The Liberal Lions Roar
Profs. Bruce Ackerman, and Todd Gitlin, with dozens of prominent co-signers - have let forth a roar of the liberal lions, including James K. Galbraith, Robert S. Reich, Kenneth Arrow, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and other names that, even individually, would need no introduction.
They build to their message, which is stated only at the climax of the piece:
Reason is indispensable to democratic self-government. This self-evident truth was a fundamental commitment of our Founding Fathers, who believed it was entirely compatible with every American's First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. When debating policy in the public square, our government should base its laws on grounds that can be accepted by people regardless of their religious beliefs...his government's failures to respect the process of public reason have generated predictable consequences -- none of them good. The Bush administration has failed to protect its citizens from disaster -- from foreign enemies on September 11, 2001, and from the hurricane and flood that afflicted the Gulf Coast in 2005...
We refuse to confine our criticisms to personalities. We believe that the abuses of power that have been commonplace under Bush's rule must be laid not only at his door -- and the vice president's -- but at the doors of a conservative movement that has, for decades, undermined government's ability to act reasonably and effectively for the common good.
At long last, they are saying, too much, is enough. This is not merely a manifesto of the modern liberal party of FDR - but of the liberal idea as it has evolved since the humanism of the Renaissance.
Their call to arms is simple:
We must engage in large acts of political imagination and inspire a new generation to take up liberal principles and adapt them inventively in a new century.
These are men and women, many of who remember the dizzying heights and hopes of the modern liberal democracy, and have swum through the deluge to its utter depths, and yet have remained, in both reason and faith, liberal: "We Answer to the Name of Liberals".
Much of the piece takes the place of defense, first it seems necessary to deny, rebut and refute the charges made against the liberal movement in America. In no small part, it is because there seemed to be no movement in the movement. However, this is merely the build up to the fundamental point of contention: what reason should be used to drive the public discourse, and what spirit should move the public hand.
This argument undergrids all other debates, whether the common good is best served by big business and oiled aristocracy, or by active government in the service of a reasoned public. Whether it is policy or piety that should stand as the cardinal fulcrum of society. Whether it is the mandate or the market that should most shape our lives.
There have always been aristocracies, and there almost always will be. No democracy has been able to eradicate inequality, but that is very different from cattering to it, and bending knee to it. These aristocracies have, without exception, found that an established church is an invaluable ally in their hold upon power, as much as freedom of conscience is its ultimate opponent. And above all, the world has over and over again seen that the market, like the press, is free if you own one.
The insult upon injury that as accumulated these many years under a neo-conservative movement - because it is as alien to old conservatism as it is to liberalism - and cast in concrete to dam up the hopes and aspirations of an entire people - has finally begun to produce the stinging eloquence of which rebellion against the established order is made. The founders declared that theirs was "novus ordo seculorum" - a new order in the world - an order of reason and rationality.
In the last generation we have seen the word "reason" become the blanket of unreason, in no small part because the neo-conservative movement chose to pull axioms from the air - and postulates from their posteriors - and then, armed with ad hoc axioms, proved what had been assumed. We have seen rationality become rationalizations - the party of "personal responsibilty" holding Clinton personally responsible for every ill. It was always some other party's fault. The buck, and other works ending in "uck", started in the Oval Office, and it rolled down Capitol Hill - turning the mall into an American cloaca maximus - the great sewer.
But an evil principle will not yield until a better principle rises to meet it. Dragons are not slain until someone takes up the sword, and temples do not fall unless there are those willing to risk pushing the columns asunder. Ackerman's piece does not merely offer a bill of indictment, one that would be stamped as good by any grand jury of Americans with any honesty - but offers a reaffirmation of the great old principle defended, in long words and in short, by great and lesser minds and pens:
We reaffirm the great principle of liberalism: that every citizen is entitled by right to the elementary means to a good life.
The Democratic Party, the Liberal Movement, and the American Nation have an unfinished agenda, whose outline goes back to nineteen fourty one - when a third term President, rather than resting on his accomplishments, looked out of over a world at war, and declared that it would be the purpose of American government to secure four freedoms for everyone, everywhere in the world. Freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom from fear, and freedom from want.
It was in an abuse of that moment and its ressonance, and that idea, that America was lead to invade Iraq, by leaders intent on freedom for the wolves - which as Isiah Berlin observed, means death for the sheep. The flocks are scattered, and there has been no shepherd to bring them home.
The public knows that these Republicans are odious, and have pursued policies that have become odious to the public. It is now hearing, and beginning to believe, that this result was always the end point of the neo-conservative project, and it was as forgone as any tautology. The entire ethos of an epoch is ending - we have come to understand that tax cutting can no more balance a budget than enebriation can bring about sobriety. We have come to see that if the government does less, it does not cost less, it merely accomplishes less. That if we expect less from ourselves, we have less in the future. If we expect less from our leaders, then we find that are leaders are simply - less.
It was an early modern movement that declared that doing is the means of salvation. Whether this is so in theology is a point that will be debated long after all of the names of everyone who we know are forgotten. But it is so in politics - a people that looses their will to act, has by that act signed their own last will and testament. A people that looses their vision, becomes blind. That a nation that denies reason, denies faith as well, because reason is the gift of that which we have faith in.
And so this neo-modern moment is reached, and the lions have roared that is is time for battle. Across the country liberals are on the march - not to wage war, but to wage politics - in every village and farm, in every town and home, in all 50 states.
These last 6 years have provided ammunition enough, and the next two years will provide even more, but there is, still, yet, just barely time to change a course that is near to plunging over the falls and down into the flood, one that will rise for more than 40 days and more than 40 nights, and shall touch every corner of the world should it be unleashed.
Since that first Declaration of Independence, Americans have found, from time to time, the need to declare before the world, in terms so plain and clear as to command its assent, the particular grievances that move our actions. Americans love revolution so much, that we have given ourselves the chance to have one every two years, leaving no stone unturned. Americans love reason so much, that we have made this revolution the reasoning of our government - that every civil servant should long for the consent of the governed, and fear their wrath.
The wrath of law and public opinion is already falling on the neo-conservative movement - its leaders are being jailed, or howled off the stage. Another, rougher, America would have found use for tar and feathers. But this one has its own marks of shame, some of which cannot be plucked off even with meticulous attention. We now see the Republican Party, not as the party of conservation and business, but as the party of dead end Darwin-denial, drug addiction, delusion, delerium, debt, death and devastation. It has left behind a trail of destruction at home and abroad, in both real and abstract ways, and by almost every means imaginable. It has our principles betrayed, corrupted our courts and spilled our blood.
But first, and before all else, there is this next perilous election to face, where those who stole power illegally, held power immorally, and have abused power unconstitutionally, may yet decide to hold power unethically. Vigilance is, indeed, the price of liberty, and therefore it is, as must be, the virtue of liberals and liberalism.
There are only dwindling days left - we must make the best use of each and every hour of each and every one of them.
Comments (79)
Talk is cheap.
I didn't hear them crying in the streets about all of this prior to the Iraqi invasion. Was I the only one who read that the documents regarding the attempt to purchase Uranium from Niger looked liked they were forged by a child, used names who hadn't worked in Niger in the mentioned capacity for years and was known to be an obvious laughable forgery from the moment they were shown around? Yet how many Democrat lawmakers voted no?
I also didn't hear or see them while the GOP attempted to shut down PBS. Or many other times.
I'm still not seeing a whole lot from Democrat politicians about this latest law that allows Bush to designate any American Citizen an enemy combatant and hold them without trial or habeus corpus for eternity.
Unfortunately this all seems like tough talk from the fringe while the elected persons flash their yellow streak.
"Vigilance is indeed the price of liberty"
How much will the past 2-3 weeks of semi-vigilant activity buy us?
Faith without works is dead.
October 18, 2006 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Talk is cheap."
I was on the ground in Florida, and was investigating the coming of the Iraq War in May of 2001 when I went to London to talk to the expatriot Iraq community.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
October 18, 2006 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
One issue is, how do you expect to hear these voices when there is no forum? Ever tried to get an interview when one is not offered?
A second issue is that legislators began with a presumption of integrity on the part of the White House, concerning Iraq. I began with the opposite assumption and was still made to doubt my doubt by Colin Powell at the UN.
October 18, 2006 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. That's nice. I hope that community didn't include Chalabi.
I wasn't singling your performance as an individual out, since I have no idea what you have or havent done but rather the party as a whole, liberals as a whole.
October 18, 2006 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is always a forum. It may not be CNN or NBC but you cannot expect me to believe that thousands of people with millions of dollars in resources( I can post the appx financial status of many in-office Dems and many are multi-millionaires.
I realize that the person who wrote the post and possibly many of those who signed on to the document he is talking about might have been steadfast but I also realize that the Democratic Party that he also mentioned has many people who have serious apologies and honest explanations to give.
Presumption of integrity? Give me a damn break. Presumption of integrity to the same people who got into office the way they did in 2000???????? Are you joking?
Presumption of integrity when the WASHINGTON POST or NYTimes ran a story talking about how much of a damn joke part of their evidence - the nuclear evidence- was?????????????????????
The entire WMD - prove a negative situation was blatant BS from way before our nation's GW problems.
Give me a break. The US bombing, attacking or invading other nations is par for the course over the past 100+ years. Coming up with a convenient excuse for why it needs to be done is also a given.
The world is a tough place and life isn't fair. Im not stupid enough to believe that a live and let live philosophy is always the best one to have in a highly competitive situation but I also am not stupid enough to believe bald face lies about how all the learned leaders of our nation and political party were duped into believing the unbelievable to achieve the usual.
Presumption of integrity? Maybe you didn't realize we were talking about politics ;)
October 18, 2006 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well put.
Now, I am glad to see the specter of the usurpers being unwilling to cede power despite the election results. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has wondered if they would be willing to let loose of their ill-gotten power when the time comes. I wouldn't be surprised if, on election night, we hear just enough stories of "miraculous comebacks" and "the power of the Republican GOTV effort in key Congressional races" when in fact it will have been nothing more than the power to manipulate the vote tallies via Diebold machines or other hackable, non-secure electronic voting devices. Suppose that happens just for a moment. What then eh? If we don't hit the streets a la the Orange Revolution then we may as well just give up entirely. Am I the only one that has noticed when each time they have grabbed power it has been more boldly than before and their arrogance has only increased despite growing political opposition? Why do you think that is? I think it is because they know that nobody will actually "do" anything about their stealing the elections again. Yes, there will be some whining and chatter from the left but it will die down soon enough and the charlatans can get back to looting the treasury and undermining world peace and the global economy. They can only steal the elections if they are close. If there is a resounding majority in opposition to their candidates they cannot get away with election theft. Thus, our best defense is to do all we can to crush them at the polls on election day in every conceivable race in every jurisdiction.
October 18, 2006 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with all of this is very simple and it can be summed up when reading Joe Klein's piece on Barak Obama in this week's edition of "Time" magazine.
Klein, while being impressed by Obama's integrity, persona, and comprehensive knowledge, refuses to simply give-in and declare that Obama would make a terrific president.
His reasoning behind this realistic critique is one which can be expanded upon to include most of the swelling anti-Bush majority that seems to be a few weeks away from gaining considerable power.
Namely, that critique is that Obama, like the the throngs of political hopefuls who are vying to convince the American public that they personify the 'fresh' start that we need in Washington, simply lacks specific ideas.
Bush and his administration of neo-conservatives has been a large failure. Fewer and fewer are arguing this point. Indeed, as is mentioned on another thread here at TPM Cafe, even staunchly Republican districts are being led, in many cases, by Democrats.
We are beyond the point of debating whether or not the GOP will be able to hold both houses of Congress. It won't. Conversely, the possibility is becoming increasingly likely given the Foleygate scandal that the Democrats will gain a majority in both chambers.
Then what?
It is troublesome that less than a month to election day, when the grand picture seems to already have been decided, that Democrats still refuse to talk specifics.
It is as if their plan is: "Let's get Congress back and THEN we will formulate what to do next." In retrospect, even Bonaparte would likely advise having a plan because no matter how smoothly things go in the summer, winter eventually sets in.
That should be worrisome to average Americans. It can hardly be argued that a power-swap in the Congress is a bad thing.
But can we go so far as to say the Congress will have new 'leadership' when there are, as yet, no plans to deal with the most pressing issues: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea?
Not to mention that other thing called Domestic Policy which has been woefully neglected by both sides during Bickering Bush Years.
October 18, 2006 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. So why is it that this well intentioned, well oiled Democratic political machine has not made the flawed diebold voting machines part of their permanent talking points, to be uttered by every democrat at every interview every day until it gets resolved?????????????
Doesn't make much sense to me unless they are totally stupid or totally in league with the GOP and just playing a game of good cop bad cop.
Am I just missing out on the huge underground democratic party operations or something? Maybe we are totally off base in thinking they haven't been sounding the alarm about vote fraud and tampering.
October 19, 2006 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
And yet the oldest GOP joke in DC still has them chuckling so hard you can hear the national treasury jingling in their vest pockets:
"Gosh, for a minute there I thought they might actually DO something."
Or have the liberal lions proposed some Aslan-like magic potion to circumvent "rule by signing statement?"
Impeachment IS our positive agenda.
It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.
(meow)
October 19, 2006 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Klein is totally correct. Obama has done nothing to earn my vote but be something other than GOP. How can one lead without ideas and a clear message that a "no child left behind" America can understand easily.
The GOP whores know that. They "Get It". Too bad Dems don't or won't. Eloquent musing on social mechanics may suit those who have eyes to see but it needs to be translated for the masses.
How does an idiot with no public speaking skills keep America on board long enough to throw Asia and the Middle East into turmoil? By mentioning words like faith, good, evil, bad etc. Simple terms. He also plays on people's fears and has the help of all the media conglomerates and corps who's agendas he serves, which is practically all industry.
We need to have a clear focused message that is concise and easily interpreted. Leaving no room for attack.
It is time to live up to the words we so easily throw around. Words like liberty, freedom, democracy, justice and truth.
Its time to wake America up and I do not believe that the Democratic party has the courage or will to do it.
Does the GOP have a monopoly on effective marketing techniques?
We need to jettison the neocon friendly hacks like the Clintons who talk a good game and sign off on the rape of our nation.
Domestic Policy? Its the same as our Foreign Policy, do what the corporations who put you in office paid you to do. Do the corps bidding until you resign/retire/leave from office and go to work for them.
There are thousands of messages to get behind if the party was willing.
October 19, 2006 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: We need to jettison the neocon friendly hacks like the Clintons who talk a good game and sign off on the rape of our nation.
Yes indeed-- jetison everyone who isn't some mouth-frothing Kossack Lefty and go back to being the minority party again without a prayer of stopping the GOP's depredations and disasters.
October 19, 2006 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still not seeing a whole lot from Democrat politicians about this latest law...
Russ Fiengold? Pat Leahy? They've been relentless.
How about the Levin-Reed bill which almost every Dem voted for, as well as three amendments to the MCA offered by Dems? Jane Harman has spoken out against it, Nancy Pelosi...
It was in all the papers. And on the internets.
If anything, I would agree that the Dems played things incorrectly by letting John McCain take the lead on this entire issue. Barack Obama should have been our point person on the issue of torture, and that was a lost opportunity to bring a message of the Dems vision of morality to the voters.
But it's just not true that Dems haven't spoken out against this law. Maybe we're just disagreeing on what "a whole lot" is.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
October 19, 2006 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
simply lacks specific ideas.
Just not true. Joe Klein, and many others, just haven't been listening.
Nancy Pelosi has already outlined what she would do with the House in the first 100 HOURS. Not days -- hours:
Break the link between lobbyists and legislators, implement the full 9/11 Commission recommendations, raise the min wage to 7.25, cut the interest rate for student loans, negotiate with pharma for lower drug prices for Medicare, stem cell research, pay as you go, roll back Bush tax cuts for high income earners.
It's all out there.
I'm not sure what people are looking for when they say Dems don't have ideas. Do you want Harry Reid to come to your doorstep and deliver this in person?
Or is everyone expecting our proud and mighty news media to accurately deliver this information to them? Don't you know, the idea that Dems may actually have ideas about government doesn't fit the pre-existing narrative of "Dems don't have ideas..."?
We can talk about why people don't realize Dems have ideas, but to say they don't is not an accurate statement.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
October 19, 2006 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"No ideas" seems synonymous with "Not dumbed-down-enough". Media types are just frustrated by the hint of complexity in Dem policy.
October 19, 2006 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Yes indeed-- jetison everyone who isn't some mouth-frothing Kossack Lefty and go back to being the minority party again without a prayer of stopping the GOP's depredations and disasters."
Mouth frothing Kossacks? Yeah praise the guy who helped gut FDR's social programs in the thread were they champion his leadership. Are you in the right* party?
Not being able to stop GOP neocon-artists has nothing to do with what you call leftist politics and everything to do with marketing and strategy.
October 19, 2006 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: We need to jettison the neocon friendly hacks like the Clintons who talk a good game and sign off on the rape of our nation.
Yes indeed-- jetison everyone who isn't some mouth-frothing Kossack Lefty and go back to being the minority party again without a prayer of stopping the GOP's depredations and disasters
Let's look at this exchange for a minute, because it is illustrative of the lack of faith we have in ourselves to overturn the anti-rational conservative horde.
"mouth frothing Kossack Lefty"
What does that mean? Is that an accurate description of the majority of the participants at the Daily Kos? Given that even republicans acknowledge that these mouth frothers have helped to excite Democratic voters this cycle, why attack something that has helped so much? Perhaps you are having an emotional reaction to your identity. Are you a neo conservative? Are you a Clinton supporter? Also let's look at mouth frothing. Mouth frothing means irrationality, but is irrationality what we see in the diaries at Dkos. Occasionally an odd idea appears. But the general tone of the site, the focus of the Dkos project is rational. Outrage in the service of rationality. Angry passionate defence of rational liberalism and modernity in the face of irrational conservative reactionaries. There will always be room for TNR style dispassionate defences of liberalism and modernity, but the lesson of the last 30 years, and this is the great 'mouth frothing' insight, is that politics can not succeed without passion and that the constant efforts of liberal leaders such as the Clintons and their intellectual backers to de-passionate (depress?) committed political liberals in an attempt to buy the middle of the electorate and power, is a long term failure.
We can imagine senarios where such a "cool" political approach might work. Maybe an America with a neutral media environment and an informed voting public was present. In that situation the superior rationality of the liberal project can come through in a "cool' presentation. But we both know that that is not the America in which we live. We live in a pro-conservative media environment with a large pool of low information voters. And the upshot of that is that only passionate presentation will be effective. Only a little mouth frothing will work so to speak.
The other thing I want to look at is the term LEFTY. I find it an outdated insult or rather an insult without meaning today and increasingly without meaning as we move into the Future and away from the Cold War. Todays Democratic party is a post-leftright party. The issues of classic class war no longer define the Democratic Party. The issue of rational vs irrational government define the Democratic Party.
Let's look at economic policy. What is more important is economic effectiveness and economic results than economic "justice" or free market blind faith. The economy is a tool to bring prosperity to Americans. We will persue whatever policy will bring the greatest good to the greates number of Americans. So the idea that motivates is total wealth and prosperity maximalization. Maximum growth and maximum distribution of benefit. The irrational conservatives have sold America a blind faith in markets while persuing policies that shove all the benefits of economic growth to the tippy top of the pyramid. They admit it themselves. Why embrace this failure? Why follow economic faiths that produce poor results, simply to appease your political opponents? Simply to defuse their attack and dodge their slurs? Moderation in the persuit of comity is no virtue. Especially when the end result is failure.
Nobody wants to see the Democratic Party make a presentation of itself that is offputting to a majority of Americans, my little expose here is just to get you to consider that maybe you are confusing principled passion with radicalism. It is not a hard mistake to make. Thrity years of conditioning from conservative media and bought think tank intellectuals has made our current political environment what it is, but giving in to these conservative assumptions only insures that we will never win. Principled passion will move the public to us more than 'cool' liberalism ever has. So the next time you see someone attack a liberal don't triangulate, retaliate, confront their argument, their 'logic' and you will carry the day and move America in the right direction.
October 19, 2006 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Nancy Pelosi has already outlined what she would do with the House in the first 100 HOURS. Not days -- hours:"
Okay but to who and where and when? Its not that the lack of ideas is being discussed in terms of the individuals, many of whom are behind legislation or discuss things when interviewed, but more in terms of a clear concise message that everyone in the party can repeat to counter the GOP BS.
No one is asking for simplistic policies either. Just a clear, organized effort to get the same message out since we are at a loss for accurate unaltered coverage when it comes to mainstream media.
Individually these guys can do all sorts of things on their own but how is that all going to trickle down for public consumption? Pelosi for instance, you brought up her outline of what she would do, is that from her website? Reuters? AP? Washington Post? Cspan? Nytimes? LaTimes? I try to scour alot of news sources over the course of the day and catch some Chris Mathews and Olberman on MSNBC a glance at CNN's shows and maybe some CSPAN and I still don't see a whole lot out there after its filtered down. Maybe a quote or two here and there.
Is the same message being put out and I'm just not seeing it? With the GOP scumbags all singing in tune its impossible to not see the same thing out there. Take Foley for instance I see different dems everywhere pounding away at these guys. But I just dont hear or read the same thing in regard to Habeas Corpus, in fact most articles I read(not including liberal outlets like this site or a air america etc) dont mention it and I havent seen anything about a commotion in the party regarding the 12 dems who voted in favor of that garbage.
Also if you ask people what the GOP supposedly stands(stood?) for they would be able to run down the angles shown to them non-stop over the past 10 yrs. If you ask the same about the Democrats would you even get a clear response? What is it now this "fresh start" thing? See what I mean? The reason many people take this as being so important is because while we know the party is backs certain views for instance on abortion, we arent the Pro-Abortion party are we? When GOP scumbags regain some type of standing and come back hard (2008?) will the party be able to address those lack of direction, leadership, soft on blah blah blah arguments? Because so far we have suffered on the whole because of the lack of response to that. Personally I havent seen the uninformed follow the GOP because of their correct standing on all the issues, I saw them win people over by just appearing to be all drinking the kool aid and I havent got that from any dems(not including the diehard fighters like Pelosi etc which are few and far between).
By all means show me that I just have missed a great deal of what has really been going on. I'd love nothing better than to come to realize that the Democratic Party hadn't really approved invading Iraq and played the sidelines on so much crap out of fear.I'd love to know that I didn't see "liberals" discussing whether to leave Iraq in a civil war for "our" benefit or to leave them with a new improved Saddam.
October 19, 2006 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The policy wonks don't have to get elected, the legislators do. In order to get elected they need lots of money. To get the money they need to go where it is - big business.
So congress consists of Republicans and Republican Lites. If you want populists, labor leaders, health care experts, educators as representatives you need to reform the electoral process so they can run and win. It always comes back to the same thing:
Follow the money.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
October 19, 2006 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is neither implied, inferred nor suggested as a criticism of Obama in Klein's piece. Point of fact it is clearly asserted that his book Audacity of Hope provides ideas on how to reclaim American and address the national issues of importance.
Perhaps, where your reading comprehension may have gone askew is in that Obama is not talking about his ideas, at this time, he is focused rather on campaigning for candidates for these mid-term election. Thus, he is unwilling to shift focus onto himself, his plans, and his ideas. As that would be rude and is certainly not his focus when he is out on the campaign trail for other candidates.
To do so would be the equivalent of stealing the spotlight at the someone else's birthday party...you are not the guest of honor, so you do not pontificate about yourself at THEIR birthday celebration.
October 19, 2006 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely! We must keep reminding the people how wonderful things were in the '90s during the Clinton administration. The wonderful DOMA, NAFTA, clearcutting, mountaintop mining and the generous gift of our airwaves to our telecom benefactors are just a very few of the great things our party gave to America and the people must be constantly reminded of them!
I also agree that must continue our suppression of political movements independent of our own! The Democratic Party IS the Liberal Movement. It's the only liberal movement! All others must be kept off the ballot and crushed! After all, we're doing it for their own good.
Yes, there will always be aristocracies and there is nothing we can do about them. But we can keep our beloved country a TWO PARTY AND ONLY TWO PARTY SYSTEM! LET THE (DEMOCRAT ONLY!) LIBERAL LIONS ROAR!!!
October 19, 2006 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Given that even republicans acknowledge that these mouth frothers have helped to excite Democratic voters this cycle, why attack something that has helped so much?
If KOS is helping get Democrats elected then bully for KOS. What I am reacting to is the notion that everyone who isn't on board for 100% of the leftwing agenda one finds on KOS, no matter that they despise the GOP with rare passion, is not welcome in the Democrat party.
The GOP has gotten itself in trouble of late for several reasons, but one of those reasons is excess ideological rigidity: they have less and less tolerance for "RINOs", with the result that they stand to lose parts of the country where the Bible-thumping, corporate-butt-kissing, down-South-oligarchial agenda that now passes for conservatism does not play well, even among traditonal GOP voters. Since Marx-thumping left-wingers are even smaller minority in this country than Bible-thumping corporatophiles, the Democrats must not repeat that error lest it lead to unending dominion by the GOP. If the Democrats want to be a majority party then they need to be a majority party and tolerate some divergence of opinion on the whole raft of issues*. As for the Clintons (whom the original poster slammed), I thought Bill Clinton's administration was a largely good one and the 90s a pretty good decade for America (many people feel that way), and while I do not jerk my knee to every word that couple utters, I would be quite happy to party the night a way the day Hillary takes the presidential oath of office.
* There should be no single issue litmus tests. Any Democrat should be free to depart from The Party Line on any single issue, be it taxes, Iraq, abortion, welfare, whatever-- especially if they have to get elected. Obviouslysomeone who departs one all issues is questionable, but I don't think that applies to the Clintons, or, originally at least, even Joe Liebermann.
October 19, 2006 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Extremely well-stated, Northern.
What's especially surprising, and insulting, quite frankly, is that this kind of rhetoric comes from other Dems, let alone other bloggers here at TPMCafe.
While I understand it coming from the GOPs, and even to a certain extent from the media pundits like David Brooks and David Ignatius (sp?) (whose cheese has been moved, and have not grasped the new media dynamics), what I don't get is seemingly bright, informed, online bloggers of the moderate ilk (at least in my experience), who simply refuse to take the time to understand what the "mouth frothing kossacks" are really about, how they're more about building a D brand than ideology, how they actually champion quite moderate candidates, and how this new dynamic of online participate can actually work to the Democrats advantage (see: anything written by Peter Daou).
Perhaps you're right, maybe 30 years of being beaten down makes people simply cling to what they know...
Dissent Protects Democracy.
October 19, 2006 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Got hyperbole?
And got any suggestion, either, Alan?
You'd probably be hard-pressed to find people here who don't think, in many ways, our political system is ill-served by a two-party system.
But, how to change it? I'm all ears.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
October 19, 2006 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Are you in the right* party?
I am not a registered Democrat so I can spare you that fear.
That said, I will also say that as things now stand I would not vote for the Lord Jesus Christ himself if he were running as a Republican, since that party has screwed up the country so horribly that it deserves to land in the cesspit of history toegther with the Whigs, Know-Nothings and Federalists.
Now what things do I support:
- Universal healthcare (whether single payor or not)
- A progressive but fair income tax sufficient to provide the government with necessary revenue
- War only as a last recourse when all else fails and only in service to the defense of the US and its sworn allies (or, on VERY rare occasion, to halt massive genocides)
- R&D, and subisdies, for replacing fossil fuels
- Revamping both unemployment and welfare to provide the (admittedly platitudinous) hand-up not hand-out
- The appointment of centrist judges
- Civil unions (I don't care if they call it marriage or not-- FYI, I am part of the demographic that benefits from this)
- Family-friendly workplace benefits and policies
- As open a franchise as possible (no more vote suppression schemes!)
- Reasonable limits on immigration with preferrence given to persons with viable skills and education and to refugees
- Repealing the ghastly bankruptcy "reform" law
- Repealing much of the Patriot Act and the whole of the recent Military Commissions Act (the POWs should be treated as POWs and, if accused of atrocities, subjected to either our traditional military justice system or, in a few high-profile cases, to international war crimes trials).
- Forming a solid and truly international alliance with NATO contries, Russia, India, Japan, Australia and anyone else we can get on board to contain the several species of venomous Islamism afoot in the middle east
I could go on, but you get the idea. Not all the above is 100% kosher with KOS I'm sure, but do you want my vote at least?
October 19, 2006 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent! A wonderful example of part of our talking points strategy in which we accuse everyone else of not having ideas! That way, people don't notice that we ourselves are bereft of any substantive ideas beyond the DLC triangulation which has served so so well over the years. Well done, CSCS! Excellent rhetoric! Great post!!! (Also, be sure to criticize people's spelling. That works well too!)
October 19, 2006 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it's good that these guys are speaking out. It would have been more helpful if it had been written for the average voter. Usually when lions roar you don't need an interpreter to understand what they are saying.
October 19, 2006 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Individually these guys can do all sorts of things on their own but how is that all going to trickle down for public consumption?
I think we're in agreement, that people who don't tune into politics 24/7 like we do aren't hearing what they need to hear from the Dems. I do think the problem is the current narrative. If and when Dems take office, they will be able (I hope...) to control the message and command the media agenda much better than they do today.
But I don't even think this issue of "message" even matters.
This election is about changing course. People are convinced the GOPs have screwed it all up, and they've had enough. What has to happen is Dems need to gain control of Congress, and then they need to act. Implement the 9/11 Commission recs, raise min wage, that whole list of things. Force Bush to change course on Iraq. Hold them responsible for that mess.
If the voters give the Dems the chance, the Dems need to deliver. That will say more about message and beliefs than any campaign rhetoric can deliver.
Right now, I don't think it's all that important. People are going to vote for the Dems because right now it's the only way to get a check and balance on the course we've been on the last six years. People either want to change things, or they don't.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
October 19, 2006 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious as to why you are using the republican's purposely insulting label to democratic politicians as you did:
I'm still not seeing a whole lot from Democrat politicians...
Why?
Jan Knaus
October 19, 2006 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can I ask what the hell you're talking about?
Dissent Protects Democracy.October 19, 2006 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The insult upon injury . . . has finally begun to produce the stinging eloquence of which rebellion against the established order is made. Stirling Newberry
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
Once more, dear friends, unto the breach . . . .
October 19, 2006 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Not all the above is 100% kosher with KOS I'm sure, but do you want my vote at least?"
The majority of your list I am in complete agreement with. By all means we want your vote.
October 19, 2006 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Just curious as to why you are using the republican's purposely insulting label to democratic politicians as you did:"
lmao! Sorry for the typeo slight. I was unaware that leaving off the "ic" was some insult.
Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: dem·o·crat
Pronunciation: 'de-m&-"krat
Function: noun
1 a : an adherent of democracy b : one who practices social equality
2 capitalized : a member of the Democratic party of the United States
Did Billy Buckley urinate on a picture of the word or something?
October 19, 2006 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it always does come back to the same thing. Senators are creatures of the people who pay for their multi-million dollar advertising campaigns. Big donors do not finance starry-eyed idealists (which is how reformers are often seen).
That aside, today's neo-con/neo-conservative's blind pursuit of their precious myths have created the policies of this administration.
We should all be very afraid. Once a government, especially one influenced by ideologues, adopts a policy and implements it, all subsequent activity becomes an effort to justify it.
In such an environment, reason becomes a heresy and must be silenced. The press, which has served this republic so well, so often been the medium where reason is welcomed, is today a politicized press speaking the language of news but functioning as an instrument of propaganda.
October 19, 2006 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we are really going to roar this year. Everything is working in our favor with three weeks left to go. We just need to stay on guard and not screw up, which is certainly easier said than done but we can do it.
It is so awesome how grassroot work mixed with some luck has put upwards of 50 seats in the House and 6 Senate seats in the competitive category.
More at my blog - Faithfully Liberal.
October 19, 2006 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now we know what channel he watches.
October 19, 2006 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
might be impossible to screw this up
Poll: Support for GOP-Congress at 14-Year Low
In political news, a new poll shows public support for the Republican-controlled Congress is at its lowest level in fourteen years. According to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, just sixteen percent of Americans give Congress a favorable rating. For the first time ever, more than fifty percent of Americans now support Democratic control of Congress. Democratic pollster Peter Hart said the results show voters see Democrats as "a marginally acceptable alternative."
cscs -see why dems need a clear and well thought out message? "A marginally acceptable alternative" not a great description but who knows what the questions were.
----------------
Im also posting as TM Freeman trying to get my account working correctly.
October 19, 2006 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to break it to you, dude.
Really, I do.
But you're a mouth-frothing Kossack Lefty.
Perhaps you should start reading dailykos, cause you're exactly on the same page.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
October 19, 2006 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
lovely post, and nice discussion too. thanks for the tip. i find myself amused and bemused, but generally supportive. more unabashedly liberal speech is a Good Thing. expanding on this theme.
October 19, 2006 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I am reacting to is the notion that everyone who isn't on board for 100% of the leftwing agenda one finds on KOS, no matter that they despise the GOP with rare passion, is not welcome in the Democrat party.
Since you apparentely don't read dailykos, maybe you won't know the answer. But where is anyone on dkos saying that everyone has to be 100% leftwing agenda?
Look at the candidates the netroots are backing these days -- Tester, Webb. Not exactly flaming liberals.
Maybe you're talking about Joe Lieberman, but that is primarily about two things: the Iraq war (and his delusional view of what's going on there), and the way Lieberman hurts the Dem brand more than he helps (calling into question Democrats' patiotism for criticizing the President, for example, or the way he "can't say" whether the country would be better off with Dems running Congress).
That's the exception, though, not the rule.
Where are the calls from the dailykos or netroots community to purge Ben Nelson, or Bill Nelson, or Mary Landrieu? They all vote way closer to the GOP than most other Dems.
I'd urge you to take a closer look at what's going on in the online world...certainly before you make the (incorrect) sweeping generalizations you've made here.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
October 19, 2006 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Perhaps you should start reading dailykos
Perhaps it has changed in the last couple years, and maybe I should visit agian. When I did play around on Kos a couple yaers back what I found was a fever swamp of looney conspiracy theories about 9-11 (and various other matters) and a whole lot of childish whining-- and an almost total lack of historical knowledge or reasoned argument.
October 19, 2006 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not Buckley. Actually, it was GOP pollster Frank Luntz:
Interestingly, the article mentions Buckley, how much he couldn't stand the use of "democrat" that way.
I'm actually surprised people still don't know this bit of political "lore, "but "democrat" is a definitely a GOP poll-tested slur.
Listen closely, you'll hear Bush, et al, use it all the time.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
October 19, 2006 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the concern and if I thought that the internet activists were leading the Democratic Party down an anti-liberal marxist road I would be the first to oppose them on-line and with my wallet.
But that is not what is going on. What I see is about citizenship and rational government not about class conflict and proletarian government.
Do you really see a call for class conflict and proletarian government?
I think part of your perception comes from the nature of an open blog forum. In an open forum quality is not controlled for, in return you get a more dynamic discussion that can ramp up very quickly. The down side is the presense of some crank and poorly though out ideas. That's the down side to a democratic forum that is visible to all. The warts will show and your ennemies will see them. And some of our warts are people who still write in revolutionary terms, sometimes without even being fully aware of that fact. I think the benefit of being open outweighs the display of our warts. Our openess leads to refinement, dynamism and darwinistic self improvement, something the right blogosphere has cut itself off from (no comments) in order to present a unified message that is delivered top down. Over time our method will win because it will produce a stronger message that is harder to overturn because it has been tested in the open and survived counter argument. The right has posted some very brittle and very poor ideas because they have not been tested.
All that said I think that once you see that the liberal blogosphere is an open forum you should judge it on its leaders and moderators and not anonymous posters. And if I look at the leaders I see rational liberals testing their ideas every day. I do not see revolutionary marxists knowing what the truth is and trying to make the world submit.
October 19, 2006 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Im also posting as TM Freeman trying to get my account working correctly.
That's not too confusing.
Assuming you're not purposely being a troll/sockpuppet, post a coment in this post re: what's not working in your account, and we can help you figure out the problem. (So we don't fill this one up with off-topic-ness.)
Dissent Protects Democracy.
October 19, 2006 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You wouldn't be from Rhode Island, would you?
Just checking,
Jan Knaus
October 19, 2006 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, "Democrat" is a noun, but when it is used to modify the word "politician" it becomes an adjective. I don't know why republicans love to use it that way, but it sounds insulting every time they say it, and it also gives away people (like evangelists) who use it when trying to sound worried about values.
Jan Knaus
October 19, 2006 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: All that said I think that once you see that the liberal blogosphere is an open forum you should judge it on its leaders and moderators and not anonymous posters.
Well, this site is excellent, that's why I'm here so much. I also appreciate Matt Yglesias site (who used to be hosted here). Kos strikes (struck) me as the leftist equivalent of FreeRepublic.com or maybe the old Lucianne.com on the right, places where dissent is not tolerated and where the loonier and more emotional the post the better.
October 19, 2006 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It included people in the orbit of the INC and INA. I became convinced at that point that any invasion of Iraq was doomed to be a disaster because there was no one to turn power over to fast enough to get out before matters spiralled out of control.
Stirling Newberry http://www.bopnews.com
October 19, 2006 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got the message down fine but the message is all about itty bitty ideas. Not one of those ideas excites me. Not one of those ideas would get me off the couch to go vote.
Is Nancy going to end the war in Iraq? Make a commitment to universal health care? Make a global sized effort to stop global warming? Repeal the torture bill?
October 19, 2006 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop disasters? You mean Iraq? global warming? torture bill? The Democrat running for the Senate in my state doesn't seem to have heard of any of these. I can't think of a single disaster the Democrats are committed to reversing or preventing.
October 19, 2006 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The centrist Dem in my state is campaigning AGAINST universal health care, no tax increases for anyone making less than $236,000, without a position on war, the immigration fence (must be trying to keep Minnesotans out of Canada), silence on bankruptcy, supports Patriot Act.
The centrists are a lot further to the right than you think and they aren't going to support any of your issues. So what good does it do to have a tent so big that it implodes because it has no spine to support it?
October 19, 2006 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this mean we can finally put to rest the tin foil hat, whack-job conspiracy theories that claim the Bush administration is itself responsible for the four hijaaked aircraft and ensuing carnage on 9/11?
Or is the credibility of these "liberal lions" merely that of uninitiated unbelievers over whose eyes the wool has been pulled?
October 19, 2006 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: The centrist Dem in my state is campaigning AGAINST universal health
Are you sure that he opposes universal healthcare, or just opposes single payor? the two are not synonymous (although many people think they are). One may legitimately oppose single payor (or any other specific plan) while still espousing universal health care as a goal. Even most Republicans are for the latter, albeit in a very vague, far future sort of way.
As for tax increases, once again, how about some specifics? I do believe in progressive taxation, but I can easily imagine progressive tax plans I would oppose.
As for the immigration fence, it's a trivial matter-- it won't really keep anyone out, but illegal immigration is a serious problem and one that has riled up even a lot of leftwing folks (like my lesbian, feminist, Nation-reading cousin in Tucson). It's not really wrong to sign onto feel-good legislation like this as a way of attracting or keeping voters who are concerned on the issue, especially since it would be good strategy to hang the immigration mess on the GOP's neck (their "pro-business" non-enforcement of our laws is a real issue).
The Patriot Act does need to be overhauled, but given how the GOP has successfully demagogued the issue in the past I don't blame any Democrat who refuses to stick his neck out before the election. If afterward however (and especially if they elect a Dem president in 08) they let it stand unchallenged, then it's time to complain.
October 19, 2006 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But you're a mouth-frothing Kossack Lefty.
Perhaps you should start reading dailykos, cause you're exactly on the same page. "
lol I don't care for communists. Im just an honest free market kinda guy. I read Ayn Rand before I go to sleep at night.
I may have went to KOS once. I have only known about tpm for the past 2-3 weeks.
October 19, 2006 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
lmao didnt know that. interesting though your mentioning of Luntz because what he and norquist do minus the lobbying bribery are what the dems are in need of.
October 19, 2006 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, she clearly told the local paper that universal health care is unrealistic. Don't even bother thinking about it, my dear, it's not worth her time to discuss it, it's merely "unrealistic" any plan, any way. To her a "progressive" tax plan begins above $236K. I don't think she's even for raising taxes on the top 2%, only top 1%. She's not for getting out of Iraq, just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. She's for a balanced budget. No wonder she is against health care!
As far as I can tell, she's a Republican. I fail to see what difference it makes if the Democratic Party wins. They're going to govern like Republicans. They don't have the moral courage to get out of Iraq. They are no more compassionate towards the poor than Republicans. They won't repeal the Torture Act.
What difference does it make? That's what I can't figure out. Why do you all want Democrats to win when they aren't going to support any of the issues that get so much discussion on these threads.
What Republican disaster are they going to have the courage to change? Sure, they'll have the majority with the paper power to change it, but what will they have the courage to change?
October 19, 2006 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's the point of the "first 100 hours" thing -- small, practical measures that can be accomplished immediately.
I don't see getting us out of Iraq or stoping global warming in the same light.
What should get you off the couch to vote is getting the GOPs out of power. That's the most important thing right now. Can't do anything else without that.
This isn't a "vision" election. Save that for 08. This is about regaining power and demanding accountability. Don't you think?
Dissent Protects Democracy.
October 19, 2006 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason why few people know of Pelosi's grand proclamations is not because the 'Conservative' media refuses to pay any mind to her.
It is because her 'First 100 Hours' rhetoric is full of the same contrived idealism as Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech.
Nobody believes any of it.
Raising the minimum wage nearly $2.00, funding Medicare, funding stem cell research, cutting student loans, etc. is all fine and good. But who pays for all of that?
I can tell you who WON'T pay for it. The wealthy.
So here we are once again focusing on the working classes. With the housing bubble having just burst causing scores of families to write checks they can't cash (as Stirling often writes about), gas prices trending permanently upward, and an overall stagnation in earnings juxtaposed against rising costs of goods; I ask again: who pays for Ms. Pelosi's grand visions?
I seem to recall Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger promising a 'fresh' start in Minnesota and California respectively. It is ironic that I have been able to live in both places during their respective 'reigns'.
Not only did both fail to live up to their campaign promises, but they turned out to be worse than their predecessors.
Arnold, for instance, ran on a platform of never conforming to the might of special interests. Yet as of 2006, he has taken more money from special interest than any governor in American history.
I'm not saying a changing of the guard is not needed in Washington. My concern is that Democrats have been so pre-occupied with bashing Bush that they have not actually taken the time to LEARN from his mistakes.
October 19, 2006 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: I fail to see what difference it makes if the Democratic Party wins.
If you fail to see that then I would have to suggest that you are blind. Look, we all know that that if the Dems take Congress there will be no grand progressive agenda enacted in the next two years because you-know-who will veto anything they do. But even if the Dems accomplish absolutely nothing for two years that will still be a vast improvement over doing disastrous things. The GOP has dug us into a deep hole. The Dems may not start filling that hole yet (we need a Dem in the White House for that) but at least they will quit digging.
October 20, 2006 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
In another thread, someone asked for another example of a neutral descriptive noun which turned into a slur when used as an adjective. Someone else proposed "Jew", as in "Jew politician" versus "Jewish politician".
The other active element is the shortening of the term as slur, as in "Jap", "Commie", "Spic", "fundy", "lib", etc.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
October 20, 2006 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know exactly your point, but believe me, if 911 had happened on Clinton's watch, it would not have gone down as a plus for Democrats. It would not be the catch-word used to excuse the shredding of the Constitution and every other malfeasance imaginable (like starting a bogus war).
Fact is that, despite warnings and intelligence, the bush administration failed to act to protect our country. Who knows if they could have prevented it? No one. We all know that they didn't try, though.
So how do they get away with using it as a net plus? Figure that out, and you will understand the 39% of loyal bushites, and how deluded they are. No tin-foil hat needed.
Jan Knaus
October 20, 2006 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
can tell you who WON'T pay for it. The wealthy.
Roll tax cuts back to Clinton-era levels. Cut a few bridges to nowhere. Stop the economic bleeding in Iraq.
What do you suggest?
Dissent Protects Democracy.
October 20, 2006 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, we're always hearing about the liberal paucity of big ideas, whatever the heck they are. Like presuming "cut my taxes but really don't and really, really cut a wealthy person's taxes" is a big idea. Or as if some big idea made that and "values" cohere. But this whole set of comments to Stirling is dismaying for illustrating in great detail how it plays out in practice.
Stirling articulates concisely a liberal philosophy with which most of us would concur. And we hear comments debating some policy positions that sound pretty sweeping to me and appear for once to emanate from pretty high up in the Democratic party, like stop invading and occupying other countries or start providing health care.
And what happens with the comments? We ignore Stirling, because that's not a big idea, just abstruse philosophy. We deride the policy points as too small bore, or a disconected litany, or really cowardly and compromising after all, or unrealistic and unattainable. Maybe something's only a big idea once it's unveiled in a Superbowl halftime ad, with Budweiser production values.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 20, 2006 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
That remains to be proven. Do not underestimate the capabilities of these thieves.
If a national election was stolen outright, through obvious tampering, through violence against certified ballot counters and through more subtle means why is that not as heinous if the margin is not overwhelming? It is just as bad no matter what the margin and yet it has happened in the past.
What would be the way to rectify such a crime? The validity of exit polls has been swept away. Electronic or computer tampering is easy and hard to trace. Violence is no longer appalling. The resources to fight this have been available but have been unused. The media is neutered and has the attention span of a 3 year old. Would there really be a serious, long term, effective investigation and a valid re-count in multiple districts? We are living in a land of make believe. Our only hope is that any plan to steal this election turns out to be as effective as the plans to administer Iraq post invasion. I suppose the clowns could bungle this too.
[on edit] I noticed this story from Ohio http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/18/85915/109
October 20, 2006 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
White Rose
Klein DID offer a critique of Obama in his article. Indeed, the very front page is titled "Why Barack Obama Could Be The Next President." And the name of the article itself is "The Fresh Face."
For his part, Obama downplays any potential candidacy in 2008. Klein, however, uses such a possibility as a foundation for the entire interview. Even the byline reads, "First-term Senator Barack Obama has the charisma and the ambition to run for President. But, as Joe Klein reports from the campaign trail, he's not quite ready to answer the tough questions."
So perhaps it is the editors, as opposed to Klein himself, who offers this criticism. But Klein, in the final paragraph of the article, offers plenty of tough questions that Obama has yet to answer. Questions that will need addressing if a run for president is on the horizon for Obama.
Also, I wasn't implying that Obama would make a bad candidate. Given today's politicians I think his weaknesses are no worse than any of his peers.'.
October 20, 2006 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
No need to be modest! Your excellent post is a good example of our rhetorical strategy against those crackpot purists who foolishly think we need more than two parties. Way to go, CSCS!!!
October 20, 2006 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
ITA!!! And the biggest issue they should depart on is gay marriage. The Democratic nominee should take the same stance as McCain did on Cris Matthews. If individuals want to get married and have a ceremony go right ahead...but there will be no legal binding too it. If the Presidential nominee takes this one stance alone, he will win numerous votes from Evangelicals, on economics, war, healthcare, education all the important issues. The abortion issue will take care of itself because of the new Supreme Court appointees. Gay marriage should not be a litmus tests for Democratic candidates.
October 20, 2006 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope...he is from MN
October 20, 2006 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The discourse has been corrupted by the term "big idea". It is code for "simple idea" and is only big in the sense of "big lie".
Newberry is not proposing a new slogan at an advertising agency client meeting. He's talking about the basis of policy. Supposedly we aren't the mass market, but the slightly smarter, or at least more interested,population.
October 20, 2006 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The power isn't going to be used to advance any issue that matters to me and neither party has the slightest interest in being accountable.
October 20, 2006 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: And the biggest issue they should depart on is gay marriage
Very few Democrats are in favor of gay marriage -- civil unions yes, but even some Republicans support that (e.g., McCain, and our GOP gubernatorial candidate in Florida Charlie Crist-- heck even Bush feinted in that direction back 2004). There is definitely no litmus test on gay marriage in the Democrat party, else John Kery would not have been nominated for president in 2004; Dennis Kucinich would have been.
October 20, 2006 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid the Dems are just going to dig a different hole. I look at some of their proposals like this universal service scheme to coerce every young person in this country into giving up their liberty to some enforced boondoggle to prove they are "patriotic" and I figure they are on the same lunatic road to the farthest reaches of the far right. They want a bigger army. They want to reward "service" and compel "responsibility". If it isn't the Fatherland, it sure the heck is the Daddyland.
Whatever happened to my free country? Why don't I have a choice for that on my ballot any more?
October 20, 2006 4:28 PM |