A number of people have remarked on the extreme Lieberman-bashing on Firedoglake yesterday. The writer – with whose work I am not overly familiar but who is clearly full of rage toward the Connecticut Senator – calls Lieberman “Rape Gurney Joe,” an apparent reference to the reviled “Tail Gunner Joe” [McCarthy]. Evidently Lieberman has defended the post-rape policies of Catholic hospitals, which this blogger (FDL) finds anathema. Now I don’t know where Lieberman really stands on this issue in detail. It is certainly a complex one because those of us who are particularly staunch on church-state separation (traditionally a liberal position) might find ourselves constrained to defend the Catholics, although we might not agree with their pro-life policies, especially in this instance.
But those are the fine points. What interests me most in this is not so much the issue as the intensity of the rage directed at Lieberman. On the surface much of this comes from his well known apostasy on the war, which has become the litmus test of litmus tests to many Democrats. An attempt was clearly being made here to do a kind of “false in one, false in all” blur-spread, further tarnishing Lieberman’s already sullied reputation with the liberal priesthood. If he’s bad on the war, he’s bad on everything, doncha know?
This is the kind of political thinking that is so primitive it’s hard to honor it with the word “thinking” at all. In her blindness, Firedoglike also employs language like “fucking” and so forth to make her points. Of course, this kind of argumentation convinces no one. It only speaks to the choir. And that seems to be intentional. The choir is the audience. The justification for that is that it “revs up the base.” Well, maybe. But at the same time it alienates almost everybody else. And the unconscious/conscious intention may be just that. An apocalyptic impulse lurks very close to the surface here. The ship may be going down, but we’re going down with it – and we’re right!
And, yes, make no mistake about it, the ship is very close to going down. You need go no further than this morning’s top story – N.Y. tunnel plot uncovered – to realize what a deep hole the Democratic Party has dug for itself. At the end of CNN’s coverage, we find New York State Senator Schumer plaintively opining: “You have to take every one of these plots seriously.” Well, yeah, duh. You certainly do. The problem is – Schumer and his fellow Democrats (except for Lieberman and a handful of others) have shown a fundamental lack of seriousness on the issue. Democrats can console themselves with Bush’s poll numbers. Think for a moment, however, about an ’08 election pitting a John McCain or a Rudy Giuliani against a Kerry or a Gore or even a Hillary. Political armageddon. Firedoglake has a right to feel frustrated. But if she wants to win, she should wise up.
In case you need any affirmation today Roger, your analysis is spot on.
But if a pro-choice Republican Senator facing possible loss in a primary went the Lieberman independent route, do you think he or she would be treated similarly by some Republicans? My gut says “yes, but perhaps in a less vile way”…not because Republicans are necessarily nicer but because they strategize better.
That’s the fundamental sickness afflicting the left these days, as you know, Roger. It’s not really surprising or unusual. If you want to see a particularly unhinged moonbat, go look at the last three posts at Goldstein’s. The really scary part is that this person is a psychology instructor at Arizona.
Bruce’s point is well taken in a way. But the subject of the post is Democrats, and that is the reason I am interested in it. I have been an active Democrat. I was a Sam Nunn – Harry Truman – John F. Kennedy – Scoop Jackson Democrat. Idealistic but tough-minded and strong on national defense.
Joe Lieberman is one of the last of that dying breed.
The current overwhelming majority of those supporting the Democratic party wants to believe that these threats from outside are either our fault to be solved by benign diplomacy and Cindy Sheehan’s kind of thinking. Kumbaya, war is not the answer, no wars for oil, and the like are slogans for wishful thinkers, not people who are comfortable with strong, sometimes aggressive leaders.
Folks like the Roger and his regular commenters are being left out in the cold by this iteration of the Democratic party.
Harry Truman and Scoop Jackson must be turning over in their graves.
I think nutroots picked the wrong state. Tehy may win in August, but Joe will win in Nov in any case, a which point people like firedoglake will grace the blogosphere with another curse riden diatribe meaning absolutely nothing.
This may be another rare time that the election can be nationalized, to the Republican advantage.
Roger,
It’s a weird phemomena, this verbal abuse. I guess it’s a species of rage, or mental illness. I’m beginning to think it’s maybe just a perverse new blogging style.
When my kids were preteens, I remember sitting outside of an ice cream joint, enjoying a cone. At a table a few feet away, there were three or four teenage boys spouting the most vile filth, at no one in particular. I not very politely asked them to leave the premises.
They were genuinely surprised–maybe because no one had ever called them out, but maybe they were surprised that anyone cared.
Regardless, the over the top filth at FDL is pretty sickening, and just plain weird–especially coming from a woman. That’s sexist, I know.
The Firedogs and the rest of the lefty blogosphere still seems to believe in the myth of the lost tribe of liberals theory, which holds that the only thing preventing the Democrats from winning is that they are insufficiently leftist. If the Dems would just move to the portside, a whole bunch of people who are not currently voting would suddenly get interested in politics and the Democrats would roll to victory forever. And so the real opposition is not the Republicans, but Democrats who are insufficiently liberal.
Of course, this argument has been settled in the past on several occasions–1948, 1976, 1992, for example–but one of the problems with radical leftism is its lack of respect for the lessons learned by elders.
I think the thing I find most interesting is, viz the comment by CraigC above (I’ve read the comments), the willing acceptance by the Far Left of so many people who appear quite obviously deranged.
I thought (and think) that Pat Buchanan is a loon. I don’t think he’s deranged. All one has to do is to go to FDL or dailykos or atrios or DU or (well, you get the idea) to see not only derangement but willing acceptance and celebration of derangement.
I have presumed that someone out there on the Left thinks the deranged can be used as shock troops or something, but I don’t really see how that can work in this day of communication transparency.
Perhaps these quasi-Stalinists believe that this is advertisement or something, like fireworks or such. In fact, it would appear to me to be pretty scary to the kind of average folks I grew up with and who seem to make up a huge portion of the middle (in all ways) of America.
Guess we’ll see how it plays out in the next couple of elections.
While I agree that the Daily Kos and DU contain many maniacs, it isn’t just a “left-wing thing.” I cite in evidence some of the over-the-top posts to be found at Little Green Footballs and the Free Republic.
I will spot the anti-left critics this much: leading Democrats seem to flock closer to Kos than Republicans associate with either the Freepers or LGF.
I cite in evidence some of the over-the-top posts to be found at Little Green Footballs
Which posts? Not comments, now. Which posts by Charles Johnson have been over-the-top?
Conveniently, you do not disclose Mr. Lieberman’s words:
When asked about the decision of Catholic hospitals to not dispense Plan B contraceptives, even to victims of rape, Lieberman replied, “Hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for ‘principled reasons’ shouldn’t be forced to do soÖIn Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospitalî.
Rape victims, according to Lieberman, should just shut up and drive if they wish to not become pregnant from rape.
But, you know, Hamsher uses bad words, so that’s much much worse.
I am confused by the previous comment. As I understand it, you have approximately twenty-four hours to abort using a post-conception pill. Therefore Lieberman would be clearly correct in the ease by which someone could get to a non-Catholic hospital for such medication in the time allowed -or someone could do it for her. I am lapsed Catholic and do not agree with the church on this issue, but I respect the belief nontheless.
In Vino…
I don’t think Roger “conveniently” fails to disclose anything since he does link to the original post. Moreover, you act as if this quote is so extraordinarily damning that no one could fail to be *outraged* at it.
What you may not get is that these are *private*, religiously-based institutions run according to the dictates of the conscience and policy of the Catholic Church. You and I may disagree with this policy but, to the Catholics, providing this drug is tantamount to murder.
Would it not be perfectly reasonable to require that ambulance services inquire of a victim whether they will need (or even want – they may be a Catholic themselves) a drug to prevent pregnancy (e.g. they may already be on the pill)? If so, they could be taken to a more appropriate hospital AND these hospitals can continue to operate within the dictates of their own conscience. Seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to me and yet an outrage against rape victims to you.
To more specifically defend Lieberman, in the great majority of rape cases the victim remains physically whole and fully ambulatory so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they can seek alternate treatment after the initial treatment and evidence collection.
Let me speculate that, in fact, you are hiding behind the outrage of rape. You don’t really give a damn about this policy. Your real point, it appears to me, is that no one – not even an organization dedicated to healing countless thousands of people through non-profit service – had better stand athwart your precious leftist sensibilities. Why don’t you just admit that you’d like to see anyone whose conscience is rooted in faith drummed out of polite society? Firedoglake has essentially come to this point, so why shouldn’t you too admit that you simply find religious people so debased, so disgusting that you see no reason to stand up for even the most cursory defense of their rights of conscience?
If McCain or Giuliani run on the Republican ticket, I’ll convert (at least for the primaries). Given it to do over again, I still wouldn’t vote for Bush, or anyone with his strange notions of conservative politics. I have disagreed with his (or at least his policy makers) philosophies, decisions and the way in which his administration handles their job. However, a sane republican like McCain or Giuliani would be a godsend. I can’t imagine the joy I might find in seeing an actual conservative in the White House, instead of these neo-conservative morons who can’t figure out if they’re for Big government, Small government, or Big Brother. And Goddess forfend if the Democrats get into power… *runs screaming*
It may have already been discussed here, but this Daily Kos anti-Southerner screed is also a good example of what we’re taliking about.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/28/181447/773
The guy who wrote it almost as dumb as he is nasty. He and some of his commenters feel that they need to take the gloves off so they can win elections, but don’t seem to realize that when you demonize an entire of region of the country, it might be a bit difficult to win electoral votes in that region.
I’ve seen lots of IVV posts here and at Protein Wisdom. While the effects of Vino are quite apparent, there has yet to be any indication of Veritas.
Cordially…
Rape victims, according to Lieberman, should just shut up and drive if they wish to not become pregnant from rape.
Why is this wrong?
I mean, if the hospital was supported through our Tax Dollars, they sure as hell should provide for their citizens… but if it’s wholly private, who are any of us to tell them what they must or must not do?
The legislation of morals has always been a bad idea.
ìBut if a pro-choice Republican Senator facing possible loss in a primary went the Lieberman independent route, do you think he or she would be treated similarly by some Republicans? My gut says “yes, but perhaps in a less vile wayî
I am a hypocritical and logically inconsistent pro-life Republican. Rudy Giuliani is my first choice for president. He would most likely pick a Supreme Court justice dedicated to a anti-post modernist approach to the U.S. Constitution. In other words, someone inclined to overturn Roe vs. Wade because it was an absurd decision.
Pro-life Republicans still appreciate Giulianiís positions on other matters. They may not support him for the presidency—but they also donít hate him! No, this is something that only leftist Democrats do in large numbers.
Harry Truman and Scoop Jackson must be turning over in their graves.
As are millions of Democratic voters of that era.
The failure to even discuss the meaning of the Islamofascist challenge is evidence of a total inability to deal with a changed world. In some ways these people are reminiscent of the mouth-foaming George Wallace supporters of the 60s and 70s. Again, an impotent rage against the future.
If you object to a Catholic hospital not dispensing contraceptives, maybe you’d be happier with the Church of England who are considering giving St. George the boot becuase he might offend Muslims.
The logical conclusion of CoE’s path is a religion that doesn’t stand for anything and what’s the point of that? Joe Lieberman, like the Catholic hospital and quite unlike the C0E, is demonstrating he has principles. Agree with those principles or not, I find Joe worth admiring simply because he has them.
Roger:
Yes the right is often portrayed in the MSM as hate filled yet the attack on Lieberman by the folks who thought he was good enough to be V.P. is far more venom filled then anything the right threw at Joe during the 2000 election. The term RINO is used for many middle of the road republicans and there are attempts to run more hard line Republicans in primaries but the Politics of Personal destruction of Democrats on Democrats is far harsher and mean then anything Lee Atwater could have dreamed of.
Retread,
The COE has never stood for all that much. One might say that they were designed that way. From my experience and research, COE seems to usually try to be generally nice to people and tends to bend at will in order to get along. Most COE members I know feel about the same way.
If its what they want to do, I have no problem with it.
Some people might not believe that the choice is “submit or die.” Their words, not mine. Ignore them and they will go away is not one of your choices.
Some people didn’t believe Hitler either.
I’m with the “never again” crowd.
The ironic (and sad) thing is this strain of democrats would rather hurl filthy, disrespecful and hurtful epithets at an Orthodox Jew, who respects others with firmly held beliefs, than suffer lesser epithets to be hurled at muslim jihadists who have declared themselves to be our mortal enemy.
Their philosophy can be boiled down to this slogan:
“In personal life, license, in religious life, avoidance, in political life, lockstep discipline.”
vnjagvet,
Indeed, it does seem that way. I personally prefer the slogan:
In personal life, none of your business, In religious life, none of your business, in political life, feel free to disagree, but back up the disagreement with intelligent discourse.
It seems to me that both parties want their noses in everyone’s personal and religious life, and both parties sure seem to have a wit’ us or again’ us mentality, at this point.
*sigh*
Firedoglake is a site not a person you
FUCKING
idiot.
Henny Penny the humanity of using words like fucking.
By the way Old Dad,
I know people who write for Firedoglake and I’d trust them in time of crisis or with someone I care about 1000 times more quickly than a whiny, delicate ,uptight prick like yourself. I love how brag that you “not very politely” ask teenage boys to leave the premises. Wow, you are one brave man. Can I have your autograph asshole?
Ann Althouse also blogged about this (link). And the FDL blogger Jane Hamsher responded here. Her response, and the comments thread didn’t get too terribly nasty, not compared to something you’d read at Kos or DU, but there was still a sense of condescension there, by both Hamsher and her commenters. And by saying it wasn’t too terribly nasty, I meant there wasn’t an excess of profanity, again like you see at Kos or DU. The anger and superiority complex is still there.
“This is the kind of political thinking that is so primitive it’s hard to honor it with the word “thinking” at all.”
You stated my opinion better than I ever could. I wonder how much of that anger is simply because there’s an avenue for venting the extreme edge of those folks opinions and they’re just getting things off their chest, or how much of it accurately portrays how they’d act if they were ever in government. If it’s more accurate than not, then I’m even more concerned now than I’ve ever been, and I’ve been pretty damn concerned for a long time now. At least the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were very profound, unique, wide reaching subjects, but the issue of birth control, abortion (Yes! I know that emergency contraception isn’t necessarily abortion. But it’s brought into the debate by others; that’s why I list it), and Catholic doctrine has been around for a while, and you’d think folks would have had enough time by now to have vented all their anger, regardless of which “side” of the political spectrum they’re on. The fact they can generate this sort of anger and malice at will is troubling; it’s almost as if it’s simply pent up from other sources and let out when the venters decide that it’s more important to spew hate than constructive thought. That’s not really adult behavior.
I left the Democratic party because of this kind of insanity. The Right can be nasty, but the left is flat out deranged.
Well I do think that some folks are coming close on the immigration debate such as polipundit saying Bush could eff himself and La Shawn Barber calling for his impeachment because Bush failed to do their bidding, but overall those are the exceptions and not the rule. Yet. If the right goes as crazy as the left I don’t know who I will vote for.
I see that you have attracted the attention of one of the posters on Firedoglake–you are in good company, Rogelio, as she compares you with Professor Althouse. One assumes that srgtick is over here because of Ms Hamsher’s latest post on FDL. You can also tell that class of commenter because their IQ is only a few points lower than their vocabulary. As long as the American progressive movement continues to remain in the gutter, they will remain powerless and impotent.
Aside from the coarseness of the language (did they take lessons from Miz Clinton?) I fail to see a significant distinction between FDL and Pelosi or Dean or Reid. As to whether or not Lamont beats Lieberman in the primary – it’s another matter of grave indifference isn’t it? Miz Clinton has already signaled her support for Lamont in the event that he wins, once again demonstrating her ability to straddle any fence. That’s going to make dealing with Lieberman as an Independent (he would beat Lamont in the general) rather interesting.
If the nastiness continues or increases it will continue to cut into overall turnout in the general on the Dem side – not a particularly bad outcome. The cream on the Dem side has been skimming itself out of running for office and into lobbying for many years, this is just a struggle for table scraps.
We’d all like to thank srgtick for proving Roger’s point quite nicely…
Exactly what do people believe they’re accomplishing by such rants?¬† Yes, it gets the choir pumped; yes, it attracts attention by outraging the passers-by.¬† But how does it advance their cause?
Those consumed by hatred will eventually have nothing left to feed on but themselves.
As to the “but they started it” cry whenever one side or the other wails when asked about this… okay then.¬† View this as a marvelous opportunity to prove you’re the bigger person with the better viewpoint by saying in word, but far more importantly deed, “it stops here.”
I know people who write for Firedoglake and I’d trust them in time of crisis or with someone I care about…
I believe such people–their moral and intellectual equivalents, anyway–already are in charge of one nation’s time of crisis. It’s that nation that’s been shooting off long range missiles the past few days.
Moonbattism is transnational, after all.
Cordially…
“Of course, this kind of argumentation convinces no one. It only speaks to the choir”…yet a high proportion of political speech today is of this type. Maybe some of it is about “revving up the base” but I think in general, it derives from one or both of the following:
1)Signaling belonging…that is, informing those who matter to a person’s status and career that he hold acceptible opinions.
2)Raw outbursts of uncontrollable rage.
srgtick:
You are an idiot.
It’s always gratifying to have my opinions of the featherhead wing of the Democrat party (Seems to get larger every day) confirmed by posts such as srgtick at July 7, 2006 02:10 PM. I just hope this crowd gets a lot more exposure during the next couple of months, thereby keeping the Congress in control of the adults for a while longer.
well, what with the physical safety and all, why not just post whatever? cuss people out and stuff? wot the hell it’s fun. getcha killed in a bar but this ain’t a bar is it.
The notion that Leiberman oppostion is solely the result of his craven Bushery — sorry, support for the wrong war — is factually incorrect. (Tho’ that’s not a bad place to start.) Joe has long been the go-to guy for Republicans wishing to strike a bi-partisan pose, whether it be Social Security, vouchers, or godhelp us, the debilitating effect of the latest Snoop CD. He’s a pious moralizer who knows the quickest way to a camera is to distance himself from what are perceived as standard Dem issue positions. In other words, to distance himself from being a Democrat.
Which is why he’s in the fix he’s in.
As for using the word ‘fuck.’ Geesh, Roger. Don’t be a pussy. As I recall, it’s a word Dick Cheney saw fit to employ in the well of the Senate. I’ll check your archives for the outrage that was no doubt expressed at the time.
It ain’t the word, Harley, it’s the alienating rhetoric. People are wondering what’s up with the “small-tent” theory of winning political offices.
The left has gone crazy.
They’ve always been wrong – but all of us have been wrong at times.
Many of them are idiots – but all of us are idiots at times.
But now they’ve gone completely crazy.
Witness the meltdown of Deb Frisch commenting at Protein Wisdom.
I’ve had some nasty comments from the right, and I’ve left a few snide remarks here and there myself.
But it was a leftist who threatened to break into my house and rape me.
Yep, Dr. Deb Frisch is over there making sex & violence threats on Goldstein’s two-yr old, bringing up JonBenet Ramsey, and saying that she’d enjoy seeing the two-year old get the same treatment. This woman is faculty, psychology, @ U of Arizona. Go read it–you won’t believe it.
Harley, that is one of the dumbest comments I have ever read on here. I am an author with ten published novels and have used the word fuck many times in all of them. But used in the context that I was referring to it is plain bad writing and brain dead.
To be a little more complicated, blogs like Firedoglike are what we used to call “left in form but right in essence”. If that one confuses you, try Mao’s essay “On Contradiction.” It’s heavy-going, I admit, but you can do it. Just give it a shot.
Alienating whom? You’re right that there’s a lot of anger out there in the country. Tho’, and this should come as no surprise, it’s not just raving lefties with a political agenda different than your own. The notion that the left has gone ‘crazy’ is risible and self-serving, particularly given the way every poll is trending, ie validating lefty opinion on a host of issues (the war, prez approval, direction of the country). But back to the anger. Yeah, folks are angry. They’re angry about the war, they’re angry about gas prices, they’re angry about corruption, they’re angry about being taken for suckers who won’t fight back when they’re called traitors.
That anger, when properly channelled, gave you a Republican Revolution in ’92 (tho’ the issues were different). That anger, when properly channelled, is driving Ned Lamont toward an upset that was inconceivable three months ago. (And btw, that’s not about a small tent, that’s about choosing between two candidates who have different stances on a number of issues.)
Heck, who knows, maybe Dems will truly starting acting like Repubs and jam a few phone banks.
1812 — The Federalist Party runs against the War of 1812; Federalist candidate DeWitt Clinton loses to war-starter James Madison.
1864 — Democratic 1864 platform is against the Civil War; Democrat George McClellan loses to war-starter Abraham Lincoln.
1900 — Democratic candidate William Jennings Bryan opposes the Phillipine-American War, loses to William McKinley.
1952 — General Eisenhower says he will go to Korea, beats Adalai Stevenson in open election.
1968 — Richard Nixon wins election during Vietnam.
1972 — War president Richard Nixon crushes anti-war candidate George S. McGovern, despite unpopularity of Vietnam War.
The record is clear. America in wartime votes for the candidate whom it trusts to bring victory. Peace is only a viable platform during peacetime.
Oh, Roger. This from the man who doesn’t know the difference between Lysander and Bottom.
I’d suggest condescension is not your best or brightest pose. (Starting with the ungainly “that is one of the duymbest comments I have ever read on here” is an unfortunate way to preface the boast re all those quite readable novels, btw.)
As for “left in form but right in essence”? Well, while I’m impressed with the ‘what we used to call’ — oh, the experience hinted at in that coy remark — one might suggest that the phrase applies even more accurately to folks like yourself, for whom form has always been more important than content/essence. Post 9/11? You’ve merely found a more expedient form.
(Tho’ in fairness, at the very least you deserve credit for no longer pretending to be what you are not.)
Harley, I really liked your Golden-Globe winning Twin Peaks script. Can’t say I like the script you’re writing for our real political future, though. Crucial plot point, you have it but you don’t (hey, a Twin Peaks theme): the channelled anger. That of course is what the thread is about–the left’s unchannelled anger going off like a fireworks accident.
Harley
You just don’t get it. The American people aren’t angry. The lefties are angry. Bush’s numbers are down for a lot of reasons but the lefties claim it’s because of whatever THEY say it is. The American people are just tired of the grousing, the fighting, the leaking, the bad news.
That doesn’t make them angry, it makes them uncomfortable.
And the lefties are only ADDING to that discomfort. It’s a dangerous road you’re speeding down. And you’ll be even angrier after the wreck.
::waving to Roger if he sees this. I’m back!::
Super glued to stupid has put the left where it is today, Harley, stick with it. Drop in and chat about your victories on Nov. 8. That’s the day after the only poll that counts this year.
Roger, he’s right, that *was* a clunky sentence. Off with your head!
Rick. Fair enuf. Tho’ “We Win Therefore We’re Right!” is a pale slogan, and there is plenty of history to consult regarding its worth. And, I suppose more to the point, are you suggesting that the GOP will win the majority of seats up for grabs in the midterm election? I’ll be happy to drop by and chat re same.
Buddy. Thanks as always. I’d suggest that we’re talking apples and oranges. Whom are you referring to when you say ‘the left?’ Ward Churchill and the like? If that’s the case, then we’re in agreement. But I’m not willing to allow the term to be defined by those who abhor it, any more than you would allow a definition of the right to begin and end with Pat Robertson and and Rev. Dobson.
The left is, I think, far larger than you credit. Heck, even Roger was once part of it. And attempting to define a political group by the worst of it is a trick both sides play. Unfairly, it seems to me. Left of center, liberal, whatever. This is a significant political movement united by agreement on a host of issues — choice, the environment, economic and foreign policy. Reducing it to an easy target is understandable sport, and one only needs to read this thread to see just how much darn fun it is — but it’s of little value in the long run.
Well said, Harley, and I’m happy to see how much you’ve grown in the minutes since you reduced politics to the use of the word f*ck.
But, granted, far too much cartooning. There’s a lot of excess everything in the air, and I think whichever party is best identified with a less tendentious political past, will win the close ones coming up. Most indy observers thought Sen Joe clocked Mr. Lamont pretty clearly in the recent debate.
Pity, that. If he’d only clocked Dick Cheney in the most important debate of his life, we might not be having this discussion. As for reducing politics to the use of the word ‘f*ck’ — I’d suggest that was done elsewhere. I merely responded in kind.
And we agree re ‘excess everything.’
There aren’t many seats being contested, Harley. The Reps will still be in the majority when this one is over. Demographics are destiny – and they do not favor the progressives now nor for the forseeable future. Poor breeders, thank goodness, and it really doesn’t look like illegals are going to be able to pick up the slack.
The “left” the way I use it, is to mean the strident, angry, conspiracy-mongering shout-down-the-speaker Bushitler crowd. Not everyone to my own left, jeez–that’d include most of my keiretsu. But those who will not bother to learn any factual history yet are absolutist in their politics are almost always to my left, I’ve noticed over the years since I too was a leftish sort way back some many moons.
Demographics are destiny? I’d suggest gerrymandering will have more to do with any Republican hold on the House after the midterms. Tho’ it’s nice to see you’ve climbed down from predicting the Repubs will gain seats. (And yes, hanging on to power, no matter how tenuously, is better than losing it.)
And as for the future? You can sneer ‘illegals’ all you want. But your faith in demographics may well come back to, you know, haunt you.
Well, if anybody would understand that things can come back to haunt a political party, that would surely be you, Harley.
The notion that the left has gone ‘crazy’ is risible and self-serving, particularly given the way every poll is trending, ie validating lefty opinion on a host of issues (the war, prez approval, direction of the country).
Which serves only to demonstrate the point.
That anger, when properly channelled, gave you a Republican Revolution in ’92
No.
That is, the absurdity of the claim serves to demonstrate the point. Naturally, I don’t accept the validity of the claim itself or of the assorted claims that lie behind it.
Ahh, c’mon, Pixy, at least play fair. What do you find invalid? Which claim?
That a majority of the public disapprove of the Prez generally? That a majority of the public disapprove of the handling of the war? That a majority of the public feel the country is moving in the wrong direction?
You can look this stuff up, you know. It’s not all that complicated. Simply saying “I do not accept!” does not stand as a particularly persuasive argument.
And if you think anger had nothing to do with the Repub Revolution in ’92, you were either not paying attention or were too young to grasp what was happening at the time. It was, of course, about more than anger, but anger was a major part of took place. Heck, I grew up in Tom Foley’s district. I saw it first hand.
The commenter above apparently relies on the polls which show Bush has low poll numbers. What he seems to ignore is that everyone else does too, especially the media which has catastrophically low numbers – in the twenties if memory serves. And they spend a fair percentage of their time tearing down Bush. What goes around comes around, I suppose. In any case, what happens in November is the only poll of significance. I would be surprised if there were much movement either way. I do agree with Simon, however, that the Democrats do not have a candidate on the horizon to compete with Giuliani or McCain. Of course, events could change that. Both elections are still far off.
“The left is, I think, far larger than you credit. Heck, even Roger was once part of it.”
So were a lot of us. We’re not anymore. And we are a much larger group than you want to know.
As for Bush’s low poll numbers, a lot of those are people who criticize him from the right, mostly on immigration. It is typical of the Left’s narcissism to assume it’s all about them.
Yehudit hit the nail on the head, I am also an ex-lefter with a political background. Approvals do not indicate absolute public political direction and polls often hyper-focus issues in a way to distort deeper underlying sentiments. The MSM spouts poll findings, adding the drumbeat of their own conventional wisdom feeding the infamous “liberal cocoon”. The added peer pressure of political correctness often feeds political-deception as people pay lip service to the drum beat of this political correctness.
Opposition to this President is all over the map and much is from the right.. these people will never support the left. I don’t consider myself part of the right, rather a sane liberal who has made a choice between the lesser of two evils. Before 9/11, I considered the religious right my enemy, they have been waaaaay trumped by the moonbat left. I also see the Republicans as having much greater control over the crazy right then Democrats have over the crazy left… and the crazy left is just crazier.
Personally I think President Bush is politically wise and admire him for taking political hits for the team. This election the Republicans will lose seats, they have defied history for two straight elections and doing this a third time is asking too much. The real issue is that in historical terms the Democrats taking control of Congress should happen, and if they don’t then it is they who will have many questions to answer. Further, I will predict that if they don’t it will be a long time until they have a chance again, perhaps a discussion for another time. What I mean by taking political hits is he is not going for personal wins on some issues in a way that hurts the Republican Party, Immigration is a great example, here he is the anti- Pete Wilson. He has staked out a position that conventional wisdom says is unpopular, yet when people are asked with more specifics point to point they are overwhelmingly in agreement with the President.
The reality is that polls often do as much to distort as clarify, Abortion is one example. Most people say they are pro-choice (I am), yet if you really dig into the issue, pro-lifers are much more apt to be single issue voters because for them it is about life and death, for choicers it is about choice. Yet even among pro-choicers there are sentiments skewed to the pro-life side (parental notification, abhorrence of late term abortion) it rarely skews the other way because life and death trumps choice. People want civil liberties yet when the NYT discloses secrets that potentially make us less secure it tends to bring out “security first” in many of us. When the ACLU shows more concern towards protecting illegal combatants not fighting in uniform for a country it reminds us that to the left “choice” trumps “life and death”. I am in the crowd that believes the constitution is not a suicide pact. but appeasing a world that has shown no ability to confront world aggression is indeed a suicide pact.
Lastly, Bush’s poll numbers are more about fatigue than opposition. Nixon beat McGovern 60%-37% while the Vietnam War was unpopular. Bush will not be able to rally support for himself because he is not running, however if he were I doubt it would be much different then 2004, he is no Nixon, just try to impeach him and find out.
Democrats and MSM can’t seem to understand that declaring the skies to be bleak while predicting more rain doesn’t convince the public they are in control of the weather.
Harley:
You are dreaming my friend. The people are worried about gas prices, but what is the left going to do about it? Protect the caribou in Alaska? And as for the war, people want to win and come home. They do not feel comfortable with Cindy Sheehan slobering all over Hugo Chavez..and more and more that is what they see of the antiwar people, surrender and insanity. And then there is national security and the incompetent and inconsistent Democrats falling all over themselves to position themselves in a way that will work for them. Completely unserious. Hell, I can remember Al Gore saying we should go after Saddam. Whatever works at the moment is where they are and that is not someone we can take seriously.
Bush’s numbers are not as low as most of the Democrats numbers or the Congress’s numbers or the media’s numbers. People are tired of the bickering and the left is just part of the problem. Their only solution is to bash Bush.
The other day someone said to me that he was not happy with the Repbulicans, but what the hell at least they were not complete morons like the Democrats. And there you have it.
srgtick,
Marvelous parody.
Harley sez: “Demographics are destiny? I’d suggest gerrymandering will have more to do with any Republican hold on the House after the midterms.”
Filed under “The Endless Excuses for Being Losers”
Couple things…
Yehudit, you’ve decided that Bush’s poll numbers are not due to dissatisfaction in the country generally, but rather due to the Right’s anger re his immigration policy. Gosh. I guess it’s typical of the Right’s narcissism to assume, you know, it’s all about them. Well played!!
Joseph, you genuinely believe Bush is ‘politically wise’? I mean I understand supporting him based on an affinity re the war or tax policy or whatever. But even a marginally objective observer (who is not wearing an ideological bucket over his head) would recognize the man’s failings in this regard. His wisdom has led you where exactly?
Gerard, as mentioned previously, “We Win Therefore We’re Right!” is a poor excuse for an ideology. The day conservatism became primarily an electoral strategy (thanks Karl!) was the day conservatives lost hold on whatever it was they believed. Same thing happened to the Dems after too many years at the trough. And like the Dems, there will more than likely be a reckoning as a result. I understand that you will not see it coming. But hey, life is full of surprises.
Terrye, fair enuf. The general public is angry at everybody. But when the latter occurs, incumbents often suffer the most. Or, as a Republican consultant recently remarked: The good news is the Democrats don’t have a plan. The bad news is they may not need one.
Oh, and Buddy, Yehudit, Joseph, Gerard, Terrye, et al…
If you’d like to check out a site where the split between left and right is 50/50, drop by Tacitus and say hello. Some of the rightward commenters have been grumbling about a recent influx of lefties. I’m guessing they’d appreciate the visit.
“What can we demagogue next?”
gerrymandering
“But aren’t we as guilty as the GOP?”
of course, but we can hide it by pointing out that we’re ‘out’ of power right now
“Great. Let’s get some lunch.”
They’ve been out to lunch since ’93, Buddy. They’re not even calling in for messages anymore.
It’s eay to reverse gerrymandering, all you have to do is win control of the state legislature. Look at Texas.
Which red states will turn blue by 2010?
Oh, Buddy, c’mon.
Gerrymandering is a problem worth addressing by both parties. Addressing a problem is actually not the same thing as demagoguing. Tho’ there are those who make a living confusing the two.
As for guilt, the party in power takes the shots, that’s the way it works. Nobody is blameless. But when a single ideology controls the White House, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court…? Uhm. I’d suggesting pointing fingers at Democrats is a paltry defense mechanism.
No paltrier than it is as an offense mechanism, Harley. And also, lecturing “that’s the way it works” contradicts your upthread admonition against “might is right” thinking.
Not to nitpik–only to point out that you can’t logically speak up for truth and the American Way, and at the same time excuse taking unfair shots because they’re directed at the party in power. Doing so mingles two different systems: right-and-wrong, and big-and-small.
“…a single ideology controls the White House, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court….”
Harley, really. Don’t you mean “party’ rather than “ideology”?
Harley:
I was a Democrat for a long time. They are not out of power because of gerrymandering, they are out of power because they are incompetent and can’t do anything but bitch. Why do you think they lost so many people like me? I can actually remember the 90′s and if Clinton had spent half as much time trying to deal with Osama Bin Laden as he did cheating on his wife the World Trade Center might still be there. Just kicked the can down the road for the next guy to deal with and then bitched about the way he did it.
BTW, if it were not for voter fraud I doubt if the Democrats would be doing as well as they are. Why is it that Mexico can have photo ID for voting but so many Democrats say the US should not?
…Terrye reminds that the “single ideology” (which is not a characterization with which the definition agrees) is not the cause of the Democrats’ problems, but the effect of them.
“That a majority of the public disapprove of the Prez generally? That a majority of the public disapprove of the handling of the war? That a majority of the public feel the country is moving in the wrong direction?”
And the 04 exit polls said Kerry won… you guys gonna go with that again?
Look, I agree that the GOP doesn’t deserve to retain control of Congress. But what you don’t get is: the only way they will lose is if they run unopposed.
Well the majority approved of Bush enough to return him to office and that is what matters.
Harley’s arguments do not portend well for his team in November. Bellyaching about gerrymandering has been going on since Gerry invented it, and by both parties. I think it is safe to say that few districts will be changed between now and November, so whatever gerrymandering there is is now done, and the districts do not favor Harley’s team.
Unless things get worse in Iraq and the economy goes in the tank, I do not think we will be looking at the Pelosi/Reid era this year.
A two year dose of Pelosi and Reid running Congress might put Buchanan in the White House in ’08, not to mention the Dow @ 6,000 and double today’s unemployment. And that’s before we even begin to examine the GWoT.
I wish to heck that was just campaign talk, but it isn’t by a long shot. This damn jihadist enemy, with Holland Tunnels and Sears Towers and Canadian PM’s heads in the news daily, is shaking confidence–what’s the deal with these retail homegrown terror cells–to the point that unless we have a determined-to-win-the-war Congressional majority, we’re gonna have bad troubles in foreign policy and the economy.
By ’08 we may want to isolate ourselves, and cede globalism to factional regional interests. Back to the future, say the early 1930s.
“Back to the future, say the early 1930s.”
Certainly back,but to the 630s.
Bush, Charlemagne, lose a leader, lose a leader.
“Yehudit, you’ve decided that Bush’s poll numbers are not due to dissatisfaction in the country generally, but rather due to the Right’s anger re his immigration policy. Gosh. I guess it’s typical of the Right’s narcissism to assume, you know, it’s all about them. Well played!!”
You know that’s not what I said. I said some of his bad poll numbers are from the right. And some are from the left. You can put down your straw man.
Oh, all right. I’ll stop ‘bellyaching’ about gerrymandering. Let’s revisit this when it runs the other way.
Buddy, I’d suggest reading the news you refer to a little more carefully. Yes, there’s a threat to be faced and destroyed. But getting all giddy and breathless every time the admin. rolls out a We Got The Bad Guys press release — and in fairness, it’s directed at you and yours, so I guess it’s sorta unfair to complain — suggests a wealth of obeisance and not enuf critical attention. Tho’ apparently one of the guys in that deadly Florida cell actually saw the Sears tower once. So there’s that.
Also? Okay, ‘party.’ Which does not change my point.
Actually, Terrye reminds us that she/he was never really a Democrat.
And vnjagnet? As for things getting worse in Iraq, according to the kid I talked to a few days ago (he just got back), you have nothing to worry about. Things in ‘the shit’ can’t get worse. This is pretty much rock bottom. Good news for the GOP!!
Harley, your writing tickles me; I wish you weren’t insane.
1) So, if the busted cells are all set-ups to make GWB look good, what were the lasr couple decades worth of several thousand–not counting Iraq–other incidents, which have killed to date some 40,000 innocents worldwide? Pro-Bush (even while he was in knickers) PR set-ups that “went wrong”?
2) You know good & well that the word “ideology” has different shades of meaning than “party”.
3) I’ve been reading Terrye for years–she ain’t no fence-sitter, she’s truly for the downtrodden and left-behind. Your party is–was–her natural home. What the heck is she doing out of it?
4) Things are bad in Iraq? So, how do we make them better? The world wants to know.
5) “Good news for the GOP”? You must not be reading the president’s poll numbers, Harley.
I have to add, your “suggests a wealth of obeisance and not enuf critical attention” is a phrase which by rule of logic would apply to whichever side of the debate is saying “don’t believe your eyes, believe me“.
Supporters are ‘in obeisance’, yet you guys excoriate the pres as a poor leader.
In truth you wouldn’t follow him under any conditions whatsoever.
Unless he was a Democrat–and then the same man doing the same things would bring you into the streets singing “Hail President, Defender of the West, Provider of Powerhouse Global Economy, You Can Do No Wrong!”
We both know–know–that this is true, don’t we?
In order!
1) You mentioned the Sears Tower plot as if it actually existed or meant something. I was only too happy to correct. And I’d keep an eye on the Holland Tunnel story too. The admin. has a way of holding back the things we need to hear while putting forth the kind of pablum they feel we will digest.
2) Yes, it does. But the point remains the same. When the same political party controls every branch of gov’t? Gee, I dunno. Maybe it’s not the other party’s fault. Even direr? Perhaps a little self-examination is in order.
3) Terrye’s comment re Clinton is right out of the GOP playbook. I’m assuming she left the party becuz she wanted to invade Iraq. This is dimwittery. Remember, the honest debate is not about whether or not to fight terror worldwide, the debate is about how best to do it, in other words, tactics. Invading Afghanistan? Absolutely necessary. Invading Iraq? Not so much. If terrye left the party becuz the goofballs at ANSWER oppose any and all intervention? Then she wasn’t really a Dem in the first place. If she left the party becuz Clinton didn’t do enuf on his watch? I dunno, she’s awful critical in that regard, and wildly forgiving regarding her new political party and their own record when it comes to competence. But hey, look on the bright side, Rove has suggested that Shrub’s first veto, at long last, will be over a stem cell research bill. Wonder what terrye thinks of that?
4) I have no idea how to make them better. I did predict the possiblity of chaos and civil war before we invaded, lots of us did. I did not believe an invasion would help us to defeat terror, my fear was that it would make matters worse. I’ve seen nothing to contradict either assumption. This is a circumstance that may be beyond repair. And don’t be surprised to hear talk about troop withdrawl from the admin. in time for the midterms.
5) Uhm. That was sarcastic. I have no idea how the midterms will play out. But if the GOP loses a significant number of seats, the story will be Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.
Granted the Sears Tower gang is pretty pathetic-looking. But, the debate was over the news handling. How should it have been handled? What is it about Holland Tunnel that makes you suspicious? Where’s the McGuffin?
If your only evidence is that a pro-war administration is finding enemies, and that this tends to corroberate the war policy, then you leave hanging, “yes, but, what about those guys who were plotting to blow up the so-n-so?”
In essence, what you’re doing is complaining that the pres has a war-issue, and that this creates ‘obeisance’. But, your villain should not be the guy attacked (Bush) but the guys attacking (terrorists). This points up a fundamental problem with you guys–you’re somehow confused as to which is the enemy, your neighbor, or your terrorist.
Here’s a fun link to a magazine you love! With links!! You’re welcome, in advance.
And be real. That’s what brings this debate to a halt. That somehow the right wing has a monopoly on patriotism and, lord above, common sense when it comes to fighting terror. Everybody knows who the enemy is, that was the point of my previous comment. The debate is, and should be, about the best way to fight him. However, and this may come as a shock, one need not march in lockstep with the admin. in order to believe this. In fact, if one thinks the admin. is incompetent and prone to fabrication about this very fight? It’s pretty much necessary to point that out. (It’s also wise to consider the difference between finding enemies and inventing them.) The ‘fundamental problem’ you point out? That’s clumsy wordplay, and not much of a contribution to what is a vital and important subject.
Funny thing is, I always thought conservatism was bolstered, at least in part, by a healthy suspicion regarding gov’t, and executive power in particular. Silly me. Turns out this is only the case when the Democrats are in control. Weird how obedient some firebrands turn out to be when it’s there turn at the trough.
“Terrye’s comment re Clinton is right out of the GOP playbook”
That’s never the issue. The issue is, “is it true, or not?”
Things become cliches because they are true, and because people repeat them–which they do because they are true.
Mocking the other side’s points as “I’ve heard it all before” says exactly nothing other than, you have nothing to say.
Besides, what have you said, my friend, on this thread, that is not right out of the Dem’s playbook–especially the “mysterious hint, half-allusion” chapter?
Well, I didn’t mean to “bring this debate to a halt’. My apologies if I’ve upset you. I have no earthly idea how I might’ve impugned your patriotism. But since you yourself have brought it up, I don’t think you can disagree that a more determined enemy might be the only thing that will wilt the jihad.
From that you might pick up the drift of a hint as to why there has been some of that which you decry, a willing suspension of anti-government expression from the right.
It’s temporary, Harley, until the war’s over.
The model is, our previous ‘won’ wars. Not VietNam, which followed your model, and which we lost.
True that LBJ & RMN weren’t the most upfront presidents in the world, and true that they–and we, and the Vietnamese, Cambodians, et al, paid dearly for it, and paid dearly for the anti-war left’s having made the duplicity the only American iron-in-the-fire that mattered.
even IF GWB is as bad as they were, insofar as keeping vital info from the people, then there’s STILL be the question of, do we bring him down and blow the war, or STFU and quit encouraging the enemy, and win the war, and THEN dump his ass along with his party.
And as far as my “clumsy wordplay”, at least I know the difference between “their” and “there [turn at the trough]“.
Oh, and thanks for the Rolling Stone link–nothing like a good, solid, non-partisan, credible “…contribution to what is a vital and important subject”.
I probably should stay out of this…but Harley, I fall under the same description as Terrye as far as being a former Dem. From McGovern to Gore, never a waver, straight down the ballot, I am now ashamed too say.
I switched my allegiance shortly after 9/11, when I came to the realization that the Dem’s were not serious about defending this country. I did not want to witness another Vietnam.
I do find it odd that one can never question anyone on the Lefts patriotism, but that the left feels free to question my intelligence because of who I voted for in the last election. I am as equally insulted by that aspersion as you are to the “patriotism” meme.
You say it is the method and not the war that is the question. The only Dem that I can see who would forcefully prosecute the GWOT is now being railroaded out of his party. As the saying goes, I didn’t leave the Dem’s, the Dem’s left me.
“The only Dem that I can see who would forcefully prosecute the GWOT is now being railroaded out of his party.”
A perfect close, Luther. I think I’ll copy this thread to a doc file for perusal should I ever feel that the Dems have a chance in this cycle or in any cycle where a substantial number of Dem proponents resort to the exhortative brilliance on display here. The strawmen just aren’t structurally sound enough to support the weight of the cliches.
The way I see it, Luther, the Dem’s constituency is essentially concerned with the goings-on inside our own borders. They downplay the terror war, and mock Bush and his supporters for not joining in the game of “pretend it ain’t there and it’ll go away”.
I’ve gotta admit, it’s tempting. But what if they’re wrong? The enemy–if there IS one, y’know–has that vote, the vote to make them wrong.
I’m not convinced that the Dem’s–obsessing as they do over domestic offices–have given enough thought to how quickly the mideast, and that bear-like oil-exporter to the north, could combine against a US military-free Persian Gulf, and how easily that combine could essentially control the west for the reast of time, through oil prices now, leading to industrial & military dominance once we’ve been beggared.
Then, thereafter, we take orders, and do as we’re told, possibly until the end of time. The Dems are playing with a fire they do not comprehend.
Oh, where to begin…
Terrye’s comment re Clinton is overheated pablum at best, drearily false at worst.
The notion that “It’s temporary, Harley, until the war is over” evokes a sigh. You simply have no idea. Bush is working to expand executive power, he’s using the war as a pretext. You’re nodding dutifully and assuming that future presidents — including Democrats, I might add — will give that power back. You’re wrong.
The Rolling Stone article was completely sourced, and linked to a number of other publications. An honest read wouldn’t hurt.
Luther. The notion that Democrats are not serious about defending the country is absurd. And thanks for dragging Nam into this. Cuz we all know what a threat that turned out to be (run, run, dominoes everywhere!!). This isn’t about defending the country, this is about invading Iraq. You support Leiberman not becuz he is more serious, but rather becuz he agrees with you re that unfortunate ideological venture. It’s unfortunate that the War On Terror has been hijacked by this detour. But I suspect we’ll get back to the truly serious business of defending the country sooner than you think. That Bush will be a willing part of that process, much to your stupefaction, will only be a bonus. Hey. Maybe it will drive you back to the Dems.
Rick. Given your comment, I’d suggest copying Luther’s comment as well. Best to let someone else do your thinking.
Oh, Lord, Buddy. Please, enough. Again, the idea that Democrats want to close their eyes and pretend terror doesn’t exist? Absolute bullshit. I lost a good friend on the first plane to hit the Twin Towers. Don’t fucking tell me I don’t understand that terror exists or is a threat.
[Pause to regroup]
As previously stated, this is not about whether or not to fight, but how best to do so. For example, I’m not suggesting we have no military presence in the Gulf — and to be honest, your theory sounds like something you picked up at a Star Trek convention.
Oh, and by the way? One thing I need to make clear. Not all conservatives are quite so obedient. Heck, even Bill Buckley sees Iraq for what it is at this juncture.
Harley didn’t do too well on the gerrymander point. So, like the skilled debater he is, he quickly changed the subject.
Unfortunately he ran into Terrye, Buddy, Rick and Luther.
I am sorry I am too late.
Let’s just say they did not need much help.
Yes, I understand that the Constitution is being used politically, by both parties. Thing is, it always is in times like these–deadly duels among the branches over who gets the penumbra are part of the price we pay for a Constitution only a dozen pages long, and which was left ambiguous in many areas precisely so that the succeeding generations could–would–use the thing in their own times without tearing it up.
I’m sorry for you–and your friend–but it’s mystifying how the connection gives your vision more perspicacity than that of say the joint chiefs of staff.
I know Rolling Stone sourced it’s article. There’s all sorts of people out there ginning up conspiracy theories (remember, Harley, you used to call them “nuts”?); sources are easy to come by. The article is a basic accusation that the Holland Tunnel story is a plant.
First you have to pathologically distrust the admin, second, you have to believe that any admin would be so stupid, in this era of the imaginative & embellished leak, to try that, and, third, that they’d get away with it.
Your theories require a lotta faith, Harley.
It makes far more sense to me to look at the article as more of the drip drip drip of doubt-planting and trying to make everyone so fricken miserable and demoralized that they just vote you back into office to shut you up.
Good one, the Star Trek jibe. It was for a fact over-compressed, a blog comment thumbnail. Unfortunately the large geopolitical facts to which it referred, are real and are already in play. Check your newspaper. Wait–check MY newspaper.
I guess, when you say you are just as serious about all this as anyone else is, and that your critique of the admin’s war-fighting is not based on party loyalty and electoral ambition, but rather on the admin’s incompetence, that what I’m really waiting for is to hear the other shoe drop, as in, Ok, fine, I believe you, you’re a gentleman and wouldn’t lie, so, since calling incompetence means you have a better plan, what is it?
That’s not fair, you can’t write it out here–but you could mention a name or two of whom in your party has it doped out somewhere I could read it, right?
I’ve been asking your side this ‘plan’ question since the summer of 2004 and have not yet gotten any answer that was anything but a word-salad.
Too bad Bush isn’t a Democrat–if he was, the war’d probably be over by now.
Oh, and BTW, Harley, you could, if you want, be one of those obedient folks.
I’m sorta exhausted by this, but a few quick points.
- You can cite the joint chiefs if you like, but don’t forget all the other military men who have come forward to condemn the Bush admin. for arrogance and incompetence. And more to the point, I’m simply tired, tired to the bone, of people who take a disagreement re military tactics and try to turn it into a statement about patriotism, or even common sense. The latter is arrogant and purblind in the extreme. You think I’m wrong? Fine. But suggesting I don’t recognize the need to defend my country? Out of line.
- It’s not about conspiracy theories. It’s about asking pertinent questions and not accepting everything at face value. The Florida cell turned out to be a joke. Let’s see what happens regarding the Holland tunnel caper.
- As for the obvious question — “Okay, Then What Would You Do?” — part of this is made more difficult by the admin.’s original error. Invading Iraq. It’s a bit like burning down your neighbor’s house and then, when confronted with the deed, suggesting ‘What would you do?’ Well. For a start? I wouldn’t burn down the house. (I also wouldn’t let Osama get away at Tora Bora. And, let’s see, I’d consider air strikes or other action to stop the genocide in the Sudan. Hmm. I’d box in Saddam with inspection/sanctions, and let his admin. crumble. I’d keep a closer eye on the real threat in the region — Iran. And, oh yeah, I wouldn’t wait four years to engage with North Korea.)
Who is this pretentious ass?
Sorry I was unable to respond sooner. Broken internet at home (its tough), though I hope to get this comment out.
Harley
Sorry, but you are a broken record. Your points have been made and refuted I don’t know how many times in the last four or so years. Right here at this blog, in these comment threads.
The smart folks here (which does not include me, by the way) are tired of repeating themselves, of parsing your argument’s points for individual rebuttal, they have done it oh so many times. We just grow weary of the same ol, same ol.
I think Buddy nailed the best point;
Too bad Bush isn’t a Democrat–if he was, the war’d probably be over by now.”
More truth in that statement Harley, than you would likely care to honor.
See you at the voting booth.
JKRibera, Harley is a professional writer, Golden Globe winner and so forth. Represents the Hollywood left; think Barbra Streisand with book learnin’.
Luther–thanks for reading that line–it’s just a simple truth, wars end when one side or the other quits fighting. Why should the jihadis quit, as long as they have one of our two major parties engaged primarily in trying to delegitimize the commander-in-chief?
Harley, I too am weary, but two quick items:
1) You’ve defended your patriotism exactly 100% more often than it has been challenged–a phenom I see often enough to say that it seems to be a SOP to accuse Bush supporters of attacking anti-war patriotism, regardless of whether it happens or not.
2) You totally ignore the leadership principle. Say you manage to convince the nation that Bush is a scoundrel. Who, then, is going to lead the nation? Who is going to lead the war-effort? The power is Constitutional, after all. Send the office-holder into hiding from you until his term expires? Great, that’ll demoralize the enemy alright! That’s a war-winner, alright!
“it’s just a simple truth”
Yes, it is, and it continually amazes me how many people fail to see it. Or, more likely, see it and CHOOSE to ignore it.
Buddy. As always, thanks for the kind words, and all the fair play in this back and forth. My problem with echo chambers — and this applies to those on both sides of the debate, be it Kos or Redstate — is that they tend to encourage groupthink, ideological backslapping, and thinwittery of every variety. This one could use more commenters like yourself. (I apologize in advance for the compliment as it may cause JK Ribera to suspect your motives and/or character.)
Not sure about the Streisand comparison, tho’. I was thinking something more along the lines of, I dunno, a younger Paul Newman. But thanks again.
As for defending one’s patriotism. I checked upthread, and you’re absolutely right. My bad. However, you did suggest that Dems who believed going to Iraq was a mistake don’t know the difference between a terrorist and their neighbor, and are engaged at playing a game of ‘pretend it ain’t there and it will go away.” Frankly? I’d rather have my patriotism questioned. The Right’s obsession with Iraq proceeds at such a clip that it tends to obviate the larger and more important debate. What’s the best way to put these fu#kers in the ground? Again. I don’t believe fighting a war in Iraq was the answer. And needless to say, there are many voices from both sides of the political spectrum, as well as within the military, that agree. Doesn’t make me right. But neither does it mean that my eyes are closed.
The leadership principle point is an interesting one. You must admit, it would stand as a defense of every bad executive we have ever had or will have in the future. There’s a convenience in that that bugs me. (And, btw, reminds me of a conversation I had with my father years ago. We were in the thick of the Watergate hearings, and I suggested that Nixon should be impeached. And my father exploded: “Have you no respect for the office of the President?” The office, yes. The man in that case? Not so much.) As for Bush, if you see it with your eyes and hear it with your ears it seems wrong to pretend otherwise. Again, I understand that you disagree. But I think he’s been a disaster as a president, and not just when it comes to the war. He is inept and arrogant, a very dangerous combination. Particularly in times such as these. I understand that Sullivan is no longer considered a conservative having allowed his thinking to evolve. But he’s still worth a read in this regard. Heck, check out Hitchens over at Slate regarding Bush’s weirdo faith in Rootin’ Tootin’ Putin. The man is a petulant child in a world that currently demands men. But again, you may/do disagree.
As for simple truths, yes, wars end when one side stops fighting. This in no way suggests, however, that every war is *worth* fighting. Again, I would suggest that this one is not in our country’s self-interest, and that, in the end, is as good a metric as any when it comes to fighting them. (This does not obviate the war fought for humanitarian reasons, but that is a far more complicated venture. In that regard? I would have acted in the Sudan in some fashion. But still not Iraq. YMMV.)
Okay, Harley–I won’t say anything else, you can have the last word. Oh, what the hell, one question: Is Bush, is this admininistration, really really that offensive to you? I ask, because I think maybe you’re just fighting the good fight for the Dems. And that’s great, normal, cool. The thing that gets me is the made-up stuff, and you’re finishing on a much higher note, so I won’t call you any names. Peace, bro–we’re all on the same side in the end. I hope.
That we are, Buddy. The last word is mine!