Click here to view/purchase all Roger L. Simon novels.

June 30, 2005: The Not-Bush Party Goes South

I was thinking of titling this post with Virginia Postrel's pithy The Future and Its Enemies, but didn't want to be accused of excessive snark. [Who you?-ed] But whatever the title, according to a recent poll, things are looking bleaker than they have for a long time for the Democratic Party.

Conducted by the party-affiliated Democracy Corps, the poll indicated 43 percent of voters favored the Republican Party, while 38 percent had positive feelings about Democrats.

"Republicans weakened in this poll ... but it shows Democrats weakening more," said Stanley Greenberg, who served as President Clinton's pollster.
Greenberg told the Christian Science Monitor he attributes the slippage to voters' perceptions that Democrats have "no core set of convictions or point of view."

Mr. Greenberg couldn't be more right, as far as I'm concerned. I haven't heard a single original thought out of the Democratic Party in what feels like years now. All the serious debate seems to be taking place within the Republican Party between their traditional conservative, South Park wings, etc.

I was reminded of this last night while watching one of the Dems best and brightest, David Corn, on the Neil Cavuto Show. The subject was Iraq and the media. Corn, clearly a smart guy and an excellent writer, had nothing of interest to say. He seemed like a sad sack trapped in a hole of someone else's making. What a position for a "liberal" to be in - hoping to be vindicated by the failure of democracy in Iraq (and the consequent success of psychotic religious misogynists and homophobes!). Corn denied this, of course, but where else is he and the Democratic Party? They made a fatal mistake by gainsaying the war in Iraq and putting themselves on the wrong side of history. A serious course correction would be their only salvation but they seem unable to make it for psychological, quasi-intellectual and, alas, economic (Soros) reasons. They are mired in what in my Marxist days we would have called "false consciousness."

And speaking of false consciousness, in the same poll article linked above, James Carville engages in what the French call simplisme.

Fellow strategist James Carville said the war in Iraq and rising fuel prices are affecting party loyalty as well.
"The country is just in a foul mood," Carville said. He noted within the same poll, 56 percent of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Back in the day, this is the man who told us "It's the economy, stupid." Well, James, time's have changed. Nowadays "It's the values, stupid."

(poll via MM)

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Wrote this back on January 8, 2004:

http://www.nopundit.com/archives/2004_01/08/000037.html

Nothing is new, again.

Kenneth Greenlee

Posted by: nopundit at June 30, 2005 12:47 PM

It's only a matter of time until some moonbat below the Mason-Dixon line tries to ban "going South" as hate speech.

Posted by: Connecticut Yankee at June 30, 2005 12:59 PM

Yes, Roger, and the Dems are trapped by much more than just their Soros money. Back when I was a liberal Dem and wanting to rationalize it with my economics career, I thought that it would be possible for me to "have it all" if in addition to its liberal social policies, the Dems would be smarter on economics. Since only a small part of the Federal budget goes to actual poor people, why not eliminate the inefficient part of government, like the Depts of Agriculture and Commerce, and then propose more programs for the poor? Today, the Dems can't restructure government in this way or any othere way because their biggest voting blocs are government employees, including teachers. They are trapped, and they will stay trapped for as long as you can see. They could have proposed good government reforms like Arnold's attempt to fix the redistricting system, but these days it would help the GOP more than the Dems. I just think their options are extremely limited.

Posted by: JohnH at June 30, 2005 12:59 PM

I'm old enough to remember attending a Minnesota Twins game that was about fifteen years before "dome-ball" (Late 1960s) and seeing every man, woman, and child (at least 99% of them) take off their caps and put their hands over their heart for the singing of the National Anthem, and mean it. I'd estimate that two-thirds of that crowd, including everyone in my family, were loyal Democrats back then. None of that's true now.

But the question is, who left who? I think Zell Miller had the right answer.

Posted by: RBMN at June 30, 2005 1:07 PM

This link to the TimesUK interview with W was posted on LGF:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22649-1674668,00.html

Money graph: In person Mr Bush is so far removed from the caricature of the dim, war-mongering Texas cowboy of global popular repute that it shakes oneï¿½s faith in the reliability of the modern media.

Diogenes can blow out his lantern and go home.

Posted by: Connecticut Yankee at June 30, 2005 1:21 PM

JohnH -- so while Dems remain "trapped", why do you think there's not a snowballs chance in hell that Washington Republicans will do any of the prescriptions that you recommend, such as getting rid of Agriculture or Commerce?

Ever seen the relative rate of non-military government growth as percentage of GDP under Clinton, compared with Bush?

http://www.factcheck.org/article139.html

Also, regarding Dems getting "smarter on economics", I'm just curious -- if we could arrange a written debate 'tween you and Clark Medal winner Krugman, are you saying you could make him look like an idiot?

My understanding is that aside from free trade, in which there is a near-unanimous agreement, economists disagree as much as they ever have over the proper degree of government intervention in a capitalist economy.

Posted by: markus at June 30, 2005 1:21 PM

I think the Dems have badly misperceived the politics of the middle right, the votes that they will need to win in '06 and '08. Dean, Boxer, Kennedy, Rangel, et al can't win these votes.

And the Dems do appear agendaless and obstructionist, a losing near term strategy. They need to look back to Bill Clinton, the only national Dem in decades with the political skill to govern to the middle and still hold his base.

The country is inching right. If the Dems want to win, they've got to inch right, too. What if a moderate Dem ran convincingly on immigration reform and national security?

Posted by: Old Dad at June 30, 2005 1:24 PM

The DLC blossoms into flower once more. Clinton's favorite pollster backed by the man who brought us "The War Room" and "The Endless Campaign" get together for a little pushpollfest suggesting that Howlin' is leading the party over a cliff. Since "triangulation" had the same net effect on Democratic power as a combined cholera and typhus epidemic, a new method must be found. Thus is born dodecahedronation, an admirably complex, yet ultimately a simple tool in the hands of a mistress of complexity. This is the tool which will bring the Dems the power they are so desperately seeking, yet it can only be used by one able to keep both eyes firmly focused (albeit, a bit strabismically) on the ultimate objective while closing an eye to any elements, facts or conditions that could possibly distract. A master multitasker, capable of overlooking transgressions and betrayals that would bring any ordinary woman to the toughest divorce lawyer in America.

The Democratic Party and America desperately need such a woman and Greenberg and Carville are going to search and poll until she is found.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 30, 2005 1:26 PM

As long as we're discussing polls:

"President Bush's televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq....

...In a more significant sign of the weakness of the President's numbers, more 'Red State' voters, that is, voters living in the states that cast their ballots for the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004 now rate his job performance unfavorably, with 50% holding a negative impression of the President's handling of his duties, and 48% holding a favorable view."

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007

Why worry your pretty little heads about the Democrats when the President has the lowest approval ratings of any C-I-C of the modern era. If and when the Democrats develop a backbone, the Republicans will, again, be relegated to the minority, a status prior to 1994 they held for half a century and one that their feigned self-righteousness is better suited for.

Posted by: The Truth at June 30, 2005 1:27 PM

The Truth,

You should be ashamed of yourself, labelling an entire party as spineless. It's true that many and perhaps most Democrats need to grow a backbone, but certainly not all.

Posted by: Old Dad at June 30, 2005 1:43 PM

Markus, the problem with Krugman is that he doesn't need any help to look like an idiot. Cf, for example, Dan Okrent's final exchanges with him.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at June 30, 2005 1:45 PM

We're saved, then ... everyone with both a backbone and a brain is being forced out.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at June 30, 2005 1:46 PM

Zogby? Weren't they the ones who did the exit polls that had the French-looking junior Senator from MA winning the last election?

Posted by: Bruce Wechsler (formerly Bruce W.) at June 30, 2005 1:49 PM

The Truth,

Yea, Bush's low approval ratings sure gave John "Reporting for Duty" Kerry a leg up in the last Presidential election, didn't they?

Until us Democrats get rid of the Collectivist Doofii (I'm assuming that is the plural of doofus) who thought they could fool anybody with a clunker like Kerry we're screwed. We need to sit down and seriously decide what we stand for, and it better be better than collectivist daydreams and apologizing to Salafists for the mud huts they live in.

Posted by: ambisinistral at June 30, 2005 1:56 PM

Bruce,

Zogby carries the same weight as Democracy Corps. Tell him what you want as an outcome and he can design a poll to produce it.

I just can't believe that the Dems have Tom Hayden wannabees matched up against DLC "centrists". They've increased the speed on the merry-go-round and are wondering why they aren't pulling ahead.

Roger is being far too kind.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 30, 2005 2:08 PM

56 percent of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction.

********

Talk about a yardstick that has no meaning.

You can think the country is headed in the wrong direction, and still not think the Democrats are the ones who should be in charge.

Posted by: Keith_Indy at June 30, 2005 2:18 PM

The main problem the Democrats have is that defeatism and pessimism are not good strategies for long-term political success. Unless the world operates according to some perfect, illusory--and constantly shifting--ideal, Dems want nothing to do with it. If they're not assured of winning, they won't participate. They need assurances that events will always work out the way they want before they''ll come out of their room. It's the mindset of a five year-old.

And they feel that America is a worthless nation with worthless ideals and that nothing we stand for is is worth fighting to preserve. Ideals embarrass them, which is why they write words like "patriotism" in quotes. They're afraid to look simple or unfashionably sincere and, therefore, afraid to stick their necks out and lead. Innovation frightens them. All is doom.

And we humans are powerless in the face of change; the only good solutions to problems are the old ones. In consequence, their party is rooted to the spot. All they can do is exhibit fear, hatred, paralysis and anger. Politically, it's slow suicide. A sense of hopelessness is not a big motivator.

True leadership requires optimism and a sense that life is a challenge and that there are intangible values and long-term goals worth taking risks for. It also requires a belief in our power as human beings to overcome adversity and the maturity to accept our imperfections, setbacks and struggles. It's an attitude that inspires people with confidence and encourages their participation and loyalty. It takes the long view of events and inspires the hope that we will see a better day.

You can either say 'yes' or 'no' to life. Between those two fundamental attitudes there is no real compromise.

------------

markus: You're confusing awards with merit. They don't necessarily correspond. If you want to see Krugman slapped around, I suggest you read Power Line...

Posted by: ahem at June 30, 2005 2:20 PM

I'm not particularly happy with Bush and the Congress myself. I feel like a whole lot of nothing is getting done. Where's real tax reform? Are Republicans ever going to address health care reform? They would make more headway with SS if they'd started chipping away at Medicare and Medicaid first. They could be doing a lot more and if they're going to tackle old people benefits, then they need to get it done before the next election because no old people are going to vote Republican then with the fear of what Republicans will further do to their entitlements. My brother thinks he's pissing his presidency away and sometimes I really do agree.

Bush needs to get out front and more than just once in awhile make the argument for what we're doing in Iraq. It's amazing to ponder how Bush is the extreme opposite of Reagan on the communication spectrum. Imagine what Bush could do if he could communicate like Reagan!?!

Posted by: lindenen at June 30, 2005 2:24 PM

Country's in a foul mood?

Really?

Christian Bale had an interesting statement in People last week, about filming in Chicago:

"Coming from London, it seemed like everybody [in the Midwest] was just fantastically happy," says Bale, 31....

"I thought everyone was on Prozac."

Posted by: Sandy P at June 30, 2005 2:35 PM

--'tween you and Clark Medal winner Krugman, are you saying you could make him look like an idiot? --

Herr Doktorprofessor does an outstanding job on his own.

And that man will not look you straight in the eye. Creepy.

Posted by: Sandy P at June 30, 2005 2:38 PM

I also hate that the House wasted its time approving that stupid flag-burning amendment. We get pointless bullshit designed to placate and drum up support among the base. Don't even get me started on immigration and the complete lack of any effort to provide the necessary billions upon billions of dollars for more research into other energy technologies.

Oh, and I hate Bill Frist.

Posted by: lindenen at June 30, 2005 2:38 PM

--Where's real tax reform?--

Ask and ye may receive, via Econopundit:

http://danshaviro.blogspot.com/2005/06/tax-reform.html

Posted by: Sandy P at June 30, 2005 2:41 PM

Keith_indy, didn't we just all talk about silly polls?

ahem, on behalf of my five year and five year olds everywhere, I suggest you retract your vicious slander that they are compared to the Dems. Mine is not mature, but she is nowhere near that silly. She gleefully leaves her room every day. :-)

Posted by: Steven Mitchell at June 30, 2005 2:42 PM

The Democrats have three alternatives:

1. They can confront the psychological denial that is rampant in their midst (e.g., when is it OK to discuss 9/11? Don't they realize that what happened that day propelled us into war?); face the reality of the war we are waging against an implacable and evil enemy and come up with some suggestions to win that war;

2. They can continue down the path of denial, projection and delusion that they are headed in and betray every principle this country has ever stood for (if they haven't already);

or,

3. They can adapt their flexible moral perspective to temporarily to counteract their slippage in the polls, since pandering to the public opinion of the moment seems to be their main concern.

Since Bill Clinton is their ideal and role model, I suspect that we will see #3 adopted. The lunatics on the left of the party will continue with #2. I think #1 at this point is mere wishful thinking on my part.

Posted by: Pat at June 30, 2005 2:58 PM

Roger, there is NO SUCH THING as excessive snark, m'man. That's why I read you! The snarky shall inherit the earth.

Posted by: Dark Side Steve at June 30, 2005 4:09 PM

Pat--
Unfortunately, I don't think any of your scenarios are going to play out...The Dems just keep flushing. The mock impeachment that Conyers put on a bit ago is indicative of what they'd love to have happen but it won't.

Here's my take on it. I'm concerned about the snarkiness, but I don't trust the polls unless they're polling people who actually vote.

We do need some strategy, though:

Okay, Sun Tzu, Where Are You?

Posted by: Dymphna at June 30, 2005 4:11 PM

As a red-stater, I'm very disappointed in some of the shenagians of the GOP. I could be converted to vote for a dem, except my ideal candidate would have a message not solely based on failure of the Republicans.

I need someone who recognizes that the world changed on 9-11 and there is no going back. It's OK to disagree with Bush's methods, but not his vision. There is serious stuff going on in the world, and the dems need to get in on solving those problems, not just carping at W.

Don't like SS reforms, at least be honest that the system is broken and propose alternative solutions. Unhappy about the deficit, then filibuster the spending bills coming out of congress instead of UN Ambassador appointments.

Get on board the "Onward to Victory" train and let's win this war. Nothing could make Michael Moore's Munitemen stand down quicker than to realize that americans often disagree with each other, but you better not screw with us! I guess what I'm saying is give me a Zell Miller Democrat and watch out!

Posted by: Ed Poinsett at June 30, 2005 4:23 PM

Markus, Truth, your party--no joke--is approaching bottom. Your hope is in the size of the cohort that would really like to have two strong parties, because that would be good for the whole world. Why do you continue to do your dead-level best to alienate the very thing you need?

We're in a war, with a second-termer in the White House. What better time to have a re-think? In time to get some real talent pushed forward? Now when there's hardly anywhere to go but up?

Krugman, for example, is--honestly--an utter joke as an economist. He was an economist, once, I'm sure. But he can't interpret basics anymore, he can't get off the hate-politics.

And you, Truth, all you've got is odd details that set up snide remarks about self-righteousness. You dislike self-righteousness. yet self-righteousness is the only think you've ever brought here.

Why not belay the kiddie games and come up with some people and ideas? Lindenen just shot you a whole basketful--didn't you notice? Start calling your people, your pols, and tell 'em you want to open toward the center, that you're sick of losing.

Write Krugman and tell him that as a Democrat he's embarrassing you. Read up on why he gets zero respect anymore--other than meaningless inside-party sympathy awards.

Start to work. Sourgrapes is OK for a mourning period, but cripes, when is it over?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 4:27 PM

Dymphna,

What type of strategy? The political type is meaningless. We're too far from an election and the current Dem tactics are so self destructive that all that is required is polite applause.

A meaningful strategy would be one that stressed American unity in support of victory. That is a strategy that would save lives. Americans United for Victory should be the only thing being talked about if we want our troops (mostly) out of the ME with their mission accomplished.

Americans United for Victory - not very complicated but it's all that is required.

Those who do not care to join should rightfully be named for what they are. And the fact that they are costing American lives should be trumpeted every day.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 30, 2005 4:57 PM

Ambi,

As much as I enjoy arguing with you that's how much I realize I missed gaining your insight on a regular basis.

I estimate you have somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 of the solution scoped out there. The remaining bits and pieces are primarily covered by

- an inordinate level of beholdenness (if you can use doofii I can use beholdenness) to "organized labor". The Dems give far too much power to less than 15% of employed Americans and of that 15% something around 1/3 is government employees (I'm including teachers in that). There's a profound conflict of interest there and, IMHO, Americans are becoming sorta kinda vaguely aware that our schools are ferkockta (sp?)

- relentless hanging on to yesterday's "social" issues. Dems have long since exhausted the 90/10 rule. They've "won" the "easiest" portion of the "catfights that made Dems famous" issues: abortion, "seperation of church and state", social equality (race, sex, sexual-orientation), gun control, some others escaping me at the moment. This is not a comment on whether Dems or Reps were more or less correct on these issues. The point is that these issues have been milked dry and continuing to pound on them has passed the point of dimishing returns and is into backlash territory. Other than the hardcore Dem base Americans are pretty proud and satisfied with the "progress" on these fronts and are perfectly willing to let time and legislatures sort out the remaining 10% difficulties. NOTE: I do understand that this somewhat overlaps the "what to we stand for" thing.

- unabridged shrillness. The Dems really need to get control of their shrieking Chicken Littles. It is way beyond counterproductive anymore. Way too many people have had it up to their eyeballs with the relentless pissing and moaning from the Dems.

Glad to see you back participating again. I can't wait for the next time you post something that pushes my launch button ;>. I was so happy to see you back I couldn't even get upset with the "stupidest president in 50 years" thing (paraphrasing).

Posted by: Knucklehead at June 30, 2005 5:02 PM

What has to de recognised s that the scial budgets of the entire Western world are in meltdown,this is a problem that faces parties of every political hue.
The only debate is how it is going to be done and when.
The problems with your Democrats seem to be the same as those of the British Conservative party,no power and too many old lags reliving the past.
Having no power results in a paucity of new talent and the old are like a fading starlet trying to re-capture her lost youth,hence the increasingly wild and juvenile statement filling the air.They culdn't be more embarrassing if they started to do the Twist.

Posted by: PeterUK at June 30, 2005 5:08 PM

Ambi was picking on Carter?

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 30, 2005 5:08 PM

They've increased the speed on the merry-go-round and are wondering why they aren't pulling ahead.

I try not to envy but I envy you folks who can net things out so efficiently. Were you and Terrye HS sweethearts?

Also reminds me of my dog. If you give her tail a tug she'll chase it. If doing so isn't too boring for you and you give her tail repeated tugs she'll chase it faster and faster. If you play "I don't want to tug your tail anymore" with her she'll stick the darned thing in your hand - basically begging you to tug it again. I sometimes wonder if Karl Rove doesn't have a dog just like mine.

Posted by: Knucklehead at June 30, 2005 5:09 PM

Rick, when you say

" Americans United for Victory should be the only thing being talked about if we want our troops (mostly) out of the ME with their mission accomplished."

Is this a real group --AMericans United for Victory--? What a cool idea...

If it's a going concern, may I have a URL. If it's not, how do we go about it??

Posted by: Dymphna at June 30, 2005 5:09 PM

Yeh--I figured it must be something about GWB demeanor, and ignored it in favor of Amb's solid eye on the ball--the war, the existential challenge. Kennedy is full of something, this ain't "Bush's War" as he said. Presidents are one thing, this war is another thing. Simple. The Dem's got screwed up by the election, and letting McAuliffe sorts--who'd sell Gramaw for the right price (and you know it, too, Markus, and you oughtta admit it and move on) make an "issue" of something that divides only along the line of the sane and the not-sane.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 5:14 PM

Sandy P,

"I thought everyone was on Prozac."

It is pretty amazing how many are and of the ones who aren't a goodly portion are on the other ones just like it. Kinda scary but if it keeps 'em from pissing and moaning (I loathe pissing and moaning in case nobody has guessed), so much the better.

Posted by: Knucklehead at June 30, 2005 5:15 PM

Knucklehead -- That's no way to talk about Howard Dean. The man is a doctor. Granted, he's also the first guy in the operating room they gas...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 30, 2005 5:15 PM

I'd forgotten he's a doctor. Must HATE disease.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 5:21 PM

Talk about a yardstick that has no meaning.

They love to throw around a number about the percentage of Americans who "disapprove of Bush's handling of the war." What we don't hear is how many of those think we should have gone in six months earlier, and told Turkey let us come thru or else.

Posted by: triticale at June 30, 2005 5:28 PM

It might yield my banning but I can't resist giving today's lesson in goombahnics...

Yo, Makrus and Praavda. Notfuhnuttin' but I gotcha poll righ' heah. Take a seat. Rotate. YaknowhaImean? Nobody gives a flyin' f*ck at a rollin' donut aboutcher freakin' polls.

Posted by: Knucklehead at June 30, 2005 5:30 PM

Roger;

I'm not much for polls but I do notice a trend. I hear more news from dems about negative result Bush polls rather then idea's. Truth, enjoy your poll's but have you noticed that your party keeps losing?

Way off topic but from the department of selective outrage. I stated on this site that the Klein Hillary book was bad journalism and bad politics. The LA Times had a blistering story(Tim Rutten if I remember correctly) on Klein and compared him to every form of slime. I don't like that Kitty Kelly type of book so I had no problem with it. But in today's LA Times under the headline "Provactive theory" the Times informed us about the new book JFKII: the Bush Connection"by John Hankey which posits that not only was there a shot from the grassy knoll that killed JFK(yawn) but also that Prescott and George H.W. Bush were somehow connected. Of course this type of conspiracy theory book is ok. It just claims that the Bush family helped kill a sitting president. Completely reasonable, eh.

Posted by: Kevin P at June 30, 2005 5:36 PM

Oh, man, you should see the pole numbers coming out of Warsaw...damn near 100%!

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 5:38 PM

Dymphna,

No URL - no org. Grab one and we'll go to work. First question will be "What is victory?" Because the P & M er's will be on it like a cat on a June bug.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 30, 2005 5:44 PM

Kevin P, throw it out there, and it's a "source". That's the Soros game...squirt out one-a-month scandals, try to swing 2% of the voters, who just want all the crap to go the hell away and don't care who's responsible for it. It's a "Rule or Ruin" tactic.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 5:44 PM

Does the Howard Dean remind anyone else of the Boss in the classic Korda movie, "Shape of Things to Come," as his followers are falling all around him, screaming, "Shoot! Shoot! You've never shot enough!"

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 30, 2005 5:58 PM

Rick, Dimphna - If you start it, I'll join it.

On topic - the current attitude of the Dem party (not everyone, so control your outrage) is just plain tiresome. I confess that I am now less well informed about politics than I was ten years ago. Why? Because I just can't listen to the Dems anymore. No matter what the topic is, any statement made by most of the leaders of the Dem party biols down to Bush and the Reps either being stupid, or evil, or both. "Bush is stupid, and Rove is an evil genius" is not a policy. It's childish petulance.

The WoT is by far the most important issue facing us today -- so important that it crowds out everything else. Samuel Johnson observed that when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight it concentrates his mind wonderfully. Similarly, when a bunch of murderous zealots repeated proclaim their intention to kill every American they can find, it concentrates my mind on wanting to see that they are killed first. Where have the Dems been in the WoT? AWOL. They have done absolutely nothing but bitch and carp about the way George Bush is prosecuting the war. Some on the Radical Left even appear to favor a win by our sociopathic enemy! WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY THINKING!!!

I have always tended Republican, but I have almost always voted a split ticket -- until recently, that is. A party that shares a former President's box at its national convention with Michael Moore does not deserve my support. A party that elects Howard Dean chairman does not deserve my support. A party that turns out in droves (including a large percentage of its Senators) to screen Farenheight 9/11 does not deserve my support. A party that has prominent Congressional fixtures doing everything short of directly undermining the war effort does not deserve my support. A party that spends its time fillabustering appointees (a pasttime that is distinctly inappropriate and perhaps illegal) rather than proposing substantive alternatives does not deserve my support. I could go on, but why bother? These are all characteristics of a childish party -- a party that deserves to be punished at the hustings. I intend to do my part.

Posted by: Ben at June 30, 2005 6:48 PM

By the way Rick, I have a simple definition of "victory." It happens when we win and they lose. When the sociopathic b**tards that want to kill us are either dead or impotent or lose interest in trying to kill us, we have won.

Posted by: Ben at June 30, 2005 6:51 PM

Rick, --OT--

As per Roger's suggestion, I'm responding to your previous post on seditious intent here. Of course people who commit manslaughter are guilty and should be punished, just as murderers should be punished. But not as harshly. Intent does matter. Reading Lilek's fisking of Woody Allen reminded me of that quite cogently.

So: if the Romans kill to conquer, and build cities, streets, sanitation systems, water-delivery systems, courts, and regulate trade to provide a stable economy not based on raiding the next town, this is the same as Barbarians sacking Rome and carting off the gold. Because in both cases you have killing. "Some Nazis killed Jews, and now some Jewish people and some Palestinians are killing each other." Same thing. Without the ability to make moral distinctions based on motive, consequences, the ethical constructs of various parties, everything is equal, and you end up with people like Woody Allen: a tiny speck of compacted narcissism, revolving around the dead sun in an empty universe.

To my mind there's a huge difference between the dim-witted Deans, Durbins, and Feingolds on the one hand, and the objectively treasonous Tom Haydens and Jane Fondas on the other. Painting them all with the same broad brush is counterproductive, though they probably all deserve punishment.

Posted by: WichitaBoy at June 30, 2005 7:00 PM

Lately, I find conversations with my liberal friends dreadfully dull and boring. I used to get excited while arguing issues ranging from food safety to econimics to terrorism but now their constant anger and repetitive arguments which simply dismiss the points that I am trying to make have merely soporific effect. I feel that while I studied issues, thought and argued about them thus developing of my thoughts and ideas, my rhetorical/political opponents never moved an inch from an intellectual position that they assumed, say, 30 years ago.

There is nothing duller than a brain of unreconstructed leftie.

PS. I am in a foul mood myself after the Kelo decision and, if asked, I will would say that I think that the country is going in a wrong direction, just based on that single ruling.

How would this be related to Bush administration again?

Posted by: Katherine at June 30, 2005 7:06 PM

(Kill Pervieew!)

Posted by: Katherine at June 30, 2005 7:10 PM

econimics, I couldn't argue either.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 7:16 PM

WB, when that Lileks gets hot, he goes incandescent, don't he.

"a tiny speck of compacted narcissism, revolving around the dead sun in an empty universe."

(sigh)

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 7:19 PM

Buddy,

I tell you Pervieew’s dead, baby. Perview’s dead.

Posted by: Katherine at June 30, 2005 7:20 PM

kathrine, I caught a half a blurb--Pelosi hammering Kelo, today. There's a groundswell, gonna be a bipartisan biggie here.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 7:33 PM

oFf wiHt pERVeiW's heAD!

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 7:36 PM

WB,

You are conflating dissimiliars. I'm very, very careful about using the words treason or traitors. I do not believe that any elected official is currently deserving of being called such.

Sedition is very much a different matter. A Democratic controlled congress saw fit to enact a sedition law in 1917 and another Democratic controlled congressed passed the Smith Act in 1940. Both acts recognized that certain types of speech are detrimental to the conduct of war. The Smith Act is still extant in part but it deals with the advoacy of overthrow and does not definitionally pertain.

There is no current law that pertains to seditious language but the language used in the '17 act defines rather precisely what Dean, Durbin and Feingold are attempting to do. I find a plea of stupidity as a basis for determining culpability to be unconvincing. ForNow presented a number of citations that are rather convincing proof of a planned effort on the part of Democratic elected officials to pursue a negative course for purely political motives. These people know that the appearance of a deeply divided nation improves the enemies moral while hurting the moral of our forces.

They are, in fact, guilty of more than negligent homicide and deserve to bear the epithet of seditionists of the first order. There was a time when partisanship, at least in theory, stopped at the water's edge. That is no longer true and I see no reason whatsoever to withold a well earned descriptive term from those willing to see American blood shed in advancement of their political interests.

They are also scum, but that's just a subjective opinion rather than an objective fact.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 30, 2005 7:44 PM

Katherine — Kelo is Bush's fault because the Administration didn't appoint judges fast enough...

{{{/channeling Dean}}}

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 30, 2005 7:47 PM

Rick and Ben--

I have no idea how to start such a thing, but it sounds wonderful. We need a few military parents, an eloquent loudmouth or two, a website, and a mission statement. We'd get all sorts of trolls complaining we're jingoistic (yawn) but it would be great if it were planned carefully enough to build up some steam...

I am a great follower, but if someone points me in the right direction, I could lead on this one. What fun! Maybe I should ask Michael Yon? He'd have some ideas anyway.

Katherine: I agree with you about lefties. Their ideas are so outmoded they're long past their sell-by date and they will deny the mold which the rest of us can see as plain as day. One either changes friends or seeks little compartments of friendships based on old history and shared experiences. I've done both: tip-toed away and tip-toed around. Depends on how much you love them.

Okay, Buddy...you know I live in the woods and have experienced a sheltered life. What is perview? Is it akin to perversion? Please use words that don't smell bad to explain this mystery. I will check with you tomorrow. Right now, I am off to read my first Roger Simon novel. You know what occurs in the first few pages ( I kid you not). The protagonist, Mr. Wine, answers the door saying "Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh"...just like the title of the post of the other day.

Buddy, think of it: Roger Simon *recylces.* Another legend cut off at the knees. SOb.

Posted by: Dymphna at June 30, 2005 7:49 PM

Wow, Richard, my head spins. I need a drink to straighten my brain.

Posted by: Katherine at June 30, 2005 7:51 PM

Rick,

My apologies for conflating "sedition" with "treason". Not the same, I agree.

Main Entry: sedition Pronunciation: si-'di-sh&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin sedition-, seditio, literally, separation, from se- apart + ition-, itio act of going, from ire to go -- more at SECEDE, ISSUE: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

Sorry, that still doesn't sound like Durbin et al. to me.

Posted by: WichitaBoy at June 30, 2005 7:59 PM

So I'm an SOB now? wah! *groan* "Preview", spelt wrong as a self-reference thingie. So you don't write, "You must understand, my dear, that I happen to be a very excellent spellar."
"The Boss" in "Shape of Things to Come"?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 8:01 PM

Dypmphna,

Let’s just say that Preview, who goes by Pewweev or Pervieew or any other variation, is NOT your friend. Some of us here have serious designs on the bastard. Gitmo torture ain’t it, if we get him.

Posted by: Katherine at June 30, 2005 8:05 PM

Dymphna, just look at the way I spelled your name! Watch it Pervieww, or it is Koran flushing time!

(Sorry, I will stay on topic from now on.)

Posted by: Katherine at June 30, 2005 8:08 PM

Katherine, that's ok, she called either me or Roger an SOb, right after acussing him of "reclycing" or somethin' (ewww).

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 8:16 PM

The U.S. Sedition Act United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff. A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917. The act was subsequently repealed in 1921.

SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by...

That's the last legal definition decided upon by Congress. The shoe fits. Read ForNows links. Willful and false are in there.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 30, 2005 8:18 PM

Rick -- just who would decide what is sedition and what is not under your regime? Do you really think the courts would allow such a law to stand? Don't you think that it would be unenforceable: too many people like me would break your stupid laws?

Buddy -- you claim that having two strong parties would be good for the United States. Why?

You strongly indicate your two strong parties should not disagree on foreign policy questions. In fact, you appear to believe that strong disagreement with Bush regarding the biggest issue of our time -- the "war on terror" -- is tantamount to sedition.

You view Democratic Party attitudes toward government intervention in the economy to be destuctive. Others talk about "collectivist doofi" and their stupid support for organized labor. So why would it strengthen the U.S. to have debate over these issues? Wouldn't that be akin to inviting a faith healer or a chiropractor on to a medical team trying to save a cancer patient?

It seems to me that you and your cohorts have established that there is no point in debating foreign policy and economic policy...that being the case, just what is acceptable for these "two strong parties" that you conceive of to DISAGREE ABOUT?

I'd also like to hear from others. Knuck, C., even my Japanese friend, what was his name, Baka Kuso?

Posted by: markus at June 30, 2005 8:21 PM

Buddy Larsen — Shape of Things to Come 1936, Alexander Korda, produced; William-Cameron Menzies, directed; H.G. Wells, script. Check out a copy here

Hey, I gotta watch something waiting for Roger to get off the pot on Zapped! 3....

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 30, 2005 8:27 PM

Markus,

The courts have always upheld the Smith Act. The Sedition Act of 1917 was upheld in two cases before the Supreme Court - Abrams v. United States and Schenck v. United States.

The Court has always held that extraordinary measures are lawful during national emergencies and war has always qualified.

Your use of "regime" is quite touching. Actually I believe that you are capable of saying anything. Doing is quite another matter.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 30, 2005 8:32 PM

Baka Kuso went to Hong Kong today, Markus Oh Really us. Two strong parties? For the talent and competition. Disagreements expected--it's "debate". And, pay-off, cooperative compromise on things exigent--like, war and peace and federal judges. But, why are some things not good to debate endlessly? Say the country is walking a tightrope, and one party wants to shake the rope, and the other party wants not to. Is that a legit debate?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 8:32 PM

Markus, you weary old raven — The Democratic Party right now stands for nothing but negation. They have advanced no proactive solutions for Iraq, the War on Terror or any of the social issues this country needs to address. They express nothing but bilious opposition to anything the Bush administration puts forward, and if in the course of that opposition they have to lie, commit fraud, and villify good men and women both civil and military to that end, they do — whether it is Durbin equating the conduct of the military to the Khmer Rouge and Gestapo or House Democrats arrogantly declaring Miguel Estrada not a "real" Hispanic. Their only end is the reestablishment of the primacy of the Democratic Party even though they have offered no idea what they would do with that primacy again if they ever got it back.

This country needs a balancing second party. The alternative is Canada. Right now, the bitter, obstructionist Democratic party is not it, and as it is going, it will not long survive to become such again.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 30, 2005 8:37 PM

The idea, as richard says, of two parties is not SO you cab have someone to disagree with, but rather, it is an acceptance of the wide range of interests, and provides a structure wherein a unity can be reached on national policy--a unity that can be wrestled peacefully--without bloodshed--from the alternative to unity.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 8:45 PM

Hey 'The Truth',

Do approval ratings matter now?

Unlike most politicians on both sides, President Bush doesn't make decisions by focus group, wind direction, polls or approval ratings. The next 2+ years will play out the same whether President Bush has a 30% approval rating, or a 80% approval rating. I find comfort in that.

Time will tell on your prediction that the Democrats will resurge in 2008 and beyond, but it's not looking too good right now. Good Luck.

Jeff Hartley

Posted by: Jeff Hartley at June 30, 2005 8:52 PM

Unions, it ain't the principle, it's the action...you can't compete globally, and have higher wages than the competition, without losing jobs and shrinking (take a look at the non-government employee unions lately) the mfrng base AS well as the unions. Unless...unless...you pass tariffs, and thereby use the entire national population to subsidize an un-natural specificity inside the economy that institutionalizes a favor-seeking and favorite-playing corrupting politics, all subsidized by consumers paying higher prices--and historically, for shoddier goods--in a weaker economy with fewer foreign interests allied, and trade wars endemic that waste global resources. Waste is waste--helps nobody.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 9:00 PM

It certainly does not help the liberal Democrats when they fail to take a stand against Supreme Court rulings like the KELO decision (eminent domain ruling). Some U.S. Representatives introduced resolution 340 today to condemn the Supreme Court's eminent domain ruling and, furthermore, to side with Justice Thomas's dissent. What do the liberals do in response? They refuse to condemn the ruling and choose, instead, to side with government's ability to take private property and redistribute it to other private hands, a/k/a big corporations. I've been tracking this over at www.supremeTORT.com.

Posted by: codias at June 30, 2005 9:14 PM

The Dems are indeed running on empty, but there's plenty of evidence that the Republicans are also in decline. A strong and confident party would not pull the kind of blatantly unconservative, anti-federalist stunts that Frist et al pulled in l'affaire Schiavo. As Peggy Noonan points out, Frist himself is a rather comically vain, puffed-up clown; one could say the same of Norm Coleman after his evisceration by the fascist popinjay Galloway, or Trent Lott, or DeLay or any number of posturing Senate and House Republicans.

The common themes here are arrogance and overreaching. The Hill Republicans' Schiavo stunt, especially, has undermined the patient, solid efforts of Ken Mehlman to convince moderate and core Democratic voters-- esp hispanics and blacks and national security Dems like myself-- that the Republicans have not been taken over by Foghorn Leghorn fundie clowns.

We're stuck with two parties engaged in a race to the bottom. Christian-fundie clowns vs leftist blame-America-first clowns. A pox on both of 'em.

Posted by: thibaud at June 30, 2005 9:18 PM

The problem with the Democrats is that they are not responsive to voters real and legitimate needs in two critical areas:

1. Crime and personal security.
2. Anti-Terrorism.

In crime this has been a long standing problem. Democrats early on opposed anti-crime measures labeling them as racist. This got them a near 90% African American vote but convinced the average voter that their personal security would be sacrificed for political correctness which it in fact WAS. Dukakis lost on one issue, the Death Penalty, which was used as a proxy for his anti-crime views. Was the question about Kitty Dukakis unfair? I don't believe so because it was the greatest weakness in Dukakis platform, in that reflexive attitudes towards crime being a failure to spend enough on social services and rehabilitation instead of proper policing and locking up serious, violent offenders, was obvious in both the personal political actions of Dukakis and the Party's platform.

If you don't respond to voters legitimate concerns about not being murdered, raped, or otherwise physically assaulted or robbed, you won't get their votes. Dems ALWAYS ignore this and lose in underpoliced areas where ethnic politics come into play. Crime and the threat of crime against your family imposes huge costs which Dems just don't acknowledge, trapped in 60's style rhetoric and attitudes.

The anti-Terrorism attitudes of Dems EXACTLY mirror that of crime. When Teddy Kennedy weeps on the Senate floor over the waterboarding of 9/11 Architect Khalid Sheik Mohammed, voters know the Dems are not serious about anti-terrorism. When Dems offer nothing but criticism of Bush regarding Iraq, no alternative policy or the traditional Dem platform of raising new armies and crushing our enemies, voters know that the Party is not serious about terrorism.

Kerry, Moore, Soros, Dean, Pelosi, Boxer, Murray, and Biden have all pushed the line that 9/11 was being used to "scare" people and that there was no real threat, and no need to take action. They have opposed efforts to question Al Qaeda terrorists, demanding they be given both ACLU-style rights due US citizens under criminal indictment, AND full Geneva Convention rights. Essentially Dems (and a few like Boxer and Biden) have said that the prisoners, much of whom are important Al Qaeda people, be let go, with apologies. AT BEST Dems offer a marginally bigger budget on CIA spying, but with even larger restrictions on what the CIA can do to penetrate Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Meanwhile carping about the FBI's investigation of possible terrorist cells here at home.

Domestically, Dems put Civil Liberties far ahead of anti-terrorism just like they do the crime issue. After 9/11 that's guaranteed to lose votes. A bad economy is trumped by dying in a terrorist attack.

Compared to Al Qaeda financiers the House of Saud, or protectors Iran and Pakistan (the latter undoubtedly sheltering bin Laden), Iraq was not the worst enemy or biggest threat we faced. However, now that we are there a quick retreat will only prove bin Laden was right and guarantee that others will fund, allow, or otherwise encourage mass casualty attacks on us. Given Pakistan and Iran's nuclear status this is a recipe for millions of Americans dead.

Militarily Dems are opposed to ANY action that has American or non-combatant or even combatant casualties, pretending that the alternative is "peace" after 9/11 proves that there is no peace only unconventional war until ourselves or the Salafists/Qtubists/Wahabbists are destroyed.

A winning strategy for Dems would be to say, "hey we will raise taxes to triple our military, spend the money, get bin Laden and his followers including invading Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi if we have to (though we'd rather avoid it), we'll destroy their regimes and nukes but won't stick around, and threaten to come back if we have to (and keep the ability to come back and break hostile regimes). We'll make you safer than the Republicans because we'll be far more ruthless in protecting America no matter how many of the enemy we have to kill if it comes down to it." Win and go home. Don't care about the French, UN, Global Test, or making people love us. Address the real issue which is security.

No matter how unhappy voters are with high gas prices (most of Bush's unpopularity right there) Dems won't win until they satisfy the basics of voters needs: physical security and I don't see the Party ever able to change ideology to address that. Not with Crime, and not with Terrorism. Therefore they will be absent any special circumstances the minority party.

Posted by: Jim Rockford at June 30, 2005 9:19 PM

That's a roger--been trying to tell ole Markus, it's new leadership that he needs.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 9:26 PM

Long past time for a new party that rejects both Mikey Moore and Jerry Falwell. Giuliani, McCain, Condi, Salazar in Colorado, maybe Lieberman (if he gets off his own preachy righteous horse) would all be welcome. Its geographical and spiritual center would be in the mildly libertarian, high-growth southwestern states of Colorado or Arizona. It would deliberately focus on issues of concern to military (active and ex-) families, hispanics, nonunion workers and libertarians of all backgrounds.

The platform would be simple and focused on

1) national security,

2) access to affordable health care for all, and

3) real, thoroughgoing immigration reform of the sort that legal hispanic immigrants and other workers would rally around.

On most other issues, the party would tolerate a diversity of views. No litmus on abortion or gays either way; in general, a defense of individual rights and a fierce hostility to monopolists and concentrated economic power (eg, a demand to end the shameful coddling of the Baby Bells by the FCC that has stifled competition and caused broadband adoption in the US to lag far behind... South Korea).

Call it the (True) Progressive Party. Neither Moore nor Falwell.

Posted by: thibaud at June 30, 2005 9:27 PM

In addition to those who would impeach Bush over Iraq, there are probably a good number of Americans who would like to impeach him over his various anti-American activities regarding propaganda, CAFTA, massive illegal immigration and attempting to create a North American community.

Here's a little mind experiment: picture Bush. Then, take away the drawl, the cowboy hat, the ranch, the pickup, and all the other props. Then, take a look at his actions. What you end up with isn't really consonant with conservatism or the supposed goals of the Republican party.

America would be much better off if Bush were impeached and the BushBots even more discredited than they've already been.

Posted by: Lonewacko at June 30, 2005 9:30 PM

Thibaud — A party that embraces McCain and Lieberman is loading itself down with some baggage going in; neither man's hands are the least clean in terms of campaign financing and McCain seems to have a real problem with the First Amendment for a guy who used to have to tap out his messages on his cell wall in Hanoi.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 30, 2005 9:35 PM

Lonewacko — Here's a plan. Talk to us again when you take control of Congress. We'll wait.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 30, 2005 9:37 PM

Jim Rockford - the Dems indeed are hopeless on national security, though I don't agree that the crime issue is major anymore. Crime in NY City is now a small fraction of what it was in 1988. In any case, the death penalty is yet another pathetic charade engaged in by our political class, one that has absolutely zip to do with deterrence while resulting in the execution, again and again and again, of innocents wrongly convicted by a criminal justice system that is and always will be flawed. It's a sick side show that needs to be shut down, immediately, before any more innocents are executed.

As to the Dems and national security, it's revealing that not even the party's top foreign policy intellectuals are concerned with security. As with anything involving the military, it embarrasses them to even discuss the topic. A military alliance with India? Don't know, don't care. Shift our attention from Europe to Asia? Never. For today's Dems, the European "moral superpower" is the anti-militarist Great White Hope (read Ivo Daalder on Europe and you can practically hear the man's heart throb).

This wasn't always the case-- and you don't need to go back to JFK or Truman for counter-examples. Even Jimmy Carter could appoint a fiercely anti-Soviet hawk like Brzezinski as his National Security Adviser (though Jimmah and hapless Cy Vance undermined Zbiggy repeatedly). But the end of the Cold War seems to have permamently shut many Dem minds against the notion of a robust military deterrent, of military interventionism on behalf of US interests. Clinton put a trade lawyer in the NSA post, and his boys and girls spent much of the late 1990s agonizing over how to arrest, not kill, Osama.

The party has yet to recover from its post-Cold War euphoria. Now it's just a hangover.

Posted by: thibaud at June 30, 2005 9:41 PM

Richard M - no pol is ideal, and no party should be built around the image or candidacy of one or two pols. That said, I think the Party of God -- not Lebanon's but America's -- is rapidly acquiring as much baggage as the Party of Hillary.

Those of us who are not Christians, or who are Christians but see no benefit in ramming Christianity down the rest of the nation, are desperate for an alternative to our two clownish, self-referential and self-regarding political parties. A new Progressive Party would start with a helluva lot less baggage than the parties of the Clintons and the Bushes. I think the nation has had more than its fill of those two families, thanks very much. BTW, there's no national appetite for lightweights like Frist or Allen, either. Time for another course, another party altogether.

Posted by: thibaud at June 30, 2005 9:48 PM

Lonewacko — Here's a plan. Talk to us again when you take control of Congress. We'll wait.

Such comments don't usually deserve a reply, but it does illustrate a favorite BushBot technique: anyone who opposes Our Leader must be a liberal, if not worse.

If you're more on the right side, but you're also a little wishy-washy on Bush, see the links in Citizens United for Bush and... for American sovereignty?

Posted by: Lonewacko at June 30, 2005 10:03 PM

I hope you folks are getting thru to our self-described Democratic party activist...he can't read all this and not realize that hollering over WMD is so freaking yesterday--the whole Great Bush Attack is yesterday's news and keeps you facing backwards...you sooo need to get going on tomorrow...and without Kennedy/Kerry/Boxer/Dodd/Moore/Franken/et al, that whole crew is too far gone, not resurrectable. I'd be paying close attention and spreading the word a bit. Hillary knows all this already--and she wants to be the new blood. But, she ain't new blood. Shove Bayh & Obama into the center and run them instead.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 10:05 PM

Lonewacko, if you bothered to quit regarding yourself for a mo, you'd see there ain't no bots anywhere around here but you.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 10:10 PM

Buddy Larsen — Er, oh, yeah, Obama

Lonewacko — That wasn't a rhetorical comment. You are calling for something THAT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN unless we see a huge groundswell of Bush-rejection among House Republicans. It isn't there. Calling for an action that is procedurally impossible isn't principled or even brave, it's a waste of bandwidth.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 30, 2005 10:27 PM

Markus,

Can you write that in Kanji you ignorant slob? If you ever find your way to Kyoto I'd suggest using another name. For the epithet you used above for Yama doesn't sit too well with many around here. And we remember. The folks in Kanto are much more forgiving if called that particular name. Anyway. I wonder how good Roger's Japanese is, for I'm sure he doesn't appreciate you sh:::ting all over his living room rug. Now if it was ignorance on your part, about what you were saying and to whom, which wouldn't surprise me, all of course is forgiven.

Posted by: uranari at June 30, 2005 10:34 PM

Thibaud--

I don't see where the Schiavo matter amounts to much. A mix of politicians--some acting because they thought they should, others acting because they thought it would resonate with voters, stomped in on a state issue with a federal law. Three months later, it's virtually forgotten, as it will remain with luck forever.

Also, I don't know about all these Christians who are running the country are. I'm one, and they never invite me to the executive session meetings where we decide which unbelievers to torture. Please advise how I can get in on this action.

Posted by: Fresh Air at June 30, 2005 10:38 PM

uranari — I don't think that bishonen kiisama Markus would dare....

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 30, 2005 10:44 PM

Rick,

I think all our seditionists would argue that their statements/actions, whether false or not, were not made in any way “with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States”. Why, all they are doing is trying to help, after ll as the bumper sticker reminds us, The Dissent is Patriotic! And they all "Support the Troops!"

Frankly, after reading about the activities of Tom Hayden et al. during the Vietnam War I have been brooding on the consequences of NOT punishing seditionists and plain traitors in the time of war. Even if I do not support outright death penalty for treason, some sort of punishment would be nice. Perhaps stripping of all the life-long perks that our lovely politicians earn in reward for ruling.. sorry, I mean…serving the public?

Posted by: Katherine at June 30, 2005 10:49 PM

Richard Mac--

I for one am waiting for the Samurai to meet the Markus on the high plain of battle. I can't wait for Uranari to draw his tachi and perform Yokomen on Markus-son.

Posted by: Fresh Air at June 30, 2005 10:58 PM

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Posted by: Fresh Air at June 30, 2005 10:59 PM

I'm more enthusiastic. Give me a no-dachi and some swinging room. Metaphysically, of course.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 30, 2005 11:08 PM

Fresh Air,

You should be hanging around with Lileks at the Patriot Forum. That’s where all the critical matters are decided. (The California chapter fits in a crawl space, but we make a nice chorus.)

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/1004/100404.html

Posted by: Katherine at June 30, 2005 11:09 PM

Richard,

I'm trying to go to bed here, but your link just got my blood boiling. Did the Clintons really show up on the front row of Billy Graham's crusade?!? They are so friggin obvious! I can't stand it. I can't imagine a stupider move on their part. Sure, we all know they're political whores and will do anything to taste power again, but really people.

Sheesh.

So now all the dumb red-staters, who are really just a bunch of stupid-ass "Christers", are going to be bowled over by how deeply committed the Big Hill is to Christianity. Uh huh. Just like those stupids had the wool pulled over their eyes by war-hero Kerry, who was going to get us out of the war! But who supported our troops! Until he didn't!

It's cynical, sure. But I thought this pair was supposed to have a political clue, fer chrissake!

They just don't get it. I think there are a lot more people like me or Thibaud out there who are a political problem for the Democrats than there are "Christers" who are going to fall for the Clintons' faux new-bornism. I'm not a Christian, I'd appear to be an atheist to most of you, but I'm more like a Hindu I suppose. I consider myself a liberal but I emphatically don't hate America, and I wouldn't vote for that conniving pair if they personally came to my house and charmed my socks.

Why does the phrase "have you no decency, sir and madam, have you no shame" keep ringing in my ears?

But truly--what can I say?--I'm sitting here sniggering. They're funny, they are. It's so ridiculous they've got me laughing.

Posted by: WichitaBoy at June 30, 2005 11:24 PM

Katherine--

If only I had clean brown shirt to wear to the Patriot Forum...and where did I put that armband...Damn! Rove must have borrowed it again! At least he left me the jackboots.

Posted by: Fresh Air at June 30, 2005 11:24 PM

WB--

Hillary is, emphatically, not a political genius...at least that's what Jay Cost (The Horserace Blogger) says, and he knows more about this stuff than I ever will.

Posted by: Fresh Air at June 30, 2005 11:28 PM

You know us by many names: liberal, progressive, leftist, radical, seditionist. We are those and more. You ask us why we hate. This is our story:

At the dawning of a new age, our destiny is revealed. We are to remake the world in an image of our own design. A world of love and peace, not hate and war. Harmony and understanding, not discord and conflict. A just world without poverty, without prejudice, without weapons. It requires extreme measures, a revolution, several in fact. No one over 30 is trusted. Everything our parents' generation taught us, codes of behavior, moral constricts, is rejected. We make new rules and the first rule is 'there are no rules'. At every juncture, every turn, we confront the older generation, the greatest generation, and sneer as they fold like a Chinese laundress. For all practical purposes, we now are in charge.

Yes, our elders still holds the positions of power and authority but that authority is nominal. We bring down two presidents. Lead by a glamorous movie star and her firebrand consort, we stop a war. We end the draft. We change curricula to reflect new sensibilities. We liberate women from the drudgery of housework and childcare. We liberate men from their machismo. We liberate everyone from sexual Puritanism. We make marriage immaterial and divorce no-fault. We come out of the closet.

Victory follows on the heels of victory. The War on Poverty transfers vast sums from non-deserving haves to deserving havenots. Medicare further strips the tarnish from the golden years. Affirmative action paves the way for those once oppressed by and shut out of white society to take their rightful places in it. We demand our Constitutional reproductive rights and we get them. We persuade that morality is relative and no one culture or ideology stands above another. We ban DDT.

In the 80's we suffer setbacks. Republicans retake the White House and usher in a decade of greed. There are tax cuts and big militaryindustrialcomplex budgets. The rules governing equity and fairness over the public airwaves are expunged. But our relative strength in the other two branches of government mitigates the damage. The welfare state emerges unscathed and the fall of the Berlin Wall is, well, a good thing, right? Yes, of course, a good thing.

In the early 90's there are more bumps in the road (another war--ugh. about oil--double ugh), but soon enough we are riding high again. We will assert gay rights in the military. We will have universal heath care insurance. We will save the environment. We will become one with the world.

In 1994 the unthinkable happens. Republicans, conservative Republicans, take the House of Representatives, we are sorely vexed. They dismantle the Great Society, we are angry. They impede progress at every turn, we are irate. They impeach our president for personal behavior that is none of their business, we are infuriated. They. Will. Pay. And pay they do in 1998, a small price, to be sure, but a price nonetheless. And it pales in comparison to the price we will extract in 2000.

Nov 7, 2000. Black Tuesday. Minorities disenfranchised. Votes not counted. A moronic born-again cowboy, in collusion with a corrupt SC majority, steals the election. Selected not elected. Democrats fail to take back the House. The Senate hangs by a slender thread. The moronic cowboy plunges the country into recession and gives tax cuts to his wealthy friends and supporters. John Ashcroft. Haliburton. Haliburton. Haliburton.

On Sep 11, 2001, America is attacked. We do not know for certain who or what is behind that attack (although we may have our suspicions), but we recognize that the policies of the United States, and the moronic cowboy in particular, are as much to blame as anyone or thing. We beseech, do not respond in kind. War never solves anything. We implore, determine which of our own misdeeds incite such hatred and make the necessary reforms. We urge, bring the criminals responsible to justice before the international court. But a perverse patriotism sweeps the land and the moronic born-again imperialist gets his war. Death and chaos rain down on Afghanistan.

Just when we think things could not get worse, the moronic born-again imperialist cowboy makes known his intention to depose, by any means necessary, the president of a sovereign nation, a nation that has never attacked the United States. He manipulates intelligence and lies, not only to the American people, but, worse, to the body of nations. It, in its wisdom and to its credit, is not swayed and refuses to endorse this mad, criminal act. But the moronic born-again imperialist Nazi cowboy unilaterally and illegally launches an invasion. Death and chaos rain down on Iraq.

Hundreds of thousands dead. Treasure that could be used to lift up the downtrodden squandered. We are hated everywhere in the world. The Patriot Act divests us of our civil rights. We become torturers and abusers. We break international law with impunity and contemptuously refuse to honor the treaties to which we are bound. Many of us fear McCarthyesque retribution for daring to exercise our 1st Amendment rights. The numbers called to insurgency against the criminal acts of United States and the military that perpetrates them increase exponentially. The cowboy acts, he says, to protect us but we by his actions are left less safe, less secure and less free. We must rid ourselves of this moronic born-again imperialist Nazi cowboy. Whatever it takes.

In 2004, an army of evangelical Christians, who would wish to impose a theocracy on the United States, organizes on behalf of their Fuhrer. The campaign is a web of deceit, lies and dirty tricks. Although more people go to the polls on behalf of the BushHitler's opponent, their votes are lost to fraud and corruption. Another election is stolen. A jihad is begun against our gay brothers and sisters. They are the first. Who among us will be next? All is despair.

From the depths of our tortured souls, we cry out: Will no one free us from this anti-Christ, this demon from hell, who keeps us writhing in agony within his evil grasp?

You ask us why we hate. We ask you, how can we not?

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at July 1, 2005 1:53 AM

Great satire there, Kyda. It's like you've got right inside the skull of a moonbat.

They must live in a terrible place with sch delusions.

Posted by: Evil Pundit at July 1, 2005 2:59 AM

The problem isn't that Democrats don't have any ideas. The problem is that their ideas have been thorougly discredited.

The Democrats are Marxists. Their domestic policy is to use the coercive power of government to subordinate individual rights to group "rights" and redistribute resources between groups based on arbitrary and subjective concepts of "social justice." Their security policy is to subordinate American sovereignty to international institutions and to outsource national security to the UN and "allies" like France.

Obviously, the Dems can't campaign on the failed ideas they actually have. The only path left for them is to deny what they really are, and smear and obstruct their opposition. Thus Bush is Hitler, Republicans are white Christians (and they HATE white Christians and increasingly Jews) and the military is just like the Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

This tactic has been somewhat effective at undermining support for President Bush. Yes, Bush's poll numbers are down a few points. The only problem for the Dems is that THEIR poll numbers are down even FURTHER.

The Democrats are winning the race to the bottom.

Posted by: HA at July 1, 2005 3:50 AM

"The country is just in a foul mood," Carville said. Just because he's in a foul mood doesn't mean the whole country is.
"I'm just in a foul mood, and I think the whole country is too!" what Carville really said - after translation.

Posted by: jimcaserta at July 1, 2005 7:02 AM

Since I'm in my conspiracy theory mode, where might I find information about the Obscurinati or the text of the Protocols of the Imams of the Caliphate. Perhaps a good place to start might be in the gloved hands and urine mists of the infidel torturers at Gitmo?

Posted by: Knucklehead at July 1, 2005 7:05 AM

oops! Wrong thread.

Posted by: Knucklehead at July 1, 2005 7:06 AM

Oh, BTW, I apologize for my goombahnics lesson. It was vulgar and uncalled for.

Posted by: Knucklehead at July 1, 2005 7:08 AM

Knuck,

I found it nuanced, poignant and touching. It explored the inner sensibilities of a point of view that is silently held by the overwhelming majority in a manner that was both fresh and honest.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at July 1, 2005 7:16 AM

Kyda — Well played!

But I think I've found a simpler reason why the moonbats are boiling out of their Platonic cave again all of a sudden. It is, after all, a new business quarter and Soros probably just sent the fresh checks...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at July 1, 2005 7:19 AM

I thought it was funny, Knucklehead--a little comic relief. Well, this thread orta pretty much dee-molish that lock-step Bush-bot baloney--I sure hope the Truth and Markus got the drift. I know it was rather painful for people to have to detail their differences with each other, in order to clue in the Bush-bot clueless. It can never be said that the folks here are guilty of not reaching out and trying to put the 'why' behind the 'what'. Uranari, I don't know what insult is in that name, but I wouldn't've repeated it had I known--I assumed that Markus being a Democrat would never stoop to such.

Sandra Day O'Conner just retired. This may be news.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at July 1, 2005 7:25 AM

Kyda, I never believed in channelers before now, or was it a Vulcan mind-meld? Beautifully done!

Marcus, Hi.

Posted by: c at July 1, 2005 7:27 AM

Katherine,

I find conversations with my liberal friends dreadfully dull and boring. I used to get excited while arguing issues ranging from food safety to econimics to terrorism but now their constant anger and repetitive arguments which simply dismiss the points that I am trying to make have merely soporific effect. I feel that while I studied issues, thought and argued about them thus developing of my thoughts and ideas, my rhetorical/political opponents never moved an inch from an intellectual position that they assumed, say, 30 years ago.

I have precisely the same experience. For a while I would grow frustrated and angry that I could not find a way to generate even some small breeze to help them escape the intellectual doldrums they'd languished in for so long. Surely there was some argument or method I could find that would register with these seemingly intelligent and educated people.

But that phase has mostly passed for me. Toward them my attitude has become a variation on a theme I've had towards a type of people stuck in a different doldrum. These are the "Oh, highschool was the best years of my life" folks. I invariably sit silently thinking, "How sad it must be to be of middle age when one should have at least some resume of marginal accomplishments, battles fought and one, hard-earned progress and at least minimal rewards and yet to have to look backwards across much more than half of one's life to find the best years."

These days, when I listen to the effects of the intellectual doldrums of my intelligent "liberal" friends and aquaintences I can only sit and silently wonder, "How sad it must be to have become intellectually wedged in the cheap wine and bong fog of one's sophomore dorm room."

Posted by: Knucklehead at July 1, 2005 7:32 AM

Oh, man, you should see the pole numbers coming out of Warsaw...damn near 100%!

Oh my gawd.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at July 1, 2005 7:36 AM

ARGHHH!!! Their was once won team that one there contest. PIMF, you dope, PIMF!

Posted by: Knucklehead at July 1, 2005 7:38 AM

Kyda: You appear to be lost, dear. Go back two blocks to the stop light and hang a left. About half a mile down on the left-hand side of the street, you should see a large neon sign that says 'Bellevue Hospital' in red lettering. Use the entrance on the left and ring the buzzer on the door that says 'Psychiatric Emergency Services'. You'll find Kos and his friends there. You should have no trouble parking. Tell 'em Howard sent you. You can't miss it.

Oh, if you have time, stop by the library and check out Churchill's--Winston's, not Ward's--history of the second world war.

I hope you feel better soon.

Posted by: ahem at July 1, 2005 7:49 AM

Ha! Thanks for pain attention, Charlie. Second the kyda-channel--that's pretty wicked. The Truth hurts.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at July 1, 2005 7:51 AM

jimcaserta — You think Carville's in a foul mood? Mary Matalin has to wake up to him every day...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at July 1, 2005 7:53 AM

Don't worry, Ward Churchill's companion volume is in the works, "The Mystery of the Suckin' Whirled Whore".

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at July 1, 2005 7:55 AM

There are forces within the Republican party all too willing to race to the bottom. Furthermore, they are spread over every internal faction, not merely the fundamentalist boogie man. It is the nature of a political party to be thus, and is why you always need sane opposition. The Democrats bottom lemmings are rapidly approaching the point where they dwarf the Republican bottom lemmings by an order of magnitude--both in quantity and "quality".

The reason the Dems are destructing is that they are no longer liberal, in any reasonable use of the term. You may not like it when a conservative isn't liberal, but you can accept that he never claimed to be. Someone claiming to be liberal that isn't is usually a statist, socialist, or worse.

Kyda, that was close to perfect. Just substitute "jingoism" for "patriotism" and I think you are there. :)

Posted by: Steven Mitchell at July 1, 2005 7:56 AM

ahem,

You'll find Kos and his friends there.

I just happened past there and the 'bats are apparently gone off on some field trip. Nurse Ratchet was a wonder to behold. I can't imagine anyone else successfully herding cats onto yellow buses.

Posted by: Knucklehead