Dying Conservative Intellect
Note that in no category do the Repubs get much more than 30%. And then there are the Limbaugh Republicans who at 18% are so marginalized that the best they can do is go hear Rush mouth off about Socialism at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Having no ideas of their own about fixing our country, the Right has revived the McCarthy era taunt.
The socialist bogey-mantra has made a full-scale return after a long stretch of relative dormancy.
The contemporary era of socialist demonizing dates to the general election campaign between Mr. Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, repeatedly accused Mr. Obama of wanting to "spread the wealth," an offshoot of Mr. Obama's caught-on-tape exchange with an Ohio plumber (i.e. "Joe the," last seen signing copies of his new book at CPAC).
"Socialism" became a star of subsequent McCain and Palin rallies in the same way that a dead bull is the star of a bullfight -- an object of slings, spears and overall bloodlust.
When the best selling intellectual tract at the CPAC show is written by Joe the Plumber, one can posit that the intellectual movement called conservatism has evolved into "Kitsch"--"a creative gesture that merely imitates the superficial appearances of thought (via repeated conventions and formula), thus, it is uncreative and unoriginal." The great Milan Kundera described Kitsch this way.
Kitsch functions by excluding from view everything that humans find difficult with which to come to terms, offering instead a sanitized view of the world, in which "all answers are given in advance and preclude any questions".In its desire to paper over the complexities and contradictions of real life, kitsch, Kundera suggested, is intimately linked with totalitarianism. In a healthy democracy, diverse interest groups compete and negotiate with one another to produce a generally acceptable consensus; by contrast, "everything that infringes on kitsch," including individualism, doubt, and irony, "must be banished for life" in order for kitsch to survive.
So while the Palinistas throw "Socialist" brickbats, the one real Socialist in the Senate, Bernie Saunders of Vermont speaks with out guile.
Mr. Sanders said he was encouraged that even some conservative critics -- he mentionsNewt Gingrich -- seem to be equating Mr. Obama's economic agenda to "European-style socialism," as if to consciously distinguish it from the old Soviet vintage of the term."I think this country could use a good debate on what goes on in places like Sweden, Norway and Finland," said Mr. Sanders, saying that notions like universal health care, more funding for education and a greater tax burden on the wealthy have accessible models in those countries.
As I said before, I think we are moving slowly in the direction of Social Democracy. Unless the Republican's come up with something better than Joe The Plumber put-downs, the progressive intellectual roadmap will stand in stark contrast to the bankrupt ideology of the conservatives.
Everybody's a democrat when the economy goes sour.
March 1, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like this line... Thanks BevD!
March 1, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
As the old saying goes, "The Democrats will steal if from you, but THEY will give some of it back".
March 1, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an old saying where?
March 2, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that contradicted by the trends in late 70s through Reagan? Only the obvious, crashing failure of Bush et al has undone the Reagan mystique and the supporting Nixon southern strategy racism.
It's not the economy alone, or even at all. Obama was looking pretty good last spring, before the full load of crap was scattered by the fan.
March 1, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
He purposefully set out very early on to get some of the growing number of Independents, i.e., selling that "we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America."
Clinton tried to do this as well (the DLC was founded to do this, win back those lost to Reagan, and their success in winning things like governerships is now forgotten) in a different way, of course, by co-opting some of Reagan's message and discarding the rest. Clinton even used the "we are the united states of America" theme in his first nomination speech as well. And Obama and Clinton and the DLC went for "the forgotten middle class" thing. But the Perot candidacy made it rather confusing to figure out what the Independents back then really wanted.
BUT since Reagan, there has always been the die-hard 1/3 of the public that self-identifies as conservative. And one could see that in so many polls of so many types on so many issues, there was always that diehard 1/3.
And I think the economic crises this fall are what is finally helping eat into those numbers, and that can't be given to Obama, he was just another candidate with a centrist approach there at the right time. Obama, being someone already courting Independents, might have performed as well as Clinton's second term run (he maintained a 2/3 approval rating through most of that term, the 1/3 the conservatives.) But the economic crises of the fall, I think, are what gave him the edge of a few more votes in the right states to get a landslide victory instead.
But even before the economic crises, the GOP knew that the zeitgeist was that they needed someone who could court Independents as well, that's why they ended up with McCain, which, if you recall, angered a lot of conservatives. Turns out he was a lousy candidate who did not live up to his myth of being attractive to Independents, and that he also felt he needed to pick a V.P. that pandered to the conservative base because so many conservatives disliked the idea of his candidacy, and that turned off some Independents.
Also, do not forget how Obama has praised some things about Reagan at optimal points in his campaign. I think it's dangerous to believe the country has been pulled to a place where a majority is open to returning to LBJ's domestic policies, or even the preferences of the current Democratic House leadership, despite the economic crises. I don't think Obama thinks that, either; I think he knows that a lot of people that helped elect him are not, for example, big Nancy Pelosi fans, and could just as easily deliver some more Republicans back to Congress in 2 years just like what happened to Clinton in 1994. The makeup of Independents in this country just don't identify with either party that easily, have a complex mix of views that runs from conservative to liberal depending on the issue involved.
March 1, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's very thoughtful and interesting, Artappraiser, and I would agree with everything ... had not Obama, in his big speech last week, and in the budget he subsequently introduced, fully committed himself as president to moving the country in a strongly progressive direction.
In this respect, I think his vision goes beyond LBJ and the Great Society, hearkening back to FDR and the New Deal. Which is much bolder than anything we've heard from the Democratic leadership on the Hill. And I don't think, anymore, he can be thought of as "centrist."
The key insight into Obama (for me, anyway) was a comment somebody made contrasting the president to Andrew Sullivan. This commenter noted that Sullivan, while he considers himself politically conservative, is temperamentally liberal. Obama, in contrast, is temperamentally conservative -- which makes him seem "centrist" or "postpartisan" or something like that -- but nonetheless politically, and philosophically, is very much a liberal.
March 2, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the mistake that GOP primary voters made was that they thought McCain was a man of principle.
Every principle John McCain had ever uttered in his life suggested that he should have come out hard against the TARP bailout from the beginning. He should have gone on record hard against it -- he's the no pork guy, right?!
But McCain went into political calculation mode. He jockeyed for attention with Obama and tried to cancel the debate and all that.
If McCain actually had principles, he would have come out against the bailouts (and he would smell sweet as a rose right now, whether he was President or not).
But he doesn't, so he didn't.
March 2, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS !!!! FOR JINDAL !!!
Am I late to the party? Do we not make that joke anymore?
I submit that if Bush Admmin had been more competent and effective, the Dems would still be surging due to the economy, but the GOP would not be taking the one-two punch it is now.
It should take more than an economic collapse for the Bible Belt to turn its back on conservatism. Thanks to the ideological collapse of the GOP, they have no effective repsonse to Obama.
March 2, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
So true......Some people are fond of saying that there are no atheists in a foxhole. I always thought the opposite,
March 2, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jon is now doing the same thing Republicans were doing right after Carter and then after Clinton.
You can gloat all you want, but let's face the reality:
1. They will find a telegenic orator with a nice personal story, a book or two and good teleprompter skills to improve the emotional appeal.
2. All power corrupts, all the time. Democrats will become a corrupt party by the end of Obama's second term, just like Republicans did. And the Democrats that did before that. Etc. It's just how it is.
The pendulum will swing again and they will be in vogue for a while and on and on it goes.
My point is that America has always evolved incrementally, step by step and over time, notwithstanding the usual post-election gloating and grand-standing.
So, don't forget to take the blinders off from time to time and check back with the real world.
March 1, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken, the trend shown in the various polls are mainly toward Republican, only reversing in the last year.
But you're still smarting over Obama being smarter than you thought.
March 1, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not in the least.
I think he's a talented pol and he showed what's possible.
I'm smarting over the budget and "them" (250K and up) against the rest. That, too, is part of the pendulum but it shouldn't be that way.
I hope this country doesn't turn into Germany, where you're better off sitting on your fat ass and collecting welfare, just because they don't like people with ambition, dedication and drive to advance.
March 1, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ever been there? (Germany.) Doesn't feel that way to me, and they make nice cars there, not to mention electronics, optics, and other fine merchandise.
March 1, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
And 6-8 weeks of vacation which they will use every year. And somehow they're still affording to buy up beach properties along the gold coast of Spain. Those feckless Germans.
Maybe if they just put a prohibition on beer they'd learn how to make a highly engineered, seriously fun driving machine. . .
just sayin'
March 2, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's more than a "talented pol," IMHO, and haven't you noticed the damage that has been done by individual initiative, drive, determination, and pluck without a regulating and levening hand on the tiller? The drive for success and to get ahead is not sufficient to underpin a livable society.
March 2, 2009 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do agree that power corrupts and that the Dems back in power will f*** up eventually. That's what the 2-party system is all about!
March 2, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps your jingoism is showing, as well as some other things. I recently lived in Berlin for a year, and whether I traipsed around East Berlin, the 'burbs or the heart of the city, people are working. And, they work hard. You could take a few lessons, even the menial workers are literate and read the NEWSPAPERS! There were several Berlin-based NEWSPAPERS as well as regional and national NEWSPAPERS. I noticed, too, that workers of all stripes were respected, even to the "lowly" garbage collector. Additionally, Berlin in particular, has one of the best mass transportation systems in the world, where the trains, the underground and the bus lines are sychonized like clockwork. Put that in your BMW and stuff it.
March 2, 2009 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Soviet Union made a big deal over the fact that everyone in a subway in Moscow was reading a newspaper. Soviet propaganda in fact claimed that their citizens were the most well-read people in the world.
March 2, 2009 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
During my travels in the USSR, I found Russians to be some of the warmest and kindest people in the world.
Funny, I was told they were the "evil empire."
March 2, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, Lalo, you're just gettin' better and better.
I eagerly await your beginning to refer to your interlocutors as "comrade"....
March 2, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, since I am an American expatriate living in Germany, I have to call "bullshit" on your argument. What you describe is the unemployment insurance system that existed under Helmut Kohl, the former CDU chancellor. It was the SPD/Green coalition under Gerhard Schroeder that reformed the system, replacing it with a carrot and stick system that had finally made significant cuts into the unemployment rates.
Things like this take on a life of their own, really. One of those "everyone knows" things, like how "everyone knows LA is full of crack dealers".
March 2, 2009 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I am describing is an existing welfare state in Germany. It takes almost half of your paycheck in taxes. It makes you pay a church membership tax (petition required if you want to leave). It makes you pay special tax for watching TV in your own house. And despite the "inroads" you are talking about, you can live very adequately on welfare in Germany.
If I wanted to live in a country that punishes achievement by pushing you to the lowest common denominator, I would have stayed there. Like you.
March 2, 2009 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right - but in America, the millions and millions without decent health care insurance can have their whole life savings wiped-out by an illness. Bankrupt. Not to mention the companies the cheat people out of coverage.
Free markets take more than one person's lifetime to work this out....in the meantime many suffer. And of course, nobody has more than one lifetime.
March 2, 2009 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think everybody should have access to affordable health insurance. I think you should have the same competition in health insurance as you have in cereals and detergents - rows and rows of options, including out of state.
That has nothing to do with welfare state.
March 2, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well you said everybody should have affordable healthcare.
But if your employer does not provide it, then what?
Do you mean "on average" you believe "everybody" should have affordable healthcare?
Or do you mean "eventually" everybody should have affordable healthcare - but not today?
March 2, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what I said
March 2, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right....I win.
March 2, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you should have the same competition in health insurance as you have in cereals and detergents - rows and rows of options, including out of state.
Okay, so why is that not what we have now in this "free market"?
March 2, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I hope this country doesn't turn into Germany, where..."
Right. We can now see that since you don't know or seemingly care to know what you're talking about, apparently you're just whining. And no, Obama's administration will not become "corrupt" by the end of his second successful term.
March 2, 2009 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you always hide behind "we" when you have nothing worthwile or interesting to say on your own?
March 2, 2009 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of hiding, the world is getting smaller for you to effectively hide your "concern troll" shtick, at least among this crowd. See that expat guy caught you from all the way over in Germany? Ouch!
Your xenophibia works with the Palin crowd, of course, that's who you should be trying to sell it to, not to us (we).
March 2, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
you're such a bad bad version of joey
March 2, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you make a good Lincoln?
March 2, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. What Overreach said. Lalo = thought-free nitwit.
The one revealing comment is that the US changes incrementally. Have you wondered what it's changing incrementally TOWARD? Think about it. If you wind up with "European-style social democracy", you win!
March 2, 2009 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
March 2, 2009 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Barack Obama and his wife are two of the best examples America has of people who advanced through ambition, dedication, and drive.
March 2, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't think it was about personal ambition for them, thanks for pointing it out.
March 2, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously delusional about your characterizations of the Left.
We do honor ambition. We just despise ambition that fails to respect the rights of others.
March 2, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, for Lalo, ambition, dedication, and drive to advance are good things, except when exhibited by people like the Obamas.
March 2, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo,
you were doing pretty good with your posts; rational, inciteful, learned, till this;
March 2, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope this country doesn't turn into Germany, where you're better off sitting on your fat ass and collecting welfare, just because they don't like people with ambition, dedication and drive to advance.
Wow, that one's a keeper. Yeah, those lazy (soshulist) Germans....
March 2, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Nothing about Republicans coming up with fresh ideas, just hoping that history will repeat itself(even though the 2008 GE showed that it doesn't always), and praying for their own version of Obama.
March 1, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not my point actually, but I would love for you to point out a "fresh" idea from the Democrats. Spending? Been there since FDR, obviously not at this magnitude. Universal healthcare plans? Since LBJ.
A cynical person would argue that all Obama does it outspend and out-tax his predecessors into a more prominent position in history books. But in truth, both parties are doing the same thing have always done, the formula hasn't changed.
On second thought, I shouldn't be surprised. After all, we are all responding to an original post that took party affiliation (i.e. the party en vogue) and somehow twisted it into the "dying conservative intellect". As if any election was ever won on intellect.
March 2, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
An idea does not have to be new in order to be right. We spend over $6000 per person on health care but have some of the worst health outcomes in the developed world (e.g., life expectancy, infant mortality). Also, if Germany so rewards sloth, why do they enjoy a trade surplus of $237 billion (+6.6% of GDP) while the ambition-rewarding USA has a trade deficit of $697.9 Billion (-4.6% of GDP)?
March 2, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, if Germany so rewards sloth, why do they enjoy a trade surplus of $237 billion (+6.6% of GDP) while the ambition-rewarding USA has a trade deficit of $697.9 Billion (-4.6% of GDP)?
Uh.... Lalo? Lalo?
Your answer?
Lalo?
March 2, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo said:
but his predecessors didn't have an economic and tsunami to deal with. ( not to mention two small wars)
March 2, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats have always used a crisis as an opportunity to push through ideology-driven policy changes.
Obama is not doing anything new here. His tactics are not different from when Bush used 9/11 to push through Patriot Act. He also had over 60% approval rating at that time.
March 2, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats have always used a crisis as an opportunity to push through ideology-driven policy changes.
Really. Always. Such a claim should be relatively easy to document, Lalo.
And since it's your claim, you get to document it.
Remember, you'll need to establish:
1) Policy changes that have been "pushed through"
2) Policy changes that are "ideology-driven" (and perhaps you'd best spend some time defining that little right-wing talking point)
3) ...during "a crisis" that was "use" as an "opportunity."
To earn anything above a C- please discuss examples of "ideology-driven" policies that have been "pushed through" by Dems during a "time of crisis" that haven't, you know, worked in the long run.
March 2, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
On second thought, I shouldn't be surprised. After all, we are all responding to an original post that took party affiliation (i.e. the party en vogue) and somehow twisted it into the "dying conservative intellect".
Brilliant! Take the first 86 words of a 565-word post, ignore the rest, and pretend that those first 86 words are the only basis for the headline.
Your next move of intellectual jiujutsu, Oh Master?
March 2, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It took 40 years ('54-'94) for the Democrats to become corrupt enough that they needed to be replaced. It only took 12 years for the RePubic-ans ('94-'06). Greed is the stated basis of their party, while concern for others is the stated basis of the Democrats. Not that the Dem's don't fail - they do - but the R's have corruption written deep into their psyche.
March 1, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the GOP for decades preached corporate efficiencies, and they proved to be far more efficient at becoming intellectually bankrupt, corrupt incompetents than it was for Democrats back in the day.
March 2, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
thats not true.
there will be no swinging ..back to todays republicans.
they need to reinvent themselves totally as a party.
if you think this country will ever go back to where a palin or a hucksterbee can move it, you are totally wrong.
the ideas behind their arguments are totally out of touch with the times and this economy is reshaping the country.
it will never go back to the positions that the republicans represent.
in fact, the most vocal part of the party is now viewed as a fringe movement.
the "we want Obama to fail" crowd.
its over for them.
March 2, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Hat returns....but none the wiser it appears.
March 2, 2009 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"All power corrupts, all the time."
I don't buy it. Democrats held power for 40 years. There was corruption, but nothing on the scale that we've seen in the last 14 years. Republicans came in '94, by '96 Newt and Delay had pretty much corrupted the place. Republicans, by their nature have money issues, they see it, they want it. Their motivations for getting into Government are financially based, to grab money, to hand out money to friends and supporters through various programs where they can and to destroy all the rest. Democrats are a little more altruistic. They build things and try to make government work for people. That was put on its head a little with the Clinton's and the DLC co-opting Republican ideas, as mentioned above, and having Rahm as his chief of staff makes it a little tough, but it seems that Obama once again wants Government to work for the people. I guess it does remain to be seen if your cynicism or my optimism will prevail.
March 2, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the idea that the Democrats in the 70s were somehow dreadfully corrupt, and that was part of why they lost power, is just mythmaking -- an attempt to shoehorn the past into the pattern of the present. Sure, there were some corrupt Democrats, but it was never a driving force the way it was with the K Street Project and such. That's something that can only happen when we're "governed" by people who don't believe in government, and therefore don't give a damn whether it does its job or not, which lets them focus entirely on using it to funnel money and maintain their power.
March 2, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we want Homelandic Tweedledumbs and Tweedledees who are intellectually moving, overfamiliar and overrated "places like Sweden, Norway and Finland" do not even begin to be in the running for the snark hunt.
One must emigrate mentally rather to Mitteleuropa, where Freiherr von Wurzelbacher is takin’ on Milano Csacsi-Neznajomackový the Great in a ten-round match. (Winner gets the left little toe bone of Eddie Burke in a stylishly crafted Naugahyde reliquary.)
Mencken preserve us from the Commi perfessers with their Häagen-Dazs psynthetic notionettes!
Happy days.
--McKitsch
March 1, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh brother. Maybe we should see how well Social Democracy does before gloating about the Death of Conservatism. But if we are going to do this right, I recommend not escalating the war in Afghanistan. In fact we should close all 700 odd overseas bases, and let the rest of the world fight it out amongst themselves. It would...
* Save enough money to pay for everything
* Eliminate casualties
* The world would love us
* We would be the last economy standing like postwar WW2 and become prosperous like the fifties.
What's not to like?
March 1, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That looks a lot like what I describe as "cargo cultism", thanks!
And yes, I see how kitsch relates to totalitarianism. But I think Kundera is wrong about democracy and consensus - democracy generally never achieves consensus. The proverbial lemmings OTOH might demonstrate consensus and totalitarianism in motion together!
March 1, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it does create floating coalitions that represent something like a consensus. This is likely to occur within parties. The positive side of the 2-party system is that these massive, dysfunctional, struggling coalitions add and lose members and groups as the issues and social conditions change. FDR and Jackson blue collar democrats became Reagan republicans. Suburbanites migrate from republican to democratic. It's all kind of organic and even free-markety. Okay, this is a bit simplistic and doesn't account for the Forces of Darkness and other conspiracies we all love, but I think the damn thing kind of works.
March 2, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can have a whole pile of local consensus ensembles. The Republicans in the House are like this, even though it is a consensus of "No" which means there is no consensus in the House.
March 2, 2009 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would that we could have an honest discussion with anyone about the values and drawbacks of "European-style" Socialism.
But we can't.
The MSM is locked up with right Corporations, who continue to frame any conversation with their own propaganda. The only place to have that conversation is the internet, and while widely used, simply does not have the broad confidence and "reality" that TV has.
Answer? The US needs a government run, not-for-profit Broadcasting Corp modeled on the BBC.
Say hello to the United States Broadcasting Corporation.
March 2, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the framework is already there with the PBS/NPR net. Just give it more serious financial backing, and make its mandate more similar to the European "provide basic media services". Just ensure that it competes with private networks but isn't trying to force them off the air.
March 2, 2009 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean of course that goverment-run TV is free from government propaganda.
Or maybe you mean that government doesn't have enough control over what we think, so that it can instill the values of European socialism in us.
Or maybe you mean that you just don't like to think for yourself. Or just can't.
March 2, 2009 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Straw man alert!
Geez, Lalo, I thought even you could do better than that.
March 2, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It really is quite astounding. Every utterance by GOP leadership seems more stupid than the previous day's garbage.
You almost want to hand them new shovels so they can continue to dig the holes even deeper. We can only hope the parade of nitwits (, Boehner, JTP,Coulter,Rush,Jindal,Mitt,Santelli,Kudlow, Bunning) continues to get TV time.
March 2, 2009 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad the shovels are probably made in China.
March 2, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
lalo is back as obe lincoln? hilarious!
i missed his "condescention from below" style. yoo cute!
March 2, 2009 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I hope this country doesn't turn into Germany, where..."
Right. We can now see that since you don't know or seemingly care to know what you're talking about, apparently you're just whining. And no, Obama's administration will not become "corrupt" by the end of his second successful term.
March 2, 2009 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can portray the conservative movement in whichever way you please but in my estimation the scoreboard is currently in their favor. Remember they ran up the score for eight years. They've had a couple of bad innings and we've gotten some runs is all. The fact is for my sixty years of watching this game they are well ahead. And unless Obama decides to get a serious kick ass attitude all of a sudden their lead will stay the same. Obama has to throw some serious heat and if he happens to hit some of their players well that's a damn shame. Trust me, the ref won't say a word.
March 2, 2009 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Conservative movement today is empty because they defined themselves by wars over abortion and gay rights. They weren't pushed to become the party of bigots, they chose it themselves.
Untill they go back to the way the original conservative movement was defined and resurrect it, they will continue to be seen as anachronism and an obstacle .
March 2, 2009 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Conservative movement today is empty because they defined themselves by wars over abortion and gay rights."
Of course they did, and they were smart to do so. How else were they going to take power? There aren't enough wealthy voters (their natural and true constituents) to get them elected. They had to find a way to (now, famously) get working class voters to vote against their economic self-interest. To vote Republican.
The GOP succeeded in that task by leveraging divisive and anger inducing cultural issues. The GOP strategy of appealing to the worst characteristics in us has led to a steady self-distillation of their base into a highly concentrated radical bunch of nut cases. They rode the tiger and now it's eating them alive.
March 2, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I read your response and realized that I should have said
"Republican Party" instead of "Conservative movement". I don't think they had much in a long time.
March 2, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Untill they go back to the way the original conservative movement was defined and resurrect it, they will continue to be seen as anachronism and an obstacle .
Mmmm-hmm. And that "original definition" would be..... ?
March 2, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As I said before, I think we are moving slowly in the direction of Social Democracy. Unless the Republican's (sic) come up with something better than Joe The Plumber put-downs, the progressive intellectual roadmap will stand in stark contrast to the bankrupt ideology of the conservatives."
Which "bankrupt ideology of the conservatives" are you referring to? You speak as if there's only one. Are you talking about social conservatism? Fiscal conservatism? Because I'm all for the latter, and I'm a Democrat. Let's not degrade the conversation from our side, OK? Let's not pretend this is simple. Let's not approach our disagreements with our friends on the right in a simplistic or simpleminded way. At the very least, let's hold our side to a higher standard. There's nothing wrong with conservatism. It's a valid political philosophy, and the conservative voice makes a valuable contribution to the mix. Consider this exchange, which took place a couple of weeks ago on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", between Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Rep. Barney Frank:
What's offensive is about the recent approach taken by the Republicans is not their ideology. It's their tactics and their rhetoric. They have a right to state their opinion and make their point. But they should do it in a civil and honest way.
While we were barely looking, Barack Obama has accomplished something quite remarkable in American politics. He has raised the level of discourse. It's no longer possible for a leader on either side to spew mindless talking points and come off sounding like an intelligent adult. The conversation our new President has started demands real, concrete, usable ideas. It rejects rhetoric. From both sides. Conservatives bring an important voice the conversation. Let's not treat them as if they're putting on a sideshow.
March 2, 2009 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
In that snippet it seems like Schmidt is saying, "if we can track it independently, we can come to a consensus concerning its efficacy empirically," and Frank is saying, "we will put the info out there so you can."
Then it seems like what Demint wants to say is something like, "but government couldn't possibly track that (because government is bad) and we therefore shouldn't be spending this huge amount of money because government can't possibly be responsible about it".
Assuming this is sort of the case: this debate is illustrative of the intellectual disconnect in the party.
If i were a conservative (and i am to an extent), i'd be after all the evidence i could that the money the government spent (and it will always have to spend some money) was actually accomplishing the purpose it was spent towards.
Instead we have "OGG THINK GOV-MENT BAD! OGG LIKE PEANUTBUTTER. OGG DRIVE CAR GOOD."
The same sort of thing happened with sex-education. The social conservatives this time pushed abstinence-only programs despite being demonstrably less effective than the alternative.
March 2, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to read in the transcript, but there was a real struggle going on between Frank and Schmidt. Schmidt was clearly pushing Frank's buttons, trying to make the point that politicians are the problem. And I think what Barney Frank wanted to say was, "Fuck your Internet, Eric. Run for office, ya snotty little dweeb." At least that's what I took away from it. Frank believes in our Democratic Republic--start to finish. Schmidt is an idealist. What was most interesting to me was the way Frank defended Jim DeMint. Because Frank believes in the process. As far as Frank is concerned, the system is working the way it was designed to work.
What I hope we can accomplish over the next four years is to deal a death-blow to the notion that being stupid is somehow cool. I personally despise that mindset. If the Republicans can learn to speak and act like adults, I think we've got a conversation. That's when they're back in the game. But old habits die hard, and the Democrats, with Obama at the fore, have the lead. It could be decades before the Republicans catch up.
March 2, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps we need to make their arguments for them to demonstrate how to do it.
The problem is larger than just the Republicans' habits though. The media ultimately needs to refuse to indulge them in this behavior, but the media love it--it makes for easy tv. 24-hour cable news requires easy tv.
March 2, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, you folks should worry about how to deal with a $785 Bil stimulus "pork" bill, that doesn't stimulate. Good luck with that one.
March 2, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the most destructive force in America in recent years has been the rise of anti-intellectualism. The Republicans on the far right, led by loony, venom-spewing zealots like Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter, have been shepherded into the firm conviction that talking loud and saying hateful things about the other side are acceptable substitutes for honest discourse. But it's not going to play anymore. Americans are waking up. We've grown sick and tired of being spoken to as if we're a bunch of stupid little children, incapable of entertaining an intelligent thought. We like the fact that our new President speaks in whole sentences, and uses recognizable English terms that can be found in a dictionary.
Hateful, anti-American buffoons like Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter are quickly becoming an embarrassing liability for the Republican Party. Whatever will the Republicans do?
I don't know what book you're referring to because you didn't cite your source. But Barack Obama will never accused of stupidity. I'm quite certain of that.
March 2, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is your remark about character assassination a dismissal of hrebendorf's idea that "the level of discourse" has been raised or a rejection of the idea that it ever could be raised?
If your intent was the latter, consider the idea of moral capital. The matter of character is not merely a tug of war between opposing sides glorifying or vilifying a leader but how the presumption of integrity is used to actually govern.
March 2, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
bravo, president obama. by raising the level of discourse you make the red team actually articulate their ideas and make them justify their thinking process. this allows the undecided public to have a good look at the ideas behind conservatism. and gimme!gimme!gimme!mine!mine!mine! is kind of hard to sell to rational people.
i would love to see W have to carry on a rational argument about conservative ideals. of course, we wont be hearing much from him, will we?
apparently, the best they can do is a liar like cantor or even better yet, jindal. to 'jindal' is becoming a verb. wonder what it means? i personally love that guy. keep up the good work and i cant wait until the next election.
March 2, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
In my opinion, Bobby Jindal's performance the other night was so horrifyingly pathetic because we got to see the contrast first-hand. The pundits chalked it up to Obama being a better speaker than Jindal, but I don't believe that's what it was. Barack Obama respects his fellow Americans. He believes we're engaged and intelligent and he's never tempted to talk down to us. We may not agree with his ideas, but he speaks to us in a respectful, honest way. In contrast, Bobby Jindal's recitation was a series of childish, idiotic platitudes that spoke to the lowest common denominator. It was an embarrassment. Is Jindal really that stupid? Or does he believe WE are? Either way, he did a horrible disservice to the Republican Party.
America is on a new course now. The ship has been pointed toward a better star. Americans voted overwhelmingly for change in November, and Barack Obama is not a bullshitter. He's actually making good on his campaign promises (how refreshing). There is no going back. If the Republicans don't figure out what's going on and get on board soon, they're going to be left in the wake.
March 2, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
For example, Hundt's post on the economy and global warming policy. I'm going to assume this would be considered as an "intellectual" expression, no? Assuming it's so, where is the practical consideration of implementation? There isn't any. If he's going to wait for it to happen spontaneously becasue he thought of it, he'll be waiting quite a while.
I'm also looking forward to the day, when having realized we spent nearly a trillion dollars to stimulate the economy, everybody realizes nothing happened. Intellectualism is great, just so long it's recognized it's an abstract exercise, not real life.
Democrats are now on the hook for making things actually happen according to Democrat plans. Something is going to happen, but like health care rationing to come, it's not likely to go according to plan.
March 2, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
How are you so sure the stimulus won't have an effect? What evidence do you have? I'd be interested to hear it. I'm not familiar with Hundt's post on the economy and global warming (you didn't cite a specific article or provide a link), so I don't know what you're referring to.
Of course Democrats are on the hook for making things happen. That's the whole point, isn't it? The Democrats are in power because someone needs to dig us out of the mess we're in, and the majority of Americans don't trust the Republicans to do it. Most Americans blame the Republicans for creating this disaster.
March 2, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then there are the attacks on business. The private jet industry is actually sinking after the attacks on auto guys flying in to testify. Resorts are losing business after the Northern Trust beatdown for a Golf Tournament sponsorship. These industries aren't sympathetic, but their employees should be. Perhaps you remember the "Luxury Tax" debacle?
Then we have "tax cuts" for the "middle class". Did any of the previous Bush giveaways of cash do anything for the economy? Nope. They were used for bills or savings.
One can have the best of intentions, but people aren't variables in a simple equation. You can't goose "x" and expect "1.5y" as a matter of math. The economy is based on concepts like risk, expectations, and legislative bias. None of which are understood, much less directable by, people who have never had to make payroll or produce a product.
Lastly, people that are rich have a talent for making money. It's a talent just like any other, some people have it, some people don't. Beating up people that have that talent just leads to those people withdrawing to less stenuous endeavors that don't require employees or dealing with the Government.
Want to stifle the housing industry? Cut the mortgage exemption. The rich can just decide not to rent out space, or get a new refrigerator. Don't want to pay taxes? Muni bonds are available and a real deal these days. And no, States aren't going to allow the elimination of that provision. It's gold-plated tax avoidance. (Not tax evasion, for those from Palm Beach.)
Questions?
March 2, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"We are doing roughly the same things Japan did in their "lost decade"."
No, actually, that's not a good comparison, because while Japan was working to stimulate their economy, they were also raising taxes. The tax increases effectively sabotaged the entire effort.
"The private jet industry is actually sinking after the attacks on auto guys flying in to testify. Resorts are losing business after the Northern Trust beatdown for a Golf Tournament sponsorship."
Are you claiming that Congressional criticism of corporate excesses are solely responsible for bringing these two industries to their knees? Because I'd say you're being a bit shrill on that one. :)
The Bush tax cuts didn't do anything for the economy. Which is why the Obama tax cuts are being implemented differently. They're not issuing checks. They're giving workers a break on their taxes, which will show up as more money in every single paycheck. You can't compare the two because there IS no comparison.
"One can have the best of intentions, but people aren't variables in a simple equation. You can't goose "x" and expect "1.5y" as a matter of math. The economy is based on concepts like risk, expectations, and legislative bias. None of which are understood, much less directable by, people who have never had to make payroll or produce a product."
That's sophist gobbledy-gook. Tell me how it applies. Give me a concrete example.
"Lastly, people that are rich have a talent for making money. It's a talent just like any other, some people have it, some people don't."
Yeah, well there's something else rich people have: liquidity. Cash on hand counts for a lot. And if you have no cash, you can't invest. And people who are just trying to keep the bills paid will NEVER have any cash. Sometimes it's talent. Sometimes it's a parent who dies and leaves you a pile of money. Some suckas just get lucky.
No questions.
March 2, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points rabbit ears. I have missed you. You probably have a life. hahahahaaha. Good to hear from you.
March 2, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, dickday. I do have a life (sort of). :) I'm self-employed, which means that my business runs me most days. I try to check back from time to time, but we've been busy as heck lately and no one's running for president, so I've cut back on my surfing a bit.
March 2, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 2, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Did you forget the tax increases on earners over $250k? Or do you think those people have no influence on the direction of the economy?"
No, I didn't forget them. As I remember, they did pretty well under the Clinton economy. Their taxes aren't being raised--just returned to the pre-Bush levels.
"Yes I am claiming that."
Well, that's just silly. You're talking about two luxury businesses. Of course they're going to suffer during tough economic times. One of the first things to go in a bad economy is private jets and yacht sales. Seriously--you can't blame their problems on a verbal spanking from Congress. Their problems started LONG before those CEOs flew in in their private jets and sponsored their golf tournaments. There's no chronological correlation there.
By the way, do you LIKE the idea that taxpayers are now being forced to sponsor golf tournaments? That seems like a decidedly NON-conservative viewpoint to me.
"Everyone has cash."
Whew, that's a relief. I was starting to think all of my cash was already allocated. Thanks for letting me know that I have disposable income. Now, if you'll just tell me where I hid it...
March 2, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 2, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I just poked around, and I assume you were referring to this:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/02/green_way_out/
Correct? If so, then no--it's not an intellectual expression. It's a few real world, concrete proposals. An intellectual expression (and one that would useless in the real world) would be to say something like "The Socialists are flooding out of the closets. Woof." That doesn't do anything to help solve the problem and it doesn't make much sense either.
March 2, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I was referring to this http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/01/the_battles_to_save_the_climate_and_the_economy/
If the grand plan revolves around the idea, that Energy Secretary Chu knows a good thing when he sees it, my confidence level in actual progress is low.
March 2, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
So? What's your better plan? Let's hear it. And if the plan is to continue doing what we've been doing, then get ready to be steamrolled. We're on the leading edge of a vast transformation. George W. Bush screwed the pooch, and Congressional Republicans, who preferred to rubber-stamp his rule-by-fiat approach instead of doing the jobs they were elected to do held the dog while he did it. So they're out of power. And deservedly so. But not only that, they've given the Democrats an enormous opportunity to completely change America's direction. And the changes Democrats will make will be with us for decades. If Republicans don't get serious and start contributing to the mix of ideas, they're going to be left out in the cold. The whole "tax cuts solve everything" argument is dead. George W. Bush killed it, cut off its head, and spit down the hole. Don't think you can stop this with obstructionism. It's going to take positive ideas--not negative complaining.
March 2, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or not. One of the reasons I voted for Obama was to give folks like you enough rope to dispel the increasing taxes leads to prosperity myth. Go for it. We'll be here when it all falls apart like FDR's regime.
March 2, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
FDR was our only four-term president. He was ENORMOUSLY popular, and his influence on American society is with us to this day. He created the FDIC, the SEC and Social Security (among other accomplishments). To say his "regime" "fell apart" is just to completely ignore reality. He's consistently ranked by historians as one of America's greatest presidents.
Instead of pointlessly attempting to rewrite history, you should be studying FDR. You should take what you can learn from his example. Because Obama is in a position to make similar, essential, lasting changes to American life. The legacy of George W. Bush is something the Republicans will be trying to live down for a long, long time. And Ronald Reagan's "trickle-down" economics ain't lookin' so smart these days either. Barack Obama is on a path to proving the Democratic principle that good government, applied for the common weal, is good for America. All I'm saying is, if you disagree, you'd better have more than complaints to offer. Negativity ain't worth much these days.
March 2, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter's hand-waving and frothing about "Socialism! Taxes! Wealth redistribution! Rationing! Be Very Afraid!" reminds me of those awful socialist years of the 1950s, under Closet Socialist President Eisenhower (teh Closit Soshulists back then masqueraded as, y'know, Republicans 'n' four-star generals 'n' stuff -- it was all part of their evil plot), when the Joy Silk Doctrine [i.e. card check] was in place, top marginal personal income taxes hovered around 88-92%, and corporate tax rates for corporate profits over $25K (that's right, twenty-five THOUSAND, or approximately two hundred THOUSAND in 2009 dollars) was 52%. Everyone remembers how we were just going into the toilet then economically, and we were all ready to slide into Bolshevism at the hands of a closet-Commie Republican President.
March 2, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
We already have governmentally approved means of power generation, by the way. And would you consider the U.S. military or a publicly funded police or fire department an example of "socialism"? Because I would--at least using the definition you're applying.
March 2, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
March 2, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
So why discuss "socialism" or even use the term?
March 2, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about wealth redistribution, universal healthcare, economic reward by political affiliations, and expanded welfare? Nationalized industries anyone?
March 2, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what's your solution? Let 'em fail? Let the economy go from a serious recession into a full-blown depression? You can't ignore what's happened to the economy. This is a normal "phase" we're going through, or some minor downturn. This is a disaster. Not only for the economy, but this has national security implications. This is what Osama bin Laden promised us: total economic collapse. So what's your solution?
March 2, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wealth redistribution used to be known as taxes, by the way. We've been doing it for years, and it hasn't killed us so far. And what about universal healthcare? Call it socialized medicine if you like. What's wrong with it? What don't you like about it?
You can stop worrying about nationalized industries, by the way. We already own the Big Three. That was Bush's doing--not Obama's. Much of the nationalization you're talking about occurred under a Republican administration. The only thing bigger than Bush's 700 billion dollar bailout is Obama's 800 billion dollar stimulus bill. So, in my opinion, the Republicans should stop crowing about how much smarter they are and start proving it.
March 2, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 2, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean, "rationing"? There are countries all over the world that have socialized medicine, and it's working great for them. In fact, the U.S. is currently rated 37th by the WHO in quality of care. 37th. That's pathetic.
March 2, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The U.S. ranks near the bottom of the industrialized world in terms of healthy life expectancy (currently age 60). We rank worst--worst--among 23 nations for infant mortality. There are currently 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, and many, many more who are underinsured. And if you think that doesn't cost YOU money, you don't understand how the system works. The whole Republican argument against improving the health care system and making it more universal relies on the false premise that doing it will cost money, while the current way is free. It's not free.
March 2, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Almost forgot....
No problem, the $700B is a loan, Obama's $800B is a giveaway never to be seen again.
March 2, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama's $800B is a giveaway never to be seen again."
What do you mean "never to be seen again"? You're not making sense here. What do you think they're doing with the money? Sending it to Mars? Perhaps you don't understand the concept behind an economic stimulus. The money goes into the economy. They're not burying it in a hole. They're not feeding it to pigeons. It will be spent. In OUR economy. That's how these things work. How hard is that to understand?
March 2, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may be a good place to remind you about the $300B spent for infrastructure in 2005. That's more than is targeted for infrastructure in the "stimulus". Where is it? What happened to it? What infrastructure was built? Any?
The exact same thing is going to happen with this nearly Trillion dollar giveaway. Earmarks, politically correct projects, and bureaucratic overhead will consume most of it. What do you think $20/week is going to stimulate? My guess is beer, pizza, and toilet paper sales. That's nice, but nobody is going to hire as a result of limited increase of demand with a time limit.
I'm guessing you think throwing money at the economy willy-nilly is a good idea. Time will tell. Go for the gold, spend every dollar Government can extract from productive individuals and see what happens. It's the Great Grand Trickle Up Experiment. It should be interesting.
Meanwhile I'm shorting the S&P. Gotta make some money to pay those taxes, don't you know.
March 2, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's correct. Every last penny will be spent. That's precisely the idea. It will all go back into the economy. Personally, I don't see that there's any difference between a "politically correct" project that creates jobs and a politically incorrect project that creates jobs. I'm all for earmarks, by the way. That's how parks and community centers get built. That's how libraries get money for more books. What IS this bizarre Republican paranoia about earmarks? I don't understand it.
As for "bureaucratic overhead", I'm gonna suggest you wait and see. My guess is this will be the most carefully managed capital injection in history. But if that bureaucratic overhead results in a few more people taking home a paycheck, I'm all for it.
We're not just spending money and creating jobs here. We're investing in the future. Whether you like it or not, roads and bridges need to be repaired, and the oil won't hold out forever.
At any rate, we'll see. I'll check back in a year...
March 2, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This may be a good place to remind you about the $300B spent for infrastructure in 2005. That's more than is targeted for infrastructure in the "stimulus". Where is it? What happened to it? What infrastructure was built? Any?"
Who was in charge? Republicans. Government "never works" whenever Republicans are in charge. Plus, this stimulus is aimed at job creation, and while it has spending for infrastructure, jobs is still the key to just about every penny of the stimulus.
So thanks for handing me evidence that republicans can't effectively run government by pointing out that their $300B spent for infrastructure "didn't work."
March 3, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever are you talking about?
March 2, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless the Republican's come up with something better than Joe The Plumber put-downs....
Is "Republican's" either a contraction or a possessive in this context? I don't think it is. The correct way to make "Republican" into a plural is "Republicans."
Frankly, I think the Republicans have been thoroughly discredited and defeated, so perhaps we can move on to getting rid of the greengrocer's plural. It's at least as common as Republican idiocy these days.
March 2, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bunny rawks.
March 2, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why you good people of the Left bother to argue with these fascists. Their time is rightly over; goodness and light win! Why they call a return to normalcy 'socialism' adds humor to the mix. Enjoy their abasement! Hey, lookee here: when the conservative 'thinkers' are led by the troika of Steele, Limbaugh, and Jindal, what have left thinking people to fear?
March 2, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read and or heard a nauseatingly lauditory bio. of Jindal. He has (or says he has) two advanced degrees from actually-legitimate universities.
And he believes in "intelligent design".
So he's pegged: a politician who believes the voters are stoopid -- which is why he talks in baby-talk in hopes we all'll understand. And an opportunist, therefore a Republican, who will tell any lie or affirm any nuttiness to gain power and wealth.
Watch those who argue for "free markets": they are arguing for lawlessness, and the "legality" of picking your pocket, after hitting you over the head with a lead pipe.
March 3, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
As for kitsch, isn't it often invoked by using "just" to describe the indescribable?
March 2, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Newsweek is a very odd magazine. Newsweek has an article [http://www.newsweek.com/id/187113] reporting on CPAC which flying in the face of reality portrays the Republican Party as the party of youthful vibrancy. The article almost amounts to a Republican Party press release.
March 2, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are the corrections of the two glaring errors in this article:
1. "Conservative intellect" is an oxymoron. Only listen to those "Conservative" morons and you'll hear complete lack of intellect.
2. Even though totally wrong, a "Conservative" is sane. Those in this article identified as being "Conservative" are not that; they are far-right lunatic fringe.
Go, thou, and err no more.
March 3, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
shooter242 wrote: "Did you forget the tax increases on earners over $250k?"
What you call "tax increases" is actually the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the rich -- an expiration which was written into law by Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress when they enacted those tax cuts. Indeed, the fact that those tax cuts were temporary was a key selling point in getting them passed.
All Obama is doing is allowing those tax cuts to expire on the schedule that Bush and the Congressional Republicans originally proposed. So, if you want to blame somebody, blame Bush and the Republicans.
And all the expiration of those tax cuts will do is return the taxes on the rich to the levels that existed during the Clinton administration -- tax rates that were lower than those under the Reagan administration, and under which the after-tax income of the richest Americans skyrocketed.
Do you have anything to offer except the fake, phony, scripted, focus-group-tested, corporate-sponsored talking points that Rush Limbaugh spoon-feeds you?
March 3, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on the comments from "conservative" commenters on this thread, the "conservative intellect" seems to consist of (1) lies and (2) vapid bromides.
March 3, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I went throught the entire NYTimes poll and found no data pertaining specifically to Limbaugh anywhere. Where did the 18% figure come from?
March 5, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink