At the HuffPo, Jeffrey Feldman entitles his bad acid diary entry, “Et Tu, ABC?”
This casts Obama as Julius Caesar, and ABC as Brutus, which is psychologically interesting in and of itself, as Brutus was the “republican” who killed Caesar in order to thwart what he felt was his ambition to become Rome’s autocrat. Perhaps Feldman dislikes Brutus because of the association with the word, “republican”? No, I’m reading too much into it.
These people fail to recall that among the MSM, it was Brian Ross’s team at ABC that finally picked up and publicised Reverend Wright’s ridiculous race-baiting rants. ABC has in fact been pro-Clinton from the beginning, just as NBC has been pro-Bama.
For months, now, there has been an effort to frame the Democratic front-runner not just as a bad candidate, but as a potential violent threat to the American public. It is the familiar politics of violent rhetoric, which are being used in this election to undermine the candidacy of Barack Obama.
The politics of violent rhetoric. The politics of personal destruction. The right-wing noise machine. This is nothing but demonization presented as victimization, as is demonstrated by this blogger’s repeated efforts at casting John McCain as an apocalyptic theocon, to the the largely irreligious by still Jim Jonesian cultists of the HuffPo.
Back in January, Mr. Feldman sang another tune:
When faced with the choice between four years of identity politics in the White House and four years without it, voters will likely choose the latter. Winning the Democratic nomination by playing to identity, in other words, could very well be the Democratic nominee’s key step towards losing the general election.
We may all be identity voters, in other words, but voters need not accept the situation. As voters, we can reject the choices put to us by that small handful of people running primary election campaigns. As voters, we can all insist on a more pragmatic, less divisive frame for American politics.
We can refuse to be drawn up in the rancor of accusations.
We can refuse to engage the futility of the blame game.
We can insist on talking about the core challenges we face as a nation: a failed foreign policy, a global environment in deep crisis, an economy in need of a transition overhaul.
Even if the election campaigns we see on TV are discussing identity issues instead of the pragmatic challenges we face, Americans can still drive the debate in the direction that matters most.
There are many social hurdles that we still need to face as a nation. And we will continue to work hard to do so. But for now, we must work together to make sure that our national politics does not collapse into a crisis of identity politics.
Let’s make sure that does not happen.
Oh, certainly; but how is it that identity politics have become so poisonous to the national discourse, and how is it that they emerged with such force in this primary season? Regarding Stephanopoulos’s question about Ayers (spoon-fed to him by Shawn Hannity!!11eleventy!), Feldman says this:
The issue is not whether he needs to answer for the past violent acts of one of his constituents, but whether or not the political debate can move forward in a productive manner in the face of this kind of effort to associate candidates with violence.
First of all, the interesting part about Obama’s dalliance with Ayers is that he went to Ayers as part of his preparation for the initial launch of his political career. At that time, Ayers wasn’t yet a constituent. It is of a piece with the other jejune and/or cynically opportunistic means by which Obama cultivated an aura of authenticity, of being both within and without, of being, as it were, a mole in the halls of power, just as he did by sitting and nodding and amening as his pastor railed against Whitey and his God. How romantic! And now that it’s come back to bite him in the ass, how terrible!
Hillary Clinton, for her part, should have said something very similar. She should have said that such questions are fundamentally debasing of the political system. She should have said that asking Barack Obama to deny his allegiance to domestic violence is an offense to the very institution of civil debate on which our entire system depends. Unfortunately, she chose to add to the violent framing, further implying that Obama was somehow aligned with The Weather Underground and implying, however vaguely, that Bill Ayer’s violent views were somehow shared by her Democratic opponent for the nomination. That moment–her response–was the low point in the entire political career of Hillary Clinton.
I don’t see anywhere where Mr. Feldman was deeply concerned about the allegations that Hillary attempted to bury documents that might have provided certain defenses for President Nixon during the impeachment proceedings. I don’t see where he stood up for McCain against the claims that he engaged in fisticuffs with another Congresscritter. I don’t see where he was appalled by Wright’s insinuations that 9-11 was an inside job, or that AIDS is a US government sponsored form of germ warfare against black America, both of which are much more “violent” claims than that Baracky consorted with numerous anti-American numbskulls who’ve been elevated by the counter-establishment to positions of influence and affluence. The reason that Barack cannot repudiate them (he would like to say, as opposed to their ideas) is that they have constituted his base.
Here’s more inane hand-wringing:
Having said that, he could have paused and emphasized that all of it, of course, is lies. But worse than lies, he might have told the American people, the attempt to frame him in violent terms is a sort of politics so ugly and so sickening that Americans with good hearts and open minds are loathe to even think about it.ÂÂ
Do you know what? Somewhere, recently, I heard someone use an expression about chickens coming home to roost. It is “liberals” who championed the validity of identity politics and enabled them–liberals who authorized the insane rhetoric of Reverend Wright and similar jackasses, and flattered them that their braying was music. It is “liberals” who, for the past eight years, continually smeared Bush and his administration with the most loathesome conspiracy theories, imputed to them the most diabolical motives, continually debased the political discourse of the nation, and laughed as their lies were repeated and magnified, called for endless investigations, and justified it by saying that they were merely looking out for the American people, attributed their actions to malice or stupidity or evil genius depending on the requirements of the rhetorical instant. They called it speaking truth to power, whether it was a pack of lies or not.  He sat there and laughed at Lil Bush, not because it was true, but because it fulfilled his fantasies. Mind you, because it was about Bush, it couldn’t possibly have been corrosive to civil discourse.
How ever could a uniter become so divisive? Nutroots: clear losers of yesterday’s debate.
And now he fantasizes that he is Baracky’s speech-writer, as though that would have made all the difference. As though “framing” were the answer to everything. How Greenwaldian of him. That’s got to be the saddest pretense of all.
UPDATE: Post regarding some actual violent rhetoric at Jawa
Jeff adds in the comments:
One of the reasons I’ve been content to sit back and watch this all unfold is that I’ve been warning the “progressives†for years that such a public spectacle of infighting was the inevitable endgame. Their mistake in attempting to deconstruct individualism until it became group dependent was that they actually believed they could control the monster they created and enabled.
For a long time I self-identified as a Democrat. But soon after 911 it became clear to me that the liberal establishment was anything but liberal, and that progressivism acted like a toxin on a country built around individual freedoms and federalist principles. By pointing this out, I was never trying to demonize progressives as part of some political team sport; rather, I was hoping that, were they shown how their philosophy works  on what it premises itself  they’d reconsider.
Jonah Goldberg’s book is a culmination of that kind of undertaking, I think, and Mona the “libertarian’s†response to it? Is that it was “atrocious.â€Â
Which tells me that we have progressives hiding at every point along the political continuum  which is why I don’t trust McCain, just as I don’t trust Obama or Clinton, or Buchanan, or Gore.
Sadly for me, I can honestly say I’m not enjoying watching this unfold. And that’s because I doubt we’ll take away from this identity politics battle royale any of the right lessons. Instead, we’ll just increase the side of the ledger marked “things we cannot talk about openly. FOR FREEDOM!â€Â
That second to last paragraph is a thing of beauty, Karl. As always, as you sow, so shall you reap.
She should have said that asking Barack Obama to deny his allegiance to domestic violence is an offense to the very institution of civil debate on which our entire system depends.
Except our system doesn’t “depend” on any such thing.
These ignorant people are an embarrassment to our Republic.
This was Dan’s, Pablo.
One of the reasons I’ve been content to sit back and watch this all unfold is that I’ve been warning the “progressives” for years that such a public spectacle of infighting was the inevitable endgame. Their mistake in attempting to deconstruct individualism until it became group dependent was that they actually believed they could control the monster they created and enabled.
For a long time I self-identified as a Democrat. But soon after 911 it became clear to me that the liberal establishment was anything but liberal, and that progressivism acted like a toxin on a country built around individual freedoms and federalist principles. By pointing this out, I was never trying to demonize progressives as part of some political team sport; rather, I was hoping that, were they shown how their philosophy works — on what it premises itself — they’d reconsider.
Jonah Goldberg’s book is a culmination of that kind of undertaking, I think, and Mona the “libertarian’s” response to it? Is that it was “atrocious.”
Which tells me that we have progressives hiding at every point along the political continuum — which is why I don’t trust McCain, just as I don’t trust Obama or Clinton, or Buchanan, or Gore.
Sadly for me, I can honestly say I’m not enjoying watching this unfold. And that’s because I doubt we’ll take away from this identity politics battle royale any of the right lessons. Instead, we’ll just increase the side of the ledger marked “things we cannot talk about openly. FOR FREEDOM!”
So it must really be chickens all the way down.
TURTLEHAWK!!!
People like the Huffys love to throw in snippets and bastardizations of historic and cultural references to lend a dash of pseudo-intellectual flair to a diatribe mostly devoid of substance. “Et tu…” as an all purpose display of betrayal lets the writer come across like they are learned (Oh wow that’s like Latin ain’t it?) but I’m sure the writer’s knowledge of the classics or Shakespeare is probably cursory at best. It doesn’t matter. It’s all about the display. Obama is THE perfect candidate for that mindset.
I would think that worthy of a post or at least an “update” to flag people of a Jeff G sighting.
“things we cannot talk about openly”
Well, just try and say anything about pope hats around here. Especially those red ones with the ric rac.
I trust McCain plenty. Especially after watching those two incompetent, over-ambitious clowns floundering around last night. Is either of them the face you want to see week after week as your president?
And also I haven’t said anything about Arlen Specter cause that would be wrong which is sad cause I really like the metaphor. I think Baracky is a lot rotting away from the inside too though. Just a hopeychangey veneer is all that’s left I think.
Excuse me, Hope, but my not trusting McCain does not mean I wish to see Obama or Clinton as president. It means — and let me see if I can put this simply, lest anyone misunderstand me yet again — I do not trust McCain.
I didn’t know trusting McCain was ever on the table really. He’s really a lot synonymous with the media. Where one ends and the other begins you tell me.
They are eating their own. I cannot say that I do not enjoy watching. That debate clinched it for me.
I have noticed that this place is a lot more respectable now that nobody’s making Pope jokes. Or objectifying Shannon Elizabeth’s nipples.
Fair trade off, it seems to me. Though, I must say, that fucking hat! I mean, combine that lid with the Vatican bling and the flowing, cardinal read outerwear, and, were the Pope, you know, black, he’d almost certainly be mistaken for Huggy Bear. Or at least Michael Irvin.
Every group response to Goldberg’s book has been fucked up.
From libertarians, in or out of quotation marks: total silence, or dismissal of it as “neocon” (which in this case can only mean “tainted by Jewishness,” because if that book is anything neoconservatism-related at all, it’s an esoteric indictment of it (which is funny)), or wailing complaints that it’s being advertised — not talked about — at some libertarian outlets. This all despite the fact that his book could have been subtitled Trivial Evidence for a Thesis of Hayek’s that Libertarians (and “Libertarians”) Until Now Have Claimed is Foundational. Hopeless.
From the left: They do what they do. They make lists of the names of the devil and they chant the list. Now “Goldberg” is higher on it, and any noting of things that he’s noted, or slightly like he’s noted, or like they wrongly imagine he’s noted, is addressed only by ritual intoning of His Dark Name. They’re idiots. Throwing books at them doesn’t do anything but make them shout. The ones who pretend they’re not idiots and attempt to critique the thing just get owned — because he’s right, and they’re idiots. Hopeless.
It’s only really been embraced by the range of pseudocons from about National Review to WorldNetDaily, who should be seeing themselves in it, and be ashamed. But no. If they can’t see the mind-destroying irony of pushing this book and McCain (however pragmatically), they’re hopeless, too. And they are.
It all is. So…nothing. Have a drink. That Hitler-face on the cover is a good place to set the glass.
Ha. I doubt the Pope could run a post pattern.
A thousand pardons, Dan. Well said, again.
I don’t know any pope jokes. This is the puppy Alyssa Milano got earlier this year. His name is Gibson.
I was hoping that, were they shown how their philosophy works  on what it premises itself  they’d reconsider.
Yes, well in a very real sense leftist thought is a religion, and one desperately in need of a Martin Luther bringing reformation.
What’s funny is that the “Et tu” line served as Caesar’s recognition of his friend’s betrayal. If Feldman actually understands the reference, it shows that he expected ABC to be friendly to Obama and was shocked to find otherwise.
It also should be noted that Obama’s is a candidacy about personality and abstractions (hope, change, etc.). Questions about character, who Obama associates with, and how he feels about symbols such as the flag pin are the natural flip-side to his candidacy. Policy questions are not.
…unless they’re talking about Bush or any Republican. Then “Americans with good hearts and open minds” (read: liberals) can say/insinuate pretty much about anything they want because, dammit, they’re just good people.
Yes, I know Dan pointed this out in this excellent post but I couldn’t help myself.
I can’t remember the joke, but the punchline is:
“The moral of the story? Don’t fuck with the Holy Father when he’s been drinking.”
Have I mentioned lately how I don’t trust McCain, and how I think he’s a progressive who just happens to favor certain policy measures traditionally tied to conservatism?
Because if not, situation remedied.
Sorry, but another of the reasons I haven’t been posting much is that I don’t have a horse in this race. I’m hoping for gridlock on the national level, and on the local level, a grassroots movement to expand Lady’s Nights from Wednesdays only to something along the lines of Monday thru Thursday, and Sunday (during football season).
The joke goes: Andrew Sullivan.
Yes, Mona, we are still laughing t you.
Wasn’t et tu uttered when it was discovered that he was a traitor? At least that leftist was willing to admit that they considered Gibson and George to be in the bag.
I trust McCain and I think that under the circumstances it is ridiculous to call the man liberal or progressive. I was born in 1951 and McCain reminds me a lot more of the kind of Republicans I remember from years ago. He is more like a Teddy Rossevelt Republican, but that certainly does not make him a liberal. It seems to me the Republican voters decided he was up to the nomination and I don’t think most of them are liberal either.
Look at the alternative here for heavens sake.
But trust? These people are politicians, I don’t entirely trust any politician, including Ronald Reagan who seems to have attained some sort of conservative saint hood in recent years.
That should be Roosevelt not Rossevelt. Preview is for the faint at heart.
So progressive or liberal is not about policy, it is about a state of mind or something?
No.. No…If it’s Battle Royale they have 3 days kill each other off or they blow up…
Once again the Japanese have the answer…
I’m pretty sure Hillary got a flame thrower in her pack.. She better get to using it before Obama uses the butterknife he got in his..
Have I mentioned lately how I don’t trust McCain, and how I think he’s a progressive who just happens to favor certain policy measures traditionally tied to conservatism?
Because any politician who believes that the best way to solve a problem is to expand the Benevolent Embrace of government is not to be trusted. McCain, being a politician’s politician, thinks that his job is to change the even freaking global climate with the stroke of a pen.
Politicians are like doctors who prescribe antibiotics for viral infections because they need to be seen as helpful (and moronic patients won’t go away satisfied without some pill to pop). MRSA??? Who, us?
Me, I’d rather vote for someone who sees government as the problem, not the solution, and who promises to make, er, liberal use of the legislative sledgehammer.
The best thing in the world would be if congress convened for the purpose not of passing laws but of repealing them. I mean, we’ve got better than two centuries worth of legislation that has accumulated, most of it superfluous if not downright pernicious.
How many coats of paint do we think the Edifice of Democracy needs, anyway?
We’ll need at least one house of Congress to go Republican to counter McCain. How likely?
mccain is a liberal republican with an agressive foreign policy stance. Or, perhaps more narrowly, he is a liberal republican who having been systematically tortured by a proto-fascist cum communist government for many years is rather against repeating the exact same mistake in his lifetime that so disfigured his lats.
truth is, never was very many real conservatives, at least, the kind that could span the entire GOP and unite them electorally, to say nothing of picking up large swaths of Dems as well.
reagan comes to mind, and by ’88, many of that lot thought GHWB a complete and utter waste.
There’s a reason McCain idolizes Teddy Roosevelt (Progressive Party’s nominee in 1912). He wants a big, energetic federal government just brimming with bright ideas on how we should live our lives.
This election is Alien v. Predator. No matter who wins, we lose.
None of these three candidates is trust worthy so lets put that to bed right now.
As to whether or not McCain is a progressive in Republican clothing? I have my suspicions, am troubled, but haven’t made that leap.
Yet.
Right now I’m kind of stuck in “meddler” mode with McCain. He likes to get his hands into stuff and legislate “solutions” to things that really aren’t problems (McCain/Feingold.) He has this overarching stubborness about certain kinds of policy that will cause him to overturn all comers to accomplish it’s pasage and will hold that path for years. Does that make him a progressive? Maybe so. Yet he holds fast to some conservative principles> Is that enough? Maybe not.
Yup, I’m so wishy washy as to be spineless on this. I’m reserving judgement for now.
SEXIST!!!
Also, AvP wasn’t even good as a movie.
I can remember people saying that Reagan was not a real conservative either. A lot of people complained that he was still a Democrat, it was not until years after his presidency that his legacy was secure. And Bush is a conservative, I know I voted for him, but conservatives did not have any problem turning on the man when his numbers started to go down. See ya later buddy they said. So much for the culture of life.
McCain has voted Republican about 88% of the time according to Ed Morrisey at Hot Air. Is that conservative enough for some people? Probably not, but the kind of person some people want would never get elected. In fact, I am not happy to say this, but Obama would have a lot better chance of getting elected than a libertarian or a strict conservative. The country is basically center right, and right now it is even leaning left a little. That is just the reality and if conservatives want to change that they need to try harder to appeal to voters and gain support..complaining because people don’t like you makes as much sense as a bunch of lefties whining because a lot of journalists {who are probably Democrats themselves} did not kiss Obama’s ass.
Hey, at least the Predator helped the human out of the place… So, take that for what it’s worth.
McCain might could safeguard Iraq and also he could appoint maybe a nice judge. And then after that he can commit the country to the embrace of a disastrous cap-n-trade policy that will kneecap our economy based on junk politicized science. These are my hopes for McCain.
And also: Not having a horse in the race means more material.
Jeffersonian:
Roosevelt was also a war hero and a reformer. He was an honest man who was in the right place at the right time. There was a lot of corruption back then at all levels of government and Teddy Roosevelt was not afraid to take on people who were powerful. To say he told people how to live their lives is absurd. It was Franklin D. Roosevelt who created the New Deal and all that stuff.
And Ike Eisenhower was also moderate. He actually got 44% of the black vote believe it or not.
happyfeet:
McCain is pro life, he is free trade, he will not abandon Iraq or surrender to the Islamists, and there is a far better chance that he will appoint conservative judges than there is that either Hillary or Obama will.
We had to watch that loon Carter go get a hug from Hamas. One lousy term is all that man had and we are still paying for it, and so is much of the rest of the world.
As for global warming and all that, the same rules applies. Just think if the Democrats win Gore might actually get to have a position of authority and help create science policy. Yipppeee. I know I can’t wait for that.
Terry:
President Bush has real problems with me as a conservative. What was so “conservative” about No Child Left Behind? Bush has abrogated his leadership on spending controls by not wielding the Veto hammer during the first six years of his presidency. That’s “conservative?” Everybody got an open pocketbook until the last year and a half. I like the man and there are somethings he has done well but don’t mark him off as the “compassionate conservative” when one of the founding principles should be fiscal responsibility.
Big. Fat. F.
I don’t know where you got that 88% number but I’ll need a cite to believe it. McCain carries the lodestone of McCain/Fiengold, Immigration and Global Warming, all three of which are rock solid progressive issues. He’s great on defense, is probably better than Bush on fiscal responsibility and has a decent but spotty record on taxes. Please don’t bring up the same Reagan argument that the Huckaboobs used to try and convince us that “No, really! He is a conservative! Honest! Like Ronnie!” We have over 2 decades of legislative action from which we can cull our opinions.
Nice sales job but no buyee!
In truth, the idea that either Baracky or the Hildebeast would be president will probably force me to the polls and vote for McCain. I’ll probably even feel OK about it. But then again, I might have polished off a bottle of Scotch beforehand.
That’s an inspiring speech there, terr. “Vote for my guy! He won’t be as eggregious a meddler as the two socialist wanna-bes!”
I’d better stock up on booze.
Just because progressives started calling themselves liberals, and calling classical liberals “rightwingers” or “conservatives,” doesn’t mean we have to do it, too.
Reagan said the Democratic party left him. There’s a reason for that. And there’s a reason that many of yesterday’s Dems are today’s “right wingers.” Similarly, the paleoconservatives and the progressives have circled into each other on a number of points. Which makes me kinda smile, in a wisful way.
Oh. And yes, it matters to me HOW someone arrives at their positions. I’m not a full on pragmatist, if you haven’t noticed by now. Which is why I’m often critical of SCOTUS rulings that follow what should be a clear reading of the Constitution (see, for instance, my disgust over the way “diversity” was adjudicated by a “conservative” Justice). See also my refusal to swallow Harriet Miers, and my complaints over certain rulings by Scalia.
I’m happy McCain supports some of the things I think are worth supporting, policy-wise. But the way he views the role of government is not conservative. It’s not even “liberal,” in the American sense. Regulating movie trailers? Banning MMA? We’re talking about a guy who has SAID that he would push national greatness over individuality if he had to decide.
If that doesn’t convince people he’s progressive at heart, nothing will.
But Jonah Goldberg wrote a book, and I’ve been making the same argument for years. This is nothing new. A statist meddler who would sacrifice individuality for national greatness — one who is also very militaristic — has his historical referents. Google it!
Well, there’s trust and there’s trust.
I don’t trust McCain either; furthermore I don’t like him as a person.
I trust Hillary! absolutely — to do things I don’t want and consider somewhere between “counterproductive” and “downright evil”.
I’m gonna hold my nose and vote McCain, unless the polls show him with a commanding lead here in Texas, in which case I may well just stay home. There is nobody in the race I want to vote for; I will be content to vote against if I must.
Of the two Democrats, I actually consider Obama the lesser danger. His actual views are so extreme that I do not believe he could get even a Democrat-controlled Congress to go along, and as a standard-issue machine politician he’s going to be too busy paying off his buddies to really do much. Money we can afford, but I want Hillary! and her slack-lipped hubby gone.
Once upon a time, Republicans were liberals (old-fashioned definition) and Democrats had basically Populist agendas overlaid over rather nasty-minded reactionism. McCain actually fits that ancien regime definition fairly well; it’s the Democrats who have moved radically to the Left. That may position ol’ John fairly well in the fall. Telling, if true: I saw somewhere that 49% of Americans pay 90% of the taxes. We may be coming up on establishing the truth of the notion that democracy can’t work in the long run, because the people will discover that they can vote themselves money from the public purse, whereupon bankruptcy follows inevitably.
Regards,
Ric
For some reason Feldmans’ piece made me think of this…..
“We have a new type of rule now. Not one-man rule, or rule of aristocracy or plutocracy, but of small groups elevated to positions of absolute power by random pressures and subject to political and economic factors that leave little room for decision.
They are representatives of abstract forces who have reached power through surrender of self. The iron-willed dictator is a thing of past.
The rulers of this most insecure of all worlds are rulers by accident. Inept, frightened pilots at the controls of a vast machine they cannot understand, calling in experts to tell them which buttons to push.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C5XuylNFLo
That sure is a cute puppy.
“I don’t trust McCain either; furthermore I don’t like him as a person.”
Hear, hear. Squared in spades. I’ve been wondering if the best strategy might not be for solid red staters to forego voting for him while marginal red staters vote for him as early and often as possible. So Texas sits on its hands to some extent (which, due to a lack of GOTV effort on Rove’s part, is what happened in 2000) and Colorado votes in Denver and gives it a try in Colorado Springs. That presumes that Clinton is the candidate – if BHO is the candidate Colorado can stay home too.
I’d hate for McCain to imagine that he had a mandate for anything other than sitting in that nice Oval Office.
Ah, but it did have Sanaa Lathan. So there’s that. I’m afraid the ’08 election offers no such discernible benefit.
Jeff, is there a VP appointee who would, in your view, considerably improve the Republican ticket? One who might making voting for McCain (at his advanced age) more palatable?
I dunno. Baldilocks, maybe?
Ironically, I think had Iowahawk and I actually run this year, we’d be doing pretty damn well in the polls.
Platform: “WE WON’T TOUCH A THING! PROMISE!”
Would get my vote(s).
Well, Joe Lieberman is out; Condi is out (or so she says). Thompson is out, because his mother is still ill (that’s why he wouldn’t campaign I’ve heard); Jindal isn’t old enough (but just wait); I hope Huckholio and Romney stay out. I didn’t trust Giuliani.
I like Sarah Palin.
It isn’t too late, you know. There’s no actual requirement to go through all the primary BS, and since the actual conventions aren’t until late summer most states have fairly late deadlines for filing.
GOLDSTEIN/BURGE ’08!
BURGE/GOLDSTEIN ’08!
(which is it? We’ll take turns!)
Regards,
Ric
BOLD GURGESTEIN!
That’s the best platform I’ve heard in a heck of a long time. Too many want to meddle without knowing what they’re doing. You cannot only do one thing; every policy decision will have a side-effect of some kind.
A Congreesional session that did nothing but fund the military and cut taxes would be alright with me.
Burge and I would follow the MayBee plan. We’d simply use the bully pulpit to call for a repeal of ludicrous laws, and begin the long hard slog that is the stripping off of various attempts to wallpaper government into something homey and inviting.
I see a red door and I want it painted black.
CAMPAIGN SONG!
The longer the Dem primary goes on, there are 3 unassailable facts.
1) Hill and Baracky will increase taxes on individuals and corporations.
2) Hill and Baracky are in a race to surrender in Iraq
3) 1 and 2 suck.
In the end, McCain will be least likely to take our money, and if he does, it will be to a lesser extent than any of the Dems.
Glowball Warming McCain is a just another country-club snob who looks down on ordinary Americans as lazy bigots incapable of hard work; he is the type of country-club Republican which Conservative Reagan was able to overthrow through a Revolution.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t want to miss this opportunity draw the blood of my well known and self-avowed enemies – who also either are or represent the Communists/Progressives/effective dhimmis – by voting in a real way against them, as compared to staying out of the election by virtue of a more nuanced or philosphical, and even somewhat hypothetical, set of arguments.
As to what to do in a situation such as this – when we simply don’t really have the luxery of waiting to see what happens over a period of years, imo – I don’t have any doubts at all as to the reasonableness of my choice to vote for McCain.
I see our home team braying Liberal, Karl, is referring to himself by another name, Conservative, when he’s one and the same of what he claims to despise.
Crypto-airheaded-revenging-nerdixt, that’s my cryptonic name for you. And I’m drop-kicking you out of the Republican party, Karl. We don’t need Republicans for whom we could simply replace that persons name – Karl – with the word Liberal along with reversing the political sloganeering and end up with the exact same indictment of manufactured slime and contrived rhetorical bullshit.
You’re just a dumber version of Ann Coulter without the tits, blond mane and high-heels, and Ann is simply a reverse Jane Fonda with a bonier butt.
Effen politico-gamer, I burp in your eye.
“to” draw
Is it too late for her to have Michael Steele’s baby? That kid would make for a killer ticket.
Geez, thor. You’re being pretty harsh on poor old Karl.
Dan wrote the post, Thor.
This is like one of those nishi moments, the kind where she realized Bammy wasn’t her own personal cuddly soul brother.
When I made that mistake, thor, it was boneheaded, but with Jeff’s exposition, it should have been cautionary. Doing it again is just fucking gauche. That’s Mr. Collins to you.
He didn’t read all the comments. Besides, thor gets a pass from me, because he’s always amusing, and because I like him.
…with an Obama fetish.
Oh, my bad. Sorry KK. Fuckin’ Collins always gets a pass, he’s funny.
Yes, thor does bring teh funnee, often on purpose.
I did not see your post before I scribed mine, Dan. That’s too freaky.
Personally, although I think it is rather a big deal whom we elect as Pres, my friendship with thor is more important to me than that. I’m interested in this stuff, and I like to argue, and I enjoy the dustups, but it’s not really where I live. I imagine I’ll continue doing my customary muddling through and generally being of greater help to others than I can to myself whoever wins, and I’m kind of okay with that.
thor, I question either your timing or your eyesight. Howver, there’s still no doubt about your exclusively limbic, hormonal brain.
For what it’s worth, I’d rather party with Obama than either of those other guys. But that’s because I’m a hallucinogen snob.
#
Comment by Dan Collins on 4/17 @ 6:11 pm #
Geez, thor. You’re being pretty harsh on poor old Karl.
Yeah, well, we all need enemies and there’s so many people I disagree with but who seem like such swell people, except for
NewmanKarl.Me thinks he believes his personal topical notions are as good as facts. I didn’t sort out my deep thoughts simply to agree with some pom-poming political home team cheerleader.
Agreed. This is America and America can survive 4 to 8 years with whatever set of rubber dicks the misguided majority puts in the White House.
But can someone who makes you laugh is a special funny Valentine, and days become long and nights become cold without your funny.
I didn’t sort out my deep thoughts simply to agree with some pom-poming political home team cheerleader.
Methinks your little ball-peen hammer has taken control, thor.
Yes, I feel teh stOOpid welling up. I burped in the wrong eye. I should donate my eyes to Dan, and if he doesn’t need them maybe, you know, his kids, or his one his infamous ex’s, all of who are such vile, blind suka blahts that they didn’t hold onto to hero-Dan when they had their brief chance.
Mine eyes I give.
here we go.
Did I see somewhere in this thread a hidden praise for an idiotic book by ah idiot J.Goldberg conflating the statism with fascism?
At this point I’m just going to shut mine and hope it all goes away.
You know, I inspected John Stewart’s spiel about the Pope, and I couldn’t find a thing to get snarky about.
You better come back soon, Jeff.
they didn’t hold onto to hero-Dan when they had their brief chance.
Yes, thor, for sure dan is certainly not worthy of your affection.
I always figured “House of the Rising Sun” would be a great campaign song. Preferably the Andy Griffith version.
Pardon me while my eyes roll back into my head…
OK… better now. Little freaked at having seen my own optic nerve, but I’ll get over it.
is that all you saw there, Rob, no gray matter?
Figures..
Since a certain apathy is kinda a leitmotif in this thread I’ll note here for NPR’s benefit that you can’t even imagine how little I care if you got the bad touch from a priest 30-odd years ago. No really. Less than that even. I. Don’t. Care.
I’m just glad to see Jeff at least commenting. Who is running for president again?
I just started reading Jonah Goldberg’s book, couple nights ago.
Great cover.
Honestly, though, I wish Benedict would fucking harrow hell with these clergy abuser-protecting motherfuckers. It’s a good start, but there’s a reason that mercy and judgment are so intrinsically connected in Dante’s worldview. Mercy without judgment will turn us into Anglicans.
Check this out… this is scary.
Obama Wins Big Endorsement; Media Mum
Over the weekend, Obama picked up the endorsement of Hamas, delivered by Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to Hamas’ Prime Minister:
“We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America.”
Let’s finish that last sentence: “… to change America’s policy in support of Israel and against terrorists and rogue terrorist states.”
I read a fair amount of daily media, but I didn’t hear about this endorsement until I read it this morning on Power Line. Why do you suppose the big media … you know the ones that secretly are goofy over Obama but try to cloak it under the threadbare cover of “objectivity” … didn’t see this as a fit story to cover.
After all, they covered every footfall and prattle of Jimmy Carter’s little visit with Hamas, didn’t they?
I understand some people care. I just don’t is all. Maybe I’m a bad person, but I really don’t think any of it amounts to a raison d’etre decades later. Get a life is what I think.
Harrison, you don’t think that they’re unconnected, do you?
Still, it’s not fair even to Obama to make him responsible for Jimmah’s meddling idiocy.
There’s a bit of bone between the eye socket and the brain, douchebag.
So you really don’t think fascism is “the statism”? So your ignorance extends beyond American politics?
Shocking. Really.
I agree, hf. And generally, people ought to get over the fact that they weren’t breastfed long enough and a lot of other things. Still, I want these motherfuckers eradicated from the clergy.
sorry, Rob, I could not resist.
No insult intended.
Yes , fascism has as much in common with liberalism as you with martians.
I think we also should define what we imply by the terms liberalism and statism, seems like everything is head to tow here…
But it is my bedtime now.
May be we will continue that conversation sometime in the future…
Happy, I kind of don’t either. It is terrible that people got molested by priests. But what about all of the people who get molested every day? What the hell do they get? A whole lotta nothin. A dear friend of mine struggled in the aftermath of terrible child sexual abuse until she finally decided on a permanent solution in 2005. She did not get a book deal, or Oprah, or an audience with the Pope. Forgive me, but I do not think one person’s abuse is more profound than the other, just because the abuser was wearing a collar.
sashal —
Fascism is connected to progressivism, which is now calling itself “liberalism” but is none such. If you want to make a substantial critique, offer one. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. I haven’t the patience these days.
Then I must be descended from Martians; modern liberalism (aka “progressivism” aka “the left”) owes quite a bit to the fascist movements of the early 20th century. Many of those from that period who you still hear cited approvingly by the left were avowed fascists or at the least admirers of fascism.
What a pity that you feel qualified to pontificate on the subject, when you’ve clearly never read the book or even educated yourself on its premise.
Perhaps you should take a decade or two to familiarize yourself with the American political scene. The proponents of classical liberalism are aligned libertarian and conservative — largely because in the American context, classical liberalism and individualism are what’s being conserved. The statists vary (there are certainly religious statists), but the strain that dominates took over the label “liberal” when their previous term, “progressive”, lost its cachet.
Now, of course, they’re attempting to relabel themselves as “progressive” because they’ve thoroughly tarnished “liberal”.
Lisa is more better articulate than I am. She got it spot on.
Dan:
I’m really late to this post, but I think this is one of your best. The portion thor (God bless his pointy little head!) quoted above is just fantastic.
sashal–
Jonah’s book shows the following:
Progressivism is the notion that we’ve “outgrown” democracy and the free market, just as we “outgrew” monarchy during the Enlightenment.
Time, therefore, to progress towards Utopia, toward the perfection of human society through the creation of “new men.” Time to cast off the old God and install a new one, known as The Benevolent State, who doesn’t wait until the next life to save us.
Time to put the Experts in charge instead of relying on the chaos of democracy–with all those voting ignoramuses–for governance.
And so, when the early Progressives tried out their sundry permutations, they ended up with Marxism and communism and socialism and fascism, all of which are based on the same basic assumption: that you can perfect society by putting all the right people in charge.
Which, of course, is extremely different from monarchy, having now taken TWO giant steps past it.
The Nazis promised Utopia to the Germans through the mechanism of the state, and the idealism of those early years has been overshadowed by the horror of the Holocaust.
But in the early days of Progressivism, the intellectual class in the U.S. and Europe was full of praise for Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. “We’ve seen the future!” they exhulted.
And they were totally into eugenics and stuff.
But once the Holocaust was revealed, Fascism rightly was associated with Absolute Evil, but the Believers in the project of social perfection through the state have not gone away.
They just called themselves “liberals,” called fascists “right-wing” and expunged their earlier enthusiasm for fascism from the history books.
In one of my classes, my students and I are reading Atlas Shrugged.
Timing.
I think we also should define what we imply by the terms liberalism and statism…
Then do it. Or take the thor/nishi route and just keep spewing incoherent invective.
Yes, progessivism is the foulest fascism because it’s often masked in teh gentle sweetness of a baby’s fart, and denial of the progressivist’s agenda will surely cause every baby to combust in its mothers arms. At the same time! Honk, honk! When it’s all too obvious that a socialized health alternative needs to be offered to our country’s lower income workers so that they may compete with manufacturing workers in countries such as Canada and the various rumps of Europe, the mere mention of Socialization is met with a vomit of word association from the right-wingers. It’s global marker forces – the free markets! – that are dictating the need for reducing health care costs associated with our lower paid workers, not a Commissar’s political dictate.
Try and rationalize with the ever-crypting Right and find out for yourself how shallow the deep end is. We’re a society sinking in our own good-bad word binaries. A center Rationalist gets the Aime Cesair threat – you’re dead, you nigger Commie – at the mere mention of Socialist anything, no matter the rational.
It’s global marker forces – the free markets! – that are dictating the need for reducing health care costs associated with our lower paid workers, not a Commissar’s political dictate.
That truly is nishi-level stupid right there, thor.
I like free shit.
Companies that employ Canadian workers in manufacturing pay about $1000 for each of the workers’ health care costs, it’s $6500 for the same American workers. The Canadian worker basically has much of the difference taken from his paycheck, it’s called higher taxes. So fuckin’ be it. Canada is attracting and retaining manufacturing companies by shifting costs in this manner, not to mention it allows a company to focus on its core business, which is generally not providing employee health insurance.
Are we playing a game of Nishi-rama tag? I can do that, Karl.
a socialized health alternative needs to be offered to our country’s lower income workers…
No it doesn’t. In fact, Universal health care already exists, thor. I’ve seen it. And Even the mighty Hillary Clinton has yet to find even one valid case where needed health care has been denied here due to an inability to pay for it.
As B Moe suggests, the only real problem is reducing the costs of health care. Thinking Gov’t can accomplish this merely by promising or mandating it, or by simply taxing people and/or establishing price controls can’t work.
Then you say you are rational, thor?
It’s also called lower quality of care, lower standard of service, and lower innovation and devlopment. They get what they pay for.
Here, if instituted, it’ll amount to a massive corporate welfare scheme. My company pays a chunk of my healthcare insurance premium. When that total cost drops, will they give me the difference back in higher wages? No. They’ll run chuckling to the bank.
Ohnoes.
http://www.vedior*.com/hr-portal/recruitment-news/
canadian-manufacturing-jobs-disappear.html?c=3402
oh. That should be…
This is a useful, if somewhat oversimplified version of German nationalism, which predates the nazis by a long stretch. Hitler, antisemitism – genocide, and all, did not spring forth on Germany unbidden, but in many ways was merely a culmination of much that came before. It is a dirty secret of the German people that Hitler embraced much of what he did, and succeeded so well, precisely because it is what endeared him to the populace as a whole.
In America we speak of ‘we the People’ in Germany it is ‘das Volk.’ Same words, remarkeably dissimilar concepts; the former being emblematic of western liberalism, the later, well, that gave us two world wars.
Trouble, happyfeet, is that it is shit, but it ain’t free.
Are we playing a game of Nishi-rama tag? I can do that, Karl.
What does this “Karl” say to you, thor.
It starts out great RTO. It just gets shitty later cause of the reality setting in part. Baracky knows how to delay that part a lot.
Try to put your response to me in less abstruse terms, thor. Because it makes not a lick of sense. Are you suggesting I’m one of those right wingers who likes to yell “commie” all the time? — that I’m somehow not quite as nuanced in my understanding of political philosophies and the foundational claims that animate them as I should be? Are you suggesting that my critiques of the progressive movement don’t quite measure up on the scale of Rationality? That they are a bit of empty jargoneering?
If so, say it. Your playing agent provocateur here is getting old. If you want to distance yourself from people like me, go join the mewling shitbags over at John Cole’s site. There you can take potshots at Karl and me all day, and you’ll be clapped on the back and revered.
It’s your best bet, I think. Don’t miss out. You too can be one of the Disenchanted Who’s Seen The Light!
First of all, thanks for your thoughtful post. I fly off the handle without being thoughtful way too often. But you are wrong. I’m self-employed and I have a wife (a thing, really, since we’re not legally married) who is unemployed who lives with me who is also on my plan, and yes, on my dime.
We can barely get covered. And when where we can, it’s bloody highway motherscratchin’ robbery!
You know who has all the answers? People who have it made in the shade with their health insurance. Those of us getting our prostrates checked through the drive-thru are pissed off. And I can’t offer anyone that works for me health insurance. I’d have do something illegal, like check their teeth and make ’em show me a pregnancy test to make sure they aren’t going to knock me off the plan I can barely afford – or should I say stomach!
America’s low-end workers don’t get dick. And they need it. At a lower cost! Something in the cost structure of those other evil countries that are stealing jobs. Jobs offered by American companies, mind you.
oh, fuck it.
Taking my words personal enough to enlighten me of my available alternatives, are ya?
Well no, I don’t think you’re the type who screams Commie all the time, matter of fact I think you’d know if you screamed Commie all the time and so that’s moot. You’re quite the grace-filled swan of complex and enlightening ideas, I might add. I won’t call you the Obama of the right, for you’d take it the wrong way, but I’ll imply it, because I think Obama is a really swell guy as far as Liberals go. A future Daniel Moynihan, or Paul Simon! Both of whom I sort’a liked disagreeing with because they seemed thoughtful and not so much the idiot-wingers of the Left we see too often today.
I shall remain agent provacateur, if that’s what it takes to say what I think. Agent Karl, why he’s a big boy, and quite the academic of things Marx. Marx, Marxism or Marxists aren’t my preference, but I also think invoking red-scary Marx devil inanities is a terminal insult to a political discourse. It’s cheap as the state issued proletarian’s jump suit, that was all I was trying to say, well, for now.
Try having strangers take potshots at you for 7 years and come back to me with your intact aloofness. Then we’ll talk.
Living overseas I had the smogasboard of clinics to choose from and I tried many. The Swedish clinic wins for basic health care. Germans were OK, don’t even mention the Americans, highway robbery. In and out quick, spotlessly clean, medical staff was well educated, and prices you can’t beat, give me the Swedes. Just my esperience, and I’m certainly not a expert, but after using those inferior country’s medical systems, I’m telling you they’re not all bad.
Strange thing about Commie countries, the chicks will offer to sleep with you for $50 and the dudes will offer to kill your worst enemies starting at $200.
Base capitalism is so universal it’s almost beautiful.
#125
You paid too much. I think, maybe , you were in Chicago that night.
The Swedes have a lack of diversity (economic, among other things) that makes offering health care all the easier.
If people REALLY want universal health care, and they REALLY want to bring the costs down, we’re going to have to make some ugly choices. Extreme care for the young and old? Out. Extended care for the disabled? Out. High risk pregnancies? Sorry, you’re gonna have to make it by with monthly check-ups like everyone else. Perhaps, just perhaps, we’ve got a level of care – here in the US – that we simply can’t dole out for everyone. It’s just not economically possible. Unless, of course, we make doctors and nurses prisoners of the state and MAKE them work for free.
My sil had a high risk pregnancy, developed gest diabetes and never got over it. At the age of 41 she’s in Liver failure (diabetes and alcholo DON’T mix) – and had to have her corneas, as well as all her teeth (some drug she took rotted them al out.) Her care passed the million dollar mark long ago. Guess you picked up the tab? YOU AND I. And I never even got a thank-you card.
My sil keeps getting sicker (and drinking) and the rest of us keep paying for it.
Excellent post, Karl. Top shelf, as usual.
But that Collins guy? Strictly from hunger.
…
Say, anyone see JG lately?
As I understand it, those countries still exist. Go live there.
And take dogmadave along with you. He’d also like some of that “free” health care.
Canada is attracting and retaining manufacturing companies by shifting costs in this manner…
They are not shifting costs, they are shifting payers, and eventually that is going to cause costs to skyrocket. Gasoline is too expensive for some folks now, do you think giving it away and having the government foot the bill will lower the cost? How about we give away food, and pay for all of it with tax dollars? Give away building products and let the government subsidize carpenters so everybody can have free housing?
You want to lower the COST of healthcare you break up the fucking monopoly, you don’t make participation mandatory.
We got sidetracked on the healthcare issue but my question still stands.
Why should I trust the management of our entire healthcare system to the same rocket scientists who run Medicare and the VA?
Follow up question: Ask a doctor who handles both both private health insurance and Medicare which of these leviathans is harder to collect from and plays more games with payments.
If your first guess was insurance companies … BZZZZZZT!
First thing you do BJ, is not give a damn whether the doctor gets paid. Those bastards make enough money already, right?
And don’t even think about reducing their overhead via malpractice liabilty limits. The right of the little guy to hit the jackpot must be protected!
Seriously, does anyone have any insight into malpractice renumeration in socialized medicine countries?
Did I see this:
during the same month new polls state that 81% OF Americans believe the country is on the wrong track?
Does this site encompass all the 19% or just a substantial proportion. Man, I had no idea how fringe you people were.
Oh, paralleling your “fascism/liberalism” argument, apparently you neocons are Commies, since the entire movement grew out of former Trtotskyites. See, that’s how you reveal stupidity (Goldberg) for what he is. You turn his fake labels and guilt by association around to the movement championed by the NRO and PW.
Bunch of Pinko-Commie bastards.
how are these related?
Well, that’s certainly easier than, I dunno, reading his book and actually addressing his arguments.
But when you’re a lazy douchebag like Smithers, I guess that’s all you’re going to do.
We’re Trotskyites again!?
WhereTF does this $#!+ come from?
Bobby Crawford, you already showed on this thread that your grasp on reality is tenuous, but let’s go further: who said I didn’t read your book? Goldberg points out that Mussolini started as a socialist and the name of the Nazi party was socialist. Using those two facts, he makes the insane leap that lefties are far righties (and the bad kind too!).
All I did was turn it around. I dare say that’s more consideration that you will be giving any liberal author any time soon. Oh, no, because you not reading a Greenwald, or Krugman, or Franken wouldn’t because you don’t like polemics, it’s because you like YOUR polemics.
Wow, Rob, you’re a Trotsky-esque goon AND a hack. Kudos on your accomplishment.
And, uh, what accomplishment were you shooting for there, Smithers?
Smithers is just bitter.
I’m guessing it’s annoyed it hasn’t reached monster turtle proportions of attention.
who said I didn’t read your book? Goldberg points out that Mussolini started as a socialist and the name of the Nazi party was socialist. Using those two facts, he makes the insane leap that lefties are far righties (and the bad kind too!).
Maybe you read it, but I don’t think you understood it.
Personally, I don’t read Greenwald because I have trouble reading his entire POSTS. A whole book. Oh my lord. I’d be seeing women in the yellow wallpaper. Must. Set. Them. Free.
Just those two facts, eh? You’re as big an idiot as I thought.
And, BTW, it’s not that the “lefties are far righties”, but that fascists are essentially leftists. That whole socialist bit isn’t a red herring, and the open admiration of “Progressives” for the fascists wasn’t made up.
You’re one of sashal’s buddies, aren’t you? With the “Trotskyite” crap? Or is this some new meme among the mouth-breathers?
Nothing new about it. We had someone else, seems like years ago now, who liked to toss that whole Trotskyite thing at us every so often. Once I thought it was nishtoon, but more recently I’m wondering if it wasn’t PIATOR (hence my “…in a time of Romulans” handle upthread).
I’m probably wrong on both counts, mainly because I don’t really care.
I miss PIATOR. Krazy fuckin Kiwi, but a sense of humor, at times. Usually all we get is profound idiocy, like nishi and Semenkleo, or the angry, like IJS, smithers, and that Charlie asshat. Oh, and layerguy.
OK, I just saw Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson sitting together on a love seat on the beach preaching AGW.
I might have to go cling to God and my guns. But a different God than the ones they Reverend for. I am so confused.
PIATOR also generated some very funny threads.
Thanks, Pablo. I had forgot about some of those.