own the government.
June 21st, 2006 at 8:13 am
The notion that the “bottom 50%” pay “almost zero” in taxes is so bogus it doesn’t even bear discussion.
June 21st, 2006 at 9:01 am
So much junk, so much fun…
The current Iraq War issue: stay until victory, or leave early. Bush says: stay until victory. But doesn’t specify what that means.
Dems say … stay until … go … immediately … it’s all so complex (=you voters are too dumb)(also = Dems are too dishonest to really say).
The Bush plan: support democracy in Iraq, let the Iraqis take over. The new Iraqi plan: one by one, each of the 18 governates (=provence?) will have its security handed over to the duly elected Iraqi government. Probably complete in some 18 months or so, depending on how the handover goes.
Hmm, just in time for 2008 “Victory in Iraq”, and Reps saying: the Dems were LYING when they said democracy in Iraq was possible; Dems were lying when they said a civil war (of thousands killed in battles) was already happening; Dems were lying when they said Arabs couldn’t handle democracy.
Myself, I’d say then the Dems were merely deliberately ignorant, and WRONG, not lying, wrong, wrong, wrong. And the press, constantly rooting for the terrorists, was biased against Iraqi freedom, and helped to kill a lot more Iraqis, and quite a few more Americans.
I don’t think the Dems will split; they might even win in 2008 — because they’ll give up fighting against the Iraq war and claim they always wanted victory & freedom & human rights — but that Bush’s way was too expensive, was too slow, was incompetent, etc.
They’ll do this because the Reps, despite terrible polls, will win again in Nov. 2006, and the Dems who actually want to win elections will shift their attacks on Bush and the Reps to other areas. (Many of which, like pork, the Reps are terrible on.)
Bunker says, accurately, “Shiite death squads operate with virtual impunity. Summary executions are taking place very single day. The list goes on and on…” — how do these facts show that the Dems have a better answer?
The same (Muslim for Shiite) can be said for Darfur, and dozens are dying daily in Congo.
Dems who want the US to pull out “early” essentially want those Shiite death squads to win control. When the US didn’t attack Fallujah in April 2004, it was terrorist death squads that got control.
US supported democratic Iraq will control Iraq, or death squads will — like Clinton accepted in Somalia. Bunker, your position seems to be supporting victory for the death squads.
The real issue is time and patience.
When the best answer is that the elected Iraqis have to stop the death squad terrorism in Iraq, and it’s going to take 5 years at least (or your choice of X), it’s worse than silly to expect success in 4 or 3 or 2 years. Sort of like expecting corn that takes 12 weeks to be ready in 8 or 4 weeks — doesn’t happen.
The Dems never showed a better plan for faster Iraqi handover — it’s never about the Iraqis nor what is good for Iraq. It’s always about what’s good for their politics.
Same as in Vietnam, with My Lai and Kerry’s Winter Soldier lies/exaggerations. The Dems never cared about the Viet people, only about leaving, and especially about making Nixon lose. Where were the NYT or CBS stories about the N. Viet takeover, and the resulting 600 000 murders, 1 000 at a time? Nowhere, because there was no care.
Clooney doesn’t really care about those dying in Darfur, or else he’d be calling for Kofi to resign and for Bush to declare war, for humanitarian reasons. Which is costly, and would even result in some lives lost of Americans. I’m ready to support the US as a near-unilateral World Policeman, because the world needs one; but I’d much prefer a (democracy only) org ready to fight, or hire fighters, to stop oppressive gov’ts.
June 21st, 2006 at 9:09 am
Clooney doesn’t really care about those dying in Darfur, or else he’d be calling for Kofi to resign and for Bush to declare war, for humanitarian reasons
Shorter Tom Grey:
No one cares unless they agree with me.
June 21st, 2006 at 9:23 am
Oops, forgot a not:
“Dems were LYING when they said democracy in Iraq was not possible”.
Too much fun, not enough beer?
I’m mostly skipping Reg now; don’t miss ‘em, agree that the (expletive deleted) which Reg uses is too much like Nixon. I actually voted for the terrible Carter because I didn’t like Ford pardoning Nixon even before he was judged guilty. Was young then; haven’t voted for a winning Pres. since, until 2004!
Dems said we could NEVER win in Vietnam, when it’s obvious that staying 15 more years (1974 > 1989) would have been enough to win. Of course they don’t mean NEVER as in NEVER, just as “too long”. So they’d rather tell the simple lie than tell the hard truth — we could have won in Vietnam, but it would have cost lots more American lives.
How many US lives is freedom for others worth?
(As for me, I wish that D-Day had been delayed a year, so Berlin could have been nuked and the Battle of the Buldge been avoided and Patton could have an A-bomb threat to the Ruskies to demand that Poland be free, rather than occupied by a dictator. Not to be.)
June 21st, 2006 at 9:48 am
Tom Grey has still not shared his feelings about the Left winning in Slovakia.
June 21st, 2006 at 3:02 pm
reg,
I have data to back up my assertion.
What have you got?
June 21st, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Taxes include far more than the federal income tax, my friend. It’s called Econ 101.
Also, even on the narrow turf you’ve chosen, it’s more relevant to compare tax share as a percent of income share. Look at that one and you’ll see that tax rates for the bottom fifty percent are far from negligible.
June 21st, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Incidentally, state and local taxes have risen steadily as a share of overall taxation, as federal income taxes tended to be cut. And don’t get me started on other payroll taxes, where the burden falls most heavily on people making modest incomes.
June 21st, 2006 at 7:08 pm
“It’s worse than silly to expect a success (in Iraq) in 4, 3 or 2 years”
* Feb. 7, 2003: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
* March 16, 2003: Vice President Cheney, on NBC’s Meet the Press: “I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months.”
Nothing like having folks who are “worse than silly” in charge. (”Worse than silly” apparently includes “delusional, hubristic and incompetent.” )
June 21st, 2006 at 8:51 pm
So M. Simon, how do you explain the inconveient fact that big government is bigger under Republicans? Should the people who make the most not pay the most? I don’t see how write offs are accounted for in your hypothesis. Actual taxes paid after deductions is what we need here. The very poor pay nothing unless you count payroll and sales taxed locally, but at 50%? That middle class rate is actually the highest and hurts the most. Context is not your friend in this fight.
June 21st, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Publius,
Good question.
Republicans talk one way on this subject and act another. At least the Democrat position is unified in the wrong direction, but unified.
The Pork Busters project is an attempt to fix the problem.
I’m still with mark Twain: “We have the best Congress money can buy”. You have to keep an eye on those crooks no matter which party.
Still and all the Republican position on the war is closer to mine than the Dems. Excepting for Lieberman who may be a Republican soon.
Lieberman also gets capitalism.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:12 pm
I recall government shrinking along with the deficit under democrats. If that’s the wrong way I’m for it. Your mapping techniques are sound like stuck in reverse to me.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:38 pm
All this debate is interesting but irrelevant. If you want to know the score see the cable that the US Ambassador (Viceroy?) sent back to the State Dept that the WaPo reprinted. Things are a lot worse – not even the Green Zone is Safe.
This is a lost cause and the sooner we’re out the better.
The Democrats are once again falling for the trap of listening to the Media Elites and other Kool Kids in the Beltway that tell them the GOP will eat their lunch if they propose a timetable since the “Evil Genius” Karl Rove will swift Boat them. But the polls show a diferent story. A majority (55%) of Americans want a phased timetable to get out and a plurality want out by the end of the year. But it is so much fun to spread the old baloney.
Interestingly it is the blogs – those netroots that Marc sees as dubious because they are not, horrors!, journalists that are providing a new counterweight. FYI KOS gets 25 MILLION hits a month. I bet that soon more people will be reading him than watching Cable News. He sure gets more than MSNBC and Tweety!
The debate over the Dems and the common man is sure fun. Dems are Socialists and elitists. Pretty good trick. Who are the tax cutters – no not for you, unless you’re one of Chaneys hunting buddies. It is a real compliment that the GOP and their allies in the media have convinced so many to vote against their interests. But I suspect that will be coming to an end as the wreckage becomes harder to conceal. And as we face the obvious fact that a bunch of sociopathic ignorami are running the country – right into the ground. But all you wingers out there kep telling yourself that Bush is the Tribune of the People and keep getting your news from Drudge and your snark from Coulter. Frankly I really don’t have time to argue the point anymore than I would argue the Earth is round or Evolution is real. Life is too short. I’d rather chide Marc for his Demo bashing while chasing the will-of-the wisp of third parties. More fun.
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:48 am
How does someone even contemplate voting Democrat at this point in time? I dont get it.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Buy Me Rose Ringtone…
Special Cases Ringtone Special Cases Ringtone Lacerated Ringtone Lacerated Ringtone One Prairie Outpost Ringtone One Prairie Outpost Ringtone Soul Tattoo Ringtone Soul Tattoo Ringtone Some Kind Of Monster Ringtone Some Kind Of Monster Ringtone Shoes n …
July 19th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Kiss me w poker rureqaq
July 24th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks
September 12th, 2006 at 6:05 am
football predictions qn football predictions qn http://best-football-predictions.blogspot.comqn
September 12th, 2006 at 7:06 am
football predictions jmb football predictions jmb http://best-football-predictions.blogspot.comjmb
November 4th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Buon luogo, congratulazioni, il mio amico!
January 15th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Hi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! 1nZ4NNPn978
January 31st, 2007 at 2:27 pm
aunlidw
April 16th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
U’ve got good pics, the site could use a tiny bit of work (no offense) its still awesome
April 28th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
messina calcio…
news…
April 28th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
regalo cani…
news…
April 28th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
grossista articolo regalo…
news…
June 11th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! dwfwqqeytof