The Trouble With Nancy
I was busy writing (for money) on Sunday and, as usual then, didn't catch Meet The Press -- which this week featured House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.
For some odd reason -- probably insomnia-- I did hear the show last night as a podcast on my trusty Nano. I found Pelosi's whole schtick so irritating that I wondered if there had been much reaction to it. And lo... I immediately came upon a couple of solid pieces. Here and here. Add these two pieces together and you get everything that's wrong with Pelosi.
As Stephen Kaus (the more liberal brother of El Mickey) points out in the first piece, after being asked four times by Tim Russert whether or not a new Democratic House would repeal the Bush tax cuts, Madame Leader still couldn't sputter out a straight answer. Nor did she have a straightforward answer on that minor issue of the war in Iraq, saying only that 2006 should be "a year of transition." Rim shot. Cymbal crash. Dead silence. Says Kaus:
The whole thing was so inside baseball and fuzzy that I was screaming at the TV as if it were Bush being interviewed. And please, lose the line that "it might take a woman to clean up the house." I don't want to spend the campaign bemoaning the leaders of the party, but these people are giving focus groups a bad name.
Kaus was also bugged by what he saw as Pelosi's "defensive" slithering around the issue of whether or not a Democrat-controlled House would spend its time investigating the Bush administration and possibly launching an impeachment move. Unfortunately, the ambiguity that Kaus sensed in Pelosi's response was, in fact, her fumbled attempt at back tracking from what she had just told the Washington Post i.e that a Democratic House would open up a series of political investigations.
Dickerson calls Pelosi's statements "unbelievably tactically stupid," playing directly into the hands of GOP Senatorial Campaign Committee Chief Liddy Dole's recent fundraising scare-letter predicting precisely this result from a Democratic victory in November.
I think Dickerson might have gone a tad over-the-top in his characterization of Pelosi's blunder, but only because I don't think that many people could give a rat's tuchus about anything Pelosi says. She emanates such an overpowering aura of Programmed Machine Politician that I suspect most people begin to fog out as soon as they see those too-wide-open eyes on the screen. I know I do.
That said, Pelosi's statement was stupid. Says Dickerson:
Pelosi's defenders, and I am sure there are a few out there, will argue that her comments were smart, because off-year elections are about motivating the base and the base wants investigations. This is true, but isn't George Bush a professional base motivator who invigorates Democrats each waking day? And if the president is not sufficient, won't the base get motivated by the affirmative proposals Pelosi outlined? I know Pelosi is so unpopular in her own party that Democrats view John McCain more favorably, but are investigations really the way to increase her standing? Won't taking control of the House help more?
I thought the whole point of unveiling an agenda was to show that the party wasn't going to get bogged down with investigations and embrace the worst Bush-hating tendencies of its members. Independents and moderates in those swing districts that will help Democrats pick up the 15 seats they need for a majority don't want more investigations: They want results on the issues that affect their lives. They may not like Republicans in Congress, but they're suspicious and disapproving of Democrats, too.
There's been a lot of talk about how the Democrats need to emulate the Republican revolutionaries of 1994, but I believe the idea was that they should emulate the 1994 Republicans, whose Contract With America never mentioned investigating Bill Clinton, not the Republicans who ruined themselves through intemperate investigations after they came to power.
Total agreement. As I've said before, George W. Bush is getting his punishment. The American people are currently censuring him with a 31% favorability rating. His GOP-led Congress is a few points lower than that. But make no mistake, the Democrats also score miserable ratings.
If the Democrats do take back the House, and more remotely the Senate, it would offer us some needed relief from the failed Republicanism of the past decade. And while I would, indeed, expect very little from the Dems (very very little), the least they could give us would be some very-needed real-life legislative change. Some real sausage, please. If they are tempted, however, to use expanded Congressional power to grandstand politically, let them soberly ponder the fate suffered by the Gingriches and the Hydes.
I humbly think that in the public's mind one of the biggest turn-offs about the Bush administration has been its arrogant politicization of just about everything. The voters are exhausted and bruised by the ideological shoving of the Bushies. I don't think they're much in the mood for the mirror opposite from the Dems. A little low-key, humble competence and common sense might be the order of the day.
May 8th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
So the Democrats disgust you because they are lame…and the only way they’ll even marginally satisfy you is by acting even more lame if they gain leadership of Congressional committees - i.e. not doing anything to dig into administration malfeasance, criminal negligence or violations of the constitution. Got it ! Keep your eye on the “sausage”. Of course. Common sense !
To call the prospect of investigations into the decision to go to war and related scandals and abrogations of the Constitution “political grandstanding” is an insult to the intelligence of the public. I guess you thought the Watergate hearings were political grandstanding as well. (And for some perspective, Bush’s approval ratings have dropped about six points below Nixon’s at the height of the Senate’s Watergate hearings.)
May 8th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
I kind of agree with Reg. It’s hard to work out exactly what Marc is for other than the views that he expresses in exactly the way that he expresses them. If you agree with him too vehemently, you’re a crazy lefty who’s playing into the GOP’s hands by playing to the extremist fringe. If you don’t agree with him enough, you’re a passionless milqetoast who’s enabling the GOP by not providing an alternative.
Yes, there is a point there that whatever a Dem controlled House does should be proportionate, measured, and to the greatest extent possible based on responsible governance rather than partisan point-scoring. But fur chrissakes, the health of our system of government needs some accountability. And that means, at the very least, requiring the exectutive to report to Congress what it’s been doing.
That said, I’ve really never got Nancy Pelosi. How could someone so apparently untalented and uncharming have ever risen so high? What am I missing?
May 8th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
“George W. Bush is getting his punishment.”
Perhaps…but I’m not willing to let Stephen Colbert be the judge, jury and executioner of this administration. I don’t think the Founding Fathers would get it. Believe it or not, they actually wrote the Constitution with checks and balances in mind that didn’t include the Comedy channel.
May 9th, 2006 at 12:03 am
“How could someone so apparently untalented and uncharming have ever risen so high? What am I missing?”
The fact that we’re discussing an environment in which reptilian bottom-feeders like Tom Delay and Bill Frist have had far more power and prominence than Pelosi. I’m not a big Pelosi fan, but I don’t find her particularly offensive as Beltway denizens go. Frankly, I think if she wasn’t female she wouldn’t elicit as much reaction for lacking charisma.
If anyone’s interested, here’s a serious, thoughtful article by Amy Sullivan - who offers a welcome respite from “conventional wisdom” reporters who are blindsided by their own bigotry, mantras and snark on the subject of Beltway Dems:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0605.sullivan1.html
May 9th, 2006 at 12:52 am
Reg - thanks for the link. Very interesting.
May 9th, 2006 at 1:16 am
Amy Sullivan’s piece is on point, giving solid evidence of a party that is learning to be tactically effective, even if it still lacks a coherent overall strategy. (Sullivan destroys calcified narratives like it’s her business.)
There’s interesting tension between reg’s righteous, go-for-the-jugular position and Marc’s more politically cautious stance.
Mork touched on this by asking what Marc is for. I’d argue that he’s trying to find the soft spot between being ethically right and politically effective. It’s a damn shame those two things are not the same, but dems the breaks.
May 9th, 2006 at 1:50 am
To be clear, I’m not suggesting “go-for-the-jugular” opportunistic or partisan search&destroy missions with an eye to impeachment - but I don’t think that serious investigations and oversight of areas where this administration has obviously overreached should be considered anathema or evaded out of fear for where they might lead. Harking back to the Clinton scandals for insight about whether Congress would serve the country by asking the current crew questions and how it will play politically is absurd.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:34 am
Thank you for clearing that up, reg.
For the record, I’d also like to think that responsible leaders would call the administration on its oversteps, particularly its shameful pursuit of the unitary executive.
I harbor a sick feeling, however, that thanks to effective GOP framing, the public would wrongly interpret an effort to correct via checks and balances as petty political sniping. I hope I’m wrong about this. Is there any evidence that I am?
May 9th, 2006 at 4:39 am
I harbor a sick feeling, however, that thanks to effective GOP framing, the public would wrongly interpret an effort to correct via checks and balances as petty political sniping. I hope I’m wrong about this. Is there any evidence that I am?
31%
May 9th, 2006 at 6:33 am
“31%”
Yeah, let’s not forget what historical moment we are living in, this isn’t the height of the Reagan years.
May 9th, 2006 at 7:05 am
I’m in the 69% who give Bush an unfavorable rating (using whatever pick-and-choose poll you quote, but not for the same reasons as many of you.) What does that prove as far as support for Democrats goes? I’d give them an even worse rating.
The only polls that matter are those that pit one side against another, and the Republicans won the last two big ones. By the time the mid-term elections roll around, the Republicans will have gotten their messages out and exposed the Democrats for the nothing that they offer.
I’m not saying that I’m happy with Republicans and am taking up for them, but I sure prefer them over the Democrats–who reject attempts at moderation.
———
Marc Cooper: I was busy writing (for money)….
You can get paid to write?! I’m going to be rich!
May 9th, 2006 at 7:37 am
“The only polls that matter are those that pit one side against another, and the Republicans won the last two big ones. By the time the mid-term elections roll around, the Republicans will have gotten their messages out and exposed the Democrats for the nothing that they offer.”
I don’t want to shock anyone, but Woody is absolutely right that this could happen–it certainly happened during the 2004 presidential election. So Marc’s comments about Nancy are all the more relevant.
May 9th, 2006 at 7:43 am
I’m reconsidering what I wrote.
May 9th, 2006 at 7:48 am
What political party could ever meet the requriements Marc lays down in his posts — to be firm always, principled, unyielding and ruthlessly candid, and at the same time to be pliable, modest, pragmatic, and ready to build coalitions.
As soon as you take one step the goalpost is moved; it’s a form of cynical messianism.
May 9th, 2006 at 7:50 am
Stephanolpoulos is optimistic that the Democrats will win:
On This Week, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos twice referred to Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as “Speaker,†a position she might hold if the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives in November.
May 9th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Amen, evets.
And, of course, the desperate speculation from the clueless right-wing crackpot who gets everything wrong with remarkable consistency is reassuring.
May 9th, 2006 at 8:09 am
Paul Krugman on the folks who are still passing the Kool-Aid amongst themselves:
“(R)ght-wing pundits have consistently questioned the sanity of Bush critics; ‘It looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again,’ said Charles Krauthammer, the Washington Post columnist, after Mr. Gore gave a perfectly sensible if hard-hitting speech. Even moderates have tended to dismiss the administration’s harsh critics as victims of irrational Bush hatred.
But now those harsh critics have been vindicated. And it turns out that many of the administration supporters can’t handle the truth. They won’t admit that they built a personality cult around a man who has proved almost pathetically unequal to the job. Nor will they admit that opponents of the Iraq war, whom they called traitors for warning that invading Iraq was a mistake, have been proved right. So they have taken refuge in the belief that a vast conspiracy of America-haters in the media is hiding the good news from the public.”
Of course, some of the less delusional pundits on the right are starting to get it:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scarborough-Country-Gop-fails.mov
May 9th, 2006 at 8:25 am
reg: “To call the prospect of investigations into the decision to go to war and related scandals and abrogations of the Constitution “political grandstanding†is an insult to the intelligence of the public.”
Actually, it is only an insult to democrats, and deservedly so because they have given up all rational reasons to support their power grab. Has bushco screwed up? Sure… but that is not an impeachable offense. Announcing it is is the height of stupidity, and exactly what the dems have come to.
May 9th, 2006 at 8:26 am
Russert is another good example of why we can’t get normal people to run for office. Who is going to put up with the punishment of the media ‘professionals’ wanting to be the news rather than report it.
So we end up with candidates that lean to the ideological extremes from both parties, who must hide it, ie look moderate, during the campaign process to get elected, but willing to take the punishment from the press, etc, in order to push their ideology(religion).
Bush is a classic example and the reason his approval ratings are so low. He is an extreme business biased, authoritarian born again. But if you think Bush’s approval rating are low, check out reporters, starting with the Whitehouse’s.
Russert needs to back off the sauce. His nose is getting color of WC Fields’s and the size of Nancy’s Eyes. If only eithers personality could be half as entertaining…..Nancy comes closest.
May 9th, 2006 at 8:27 am
The strength of opposition to Hayden and the public’s reaction to that opposition may be a good barometer for the future.
As head of the NSA, Hayden was an architect and defender of the warrantless wiretapping of citizens which the president has doggedly referred to as “the terrorist surveillance program.” For a while the public went bought that line, but now appear to be reconsidering. His confirmation hearings should, in effect, put that program on trial, and congress won’t likely stand for an Alberto-esque stonewallling.
May 9th, 2006 at 8:34 am
Anon E. Mouse is a great example of what the GOP faithful have been reduced to in the “logic” arena.
May 9th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Pols like Harry Reid and Pelosi should just stay off the TV. They’re supposed to be politically smart? Maybe they are on some things, but the Dems DO have an image problem and these people are not helping anything by appearing on nationally broadcasted talk shows boldly laying out their Iraq plan as one that calls for a ‘transition year’. At least Wesley Clark on Bill Maher last week is saying that the Dem’s 2006 Iraq policy calls for ‘responsible redeployment of forces’. Not the straightest talk either, but it’s a hell of alot better than Pelosi speak. For chrissakes, keep Pelosi and Reid behind the curtain, and lets see more of Clark, Biden, Oobama, and Edwards (hell, I’ll even throw Gore in there).
May 9th, 2006 at 9:02 am
GORE NAILED IRAQ: Berated Dem took harder stance against war than average radical scribbler. Right wingers try to rewrite history, average radical scribbler remains silent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trudi-loh/the-truth-about-the-war-i_b_20645.html
May 9th, 2006 at 9:33 am
“I’m in the 69% who give Bush an unfavorable rating …I’m not saying that I’m happy with Republicans and am taking up for them, but I sure prefer them over the Democrats–who reject attempts at moderation.”
Well, then you are not one of the 31% of Republicans polled a few days ago (AP Ipsos) who said that they “want for their own party to lose control of Congress.
“http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/may/06/poll_shows_conservatives_abandoning_gop/
May 9th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Um, that link was:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/may/06/poll_shows_conservatives_abandoning_gop/
May 9th, 2006 at 9:37 am
Mork asked: How could someone so apparently untalented and uncharming have ever risen so high? What am I missing?
She’s a very effective fundraiser for other members. And she’s a good count-er. She’s far more effective a party leader than Gephardt was.
Re charm and talent: For one thing, the relevant talents are highly specialized. You might have noticed there isn’t a surplus of either charm or talent floating around the House or Senate in general. We’re going to have to get to public financing in order to clear the way for people who can be elected on the basis of their ideas and appeal.
And I agree completely with your comment, Mork: whatever a Dem controlled House does should be proportionate, measured, and to the greatest extent possible based on responsible governance rather than partisan point-scoring. But fur chrissakes, the health of our system of government needs some accountability. And that means, at the very least, requiring the exectutive to report to Congress what it’s been doing.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Sadly, Dianne Feinstein and Jane Harman are just fine with the Hayden appointment. Harman doesn’t even see any reason to dig into the illegal NSA programs at his hearings!
Pretty sad when you can’t summon up enough commitment to the Constitution OR political savvy to respond to this outrageous nomination.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:50 am
sorry, that comment was meant to go in the Hayden thread.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:56 am
“It’s hard to work out exactly what Marc is for other than the views that he expresses in exactly the way that he expresses them.”
I’m not a psychologist, but if I had to guess it is that Marc wants to be known as this great “contrarian”, a label bestowed upon other punditoids such as Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan.
I don’t read much of the latter two men very much these days (it’s been years actually), but Marc’s conflicting views come across more as split personalities than consistency. I guess that might be considered “chic,” but it is more annoying than anything and a reason that I don’t check out this blog very much anymore.
I mean, how are the comments by Nancy Pelosi any more “stupid” than Bill Frist’s comments a few years ago about AIDS being transmitted between people by sweat? Does ex-wrestling coach and big business shill Dennis Hastert look more “cool”?
“George W. Bush is getting his punishment.”
How is he getting his punishment, pray tell? The man was elected twice despite spending a decade laughing publicly at the U.S. Constitution. Believe you me, the one Bush strength (a good sense of humor for the ironic) is getting a big stoke out of the fact that he pulled one over the voters in 2004. The fact that his poll numbers are so low now is probably hilarious to the man, and frankly, I would be laughing it up as well were I him. He is most definitely not “getting his punishment.”
Furthermore, the so-called “Bush scandals” are more than just “scandals” - Marc, they represent genuine impediments to good faith, judicious governance of the people. This war, the health care corruption, the energy/oil control of the White House….what is wrong with you, man?
May 9th, 2006 at 10:52 am
David Cummings, people don’t necessarily answer polls the same way that they vote. (See Ohio.) If 31% of Republicans say that they want their party to lose control of Congress, then they are probably venting and haven’t considered how much worse the alternative would be. Again, it’s one thing to say “throw the bums out” and quite another thing to realize that the bums that would replace them are worse. Sometimes you have to choose between bad alternatives, which is why I recommend that everyone here cast a vote for Ralph Nader in the next presidential election.
———
I remember when Clinton was President that some prominent Democrats were saying that the Democrats are the party of (whatever) and that the Republicans were the party of investigations. While looking for a specific quote, I ran across this article from April of 2000 that shows how the political parties have swapped positoins between then and now. It’s short, so it doesn’t violate my ADD guidelines.
Can’t Congressional Republicans Give It a Rest? http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/mann/20000427.htm
Newsday, April 27, 2000
Thomas E. Mann, Senior Fellow, Governmental Studies
There they go again. Reacting with outrage to the forcible removal of Elian Gonzalez from the Miami home of his great uncle, Republican congressional leaders have promised the country extensive hearings on what they clearly see as an abuse of public authority by President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno.
If these hearings follow the recent mold—impeachment, Whitewater, campaign fund-raising abuses and Waco—we can count on three results: The country will be appalled, the Republicans will be damaged politically and Congress will have further devalued the currency of its power to investigate.
…At times it seems as if the Republicans in Congress have a death wish.>/em>
Now, I expect Republicans to call the Democrats the party of investigations and the Democrats to act on their death wish.
May 9th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Well, because of carelessness, I didn’t correctly end the italics at the end of the article. It should be obvious that the last line was from me, but I wanted to clarify that.
May 9th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
My God is Paul Krugman a disingenuous asshole. Every time I’m forced to notice him the fact gets reinforced.
That is all. I’ll just point to the phrase “whom they called traitors for warning that invading Iraq was a mistake.”
There’s not an untwisted syllable in that phrase, no true sound of any sort, beyond “invading Iraq.”
May 9th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Woody -
How can you simultaneously denounce the Dems for “the nothing they offer” and for “rejecting all attempts at moderation.” Your sound-bites are stepping on each other
May 9th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Krugman, who is an opinion columnist not a reporter, and a damn fine economist for appeal to authority, is correct. Are you actually claiming critics weren’t called traitors or the like?
May 9th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Paul from Mpls -
I thought for a second that you were pledging religious allegiance to Paul Krugman, but see that I was wrong.
As for the twisted syllables in “whom they called traitors for warning that invading Iraq was a mistake.†— you may not have said this sort of thing (it doesn’t sound like you) but more than a few others did, generally with triumphalist sneers.
May 9th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
“Your sound-bites are stepping on each other”
Sort of like Hemingway watching a hyena tear out his own guts .
May 9th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
When was the last time we had a genuine straight -talker in a position of power? Why do I need a decoder ring to understand political discourse in this country? Man, I’m tired of it.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Mork -
“It’s hard to work out exactly what Marc is for other than the views that he expresses in exactly the way that he expresses them.â€
As the dust clears, I’m coming to the conclusion that Marc’s basically a moderate, albeit one who expresses this moderation with an incongruous, man-the-barricades vehemence.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Pelosi certain isn’t great at the reaching across the aisles/figure head thing. But that’s only one political skill and as Sullivan and others have suggested, she’s part of an effective team that’s managed to turn the Democrats into an opposition party with something resembling cajones. The problem for Democrats isn’t that Pelosi is especially stupid or craven; as a couple commenters point out, Frist has said way way dumber things that don’t earn any “Republicans are Wayward” type coverage. She just tends toward the shrill (which is so unlikable in a woman, and, yes, I know that’s sexist) and shouldn’t be in front of the cameras too often.
What gets me is the way the press treats Dean who is much more articulate and a much better spokesman. Instead of focusing on the substance of his remarks, we always hear about his “gaffes.” Eric Alterman pointed out that these so called gaffes meet Kinsely’s observation: “that ‘gaffe’ is what Washington calls a statement by a politician that happens to be true.” The Democrats would be a lot better off protecting good spokesmen like Dean than elevating some one who’s only speaking skill is that she’s difficult to eviscerate with a soundbite.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
evets - very funny.
in general, my perception is that there were a few such blanket statements like that around, but in general far less than is the myth, and their effect was obviously counterproductive if the wish was actually to stifle debate. Mostly, I think the idea that dissent was being stifled or called unpatriotic has been an important piece of the anti-war movement’s strange idea of itself as courageous.
(From where I’m sitting, there’s just about nothing about you could do that would be less courageous than than criticizing W and his war.)
Plus, I suspect most of the statements that would be trotted out to support Krugman’s description would be misinterpreted. I just don’t think there have been many statements at all that said “any criticism of the war is unpatriotic.” Most statements, in my momery, have been along the lines of “harsh rhetoric calling the president a liar and our war completely unjustified can only give comfort to the sorts of enemies we’re fightiing in Iraq.” That’s simply a statement of rather obvious fact as that side sees it, especially given that they think the idea that Bush “lied us into this war” is stupid and based on flimsily-defended analysis.
But it’s nowhere near blatantly saying any criticism is unpatriotic. Claiming that it is, is dishonest.
These statements are a reflection of a. a legitimate poltiical disagreement concerning the case for war; and b. an accurate assessment of how a guerilla movement wages its wars, with an eye toward public opinion both here and in Iraq.
Trying to say that someone making such a statement is calling you “unpatriotic” is just a sleazy way to avoid debating the assertion.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
“momery” - that’s a good word. A corner of Jungian therapy, probably.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
“If 31% of Republicans say that they want their party to lose control of Congress, then they are probably venting and haven’t considered how much worse the alternative would be.”
Even putting aside the fact, Woody, that the poll numbers for Republicans - save for perhaps the Faux News polls - are worse now than the numbers for Democrats on the eve of the 1994 elections, you apparently have not been paying attention to all of the Republicans who have been fleeing from the GOP camp over the last 16 months (an alienation that really began in 2003 on a smaller scale). I personally know of military men - career guys - who cannot believe the bumbling of the GOP on Iraq and other foreign issues.
On the domestic front, it is perhaps even more of a mess. We have a national debt approaching a number that I cannot even bring myself to say out loud; the trillions of dollars it represents is obscene. Part of it comes from the Iraq/Haliburton sinkhole, but even more of it represents pork projects that make the Tom Foley congress look fiscally responsible in comparison. Even I used to concede that Republicans were more budget-responsible than the Democrats. Now, I have had a serious change of thinking. The GOP has been in control of all three branches of government since 1994, and as far as most people here in the red midwest are concerned, they don’t have anyone to blame but themselves.
“I don’t think they’re much in the mood for the mirror opposite from the Dems.”
Marc, it would be instructive to consider the “mirror opposite” from the Democrats, and what that would entail. That would involve NOT doctoring EPA reports written up by their own climatologists to make things look rosy. A “mirror opposite” from the Democrats would be to NOT leak national security documents or identities for political payback. A “mirror opposite” would be to transform the health care system into a single payer system (an idea supported by a majority of Americans polled) and NOT privatize it, and not leaving the health of our grandparents and parents to the fickle whims of Wall Street. I could go on, but it would take up too much space to document the mess caused by the GOP.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Paul -
It’s in the ear of the beholder; this stuff didn’t sound so innocent to me. Ann Coulter may represent the extreme but she couln’t stay afloat without a lot of folks just a bit to her left snarling along with her about cheese-loving surrender monkeys.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
I gotta part company with our host on this one. Sure, it’s not going to help to go the way of Gingrich and his fellows, and over-politicization is a concern, but it’s the Republicans that always play that game and not the Dems really. Much as I disliked Clinton, the impeachment attempted there was over offenses of a vastly different nature than the ones recently perpetrated by Bush and friends. The endless sophistry, the re-casting of procedural votes as actual positions, the whisper campaigns, phone jamming, break-ins, and all of that sleaze belongs to Atwater and Rove and the Republicans. I’m not saying the Dems are altar boys, but I have long observed a key difference between the parties here. Whether that is a virtue or a fault for the Dems is an open question.
What should we do, just roll over and take it? “Oh well, he shredded a lot of the constitution, but heck, we’re back in power so let’s just get on with things.” There is a kind of crossing-the-Rubicon behavior coming out of this administration and it needs correcting. And the only way to start correcting it is to find out what it was. At the very least there should be investigations into pre-war intelligence and domestic spying. And the Democrats should be talking about reform in these areas. In general Congress needs to wrest back a lot of power, and it should be from the perspective of Congressional authority that any investigation or reform is undertaken.
This time is not dissimilar to the era that prompted Schlesinger to write the Imperial Presidency and from that time came the Chruch Commission and the War Powers Act among other things. I think we’re ripe for another round of reform, and Bush’s approval ratings bear this out.
Hmmm….maybe they should be talking about restoring integrity to the White House. Will the irony register with anyone?
May 9th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
As the dust clears, I’m coming to the conclusion that Marc’s basically a moderate, albeit one who expresses this moderation with an incongruous, man-the-barricades vehemence.
Funny thing is, “angry moderate” is how I describe myself sometimes. Maybe my tent’s just a little bigger than our good host.
May 9th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it. What I don’t understand is what makes them line up and fight like hell for it, and it doesn’t pay shit.
I wouldn’t expose myself and my family to it for nothing. You have to be just…..not normal to begin with.
May 9th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Money isn’t everything, and sometimes it’s nothing.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Paul: “My God is Paul Krugman a disingenuous asshole. Every time I’m forced to notice him the fact gets reinforced.
That is all. I’ll just point to the phrase “whom they called traitors for warning that invading Iraq was a mistake.†There’s not an untwisted syllable in that phrase, no true sound of any sort, beyond “invading Iraq.â€
Actually Paul, you increasingly strike me as the… Nevermind. I guess you weren’t reading people like Andrew Sullivan - a guy who edited one of the premiere “liberal” magazines at one time who was calling people like me a “fifth column” for opposing the war. I’ll never forgive the putrid punk for that and I’m not about forgiving people who act like that shit never happened. As for the folks on the farther-right, they never let up in their attempt to divide the country against itself over the “patriotic” war, accusing us of treason and worse.
Sometimes I wonder what planet you’ve been living on. Krugman is referencing the rhetoric of right-wing pundits. He’s dead-on. I was there.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Nothing more amusing than to pay the operating costs of a blog only to be psychoanalyzed by some of the commenters! Talk about wanking… Oh Marc’s a moderate … On Marc doesnt believe in anything.. Oh Marc demands perfection… Oh he wants to be known as a contrarian….
Oh go piss up a long rope, please. None of these characterizations are even close. I think it’s rather obvious that yours truly is doing his humble best to stimulate some conversation and to maybe, just maybe try to prod his readers into questioning their own beliefs and trying out a fresh thought now and then. Excuse me. If that’s too much of a strain for you, then why dont u click onto angelidesforgoverner.com or joinarnold.com and pore over some less challenging material?
As to the substance of the debate here — to the degree there is some– politics OUGHT to be something more than a bloody spectator sport. If you dont like what the incumbents are doing, then vote them out and show us what your guys can do. I’ll be damned if I’ll spend the next two years watching a bunch of bleating Democrats investigate a war they voted for in the first place… for Christ’s sake. All of the “investigations” in the world wont get one more person access to health care, raise their wages, lower tuition for their kids or secure them a friggin’ future. You want to morally defeat George W. Bush? Great. Fantastic. Im all for it. Let the Democrats show us they can make some real difference in people’s lives. And let them do something more impressive than what they did during the 8 yrs of Clinton: passing NAFTA, fucking up national health care for a generation to come, abolishing the federal safety net, and signing the Iraqi National Liberation Act that called for “regime change.” That’s quite a dandy little record that gives us so very much to look forward to. On second thought, yeah.. maybe some of you Dem zombies are right… we’ll all be safer if they spend their time investigating instead of legislating. Let Nancy clean up the House. Gawd.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
The little snot Jonah Goldberg - chip off the old bitch - was another one. The pro-warriors were engaged in a hysterical hate-fest to shut up their mainstream opposition and tar us with the “Bush-hate” mime. It got worse the more their case for war began to fray…
Now, of course, that line of argument sounds like sheer idiocy - as when Jean Schmidt tried to smear Jack Murtha.
Incidentally, your second post is a classic in the strawman category. Really a masterpiece…
May 9th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
“you Dem zombies”
Oh, cut the shit.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
If the shoe fits…
May 9th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
There is no question that questioning the patriotism of Iraq war skeptics and opponents was part of the strategy of railroading the nation into supporting the war. But the Democrats in Congress who voted for it were grown up adults who were supposed to be leaders not followers. It is easy for John Kerry to make anti-war speeches now when it doesn’t make much difference; when it was hard to do it, during his presidential campaign, he didn’t do it–in fact, he said he had a better way to fight the war and “win.” So I have to agree with Marc, let the Dems show us what they would do differently. But as long as they are assured of progressive votes no matter what they do, there won’t be much pressure on them to do anything different.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Paul - since PK’s column was about accusations of “conspiracy mongering” against those who were against the war, read this post from that super-duper-lefty radical Kevin Drum and tell me that Michael Moore was a total screwball mired in paranoia while the pro-warriors were reasonable, untainted by delusion, hysteria or deceit.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_05/008776.php
Also, while we’re on the subject of twisting debate on Iraq into McCarthyite exorcisms, let’s not forget that sick fuck Zell Miller at the GOPerFest 2004 characterizing none other than John Kerry:
“While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats’ manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.
Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today’s Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.
In [Democratic leaders'] warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don’t believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself.”
May 9th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
“If the shoe fits…”
I didn’t think zombies wore shoes.
May 9th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Hey Reg… I remember the Zell Miller speech quite well. I was there when he delivered it. I was also with John Kerry a few weeks before when he was campaigning in Arizona and was asked point blank if he had it to do over again would he still have voted yes on the authorization for war in Iraq. He said yes. So Im supposed to shed tears for this guy because some deranged national laughing stock like Zell Miller lobs some mud at him? Come on, Im not a friggin’ zombie!
May 9th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Marc: It’s not a zero sum game. I think I ‘ve established here I’m no shill for the Dems, but can’t we get sometiing going on health care, outsourcing, minimum wage, union busting, energy research, et. al. and still clean a little house? Why does one preclude the other?
May 9th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
The Zell Miller speech is further proof that Paul from M is full of it in his contention that nobody seriously questioned the patriotism of war critics…which is why I cited it. That it was directed primarily at a tepid critic like Kerry proves just how dishonest and desperate the GOPers were even back in 2004 when they weren’t crumbling in a corner.
If you want to continue jerking off to your general contempt for Dems, fine. But at least follow the argument. Otherwise you sound like a zombie.
May 9th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
I believe zombies wore house slippers….and pajamas.
May 9th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
“….can’t we get sometiing going on health care, outsourcing,…et al. and still clean a little house? Why does one preclude the other?
Because they will likely require the signature of the resident of the house you want to clean Dan.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:05 am
Marc-
Though I haven’t yet tried pissing up a rope, I did learn more about what you actually stand for from the rest of that rant. If you’d mentioned that stuff originally, the complaint about investigations wouldn’t have seemed so gratuitous.
All I know about you is from this site, and the back and forth Dem/Repub bashing made it pretty hard to figure out what you were actually for at this point. Support for the Euston manifesto also didn’t clarify much (it’s a pretty tepid document).
Since when does calling someone a perfectionist or moderate constitute “psychoanalyzing”. If you’re deliberately trying to rile us up, why get so pissed off when we get riled up. If you want more sustantive discussion, make it clearer what you’d like soemone like Pelosi to do, as you did in the response rant. That gives us something to hang our hats on, something specific to deal with and we’ll be less inclined to tell you to piss up a rope.
In the end, though, what fun would that be.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:10 am
You really, really have an anger problem, reg.
I 99.5% guarantee that were we to parse those Sullivan columns, fairly, he was doing what I’m describing and you’re overreacting, being quick to take offense and so therefore sometimes incapable of careful reading, especially things you are for some unknown reason driven to disagree with. Although someone who loves Krugman shows himself not necessarily perfect at careful reading in any direction.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:28 am
I don’t have a problem with hitting Kerry on war support, but the idea that as a decorated veteran who protested the Viet Nam war makes him the ultimate traitor I just can’t abide. The Democrats may be ineffective, but that other bunch are jusy well-monied dictatorial thugs. And personal cowards to boot.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Jake: again, that’s not the criticism of Kerry I heard. That’s the simplistic version that allows people to ignore the actual one.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Key series to follow.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:37 am
reg, what in the name of all that is sweet and light is wrong with the Zell Miller quote? You select that and expect me to be outraged?
May 10th, 2006 at 8:37 am
You disagree with him. Me, I’m heartened by the plain statement from someone who believes like I do. In fact that comes close to being a position statement of what I think is wrong with huge swatches of the left. There are exceptions. But it’s not a tiny minority, it’s a massive, unchecked cancer within the party and the perspective.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:38 am
Why you go from disagreement with me and Zell on that opinion to assuming we’re not just saying what we believe is beyond me. Tell me precisely why I’m wrong - better than you have - but don’t call me or my buddy Zell dishonest.
I loved Zell Miller’s speech, it was cathartic to hear a Democrat saying it, and his demonization by the left is one good demonstration of the precise manner(s) in which they have inserted their heads up their rears.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:39 am
I could not care less about comparisons left to right, incidentally. Dishonesty in the powers that be is a given in any situation called for dissent. Dissent has responsibilities completely independent of that.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Marc -
I suspect you know that Zell Miller was and is not a national laughingstock to the degree you imply. Speaking as someone at whom the Speech was aimed, and I say that by way of demonstrating my keen self-awareness, it was a body blow to Kerry. And it still resonates.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Oh Reg, you were surprising me with your potty-reduction for so long, but I guess anger at Marc is too much.
Marc is overly critical of the Reps, but also quite critical of the Dems — perhaps the most honest Liberal blogging on this.
What he seems to favor is what I call “Unreal Perfection” — but he does so primarily by pointing out the imperfections of the real choices.
I still support Bush, strongly, despite being angry at the excessive spending. As I’ve mentioned, the Dems don’t ever seem to be AGAINST spending, even when a good number of Reps are against obvious and disgusting pork. Yeah, there’s a big deficit, getting bigger — but it’s still a smaller percent of the US GDP than most G7/G8 countries, and lower than the US record.
Bush Tax cuts have been great for the US economy, Bush has been lousy at getting any credit for this. Huge pork spending has helped, too (prolly too much).
Dem health care, like Canada has (where the Canadian court has ruled the long waiting lines as unconstitutional) is not gonna be a winner for Nov. Immigration is not going to win for Dems, except maybe by making Reps so upset at Bush’s lack of a fence/enforcement that they don’t vote.
Iraq is slo-mo success; look at the alternatives, Darfur slo-mo genocide, or Liberia where the UN, & other NGOs, run sex for food rings with teen & pre-teen girls.
Bush may well be bah, bah, bah, baaaadddd; but the Dem alternatives seem worse.
I don’t see the Dems pushing their own policies much (except Health Care) — what IS the Dem position on immigration, for instance?
My prediction for Nov — same ol’ same ol’.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Paul -
Zell didn’t help his cause when he challenged Chris Matthews to a duel (to my mind that would been a true cathartic experience, a real win-win). He may have pleased you but you weren’t exactly sitting on the fence. Do you think he convinced those who were — he may have turned as many off with his apoplexy. The whole thing would have seemed more of a body blow if he wasn’t such an enthusiastic supporter of the whole Repub platform. This wasn’t a loyal Dem regretfully chastising his party on one key issue.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:34 am
If one believes that the Dems’ approach to the Iraq issue has been marked by great dishonesty, as you say you don’t but me and Zell do, then there is nothing wrong with Zell’s speech. So in a way reaction to Zell is just a replay of that issue. Interesting.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:37 am
I was in fact exactly on the fence. The Democratic convention nearly had me down off the fence to join them, in spite of its flaws - and then Kerry spoke. That’s a different story.
The duel thing probably didn’t help him, you’re right. Although it didn’t hurt him all that much either I don’t think.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Paul -
Did Zell say something you hadn’t heard or thought of before.?
You sure got off that fence with a vengeance — are you sure you weren’t leaning one way, hoping to be knocked over.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Zell’s speech didn’t win me over. I can see how you picked that up. But it’s just more complicated than that. He stated something I believe; but I always believed it.
When I say it was a body blow, it’s because I think for a certain portion of the country, the fact that people actually felt that kind of deep anger at the Democrats was a bit of interesting news.
I remained undecided who I was going to vote for basically until I entered the booth. And in many ways I forget now who I voted for.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:58 am
The answer to the implied question is yes: I could have voted for Kerry even with the disdain I felt for him and too much of his party. I didn’t need much signal at all that somewhere in him, he understood where I was coming from.
I picked up such signals the first few days of the convention, through the noise, and then Kerry spoke. And he never recovered from that. It’s an un-remarked aspect of that convention, I think, how the first few days did include such signals to people like me, people who didn’t share the Bush Lied People Died No War for Neocons and Halliburton perspective; and then Kerry’s acceptance speech let us all know that was a bunch of bullshit, here’s what we really believe.
Purely on political tactics, it was a disaster. Crucially out of sync with what had been a main task of the convention before that.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Actually the implied question is “And in many ways I forget now who I voted for”????
To be honest, I can’t remember how Kerry’s speech differed in tone from the rest of the convention. Can’t remember others noting this difference. If he’d used the tone you hoped for, how would he have distinguished himself from Bush? Why would you have preferred him over Bush?
May 10th, 2006 at 10:28 am
That was sort of a joke.
This seems like a very interesting conversation that I can’t really have right now.
My memory is that Kerry ritualistically invoked the code language and rage-terms of the most angry left, thereby signaling that any of the more generous or complex takes on the war - as had been offered by Lieberman and Wesley Clark - had no role in his worldview or strategy. His plan was to play to that base, rather than play to what i saw as America’s interests and take the statesmanlike role of explaining to his base that he understood their anger but it’s more complex than that,
Maybe I wanted him to be Lieberman and that was stupid. Maybe he said what he really believed. Fine. Doen’t change my opinion of his beliefs or my perception that the convention’s attempts at centralizing were just tactics.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:41 am
So I just quick read Kerry’s speech and if you care maybe at some point I’ll point out the key passages that got to me, that pissed me off, that I took as thinly-vieled code founded in what I saw as BS.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:50 am
“And tonight — And tonight — And tonight we have an important message for those who question the patriotism of Americans who offer a better direction for our country. Before wrapping themselves in the flag and shutting their eyes to the truth and their ears, they should remember what America is really all about. They should remember the great idea of freedom for which so many have given their lives. Our purpose now is to reclaim our democracy itself. We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism.”
I wouod imagine that I was experiencing sporadic pronounced involuntary upraising of the middle finger during that paragraph.
The annoying cloak of martyrdom: “we must rescue our domocracy from people who dare question my patriotism, and those of you who disagree, quit wrappingi yourself in the flag” - bleech.
I’m not sure he intends to say a guy like me needs to open my eyes to my ears. If so, it’s an interesting directive. Dylan-like.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:51 am
The problem with Kerry was that he really opposed the war and should have said so and why. That basic act of dissimulation obviously dogged him, may have crippled him. He still cd have sd, probably with complete honesty, that once there we can’t cut and run, need to manage things responsibly etc. Cd even have pointed out that toppling a dictator has its noble aspects.
But what do I know — I’m just a “Dem zombie”
May 10th, 2006 at 11:07 am
See, I don’t believe he in is heart did oppose the war in the way you think he wanted to say. I think he knows that decision was intensely complex, that the WMD evidence was ridiculously tangled, and that the security basis for the war does not in fact utterly disappear when we go in and find that the WMDs we expected aren’t there. He knows that “saying there are WMDs in Iraq doesn’t make it so,†while true on its face, is a ridiculous oversimplification of the issue that doesn’t just harm Bush but harms the entire country, since the war is here. And it is specifically insulting to a guy like me, who has a more complicated view of the whole thing.
This speech was a capstone opportunity for the convention. What I wanted and even half-expected he ignored. He doesn’t accuse W of dishonesty and incompetence in a horrifically complex situation that offered no good options. He doesn’t say that people like me, people honestly working to sort this situation out, should be just as mad at W for the dishonesties and the fumbling – which is a message I would listen to. No, he boils it down to W’s dishonesty and corporate connections led us into an utterly unnecessary and unjustified war that has made everybody hate us. In doing that, he insults a hell of a lot of people in the country who poured their souls into trying to sort it out.
May 10th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Even if you’re right (and I assume at a minimum he had doubts - tho I still believe he opposed) — did you you hear the nuance you wanted from the Republicans? Did you get it from Zell Miller?
May 10th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
I agree with Zell Miller. Did he say something inaccurate? But, I also recognize his job in that speech, and it was the same job for the Republicans as the job was for the Democrats spoken so well by the 1952 centerfielder for the Class D Brunswick (Georgia) Pirates. He was motivating the convention and the voters.
May 10th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
“I think it’s rather obvious that yours truly is doing his humble best to stimulate some conversation”
You have fallen a little short in that endeavor. It isn’t like there is this huge shortage of pundits reminding us what supposed dimwits Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are….it’s a cottage industry.
“watching a bunch of bleating Democrats investigate a war they voted for in the first place”
Far be it from me to always defend the Democrats (see past anger from Dems on here directed at yours truly), but correct me if I am wrong: didn’t a MAJORITY of the Democrats in the House of Representatives go against the wishes of Gephardt (and Bush), and vote AGAINST the war resolution in 2002? I believe that Pelosi and Conyers both voted against it. But even putting that aside, Marc, are you saying that any Democrat who voted for the war has no business whatsoever to call into question an executive branch’s possible manipulation of pre-war intelligence? If THAT is the case, Marc, then I ask you this question: Should it follow that you as a journalist should have no business criticizing the Bush Administration - even on tactical grounds - since you supported that President’s ability to wage war on Iraq in the first place? Are you saying that you have more of a right to be gullible than the Democratic congress? Don’t you think that Bush’s bumbling tenures in the oil bidness and as governor should have made you think, “Hmmm…..maybe this guy isn’t the right guy to lead such an enterprise?” It’s a double standard, in my opinion.
May 10th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
BTW, I forgot to add that in the U.S. Senate, 21 Democrats, along with Rep. Linc Chaffee and Indie Jim Jeffords, voted against the Iraq war resolution (with nary a single one of them suffering any voter outrage from it). Naturally, though, I guess that is irrelevant on Planet Cooper, where service to constituents is out-trumped by the importance of seeing how low Bush’s approval ratings go on “Hardball with Chris Matthews” or “The Beltway Boys,” constitution be damned. Therefore, no investigations or even subpoenas are needed as long as our great republic has a bunch of talking heads and scientifically dubious pollsters. Imagine how things would have turned out back in 1776 if the colonists had spent much of their time listening to polls and Chris Matthews.
May 10th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
“I loved Zell Miller’s speech,…….”
I thought that he sounded like a braying donkey. His speech was boring, which is why I flipped it to “King of the Hill.” A good speech? Well, I guess the Republicans in my area are higher class, because they were frankly embarrassed that such a medieval-style tosspot would deliver the keynote for a much more cooler president (though 4 out of 6 of them now don’t support the guy).
May 10th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
No Paul that’s the one that derailed the train. That and they wanted him to oppose the war at all levels after the fact when he stated flat-out voting for the resolution was not a march to war straight out. It was the last possibility but not for Bush.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
TGLD - “I guess anger at Marc is too much”
I’m not angry at Marc.
I’d call you a moron, but I’m trying to swear off the ad hominem. So fuck it…
Paul - I wouldn’t use the terms “sweet and light” and “Zell Miller” in the same sentence. If you don’t get what I’m saying, you’re in the tank. You protest too much and you sound like someone who would parse spit if it came from the direction of the right and was directed at people who have been consistent in opposing the war from the beginning (you know…the folks who actually poured their souls into trying to sort things out and - Jebeezus - actually managed to do it.)
“Maybe I wanted him to be Lieberman and that was stupid.”
Boy, you got that right.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
“(Zell Miller’s) demonization by the left”
I love that line. Really. It explains so much.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
“And in many ways I forget now who I voted for.”
Well…duh.
Paul, reading over your posts on this thread is the gift that keeps on giving. Priceless.
May 10th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
“You really, really have an anger problem, reg.”
Actually I’m having a problem not choking on these pretzels. You’ve written some of the funniest stuff on this thread I’ve seen to date from someone who’s name doesn’t start with “W”. What you construe as “anger” I would call honest reaction of someone who’s deeply patriotic to punks and pukes of questionable ethics, intellect or ability to engage in reasoned discourse. If they’ve got a right to sling shit, I’ve got a right to react with at least a modicum of hostility. (Your true love Zell has an anger problem. W has an anger problem - at least according to White House aides. I have a disdain/contempt problem when I’m confronted with these lowlifes.)
Triumphalist bullshit deserves disdain. Anyone but an idiot knew that Iraq was a war of choice - at best - which makes calling those who opposed it forthrightly “fifth columnists” a disgusting and cowardly gesture. Moreover, Sullivan has apologized for the comments I referenced. Not that I feel compelled to take apologies from people who offer them soley out of embarrassment.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Bob Herbert talks some sense:
Enough already with the analyses ad nauseam of the strategies and tactics and philosophies that the Democratic Party should pursue to regain power in upcoming elections.
We’ve been listening to this armchair chatter for years: The Democrats need new ideas. They need big ideas. They need to move to the center. They need to wave the flag. They need to go to church. They need the soccer moms and the Nascar dads. They need to run from the blacks. They need to run from the gays.
I have no more patience with this perennially pathetic patient, this terminally timid Democrat who continues to lie cowering and trembling on the analyst’s couch, wondering why the Demolition Derby Republicans control virtually all of the levers of power in the United States.
The Democrats are thinking too much and doing too little. This is a party in need of a moxie transplant. It’s time for the patient to climb off the couch, walk outside and mix it up with the gang that has made a complete and utter mess of the country that was entrusted to it.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Well said, reg.
Some last words from me on this whole “The Trouble with Nancy” and then I am through. She probably pulled off one of the gutsiest political moves of the last ten years by uniting a sizable number of house Democrats against the House Minority Leader during the leadup to the Iraq debacle. She is such an improvement over Dick Gephardt… And I won’t even start on Tom Foley, Tip O’Neil, Gingerich, and Hastert. As for her supposed weaknesses (like the wavering) - I’m going to give her a chance instead of writing her off. I didn’t much care for Barbara Boxer when she came into the Senate in 1992, but she eventually matured into one of the few gems in the Democratic Party.
May 10th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Oh yeah…and if anyone still can’t figure out whether the neo-con rightwing is motivated, at it’s core, by hysteria, blind hatred and crackpot ideology, try these two current book titles from two of their most respected, high-profile pundits:
“The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life” by Ramesh Ponnuru & “Liberal Fascism : The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton” by Jonah Goldberg
Wack jobs…literally at the playground level of one of the more vociferous, if analytically challenged, commenters who perenially turns up here to make wild and crazy charges against Democrats (no…I don’t mean Marc…I’m pretty sure he’s just engaging in hyperbole when he calls us zombies.)
May 11th, 2006 at 2:56 am
48% of the Catholics voted Dem, for Kerry; 52% for Bush.
One of Pope John Paul II’s key ideas is to support: The Culture of Life.
No abortion, no euthanasia. And he wasn’t so hot on the Iraq war; other Cardinals were strongly against. Mixed signals, but anti-abortion is steadily stronger than total pacifism, opposition to all wars.
PC thought control has long been seen as similar to the Nazis — what do you think the censorship of Larry Summers, and his leaving Harvard, was all about? PC Dems acting out totalitarian impulses.
The “hysteria, blind hatred and crackpot ideology” is still more on the Left.
Of course, the Reps do seem to be loudly calling for response to WTC attacks; I guess I don’t think of it as hysteria when some 3000 Americans are murdered; when bombs go off in Madrid and London; when terrorists are cutting the heads off of people who disagree with them. I think loud response is not always hysterical.
When Bush orders terrorist surveillance of international calls, and this protective measure makes Bush-haters scream as loudly or more so that Bush is creating a police state, that seems more hysterical to me.
When 2500 American soldiers dying to replace Saddam with genuine Iraq democracy get far far more press than 2 years of slo-mo genocide in Darfur, with prolly over 200 000 being killed — yet almost all the protests are against Bush, not against Sudan’s genocide, that seems more hysterical to me.
But my absentee Rep primary ballot came; time to vote for Arnie again, and against those new bond issues (should reduce funding in other areas, shouldn’t punish the successful for success).
May 11th, 2006 at 6:17 am
“PC thought control has long been seen as similar to the Nazis — what do you think the censorship of Larry Summers, and his leaving Harvard, was all about?”
This thread is full of idiotic statements, but I think that one sets some sort of record…the right wing really has gone completely nuts.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:12 am
reg, I see a lot of insults and repetition and no new substance, nothing responding to my basic points on why Zell and I are angry. Oh, and a totally missed joke. (Whether funny or not, I announced: joke.)
Is this what spluttering defeat looks like?
May 11th, 2006 at 10:16 am
evets -
No, there was also not that nuance from the Republicans. At least not the politicians. W should have - as early as 2003 - made a major speech explaining the WMD failure, accepting responsibility, putting the war in context, and so on. His failure to do that is one of the reasons he may be impeachable.
The only nuance that existed and basically still does on these issues is in the non-left analysis and pundit world.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:18 am
I woul dhave voted for Joe Lieberman, absolutely no doubt. Had he got the nomination, so would 95% of the Democrats. Probably Gephardt, too.
In other words, left-side non-nuanced uncompromising rage gave us 4 more years of W.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Paul -
Lieberman actually hasn’t provided much centrist nuance on Iraq; he’s basically endorsed Bush wholeheartedly, unwilling to question the war’s execution. He also seems to go out of his way to side with Repubs on many domestic issues (tho I suppose there must be some he disagrees on). My question is — why would you prefer him to Bush. Overall intelligence/presumed competence? Slightly less draconian attitude to the social safety net?
May 11th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Competence, yes; and simply for a change. The country obviously needs/needed a change from W.
You are right about Lieberman’s Iraq views; mainly he doesn’t seem to have criticized W on the WMD fiasco. I guess I would assume as a candidate he would have had to address it somehow; did he talk about it at all in Iowa?
(On substantive grounds, I’m sure he honestly believes that the lack of WMDs doesn’t change the basic rationale for the war very much. But you can beleive that and still be stern with W on the way the case for the war was mangled.)
May 11th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
“In other words, left-side non-nuanced uncompromising rage gave us 4 more years of W.”
Paul…you’re a wack-job. Is this what sputtering defeat sounds like from the “vote-for-Bush-and-feeling-stupid” crowd ????
May 11th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
sorry…that was supposed to be “voted”
May 11th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Also, you can’t tell “rage” from an honest, reasonable response to your rampant stupidity and lack of substantive analysis - as opposed to mental masturbation. I have no “rage” when I read your meanderings - just a few chuckles. I don’t even feel pity, because you take care of that one in rather large doses for yourself.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
That was a mangled set of “opposites” - but it caught the spirit of my being underwhelmed.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
The Shorter “Paul from Minneapolis” :
I voted for W and helped fuck up the country…but it’s all Michael Moore’s fault.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/05/11/bushs-approval-ratings/
Oh, my ! 29% !
May 12th, 2006 at 10:32 am
reg -
You really can’t bring yourself to face the substance, can you? The idea that there’s an equivalent posion on the left to the poison you see on the right? An irrational rage that manifests itself in dishonest reactions to almost every issue that comes along, and which has captured so many of the mainstream leaders?
There are responsibilities for people playing the dissent role just as much as there is for power. That’s the idea. It’s not that complex. Evidently it’s just too tough for you.
May 12th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
There is no substance in your arguments. You’re one of the most masturbatory intellects I’ve ever encountered.
May 12th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Just to clarify, you constantly set up straw men, false equivalents, and reframe others’ arguments to facilitate your stock responses. It’s unbelievably lame.
May 13th, 2006 at 9:13 am
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html
February 12th, 2007 at 2:12 am
HI! Nice design!