Thin Reid
I've been chided by some of my readers for prematurely criticizing the Democrats, for giving them a bad time barely ten days after the mid-terms.
Poooor babies, as my hero, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog would say. As I compile my list of Global Victims, I will make sure to promote the new House and Senate leadership up nearer to the top. Move over you undeserving little Darfurians and make room for the truly persecuted: Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Two outstanding heroes of the people so unfairly maligned and misunderstood by the MSM and a pack of vicious bloggers, including moi.
I mean, why, give Reid any gruff? Just because the Senator from Searchlight already on Friday gave Don Rumsfeld's replacement -- Robert Gates-- the glaring green light? All this before a single minute of public (or private) confirmation hearings. My, what stringent oversight! Wouldn't the more appropriate move to have been to makes Gates and his boss, Mr. Bush, at least have to sit though the charade of a hearing before rubber-stamping him? Wouldn't Mr. Gates have been forced to work a tad bit harder in the hearings if Reid hadn't already tipped him off to the outcome? Wouldn't the administration have been forced to at least offer the pretense of explaining its future course in Iraq if Gates didn't already know that after some televised barking from Byrd and Bayh, he will be voted in no matter what?
Oh, sorry. Couldn't help myself. I didn't mean to keep kicking around the oppressed Democrats. I guess a mere ten days out from the mid-terms, they really are doing the very best they can. I'm sure Bob Gates thinks so. So, apparently, do the readers of the Dailykos who have voted their own endorsement for the Democratic leadership by near monolithic majorities. And before they've even taken their seats.
Shut my mouth.
P.S. On a slightly more serious note. This is the first time in the short history of the blogosphere (as we know it) that Democrats will hold a serious quota of power. Some liberal bloggers are now going to have to decide if they are mere echo-chambers or more independent watchdogs.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
You forgot to mention Reid’s land deal…
November 17th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
That would be unfair, reg. All congressmembers are corrupt, right?
And frankly I hope ur kidding. I imagine u would agree that we would all be better off if Reid and Co. put the maximum pressure on the admin when it comes to Iraq. No reason for Reid’s arse kissing of Gates today.
November 17th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
You wrote: “…liberal bloggers are now going to have to decide if they are mere echo-chambers or more independent watchdogs.”
Hear, hear! The entire “progressive left” in this country now faces a day of reckoning with the Democratic party. It’s easy to bitch and moan when you have no power, but making policy and managing the bureaucracy–in short, governing–is a different matter.
I know plenty of bloggers, journalists, and activists who are now going to have to put up or shut up (though one doubts they will ever shut up, no matter what!).
November 17th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
“Unless something comes up untoward at the hearings, which I don’t expect, he should be confirmed,” said Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, a Democrat who will lead the Senate when his party takes charge in January.
“The one thing he has going for him … is we want the change to take place very quickly. So it’s to our interest to have this change at the head of the Defense Department as soon as possible,” Reid said after meeting Gates.
new
end clip
For the record, that is the statement by Reid that prompted this “thumping” by our host. I guess I’m just too much of a shill or too stupid to get worked up by that, given that Rumsfeld doesn’t leave the Pentagon until a successor is appointed. I don’t know…maybe Reid should have taken a cue from Pelosi and pushed to have Jack Murtha replace Rummie, since the Democrats have been all-powerful since last Tuesday. But so far as I can tell from that statement, you’ll still get the charade of a hearing before the rubber stamping…probably even with some pointed questions from Joe Biden, Carl Levin, et. al. as to what direction they propose Gates follow. I doubt that Reid telegraphed anything Gates didn’t already know. I have a funny feeling Gates understands that the only more surefire position for any Beltway job seeker than his bid to quickly replace Rummie would be competing for a Senate seat with Katherine Harris.
November 17th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Please excuse brief change of topic:
The Senate (85-12) votes to reverse decades of US anti-proliferation policy, giving nuclear ‘green-light’ to India…
Biden: “If we are right, this…will increase the prospect of stability in Asia…”
Gotta love those Dems! Let’s thumb our noses to Iran in order to preclude any possibility of a non-military, regional resolution to the Iraq quagmire…
November 17th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
We should probably just face the fact that our host’s inability to size up Bill Clinton rationality (which, admirably, he more or less admits) goes for the entire Democratic Party. The shrill overarguement here pretty much tells the tale; as if anyone here had awarded the Dems victimhood; simply because we’ve suggested that it’s in our interest to extend them a modicum of fair play, or (horrors!) even good will. And now they’ve taken a poll showing a lot of people on the left are for a show of unity.
Those bastards!
For those who promoted the idea that the two partys aren’t that diferent (often including the suggestion that loyal Democrats tend to demonize the Republicans) these have been six LONG, TOUGH , FAITH TESTING YEARS . The bad guys have been living up to wildest expectations and the good guys have had the temarity to remain pretty much good. How much of this can an above it all progressive take?
So, now Marc Cooper, like a kid who who has been denied six years of Christmas, has snuck down on the morning of the 25th at 3:00 a.m., and is madly tearing apart everybodys presents. I think he ate Santa’s milk and cookies too. But Marc, you’ve got another SIX weeks, then the massive backlog of punches pulled on the Republicans can all find a Home on the Democrates Island of Misfit Cheap Shots.
Like the man said… wait for it.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Wall: any last words?
November 17th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
Ha ha, Mr Wall steps up to confirm your prediction and demand we go easy on the Dems in the spirit of “unity”. I guess they’re really, truly on our side if we could just get over our infantile skepticism and realize it. Joseph Biden, Live like Him! Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win!
November 18th, 2006 at 2:07 am
Good point–we need a rubber stamp like we need another useless war. A higher standard for Democrats should be something to strive for.
November 18th, 2006 at 4:55 am
Some good comments here. Makes me think that our desperate desire for a change in our country’s direction need not necessarily turn us all into Democratic Party hacks.
November 18th, 2006 at 6:26 am
“No reason for Reid’s arse kissing of Gates today.”
Is that what it was? Sounded to me like: if they don’t find any showstoppers in the hearings, he’s in. I.e., only like about 95% of presidential appointments. And Reid made the point that the faster they get confirmation out of the way, the faster they get RUMSFELD out of the way. Surely, Gates will be an improvement on Rummy–that rattlesnake is entwined in the tines of the pitchfork, and I’m all for whatever swing gets him over hedge. If it turns out Gates sucks too, then he sucks–he will still have been Dubya’s choice, and who’d be next in line, Douglas Feith?
Gates “should” be confirmed (with the caveat above) can be read two ways: one that he’s a good candidate, the other as a prediction, as in “it was rainy yesterday but should clear up by midday tomorrow.” I don’t see enough context here to rule out the predictive sense of the word.
November 18th, 2006 at 6:37 am
Um, how about, your utter inability to take as you dish throws doubt on your actual interest in a free exchange of viewpoints?
November 18th, 2006 at 7:09 am
timothus, My post is as free of “demands” as the more reasonable people’s takes around here have been free of Democratic Arse kissing. But hey, nobody ever tried to pull the plug on an arguement they were winning.
November 18th, 2006 at 7:15 am
“Um, how about, your utter inability to take as you dish throws doubt on your actual interest in a free exchange of viewpoints?”
That’s pretty funny, given that Marc has shown a higher tolerance for people who disagree with him and even attack him personally on his blog than any other host I know of. If Wall is interested in free speech, I look forward to seeing how he fares when he starts his own blog.
November 18th, 2006 at 7:30 am
I got an email this morning from the DNC with orders to paper any remaining maverick blogs with this message from Big Nance. Since dedicated Party members gave our leadership the kind of approval numbers in a Kos web poll that have only been surpassed by such skilled powerbrokers as Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il (with the exception of Rahm Emanuel’s 38% “pro”, which means he can soon be expected to “disappear”), we will, by mid-January, be passing into the brave new world phase in which resistance, slander, doubt or even random darts from would-be “liberals” will not be tolerated. You have been warned.
http://tinyurl.com/yxohr3
(Wall – Hint: don’t respond to Marc by name so often and generalize more of your observations. Marc – what’s the percentage in coming across as sorta thin-skinned to your blog readers ?)
November 18th, 2006 at 10:22 am
I’m sorry but I have not visited his websight yet this morning so I don’t know the correct line from Comrade KOS (“All power to the Blogisphere!”) so I’ll have to wing it. The terrible idea that Reid might go along with Gates as SecDef if nothing untoward comes up shows up clearly shows he is in the tank on Iraq!
I note, for the record, that the other day Marc praised Russ Feingold – even going so far as to endorse him (sort of) for House Majority Leader which would have been a neat trick seeing as he is in the Senate. Yet this paragon of Solonic virtue did break ranks with other Senate Dems (in a 50 – 50 body) to vote for John Ashcroft as AG in 2001 saying that a President deserved to have his choice for cabinet officers. But then he spoke at the “Shadow Convention” of the corruption of politics and comes from clean, wholesome, Wisconsin not Roger Morris’ den of iniquity, “The Last Honest Place”.
Of far more serious import is the agreement by so many Dems to wreck a generation’s work on nonproliferation by agreeing to sell enriched uranium to India – a nonsigner of the NPT. I guess it was to be expected and given the fact that no one there would sanction Israel I suppose India would feel victim of a double standard otherwise. But what do we say now to Pakistan? And is it wise to fuel a nuclear arms race in that part of the world?
Of course we now look like fools trying to stop Iran. And N Korea will like the NPT’s shredding as well. I expect this foolishness from the Bush Administration. But Joe Biden should know better. And he seriously wants to run for President?
November 18th, 2006 at 10:24 am
My objections have nothing to do with victimhood. When the Democrats are wrong, please, by all means, stick it to ‘em. I was happy to see a lively web debate about Murtha and Hoyer (oddly, Marc failed to engage Murtha’s most insistent supporter, Arianna Huffington) that focused on their ties to big money and pork barrel politics. Likewise, I think the focus on the Intelligence Committee Chairmanship is likewise well-deserved. And, for the record, I’m not one of those liberals who feel that Democrats typically get unfairly trashed by the media (which isn’t to say it never happens) or that you have to “game the refs.” But I do like to see decent journalism and I’d like a conversation, both on the web and in the larger polity, that focuses on real issues of importance.
To me, this is lame horse-race journalism. Who’s ahead? Who made a misstep? What does it all mean in the insular world of Washington? Nothing. Well then, by talking about it non-stop we can give it meaning. Harry Reid telegraphed his willingness to support Gates (didn’t we all know the Democrats were going to support Gates? Don’t you think that even if a public statement hadn’t made this known, congressional leaders in both parties had a pretty good idea that Gates was a shoe-in?). Pelosi backed the wrong horse. Ooooooh. And look, John Kerry may have opened his stupid trap.
If Marc Cooper alone spent his blog space lamenting these minor happenings, I wouldn’t care one whit. But somehow this sort of premature sniping consumes the web and air waves. When I Google Newsed (new term?) “Pelosi”, the majority of articles focused on her personality, her gender, and her city. And that’s only counting items in print – which don’t compare to the endless, pointless pontificating on the cable news channels. The complete lack of substance and seriousness regarding this important shift in power and the American people’s preference for change is breathtaking and disappointing. So, when they screw up, and they will, hold those feet to the fire, but at least focus on the stuff that matters.
November 18th, 2006 at 10:44 am
Another outrage…
http://tinyurl.com/ybehtx
Boy, I didn’t see that coming. I’m shattered.
November 18th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Oh wait a minute…reading past the headline, I see that spurred by the Dem victory, the Dem’s wildly popular “rock star Senator”, Obama, is pushing for including MORE in the ethics reform package than was promised by the leadership prior to the election.
How does that fit into The Narrative ?
November 18th, 2006 at 11:09 am
This is totally off-topic, but I’ve been reading some of the current rationalizations of war supporters, in the light of the bottom falling out of the little world of words they’ve contstructed explaining the war over the bast three and a half years, and aside from the open cowardice of many of the lesser lights – blaming liberals and the media for poisoning what they’d prematurely proclaimed as a victory – many of the hardcore – particularly around NRO and Weekly Standard – are beginning to sound like…dare I say it?…Trotskyites !
Their project has been reduced to a litany of “should’a”, “could’a”, “would’a” on the part of a poorly understood, unfairly reviled hyper-partisan faction who, if only we lesser men had taken up the cause with equal fervor, surely held the Holy Grail of liberation. Despite utter and dire failure when their urgings and proposed actions were finally tested in what will surely be considered a crucial turn of events on the world stage, they appear determined nonetheless to soldier on in service to their higher ideological calling and assure us they’ll get it right if only given another chance.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Please see the views of Kagan in Marty Peretz’s TNR on how easy it would be to come up with 50,000 more troops. BTW I understand that Peretz will go on the warpath if Harman doesn’t get the Intelligence Committee Chair.
On Harman: So she is being investigated for ties to AIPAC. Since when did that ever get a pol in trouble in Washington DC? Be serious! For people like Marty it only adds to her luster and I bet a lot of other DC Kewl Kids feel the same way. Hell, you don’t even have to be a DC kewl kid azs Bill Bradley gives her a wet one on his NEW WEST NOTES.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:49 am
MB, I would consider it not so odd. Indeed, rather than hashing out points of view with whatever civility possible; the names around the pundent/journalist class tend to ignore disagreements, and or insult or condesend from a safe distance. As Balter would have it, we tend to stay in or own safe little blogs and parrot the same takes back and forth.
Which is to say, I think it is our HOST and those with his take who should be having spirited online exchanges with Firedoglake. Instead of the occasional put down or dismisal. Wouldn’t that make things a little more interesting?
November 18th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Reg: I don’t really care what percentage of readers (or better said commenters) see me as somewhat thin-skinned. On this blog I go OUT OF MY WAY to provoke debate among those I am closest to and expect some rocks to get thrown back.
For me it’s a matter of pride. WIth a couple of decades worth of radio experience, I know something about building audience. The easiest way to do that is to pander to a niche, to provide ongoing mental massage to a market audience. Ask Atros, KOS or FDL about that. They are experts. Shameless experts I might add.
But im a journalist and a bit of curmudgeon and not an aspiring new media star. So I have chosen a niche that frankly isnt that popular and that limits my appeal. It’s my choice, I like it, no complaints.
So I am willing to take a lot of gruff and a lot rotten tomatoes. Some on this blog know — to borrow a term from my least favorite Supreme court Justice– that I have been electronically lynched on several occasions: accused of being someone who wants to fry Mumia, of being a “cruise missile leftist,” of being a DLC tool, and conspiring to murder my former boss Salvador Allende.
Most of that I can write off to dysfunctional lefties sitting alone in some room and trying to explain away their sad existence as a product of the political righteousness.
But sometimes — not often– but admittedly sometimes, being a human being and all, I get really really bored with incessant and relentless attacks on my person and on my personal integrity– especially when it comes from little Twits like Wall whose primary mission in life seems to make us want to feel sorry for Bill Clinton.
Think what you will of my responses, but I challenge you to find too many other bloggers who are as willing to directly confront and provoke their own readers. If you acknowledge that then you must also grant me the right to occasional pointed reply.
Mavis: im fully aware of Arianna’s views on Murtha as are all readers on this page. She’s a friend of mine and in private I have discussed our differences on this. I have lots of friends that I disagree with on lots of things. No need to start flame wars with people I like. I have enough with those I dont.
November 18th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
“you must also grant me the right to occasional pointed reply”
No problem with that at all, as I think you know. I was reacting to the “switch Wall off” bit…
November 18th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Many in here, Balter and Mavis being two prime exceptions (and Marc of course) are so die hard yellow dog democrats that they cannot stand any goring (no pun intended) of thier heros of the Democratic Party. More than willing to gore libertarianx, Republicans, Conservatives or any of the ILK that isn’t progressive/liberal but oh not their precious Democratic party. Well, got news, one of the reasons so many of us on the right like Marc’s blog is that he truly is a curmudgeon and contrarian and sticks it to anyone who he thinks is wrong. You folks on the other hand (with only a few exceptions) sing his praises as long as he is skewering the right but get your noses bent out of shape when he skewers the left. Shallow thinking fellows, mighty shallow.
November 18th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Ah…the host of GM’s corner takes me to task for “shallow thinking”.
Why am I Rolling On the Floor Laughing ?
November 18th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Thanks GM. Check is in the mail!
Reg: In the history of this blog I have switched off a grand total of maybe 5 or 6 people. Either for egregious abuse or because, like in the case of Wall, they became unbearably boring and repetitive carriers of personal attacks on me.
I can take a lot of those attacks silently. But after an excessive number I am tempted to defend myself by listing all the times I have risked my life, been shot at, been detained, arrested, threatened etc for doing my job as a journalist and how, in an an earlier, life I took even greater risks as an activist, getting arrested, going to jail and in Chile by directly facing the dictatorship. To do that, tho, would be REALLY boring (easier to buy my book) and self-serving so the easiest solution is to just switch off the source.
Im hardly afraid of debate. But elements like Wall provide no basis for debate, only for circular argument.
He’s not been banned yet. But Im sure he will be.
November 18th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
GMR – I guess your calling Nancy Pelosi a “DIMocrat” and an “airhead” in your own post on this is an example of the balance, nuance and profundity of your political discourse. You also recently wrote that a Democratic victory would threaten “our way of life”.
So put a sock in it so far as criticizing others as being diehard or partisan. You’re increasingly sounding like a full-on nutcase in meltdown. It also appears from the bulk of your recent natterings that you’ve pretty much run away from the debate over Iraq. Probably because most of what you’ve asserted on that quesition has proven to be delusional.
It’s not a crime for someone to be shrill AND wrong nearly all of the time…but I sure as hell don’t need to put up any self-righteous preening or blatant hypocrisy from such quarters.
November 18th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Ahh, but reg, I’m not a die hard Republican… I’m a die hard conservative and I can puncture liberals and DIM ocrats all I want on my blog. Just as I do Republicans. Your inability to see beyond your democratic nose is not my problem amigo. And you for damn sure ain’t one to complain about “self-righteous preening or blatant hypocrisy.”
By the way, I should have included Rosedog in the exceptions listed above.
November 18th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Just to speak up a little bit….
to GM – I’m not an American, or a Democrat. Where I American, I’d be what I am here, an anti-authoritarian socialist with some anarchist and some Marxist leanings.
to Marc – I know when I started commenting here I was rude to you personally – you do get under people’s skins about certain left causes celebre (Venezuela for example)….but I appreciate the fact that there is actual discussion here, unlike either liberal blogs or uber-left echo-chambers. That being said, I really wish to know why you’d prefer Jane Harman to Alcee Hastings, and why you haven’t discussed the AIPAC factor in your posts….I’m not saying its a responsibility but I think its kind of important – considering that AIPAC and Israel are openly pushing for a war with Iran – which I’m asuming you’d oppose.
I don’t overstate the power of the “lobby” but it seems that backing their candidates without context (or doing so by inference by bashing Murtha and Hastings) you neglect something important.
November 18th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
You are full of crap, is what you are. I’ve had far fewer illusions and was less of a rabid cheerleader for the last group of Dems in power than you’ve been with this degenerate mess of an adminsitration, and I will no doubt be for the next group as well. Right now I care most about my country, and like most Americans, want to give the Dems a a reasonable shot at housecleaning. Marc’s current fetish in a series of increasingly trivial threads is slightly ridiculous, but no biggie. I’d like to hear you actually engage something I’ve said here that’s substantive, rather than have you dip into the namecalling without even resorting to a counter-argument.
You’ve been a consistent apologist for this administration in their most disastrous policies and, while you’re pay lip-service to the need to control spending, you fully supported the tax cuts even though there was no chance of balancing the other side of the ledger. That’s par for the current faux-conservative course. Pat Buchanan and Andrew Sullivan are examples of contrarian conservatives in the current climate. You’re not. You’re a poser snd really need to put a sock in it as regards the unhinged attacks on others who aren’t even close to being as in-the-tank partisans as you’ve shown yourself in these threads and on your blog. Woody, of course, is even more of a poster-boy for cartoonish “conservatism”.
As I said, stuff it…
November 18th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
I don’t know. Off the top of my head I can recall criticizing Dems by name over their cave-ins on the Bankruptcy Bill, the Military Tribunal Bill, and the votes on the war. On this site. And today I went after Biden and others for gutting the NPT over Enriched Uranium sales to India. What I have not done is consigned the party to perdition because it has not done everything I would have liked. I’m rather like those characters in John Mortimer’s PARADISE POSTPONED who will take half a loaf rather than all or nothing. That usually gets you nothing.
And I’ll note that the aforementioned KOS, ATRIOS Et Al. are not uncritical cheerleaders of the Democratic party either. But they are partisans. And they make no pretense not to be. And they were all over the lot on the Hoyer – Murtha race with some taking no position at all.
So your point is . . .
November 18th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I wish the AIPAC issue was discussed with more substance. Steny was their pick. So is Jane Harman. The prime goal of Israel and AIPAC is war on Iran. Through this optic, slightly corrupt congressmen are small potatoes…discuss….
November 18th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
I have no point RLC with you because you are a broken clock. I like you and think you’re a fine chap, but your responses re the Dems are just way too predictable.
Any points I attempt to make are posted publicly and one is free to take em, leave em, see them or miss them. Not gonna spens Saturday reclarifying them.
Reg… GM is capable of defending himself but I fail to understand why he doesnt have the right to be wrong without getting so much verbal toxin dropped on him. Perhaps it satisfies some emotional urge on your part to call him names but it doesnt offer very much to the readers.
To prove that Im not thin-skinned Im just gonna laugh at ur assertion that my recent posts have been “increasingly trivial.” A week after the Dems take Congress it is trivial to debate and dissect just who is going to be in the Leadership? Pelosi’s acumen or lack thereof? Reid’s congenital milque-toastness? Democratic strategy or lack thereof to end the war?
Sorry. Why dont u and Lo Cicero get together by IM or sometning and send me a talking points memo every midnite so I make sure to address the really meaty questions of our time?? (!)
November 18th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Jcummings: Slightly corrupt? Ur a single issue anti-zionist voter are you? Too bad because the world is more complicated than that. Murtha may not be AIPAC’s guy but he’s surely the Pentagon and defense contractors; guy.
November 18th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
I posted that again because I thought it was under “moderation” and erased.
No I’m not a voter at all in the States. Murtha is the Pentagon’s man, yes – but not nec. defense contractors. The pentagon wants out of Iraq, for the most part – this (seems to be) who Murtha is speaking for.
Its not just about “singlue issue” anti-zionism. Its about a war on Iran.
November 18th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
“So your point is . . .”
Repeat one’s own unhinged assumptions often enough and…well…at least the guy engaged in the recycling probably continues to believe it. Facts don’t matter with this crowd, rlc. It’s not enough to criticize Dems on issues like the godawful bankruptcy bill, Sherrod Brown’s vote for the torture bill, etc. – or even to call for them to be jailed, as in the case of Rep. Jefferson. You have to express near-total disdain and always assume the worst, even of those like a new-congressional-leader-on-the-block like Pelosi who is taking strong, progressive stands on crucial issues facing the country. That way you’ll earn the respect of folks like Woody as a “good” liberal. In my book, that’s slightly preferable to suicide, but with friends like that etc. etc.
November 18th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
“it satisfies some emotional urge on your part to call him names but it doesnt offer very much to the readers”
I don’t appreciate being called shallow or a die-hard yellow-dog Democrat by a rapid GOPer partisan who rarely argues from evidence. GMR and Woody have injected a level of toxic politics into these threads with predictable regularity and I’m not of the “smile while morons make damn fool statements about how unpatriotic or ‘far left’ you are”. I’m neither and yes, I do detest the unhinged toxic right of which Woody and GMR are proud members. I’m don’t suffer right-wing fools gladly, nor do I consider extreme mischaracterizations and accusations to be somehow less toxic than my penchant for calling someone who makes a supremely idiotic statement “an idiot”. If you consider Woody or GMR somehow more “polite”, respectufl or measured in their discourse here than I am, I think you’re using a very narrow, selective metric.
November 18th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
So reg, when do we send Marc his Talking Points? Your place or mine?
November 18th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
On your last point, most of this week has been devoted to dissecting incoming Dem’s alleged flailing on issues and supposed defeats in the Beltway go-round…so yes, your obsession is looking to be increasingly trivial. It’s like a segment of Hardball that’s been turned into a mini-series. But, hey…it’s your blog. You’re the dealer…your baiting the hooks…etc. etc.
I’m assuming, at the least, that you really enjoy browbeating people who’ve decided that it makes political sense to identify themselves as “Democrats”. In which case, I’ve obviously helped make your week and, yes, you’re welcome.
November 18th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
You know rlc…I think Marc’s already got his own talking points. He’s crossing a dangerous line but, since he’s a likeable sort, I think we should let him share a cell in the re-education camp with Hitchens. My suggestion is that we also offer him a deck of cards so long as he’s willing to totally humiliate Hitchens in a few hands of Strip Poker.
I’m beginning to enjoy being part of this powerful new regime.
November 18th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Marc’s fixation on the Dems has apparently caused him to miss the fact that Sen. Warner is going to challenge Sen. Inhofe (the man who puts the nut in wingnut) to be ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
At least Sen. Warner has a grip on reality. A recent Zogby poll showed the following:
Concern about doing something regarding global warming is far and away in the mainstream of public thought in the US today. If Warner wins, it might very well mean that the republicans are smelling the coffee.
November 18th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Link to the Zogby poll,
November 18th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Looks like I missed some great vitriol. As a partisan Dem with no illusions about the party’s purity or revolutionary potential I can only say that with their election victory I hope for the best but expect something near mediocrity, realizing that even that will represent a significant upgrade over the past few years. I’m therefore not too perturbed about the 1st week’s “missteps”. A couple have been real (though hardly fatal) but some, like this Reid comment, seem ginned up to advance a new story line.
The Dems are sure to give you some real pretexts for vitriol soon enough Marc — why waste your eloquence on penny ante stuff.
November 18th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
In all seriousness, I appreciate our Host’s carefull watch on even semi-celebrityhood. I do think it would be quite a strech to see any impliced mayhem in my postings, but I’ll admit I’ve been on the case. Still, I don’t think Sidney Bluementhal OR Christopher Hitchens would call me a stalker. I lived in L.A. for many years, where I first heard “Radionation” on Pacifica. These days I’m safely far, far away. The only famous person I ever approached was Leonard Cohen. Real nice guy.
I also apprecaite not wanting to air disagreements with friends in public; though you’d be surprised how well you can disagree with people if you don’t keep calling them “idiots.” Still, I think my earlier point is valid; why should we peasent posters do the job of all the give and take while the Marquee names whisper their polite dissents over wine and cheese at fundrasiers?
Sorry, just thought I’d throw a little class warfare in there for Cummings. It should also be said, if predictability is the great sin, this blog is headed for some serious purgatory, however well written or argued. The tone of most of the critics here is
not shock, but rather, “don’t peak early.”
Finally, why I have no braging rights as any sort of pundit; to dismiss the totality of what I’ve thrown in as Bubba love is cheap in the extreme from parties who complain of being misrepresented. So, I see little to do but stay on the case until my dream is relized:
DEMOCRATES AND THE MEDIA: “Have they made their own bed; and should they have to lie in it?”
A Nation Forum featuring Christopher Hitchens, Eric Boehlert, Jane Hamsher, and….
well, best keep it genral.
November 18th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Well, you know, you go to war with the Democratic Party you’ve got and not the one you’d like to have, but if things descend into chaos and your only program is to stay the course and maintain strict party loyalty you’re going to lose the confidence of the people.
It should be said that it’s hardly a historical anomaly for radicals to attack liberals, and a lot of these Democrats don’t even count as liberals.
November 18th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Marc, don’t know if you saw this, but Chris Dodd to greatly remedy the Military Commissions Act.
Carry on carping.
November 18th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
That should say Chris Dodd has introduced legislation to greatly remedy the Military Commissions Act.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:17 am
Sometimes I wonder if it is your mouth that needs to be shut, Mr. Cooper. You are getting old, and your titanic efforts to sound hip are pitiful. Beyond that, your opinions make sense, but then they reflect a reality that is hitting us in the face day after day.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:38 am
Wow, this is all getting to be quite a psychodrama. Still not sure, though, why some here think that discussing what the Democrats are doing right now is penny ante and irrelevant stuff. It seems to me that this is the critical time to set the course and the priorities and we all should have strong opinions about it. More importantly, however, we aren’t going to stop discussing it, so those who keep telling us not to discuss it should give it up and start discussing or shut up.
Thanks to Randy Paul for injecting something important into the last bunch of posts.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:43 am
Oh, this just in, hed and first graph reproduced here:
“November 19, 2006
Democrats Split on How Far to Go With Ethics Law
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 — After railing for months against Congressional corruption under Republican rule, Democrats on Capitol Hill are divided on how far their proposed ethics overhaul should go.”
Read the rest online. Can you believe this? Here the Democrats have not even taken over Congress yet and they are debating ethics issues? Isn’t this penny ante and irrelevant so soon after the election?
November 19th, 2006 at 6:41 am
Michael – you missed this apparently…
# reg Says:
November 18th, 2006 at 10:44 am
Another outrage…
http://tinyurl.com/ybehtx
Boy, I didn’t see that coming. I’m shattered.
# reg Says:
November 18th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Oh wait a minute…reading past the headline, I see that spurred by the Dem victory, the Dem’s wildly popular “rock star Senatorâ€, Obama, is pushing for including MORE in the ethics reform package than was promised by the leadership prior to the election.
How does that fit into The Narrative ?
November 19th, 2006 at 6:44 am
“Wow, this is all getting to be quite a psychodrama. ”
agreed
November 19th, 2006 at 7:35 am
Sorry reg, I probably did see that but mentally put it in a different context.
Obama fits the narrative perfectly. There is a debate within the Democratic Party about ethics–just as there will be a sharp one about what to do about Iraq very soon–and we should all have an opinion on it. Never too soon.
btw since I prefer to stay on one thread whenever possible, I take note of the post from Nell on the previous thread. What she sees as snide is really just frustration on my part, including at the kind of fantasy scenarios that Michael Turner dreams up in order to counter my comments. Read his post carefully and you will see how many assumptions are made that are just that. And Nell, no one here ridiculed the “out now” demand. The point that Marc raised back then was that he did not think this should be the unifying demand for the particular march that was in the organization stage at that time (I forget exactly when) nor for the antiwar movement. Times have changed and he may have a different view of it now. And speaking of “march,” can it really be true that the march Nell is speaking of was originally planned for–March? I am glad that the urgency of doing something about Iraq has caused it to be moved up to late January. This is the problem with the antiwar movement as it stands now, little sense of urgency and months of planning when the great majority of Americans are against the war and want to see it end soon.
November 19th, 2006 at 7:36 am
Moving right along from the fundamental task of parsing the machinations of the Reid/Pelosi regime and taking my cues from Randy, I’m going to simply clip something from Juan Cole that, yes, shocked me. W’s clueless comments are commonplace, but this lady is supposed to have at least a modicum of sophistication…
From “Justifiable Comment” blog: Rice Urges Iraq to be more like Vietnam (???!!)
AP says that Secretary of State Condi Rice asserted Saturday that Iraqis only have a future if they stay within a single state. She pointed to Vietnam’s success in reforming its economy and making up with the United States and held it out as a model to Iraq.
Whaaat?
Rice surely knows that the way in which Vietnam achieved national unity was . . . for the radical forces to drive out the Americans, overthrow pro-American elements, and conquer the whole country. They only went in for this capitalism thing fairly recently. Rice, a Ph.D. and former Provost of Stanford University, shouldn’t be saying silly things like that Iraq should emulate Vietnam. I guess if you hang around with W. long enough, you catch whatever it is that he has. (end clip)
November 19th, 2006 at 7:44 am
I guess Condi didn’t see the portrait of Ho Chi Minh behind Bush’s head in all the photo ops.
I don’t want to be convoluted in my comments re the antiwar march so in response to Nell’s post from the previous thread which quote from here…
“UfPJ has moved up to January 27 a demo originally scheduled for March, in hopes of generating massive, visible popular support explicitly for withdrawal from Iraq, to create pressure on Congress.”
…I would comment that UfPJ’s original plan to have the march in March simply shows how lackadaisical antiwar leaders have been in the face of this incredibly destructive war. Even waiting two months is pretty fucked up. With the great majority of Americans against the war, are antiwar leaders worried that no one will show up unless they spend months organizing? Or does it just take that long to check the schedules of all the “leaders” of all the organizations who will show up to give speeches?
November 19th, 2006 at 7:59 am
Sorry everyone, but I really have to get this out of my system and then I promise to calm down. Nell comes onto this blog and criticizes Marc for dissing the “out now” demand and then tells us that the OUT NOW forces had organized a demo for MARCH! Well folks, according to my calendar, that’s not NOW, that is several months from now. And now the date has been moved up and here is what the link Nell gives us says:
“Tell the New Congress:
Act NOW to Bring the Troops Home!
Join United for Peace and Justice in a massive march on Washington, D.C., on Sat., January 27, to call on Congress to take immediate action to end the war.”
IMMEDIATE ACTION? You mean, like, immediately more than TWO MONTHS from now?
I can just hear the responses now, oh, it takes that long to organize a big march, etc etc. Yes it does, if you feel you have all the time in the world. And some of our antiwar leaders obviously feel that they do. History is gonna pass a lot of these folks by.
November 19th, 2006 at 8:10 am
Michael, of course there’s a debate among Dems (one reason they are preferable almost uniformly to the GOP, which grew to be far more lockstep as a party machine, despite deep underlying contradictions among the elements of their “base”), but my point about “the narrative” is that we’re seeing a debate over whether or not to go farther than promised at election time, rather than how much less the electorate can be counted on to put up with. That’s the right direction for the course of further debate…
Here’s a good piece on Obama, incidentally, that takes what I consider to be a realistic tone…Obama is no Wellstone, but then Wellstone, who I loved, was on the path of becoming a great Senator, while Obama appears to have real potential to become President, which clearly requires more measured leadership, however much we might personally want someone who mirrors one’s own ultra-liberalism.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19651
November 19th, 2006 at 8:19 am
There are a lot of attractive things about Obama, but I will believe he is presidential material only if he and his backers have the guts to take on the Hillary Clinton juggernaut.
November 19th, 2006 at 8:23 am
Michael Balter -
We who (with varying degrees of enthusiasm), unashamedly support the Dems, are just not that put off by the week of disagreements, pecadilloes and political machinations. We are not disillusioned by this sudden fall from perfection. We expect them to behave like a political party composed of fallible humans. We expect them to fall short. The Harry Reid story is not ‘penny ante’ if you’re expecting Reid to follow in Nader’s footsteps. If you had no such expectations, it fails to shock or dismay. There are no signs yet that the current Dems can’t provide a solid alternative to the GOP, mildly progressive on economics , far lesss Manichean and more effective in foreign policy and discernibly less corrupt (though after a few years in power watch out). They’ll also put the brakes on the theo-neo-con nexus which seemd to be spinning out of control. If they do all or most of this, they’ll have justified our votes. I’m still confident they can.
November 19th, 2006 at 8:24 am
UFPJ are so damned lazy and inefficient and tied to Dems, while ANSWER are…..ANSWER. Oh to have the leaders of “Armies of the Night” organizing a current movement- well, Chomsky is still around and Mailer, but…..
It does take that long to organize a rally with pseudo-left celebs and perhaps Danny Glover…, and unlike the anarchists – who organized Seattle in a week or two, the old CPUSA types are a little more theatrical.
November 19th, 2006 at 8:26 am
Okay, I have to go see my brand new grand-nephew, I’ll check in later.
One thought before I go: The best chance that the Democrats might do some good things this time around is that expectations of them are very high among the voters. We don’t need to be making excuses for their shortcomings so soon IMHO.
November 19th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Just watched Tester and Webb on MTP and, I have to say, they left me with the feeling that the Dems are finally “getting it” and the forging of a longer-term center/lib-left coalition has an excellent chance with some of this new blood. They were also good on Iraq – not for “immediate withdrawal” but for regional negotiations toward withdrawal, which is a much smarter, more rational policy, aligned with the expectations of the public, post-election.
(I’ll let others debate the internecine fractures, delays and ineffectiveness of the self-annointed leftist anti-war movement. I don’t want to get mean…)
November 19th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Meet the Press generally makes me a bit crazy (who knew?) with Russert playing at being tough but just as often giving passes, but today’s was worth every minute of my attention. The interview with Webb and Tester was interesting and, IMHO, hopeful as to the quality and concerns of the new “conservative Democrats” and Ted Koppel and Robin Wright offered some real insight and information toward getting past our national ignorance, if not our total impasse, as regards Iran. Also some reasonable commentary on next steps on Iraq. (Not stuff that will make Michael B. jubilant, but a serious approach past the current multiple failures.) Thoughtful, useful, informed and persuasive. You can watch this in video on the web, don’t have the URL but just google MTP… highly recommended.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:31 am
I’m going to make a general observation on my current mood, which informs my reaction to some of what’s going on with the Dems, the prospect of “changing course” dramatically to get the U.S. out of Iraq and “possibly” dampening the disaster facing Iraqis, etc. etc. I’m emotionally and intellectually exhausted by the past four, five or six years – depending on which benchmark ranging from deep disappointment to absolute horror one might use. I am sick of trying to follow global affairs, military strategy and a bunch of related stuff about six or seven levels above my pay grade, background or even personal interest in such. I am sick of watching my worst fears tend to become “the news”.
I generally don’t allow my emotions to get too close to the human tragedy of this war, and I’m sick of keeping a lid on that aspect of my humanity as I try to pay fairly close attention to what’s happening on the ground. So I’m looking for just a little bit of optimism and hope in the new balance of Beltway power, while keeping my eyes wide open to serious signs of same-old-same-old.
Evets summed it up best regardiing what he expects, or at least hopes for, from the Dems. And there are no signs yet that signify their walking away from a serious attempt to provide him with a reasonable level of satisfaction. I think a lot of the debate here is based on differences over whether “immediate withdrawal” is any more of a plan for lessening Iraq’s agony than “stay the course”. Those of us who have been more-or-less in the “no good options” mode for a long time are probably more willing to see value in serious, well-informed strategists and diplomats come up with an alternative that is founded first and foremost on regional, inclusive negotiations toward some attempt at stabilization and protection of innocents, as opposed to just handing the problem over to the Pentagon’s travel-agents-of-last-resort.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Of course, there obviously ARE some among us who just want to get the troops home ASAP and I guess in the interest of fairness even to those on the extremes of this debate, we should give them at least a hearing. I was looking for something from the International Socialist Organization, but all I could find was this…
http://tinyurl.com/ya7vg7
November 19th, 2006 at 11:41 am
Oh nuts, I had a too-clever comment introducting a URL now “in moderation”
but I’m going to try again with just this because it’s a must read:
http://tinyurl.com/ya7vg7
November 19th, 2006 at 11:52 am
Another link – with a link – that like the last one, to be frank, makes me ever more tempted to shift rhethorical gears closer to Michael B, jcummings and Marc on “what now for the U.S. re: Iraq” than stick with any attempts at on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand “nuance” or to endorse diplomatic juggling acts…
http://tinyurl.com/y9vxal
November 19th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
“A week after the Dems take Congress it is trivial to debate and dissect just who is going to be in the Leadership?” – the host
The Democrats haven’t “taken” Congress yet. They won’t take office in another two months. Irritatingly, one of the questions that CSPAN asked its viewers was, “how has the new Democratic Congress done so far?”
And yes, this debate is highly trivial.
“Democratic strategy or lack thereof to end the war [is trivial]?”
I resent the notion that the men holding the guns – this Republican administration, this Republican Congress, and this Republican Party – have for the past four years been allowed to avoid coming up with any coherent or meaningful strategy to end, and even correctly prosecute this war in Iraq. Everything has been “mission accomplished,” or “stay the course.” Yet no one in the mainstream media – including this blog’s host – has called for Bush and/or the Republicans to offer their plans for this war…plans which, by the way, should have been drafted back in late 2002 at the earliest. Instead, it has been the Democrats who have been criticized for allegedly “not having a plan for getting out of Iraq.”
George W. Bush is the commander in chief of this nation. It was, and still is, his responsibility for getting this country out of the mess that he has created. It was his administration that refused to work with the UN in dealing with Iraq. Anyone who has placed the burden on Democrats and not this administration – you should be ashamed of yourself.
Democrats, for the record, have offered a number of alternatives – increase in troop numbers, partitioning Iraq into three parts – only to have Tony Snow say, on behalf of his smirking administration, that those are all “non-starters.”
Yes, placing the burden on Democrats for this mess in Iraq that was created almost entirely by this administration is not only “trivial,” it is an outrage.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
David is a good example of how easy it is for someone to make themself and their comments irrelevant. The people elected a Democratic Congress because they had no faith that the Bush administration was going to find a solution. Were they wrong? If not, then the burden is indeed on new leadership, and particularly those who were elected because they promised to provide it. Or should the Democrats give up all their newly won seats and hand Congress back over to the Republicans? Shame on you, David, for not thinking it all through when so much is at stake.
reg, thanks for those important links. They clearly raise the issue of whether the US can do anything more in Iraq. If not, then what are the troops supposed to be doing during this drawn out, phased withdrawal we hear so much about? A phased withdrawal could only be justified if the troops were going to accomplish something while they stayed and IF they were not put in even greater danger while they were doing it. How likely is that? But sounds as though you are already coming to realize this.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
My main caveat, MB, is that the folks who are going to do most of the dying in a civil war aren’t necessarily militant partisans. I’m sure this is already true. If anything can be done to protect innocents in some form or fashion, via regional diplomacy or whatever – frankly even more of our troops if that weren’t a totally bullshit fantasy – it’s an absolute moral responsibility given what we’ve uncorked in that country.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
“it’s an absolute moral responsibility given what we’ve uncorked in that country.”
We agree on that, and I don’t think anyone advocating quick withdrawal of US troops means that we should then turn our backs on Iraq. At least I hope not. But the military mission is over, or should be.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Balter,
Yes, I suppose you and Marc are right…it really is reasonable to expect that the Democrats should have a plan for ending the war in Iraq, just a matter of days after winning the congress, and before Dem. leaders have had a chance of even looking at intelligence reports on the ground. I guess on Planet Balter, Democrats are even expected to possess supernatural powers.
How wonderful for the Bush Administration that they will never have to be held accountable for getting the U.S. troops out of the mess that they created for them. I guess with the Democrats set to lead the next Congress by a majority of a few seats in both houses, the Bush Administration will never have to explain what their strategy was in Iraq. All is wonderful in the world, and if US troops don’t fare well in Iraq, it can all be blamed squarely on the Democrats for not having come up with a viable strategy.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
That is, a “viable strategy” that is a “starter,” rather than a “non-starter.”
November 19th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
None of this would have happened if Ralph Nader had been elected, right?
Remember that the big issue for the Green candidate in Virginia was a light rail system for Fairfax County! Now there’s the kind of enlightened leadership we’re looking for!
I’m willing to give the new leadership in Congress until at least January when they actually take power. Silly me – just a broken clock for not expecting the rapture right this very minute!
November 19th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
No Rapture ? Dang…
November 19th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
I think a balance of David’s post here and the original Corn piece in the Nation get it just about right. But I’m open. What will this non-military support for Iraq entail?
Reg, I don’t like to engage in easy bashing of Academics; but your respect for Dr. Rice based on her degree is a little hard to take. She recently broke both a promise and worthy tradition by campaigning as Sec. of State. As Alterman recently pointed out, there is something seriously fishy about that story of Tenent’s 9-11 Warnings and there lack of prominance in the 9-11 Report. She has used the civil rights movement to justify the invasion of Iraq.
I don’t think it’s fair to stick W with blame for his flunky’s
cravenness. If anything, hack intellectual dolts like Rice mixed up Jr.’s Kool Aid.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
I just thought I’d add another substantive matter that has nothing to do Harry and Nancy and their adventures in Caucusland. This might even interest Marc since he’s mentioned it enough.
It seems that down in Texas, where the GOP still rules, the leaders in Austin know what’s killing this great and glorious land. Its all them illegal Mexicans ravishing the Lone Star State. And they’re mad as hell and not going to take that anymore!
So the boys from the Brazos have a plan. It includes all the golden oldies – English the Official language, Fines on landlords who rent to illegals and – ala prop 187 – no public services to those damn wetbacks. But the Texas legislators want to go one better. They want to extend the ban on public services to the children of illegals BORN IN THE USA. What’s that you say? The 14th Ammendment makes them citizens? Not so fast pardner! According to their braintrust (such as it is) that ammendment was a Civil War addition addressed to former slaves and should not apply to those here without color of law. But just to be on the safe side they want a Constitutional Ammendment to make this clear.
I guess the lesson of Arizona – Hayworth and Graf – was lost on them or maybe Texas voters are made of sterner stuff. For some reason LULAC is alarmed. Can’t figure out why?
Now back to ridiculing Nancy. . .
November 19th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
For the record – and I guess this is a response to Michael Balter – I agree that the Democrats and their leadership should take initiative in coming up with solutions on resolving the Iraq War. And yes, the Iraq War was one of a handful of issues that tipped the Congress narrowly into their control for the next session (along with corruption, health care, loss of jobs, oil prices, wages, and other issues).
But to expect them to do this overnight is irresponsible. Over the past few years, Democrats have tried to hold hearings in Congress to examine the mistakes made in Iraq, only to be relegated to musty rooms in the basement with little lighting. As for those Democrats who voted for Bush’s war resolution – they were voting with assurances from the administration that were never followed through. I can give you a history lesson if you’d like, but I think we all know the cornucopia of falsehoods and half-truths that followed.
I for one resent those Republicans, Conservative Democrats, and Cable pundits who say, “Well, we ignored intelligence that said that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We ignored going through the proper channels of the UN before invading. We ignored our generals who said that we needed more troops to do the job. We ignored the lessons of history in prosecuting this war. We ignored the advice of Democrats on the other aisle….Well, now it is YOUR responsibility, Democrats, to get us out of this mess, and all of you need to have a ‘unified solution’ NOW.”
Democrats are indeed divided over the question of how to resolve the Iraqi conflict…but despite their differences, their solutions are more serious than “full speed ahead,” to borrow the current administration lingo.
The best resolve in my opinion is to increase troop levels, partition Iraq into three separate entities based on talks with the Sunnis, Shiates, and the Kurds; and get out over the next year to two years…
November 19th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
But in the meantime, can we please have a discussion that addresses “shared burden,” rather than placing the bulk of responsibility on a minority party that has been hog-tied for the last four years?
November 19th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
And Ariana takes the Pelosi bashers to the woodshed over at HP….(though She sticks to easy pickens, Mo Dowd)
November 19th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Michael Balter,
What does bother me about the carping on the Democrats is this: there are things going on now that are of concern. The attempt to make John Bolton Ambassador to the UN during the lame duck session is being revived and Bush is also busy trying to slip in some judicial nominations that are clearly unqualified or are clearly activist judges (leading to the obvious observation that the right really only dislikes judicial activism when the alleged judicial activists are appointed by Democrats).
None of that is apparently important. Keep beating up on the Democrats.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
“your respect for Dr. Rice”
Uh, more like a rhetorical device…
November 19th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
P.S. On a slightly more serious note. This is the first time in the short history of the blogosphere (as we know it) that Democrats will hold a serious quota of power. Some liberal bloggers are now going to have to decide if they are mere echo-chambers or more independent watchdogs. -Marc Cooper
Add, look ma, I’m running with scissor’s contrarian bullshit artist’s (that’s you Marc) to your list.
Enough about your purity, Ralph Nader, ad how Al Gore is such a doo-doo head.
Base your posts on the common good, not ideological purity.
In short Marc, take your OWN fuckin advice.
November 19th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
God in fucking heaven…
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/061127fa_fact
November 19th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
reg, Cheney’s mental state isnt important. Jack Murtha’s 25 year old corruption rap is. Your making a morally proportional point in your post.
Marc’s rubric is that there is no morale proportionality, only contrarian purity.
November 19th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Reg, yes, I caught your set up. But I think it should be clear poor Condi is no victim of the company She keeps.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
My main problem with Murtha, as I stated a few threads ago, was not ABSCAM but the fact that he is very conservative on social issues, one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress. That does not seem to concern some people here.
Randy, I don’t see any contradiction between criticizing the Democrats for mistakes they are already making and being concerned about Bolton and the judicial appointments. The issue is whether the Democrats are going to do the right thing. Reid’s reaction to the Gates appointment does not inspire confidence that he will go after Bolton, but we shall see.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Actually I am being way too charitable. DonkeyKong’s reference to a “25 year old” rap is a good example of the dishonesty to which some will stoop to shield the Democrats from criticism, since we know that Murtha opposes ethics legislation today.
November 20th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Michael,
I’m not assuming a contradiction. I’m writing about an utter lack of mention of the Bolton revival, which, by the way was designed to be effected during the lame duck session, so a filbuster would be the only way to block it if it went out of the committee.
November 20th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
DonkeyKong: “Base your posts on the common good, not ideological purity.”
That’s a self-serving misframing of the debate. Pragmatism vs. idealism is really a false dichotomy. Ralph Nader himself is far from pure, something I’m sure Marc is aware of. The debate is really about where to draw the line. I doubt any commenter here would support Hitler if he were doing political battle with Stalin on the basis that Hitler’s “not as bad.” Pretty much everyone has a point below which they feel they just cannot stoop. I frankly find it amusing that some people are just so pissed that are others draw the line somewhere else. Political/moral calculus is not real math, you know.
November 22nd, 2006 at 8:00 am
I sure hope you point out any Dems who are as willing to criticize the Dems in power as many conservatives are willing to criticize Reps in power.
I think there will be a few more — thanks partly to your own good efforts.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
cheap fares…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….
July 29th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
using a shiatsu massage chair…
using a shiatsu massage chair…