Sealing Reagan's Tomb
Republican strategists are now privately admitting they face the real possibility of an historic down-ticket catastrophe come November 4th.
The demise of the entire Reagan Era could possibly be certified by the Democrats winning a 60 seat filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Republican losses in the House could be equally dramatic. The Republicans riska decade or two of exile in political Siberia.
Among the real highlights: the orange-haired Senator from North Carolina, Liddy Dole has been declared dead meat. Please cart her away, already (I believe Liddy's only real mark on American politics was to launch the career of Ari Fleischer who worked as spokesman for the ill-fated Dole 2000 presidential campaign).
Tobacco lobbyist and part-time Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is also in trouble. Ditto for the execrable Gentleman fron Georgia, Saxby Chambliss. This is the slug who came into office by sliming his Democratic opponent Max Cleland (who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam) as being too soft on national security.
Here's the bad news: as this phase of American history comes to a close, it's not clear at all to me that the Democrats -- who will be in charge-- have any real alternative vision to offer. A few reforms, for sure. But the New Deal Era was born because FDR was willing to put forward a profound retooling of the system. It was an era that lingered well into the time of Nixon.
Reagan was also prepared to turn over the tables in 1980, albeit in a disastrous way. But give the Reaganites credit, at least, for having some very bold (if mistaken) ideas.
What such ideas do the Democrats now have in mind? I don't think Fate has chosen Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to lead us to the Promised Land. Let's hope, excuse the pun, that Barack Obama will provide the courage to make the sort of shift that history now seems to demand.
October 4th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Central to the mythology of the New Right is the notion of inevitable vindication, that however great the defeat seems ultimately hard line conservatism will prevail so long as the faithful do not deviate. This will be a significant counterweight against any reform. That the purest application of their principles yet attempted led to their downfall will be difficult if not impossible to accept. Ronald Reagan was supposed to be the Second Coming, liberalism was to be extinguished never to return, and of his kingdom there was to be no end. I expect much of the radical right to retreat completely into a fantasy world, insulated from reality by Fox News and the Multiple User Dimension of the conservative blogosphere. Of course the likes of Woody can be expected to stick their heads out every so often and snarl, like Gollum looking for his Precious.
October 4th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
On the other hand though now that I think of it you can imagine the present day Democrats like Pancho Villa’s army in the presidential palace, the power they were seeking suddenly in their hands and no idea what to do with it.
October 5th, 2008 at 12:13 am
And look at how Mexico eventually turned out.
Recent Mexican presidents have made a mockery of the 1917 constitution’s land rights, with the support of gringos.
Villa was assassinated, some say by US agents.
I agree with Mark, Reagan is dead.
Bush and McCain are incompetent clowns.
But the US Empire lives on, managed by more competent imperial stooges like Pelosi, Reid, Biden, and likely, Obama.
s
October 5th, 2008 at 4:22 am
It looks like Norm Coleman–a real weasel–is going down to Al Franken as well.
October 5th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Fate hasn’t chosen Pelosi and Reid, et. al. Voters have. There’s only one solution and that’s heightened political action to elect better and more…yes… Democrats. This mess won’t turn around overnight - or over a couple of years - and it won’t change simply by virtue of electing Obama to the White House (I know that because I heard him say it, when he counseled that only pressure from outside the Oval Office, generated on - to use the cliche of the day - “Main Street” would give him the political capital to be effective and ultimately do more of the right things.) The only way things can turn around is if we work to make it happen. And more often than not in very prosaic ways.
There’s a perceptible shift in the center of gravity of the Democratic Party, in part due to the internet communications and fundraising “revolution” which allows for much more effective grass-roots networking and organization. There’s a greater willingness of all kinds of folks to get involved in the grunt work of day-to-day politics oriented to electing more responsive candidates tasked with a more progressive agenda. There’s a window of opportunity for Democrats to elect decent moderates in red states and to elect honest progressives in blue states.
Al Franken will more than likely be in the next Senate. An example of a voice that can, in alliance with a handful of other Senators who are authentically progressive, make a difference in the coming debates. I believe there’s a good chance that Hillary Clinton, her presidential ambitions set aside, will become an authentic progressive voice in the Senate. The Democratic Party is, in no sense, up to the task- but who among us is?
The self-conscious, self-righteous yammering “left” shares as much of the blame for this as anyone because it’s always been more fashionable to make noise about the impotence of Democrats than deal with the facts of one’s own even more monumental political irrelevance. The retreat of so many “leftists” into academia and cultural fixations is a symptom of their utter absurdity as agents of political change. Nuff said on that, because it’s really not very important. But some fresh possibilities exist and anyone who just whines about the system from the sidelines is part of the rot.
October 5th, 2008 at 5:29 am
Amen, reg.
At least Marc’s consistent.
He’s already lining up to be disappointed that Obama didn’t heal the sick and make water into wine.
A guess he figured he enjoyed the Clinton era, so why not try for a replay…
You can still vote for a third party, Marc. Why soil yourself by voting for someone that can’t just snap his fingers and make the 30 percent of America that’s hard-core white identity conservative go away.
October 5th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Reg the reifier….
Blaming the “Left” for not supporting liberalism is like blaming liberals for not supporting proletarian revolution.
October 5th, 2008 at 7:36 am
But then, America for historical reasons (the division of the working class through appeals of racism, nationalism, redbaiting, ultrasectarianism) does not have a Left. At least we have a social democratic party with some clout.
October 5th, 2008 at 7:37 am
And I maintain, I’m sure Marc won’t cheer, but reg will cheer on the bombers of Iran and is probably already psyched for war on Pakistan.
October 5th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Max Cleland lost his senate seat, not because any being slimed which you guys made up, but because he stopped representing Georgia and voted the Democratic Party line against the wishes of his constituency. I appreciate Cleland’s service, but he lost his arm and legs on a beer run when his gernades came loose because he didn’t fasten them as instructed. Now, instead of running for office, he’s reduced to stumping.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:05 am
How careless of Max Cleland to mislay his limbs like that, Woody, and then, to compound the clumsiness, to mislay his Senate seat too.
You, however, appear to have mislaid your head — and any hint of human feeling.
I hope you find them soon.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:05 am
A couple of things - I wasn’t slamming Marc. When I read Marc these days and consider his counsel, compared to when I first started checking this blog, I’m gratified at how far he’s come. Although in reality, I don’t think it’s that Marc’s changed that much but that the sense of possibilities and of certain necessities has changed. I also told myself, “signing on” over a year ago to trying to help Obama just a little bit, not to expect - short of a significant shift on the ground of American politics - that he would fulfill the hopes that rattle around my brain. He’ll be a major improvement - and I think he’s helped unleash something of a movement that won’t simply sit back after election day and disengage. But anyone running for the Presidency or occupying the Oval Office in the broad context of US politics in our era is bound to “disappoint.” But among all of the people in America who are destined to “disappoint”, Obama doesn’t deserve to be crucified for the collective disappointing performance of so many others, including most of us. The guy’s been busting his ass for decades trying to do the right thing and to position himself so he can do more. The academic and cultural leftists who carp about him should, in fact, be shamed by Obama’s achievement in American politics at this critical period.
cummings doesn’t earn a response
Woody earns a short burst of contempt - something on the order of the Palin kid’s middle finger.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:07 am
What happened to Cleland were results of his own actions.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:25 am
This Tim Dickinson piece in RS on McCain, the MaverWreck, is a must-read:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick/print
Devastating portrait of an asshole.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:33 am
You know, I try to be civil to everyone here. I fail now and then, but I’m not failing now–I’ve thought carefully about every word here.
Woody, you’re a god damn asshat and a tool. You’re despicable. The relentless repeat of the Max Cleland stumpy joke reveals a depravity of character that makes me a little sick. I used to think you were kind of cute, and sometimes thought your baiting was even a little fun. But now I just think you’re a blind, insensitive, one-note abomination. You’re a disgrace to all self-respecting conservatives, and you’re damn close to being a disgrace to all self-respecting humans.
And by the way, repeating the viciously repugnant Anne Coulter column on Max Cleland doesn’t make it true. This is a guy who won the silver star, but that only counts if you’re a Republican I guess.
Go back to whatever moral rat hole you crawled out of.
Waste of time…
October 5th, 2008 at 11:06 am
“What happened to Cleland were results of his own actions.”
You mean like GM Roper getting cancer from smoking? I suppose you’ve given him mocking nicknames, too, right? Like “Wheezy” or “Ol’ Rotten Lungs”, since he was such a moron for practically killing himself. Just like Cleland!
October 5th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Roper never represented me in Congress. Cleland was supposed to, but, instead, he gave his loyalties to left-wing Democrats. I’m the one that Cleland cheated.
Cleland wasn’t your Senator, so why are you guys taking up for him? We know from your comments about McCain that you don’t value Vietnam sacrifices, so it must be something else.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Woody is, at best, completely irrelevant. At worst he’s standing at the margins of a hatefest that is far more likely to consume itself than consume a significant segment of the country in coming months. That said, this little sideshow is going to get uglier and uglier before it flames out. I’m predicting that by 2016, the electoral map of the South will look very different than it does today, partly because these freaks are focused mostly on shit “average Americans” are no longer likely to obsess over when they pull the lever for political reps, or at least not through this particular dostorted lens.
October 5th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Also, literally, “dying breed”, at least as a species whose numbers will be decisive.
Incidentally, George Will - arguably one of the most elegant, philosophical, literate and historically-grounded of contemporary American conservatives - stooped to blame the mortgage crisis on government pandering to Negroes and like “unproductive” types on This Week earlier today. This reversion to original rightwing sins is appalling but, I guess, predictable in the current climate. Had I been watching the TV in “Elvis mode”, Mr. Will’s virtual head would have exploded after that comment and I’d be sendin’ one of my lackeys down to Circuit City. Nobody, including Van den Heuvel, bonked him over the head for that one, as George steered the conversation along to other stuff.
October 5th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
reg: “short of a significant shift on the ground of American politics”
What do you call this?
Leaving principles aside, political self-interest alone should have lead Obama to seize on such a bipartisan groundswell of public opinion. He spat in its face instead. This reminds me a bit of his vote for the FISA bill, a vote which didn’t end up helping him politically either, except that, unlike the FISA bill, there was widespread outrage over the proposal.
Barack Obama is a run-of-the-mill corporatist politician. There are two exceptional things about him, one he can claim credit for and one he can’t: he’s a good speaker and his rise to prominence comes at a time when the other side of the aisle is awash in some of the greatest incompetence and corruption ever seen in this nation.
October 5th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“Now, instead of running for office, he’s reduced to stumping.”
If god made assholes as big as the Milkyway Galaxy, woody would be it.
October 5th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
“Hatefest,” reg? It seems to me that it’s you guys who have gone overboard for years with Bush and now Palin. Does raising concerns about Obama rise to the level of hate, just as you claim that it is also racist? How nice to be able to hide from accountability by screaming hate speech and racism.
You guys are pathetic.
October 5th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
woody wanks words:
“you don’t value Vietnam sacrifices, ”
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
eh?
who are you…Vlad the Impaler?
Wanna check your syntax there buddy? Nice blood thirsty right wing slip. In that sentence is the nut shell of your ideological ideas. There is nothing in your head but a holocaust of pathological oozings.
October 5th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
I’m sorry Sniper, but I’m not convinced there was a politically viable alternative to the bailout that Obama could have single-handedly shaped at this point. I’m also not convinced that it may not turn out to be something close to a wash financially for the taxpayers when all is said and done. Of course, neither am I convinced that it’s going to get the economy back on track. But I AM convinced that an Obama administration overseeing this pigfuck will be significantly more beneficial than a GOP gang.
October 5th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Fuck you Woody. You and your creepy crony accused me of being motivated by “Bush hatred”, “derangement”, etc. when I raised fundamental questions about his Iraq strategy that have since become conventional wisdom.
You’re a foul little weasel. Go to hell.
October 5th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Woody, your mind is just a big zit.
October 5th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Also the notion that the populist anger in reaction to initial news of the Paulson Plan was a groundshift in American politics doesn’t cut it. Evidence of this is the rightwing demagoging this thing at least as effectively as any of the populist left. Actually, probably more so since they don’t much care whether evidence is on their side - just blame it on the blacks and Barney Frank. I’m not saying that the Democratic party response wasn’t disappointing overall, but I don’t see how Obama could have gambled his entire campaign at this point on leading some “populist revolt” against a bailout. It would have, more likely than not, been a slow ball directly to McCain who would have ended up claiming he saved America from the Giant Meteor by doing “the unpopular thing.” And on the morning after, following the humongous media massage, he would have moved ahead ten or more points in the polls.
October 5th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
DC I posted the same sentiments of your first paragraph in another
thread a few days back.
No one human can take on the stupidity of the centuries, the world, the universe.
Remedy: http://commongroundmag.com/2008/10/pinchbeck0810.html
October 5th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Reg, you are at once idealistic and then you find an excuse for not demanding progressives take the bull by the horns ( or in this case the bear?)
There are always these talking head rationales about why no one should ACT based on some mythical statistical rationale.
If this had been the case throughout history we’d still be grooming each others fur and picking fleas off each other.
I like you Reg, not trying to pick a fight. Just exasperated that there is always the point of view that says COMPRIMISE DONT ACT.
Its been the Democrats death dance.
October 5th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
What’s your plan ? What should Obama have proposed as an alternative ? From what leadership position in the Senate could he have worked concretely to re-shape the bill and not just file a protest ? He laid out certain principles for his support, which were met tepidly at best. I believe the final test of this bailout will be who administers it, since as I understand it (and that’s none too well, given the complexity) there are a bunch of things that are “options” which could be more positive than not (mortgage renegotiations, ways of taking equity, how hard “payback” is pursued if the companies begin to turn significant profits after the bailout. Unless the Democratic leadership was prepared to stand as one and re-shape Paulson’s proposal even more significantly than they did, Obama wasn’t in a position to lead that charge. I just don’t think that’s realistic. It’s easy as hell to quarterback from the sidelines. He’s trying to win a national election right now, and I don’t think he could have reshaped this in midstream.
October 5th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Frankly, given McCain’s position in the polls, I was sort of surprised he didn’t attempt to play some sort of “populist hero” card - which would have been more consistent with his desperate “Hail Mary” scenarios. That he didn’t reinforces my notion of what a likley losing gamble opposing this thing head-on would have been for either of the Presidential candidates once the smoke cleared. All it would have take is about a week more of frozen credit and the “spoiler” would have been raked in the press as people shifted to a “Somebody Do Something” stance from their initial recoil at the $700 Billion tag.
October 5th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Obama is a symptom as much as a cause. I want him to win. Its historic. He’ll still preside over “the context of American politics” - i.e. mass murder, plunder and acucmulation. Kind of like how HIV is an improvement over AIDS.
So can I count on reg’s opposition to Obamimperialism?
October 5th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
And I’ll remind reg that I’m active politically, as are most “Academic Leftists,” a stereotype invented by teh right that he should know better than to use.
October 5th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
“Active politically” does not include solely posting 989568376365636373398938698 posts about Woody on Marc’s blog.
Obama will support US Imperialism and wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
He will NOT support single payer health care; rather, we’ll see more Big Pharma and HMOs take our money.
.
He will continue to support a nuclear armed Israel.
He will bail out Wall Street crooks.
He will support FISA, the CIA, the NSA, and other attacks on the 1st, 4th, and 14th amendments.
So he’s better than war criminal GW Bush. Oh yes.
So? Putin is better than Stalin, Castro better than Batista.
There is long way to go to people’s democracy or even Unidad Popular in this country. Be realistic, please.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Anna C., what I communicated was easily understood to mean sacrifices by our soldiers in Vietnam–just as the left tried to claim for “shoot ‘em in the back and go home early” Kerry. Any other interpretation is a real stretch and typical of types like the spelling police, wanting to appear to be intellectually superior by pointing out incidental aspects of comments. It’s a pathetic response on your part.
Your other comment saying, “Woody, your mind is just a big zit.” is typical of the left, frustrated over intertwined logic and truth exposing your indefensible positions.
A big zit has more brain power than does a liberal.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Indeed it is “typical of the left” to see a sack of garbage like you for what it is.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
“Active politically” does not include solely posting 989568376365636373398938698 posts about Woody on Marc’s blog.
Sergio, you’re an even bigger liar and hypocrite than Woody is, and at least his BS is in the service of his sick ideology, rather than merely being small-minded and spiteful.