An open letter to conservatives
Dear Conservative Americans,
The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You've lost me and you've lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation.
First, the invitation: Come back to us.
Now the advice. You're going to have to come up with a platform that isn't built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. But you have work to do even before you take on that task.
Your party -- the GOP -- and the conservative end of the American political spectrum have become irresponsible and irrational. Worse, it's tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred. Let me provide some examples -- by no means an exhaustive list -- of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.
If you're going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you'll have to start by draining this swamp:
Hypocrisy
You can't flip out -- and threaten impeachment - when Dems use a parliamentary procedure (deem and pass) that you used repeatedly (more than 35 times in just one session and more than 100 times in all!), that's centuries old and which the courts have supported. Especially when your leaders admit it all.
You can't vote and scream against the stimulus package and then take credit for the good it's done in your own district (happily handing out enormous checks representing money that you voted against, is especially ugly) -- 114 of you (at last count) did just that -- and it's even worse when you secretly beg for more.
You can't fight against your own ideas just because the Dem president endorses your proposal.
You can't call for a pay-as-you-go policy, and then vote against your own ideas.
Are they "unlawful enemy combatants" or are they "prisoners of war" at Gitmo? You can't have it both ways.
You can't carry on about the evils of government spending when your family has accepted more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts.
You can't rail against using teleprompters while using teleprompters. Repeatedly.
You can't rail against the bank bailouts when you supported them as they were happening.
You can't be for immigration reform, then against it .
You can't enjoy socialized medicine while condemning it.
You can't flip out when the black president puts his feet on the presidential desk when you were silent about white presidents doing the same. Bush. Ford.
You can't complain that the president hasn't closed Gitmo yet when you've campaigned to keep Gitmo open.
You can't flip out when the black president bows to foreign dignitaries, as appropriate for their culture, when you were silent when the white presidents did the same. Bush. Nixon. Ike. You didn't even make a peep when Bush held hands and kissed leaders of countries that are not on "kissing terms" with the US.
You can't complain that the undies bomber was read his Miranda rights under Obama when the shoe bomber was read his Miranda rights under Bush and you remained silent. (And, no, Newt -- the shoe bomber was not a US citizen either, so there is no difference.)
You can't attack the Dem president for not personally* publicly condemning a terrorist event for 72 hours when you said nothing about the Rep president waiting 6 days in an eerily similar incident (and, even then, he didn't issue any condemnation). *Obama administration did the day of the event.
You can't throw a hissy fit, sound alarms and cry that Obama freed Gitmo prisoners who later helped plan the Christmas Day undie bombing, when -- in fact -- only one former Gitmo detainee, released by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, helped to plan the failed attack.
You can't mount a boycott against singers who say they're ashamed of the president for starting a war, but remain silent when another singer says he's ashamed of the president and falsely calls him a Maoist who makes him want to throw up and says he ought to be in jail.
You can't cry that the health care bill is too long, then cry that it's too short.
You can't support the individual mandate for health insurance, then call it unconstitutional when Dems propose it and campaign against your own ideas.
You can't demand television coverage, then whine about it when you get it. Repeatedly.
You can't propose ideas to create jobs, and then work against them when the Dems put your ideas in a bill.
You can't be both pro-choice and anti-choice.
You can't damn someone for failing to pay $900 in taxes when you've paid nearly $20,000 in IRS fines.
You can't condemn criticizing the president when US troops are in harms way, then attack the president when US troops are in harms way , the only difference being the president's party affiliation (and, by the way, armed conflict does NOT remove our right and our duty as Americans to speak up).
You can't be both for cap-and-trade policy and against it.
You can't vote to block debate on a bill, then bemoan the lack of 'open debate'.
If you push anti-gay legislation and make anti-gay speeches, you should probably take a pass on having gay sex, regardless of whether it's 2004 or 2010. This is true, too, if you're taking GOP money and giving anti-gay rants on CNN. Taking right-wing money and GOP favors to write anti-gay stories for news sites while working as a gay prostitute, doubles down on both the hypocrisy and the prostitution. This is especially true if you claim your anti-gay stand is God's stand, too.
When you chair the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, you can't send sexy emails to 16-year-old boys (illegal anyway, but you made it hypocritical as well).
You can't criticize Dems for not doing something you didn't do while you held power over the past 16 years, especially when the Dems have done more in one year than you did in 16.
You can't decry "name calling" when you've been the most consistent and outrageous at it. And the most vile.
You can't spend more than 40 years hating, cutting and trying to kill Medicare, and then pretend to be the defenders of Medicare
You can't praise the Congressional Budget Office when it's analysis produces numbers that fit your political agenda, then claim it's unreliable when it comes up with numbers that don't.
You can't vote for X under a Republican president, then vote against X under a Democratic president. Either you support X or you don't. And it makes it worse when you change your position merely for the sake obstructionism.
You can't call a reconciliation out of bounds when you used it repeatedly.
You can't spend taxpayer money on ads against spending taxpayer money.
You can't condemn individual health insurance mandates in a Dem bill, when the mandates were your idea.
You can't demand everyone listen to the generals when they say what fits your agenda, and then ignore them when they don't.
You can't whine that it's unfair when people accuse you of exploiting racism for political gain, when your party's former leader admits you've been doing it for decades.
You can't portray yourself as fighting terrorists when you openly and passionately support terrorists.
You can't complain about a lack of bipartisanship when you've routinely obstructed for the sake of political gain -- threatening to filibuster at least 100 pieces of legislation in one session, far more than any other since the procedural tactic was invented -- and admitted it. Some admissions are unintentional, others are made proudly. This is especially true when the bill is the result of decades of compromise between the two parties and is filled with your own ideas.
You can't preach and try to legislate "Family Values" when you: take nude hot tub dips with teenagers (and pay them hush money); cheat on your wife with a secret lover and lie about it to the world; cheat with a staffer's wife (and pay them off with a new job); pay hookers for sex while wearing a diaper and cheating on your wife; or just enjoying an old fashioned non-kinky cheating on your wife; try to have gay sex in a public toilet; authorize the rape of children in Iraqi prisons to coerce their parents into providing information; seek, look at or have sex with children; replace a guy who cheats on his wife with a guy who cheats on his pregnant wife with his wife's mother;
Hyperbole
You really need to disassociate with those among you who:
- assert that people making a quarter-million dollars a year can barely make ends meet or that $1 million "isn't a lot of money";
- say that "Comrade" Obama is a "Bolshevik" who is "taking cues from Lenin";
- ignore the many times your buddies use a term that offends you and complain only when a Dem says it;
- liken political opponents to murderers, rapists, and "this Muslim guy" that "offed his wife's head" or call then "un-American";
- say Obama "wants his plan to fail...so that he can make the case for bank nationalization and vindicate his dream of a socialist economy";
- equate putting the good of the people ahead of your personal fortunes with terrorism;
- smear an entire major religion with the actions of a few fanatics;
- say that the president wants to "annihilate us";
- compare health care reform with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, a Bolshevik plot the attack on 9/11,or reviving the ghosts of communist dictators (update: it's also not Armageddon);
- equate our disease-fighting stem cell research with "what the Nazis did";
- call a bill passed by the majority of both houses of Congress, by members of Congress each elected by a majority in their districts, an unconscionable abuse of power, a violation of the presidential oath or "the end of representative government";
- shout "baby killer" at a member of Congress on the floor of the House, especially one who so fought against abortion rights that he nearly killed health care reform (in fact, a little decorum, a little respect for our national institutions and the people and the values they represent, would be refreshing -- cut out the shouting, the swearing and the obscenities);
- prove your machismo by claiming your going to "crash a party" to which you're officially invited;
- claim that Obama is pushing America's "submission to Shariah";
- question the patriotism of people upholding cherished American values and the rule of law;
- claim the president is making us less safe without a hint of evidence;
- call a majority vote the "tyranny of the minority," even if you meant to call it tyranny of the majority -- it's democracy, not tyranny;
- call the president's support of a criminal trial for a terror suspect "treasonous" (especially when you supported the same thing when the president shared your party);
- call the Pope the anti-Christ;
- assert that the constitutionally mandated census is an attempt to enslave us;
- accuse opponents of being backed by Arab slave-drivers or of being drunk and suicidal;
- equate family planning with eugenics or Nazism;
- accuse the president of changing the missile defense program's logo to match his campaign logo and reflect what you say is his secret Muslim identity;
- accuse political opponents of being totalitarians, socialists, communists, fascists, Marxists; terrorist sympathizers, McCarthy-like, Nazis or drug pushers; and
- advocate a traitorous act like secession, violent revolution , military coup or civil war (just so we're clear: sedition is a bad thing).
History
If you're going to use words like socialism, communism and fascism, you must have at least a basic understanding of what those words mean (hint: they're NOT synonymous!)
You can't cut a leading Founding Father out the history books because you've decided you don't like his ideas.
You cant repeatedly assert that the president refuses to say the word "terrorism" or say we're at war with terror when we have an awful lot of videotape showing him repeatedly assailing terrorism and using those exact words.
If you're going to invoke the names of historical figures, it does not serve you well to whitewash them. Especially this one.
You can't just pretend historical events didn't happen in an effort to make a political opponent look dishonest or to make your side look better. Especially these events. (And, no, repeating it doesn't make it better.)
You can't say things that are simply and demonstrably false: health care reform will not push people out of their private insurance and into a government-run program ; health care reform (which contains a good many of your ideas and very few from the Left) is a long way from "socialist utopia"; health care reform is not "reparations"; nor does health care reform create "death panels".
Hatred
You have to condemn those among you who:
- call members of Congress n*gger and f*ggot;
- elected leaders who say "I'm a proud racist";
- state that America has been built by white people;
- say that poor people are poor because they're rotten people, call them "parasitic garbage" or say they shouldn't be allowed to vote;
- call women bitches and prostitutes just because you don't like their politics ( re - pea -ted - ly );
- assert that the women who are serving our nation in uniform are hookers;
- mock and celebrate the death of a grandmother because you disagree with her son's politics;
- declare that those who disagree with you are shown by that disagreement to be not just "Marxist radicals" but also monsters and a deadly disease killing the nation (this would fit in the hyperbole and history categories, too);
- joke about blindness;
- advocate euthanizing the wife of your political opponent;
- taunt people with incurable, life-threatening diseases -- especially if you do it on a syndicated broadcast;
- equate gay love with bestiality -- involving horses or dogs or turtles or ducks -- or polygamy, child molestation, pedophilia;
- casually assume that only white males look "like a real American";
- assert presidential power to authorize torture, torture a child by having his testicles crushed in front of his parents to get them to talk, order the massacre of a civilian village and launch a nuclear attack without the consent of Congress;
- attack children whose mothers have died;
- call people racists without producing a shred of evidence that they've said or done something that would even smell like racism -- same for invoking racially charged "dog whistle" words (repeatedly);
- condemn the one thing that every major religion agrees on;
- complain that we no longer employ the tactics we once used to disenfranchise millions of Americans because of their race;
- blame the victims of natural disasters and terrorist attacks for their suffering and losses;
- celebrate violence , joke about violence, prepare for violence or use violent imagery, "fun" political violence, hints of violence, threats of violence (this one is rather explicit), suggestions of violence or actual violence (and, really, suggesting anal rape with a hot piece of metal is beyond the pale); and
- incite insurrection telling people to get their guns ready for a "bloody battle" with the president of the United States.
Oh, and I'm not alone: One of your most respected and decorated leaders agrees with me.
So, dear conservatives, get to work. Drain the swamp of the conspiracy nuts, the bald-faced liars undeterred by demonstrable facts, the overt hypocrisy and the hatred. Then offer us a calm, responsible, grownup agenda based on your values and your vision for America. We may or may not agree with your values and vision, but we'll certainly welcome you back to the American mainstream with open arms. We need you.
(Anticipating your initial response: No there is nothing that even comes close to this level of wingnuttery on the American Left.)
Written by Russell King
Update: removed the mouth kissing reference and tried to clean up spelling
Another update: It seems we've talked about this so much that we've clogged up the "Intertubes." I've created an open thread where the discussion can continue as you see fit.
Wow! No one can say you didn't provide references!
I was a conservative my whole adult life until 2008, when I finally had ENOUGH!
The dem party is far from perfect, but at least they pretend to care about everyday folks...repubs have given up even the pretext.
March 22, 2010 4:45 PM
I'm fairly conservative. Well, fiscally, anyway.
In all other ways, I'm a libertarian. Do what you like as long as you don't hurt anyone else.
What I am not, however, is a Republican. I was, but could no longer stomach the hypocrisy, the shameless pandering to idiocy, the disrespect for science, and the adoration of big business over everyday Americans.
The generation coming of age right now doesn't understand or tolerate much of what the GOP now represents. My two oldest children are in college and high school, respectively. Neither of them, and none of their friends are Republicans. They are all appalled by Republican racism, sexism, homophobia and prejudice against people who aren't mainstream Christians.
Whether GOP leaders know it or not, they are on the verge of becoming irrelevant to an entire generation. They don't represent freedom and small government. They represent endless breaks for people who grease their palms and voice ignorant prejudices against everyone who isn't white and Christian.
March 23, 2010 11:01 PM
you have raised smart kids.
March 24, 2010 10:45 AM
I'm afraid that these tea-party folks are raising kids as well.
March 25, 2010 12:12 PM
So I suppose you hold the democrats to the same standard right? They are responsible for every action by every person who is a member of their party, or supports them, right? Every outrageous statement ever made, any crime ever committed, any act of adultery? You want me to take the time to make up some stupid ass list like you produced, with stories about Gerry Studds (the page rapist), Barney Frank (the gay porn ring), Ted Kennedy(drunken, philandering murderer) , Chris Dodd (drunken philanderer), the cheater Edwards, the serial harasser and molester Clinton, the Klan man Byrd, the other Klan man Duke, the terrorist Ayers, all the murderers, thieves, and rapists in prison who are democrats (that's the bulk of them). Gee, making lists is fun, huh?
March 22, 2010 5:09 PM
The dems don't pretend to be anything other than the fallible humans they are...the repubs set themselves up as being morally superior, so their hypocrisy is more offensive.
March 22, 2010 5:47 PM
I was just going to write you and tell you about this blog.
As usual you are way ahead of me.
This is really something.
March 22, 2010 8:17 PM
Actually, that isn't entirely accurate. The level of self-love and sublimation around here can be nauseating at times. Partisanship is ugly no matter which side of the fence it comes from.
March 24, 2010 8:15 AM
jason,
partisanship isn't ugly, mindless demogoguery and hypocrisy in pusuit of an ideology is what is ugly.
March 24, 2010 10:52 AM
I couldn't have said it better. I'm all for partisanship. The American people didn't send Obama and a record number of Democrats to Washington to let the party that steered this country off a cliff share the steering wheel despite the fact that that's precisely what Democrats are doing with their illogical devotion to "bipartisanship" (see: health care bill with no public option).
The American people sent the Democrats to Washington to change direction entirely, which is a mandate for Democratic partisanship. If only the Democrats would accept their mandate, we'd all be a lot better off including the conservatives that love to hate the Democrats.
March 24, 2010 11:13 AM
Obama was elected by the good graces of republicans and independents who saw fit to help him get through the primary.
Further, those same people helped propel him past John McCain in Novemeber 2008 with a narrow, though decisive, victory. That most "liberals" forgot the actual campaign that was fought and won in 2008 is part and parcel of our continuing acrimony.
Obama was most certainly not elected to continue to partisan stasis that is gripped Washington DC and the health care debate is a perfect illustration of that point.
March 24, 2010 2:29 PM
"The level of self-love and sublimation around here can be nauseating at times."
Which in no way compares to the level of hating others and projection found on most of the wingnut Republican blogs.
"Self love and sublimation" translates to "I hate them because they believe in themselves and nothing I say seems to change their minds. Don't they realize, I know more than all of them combined."
March 24, 2010 2:47 PM
We aren't at a conservative blog. "I know you are, but what am I" is not a defense.
March 24, 2010 3:11 PM
WHo needs to mount a defense against someone who thinks only 10% of the Republican Party agrees with the tea baggers?
You are your own argument against yourself.
March 24, 2010 3:29 PM
Because as long as 80% of the country stays home for primary elections nothing will change. Your crew is in charge now, so the burden is yours alone to bear.
Whether you recruit new allies or not remains entirely your decision. I know the president's mind on this and he has be remarkably consistent in that regards, even with Rahm as his chief of staff.
There are two choices right now: Turn Obama into the democratic Reagan and co-opt the efforts of conservative moderates and progressives or continue down this road of societal devolution.
I know what future I am working toward. Can you say the same?
March 24, 2010 3:55 PM
Tell you what, Jason. Lets call a personal truce here, OK?
You do your thing by recruiting Republicans for Barack O'Reagan and I'll do mine by signing up new voters and we'll both be helping build that mutual future into something we are proud to hand off to our children and grandchildren.
I know, that "Barack O'Reagan" thing was a bit snarky, but meant in good fun. Good luck with that, I mean it.
March 24, 2010 4:17 PM
Jason is an excellent concern troll.
When your fellow travelers are engaged in the indefensible, it is a clever trick to take the position of "Yes, but your gloating over our bad behavior is just as hateful - if not more hateful than the actual hateful acts that you scorn."
Lovely. Brilliant, even.
Your party is full of nitwits. If my pointing out that they are nitwits is an act of hatefulness that surpasses their nitwittery in your eyes, then so be it.
March 24, 2010 11:03 PM
When you use language and behavior that is indistinguishable from that which you are arguing against, that is logical inconsistent on its face and not in keeping with the underlying principles of your stated beliefs. Assuming you are a liberal, of course, which seemed safe given the general tone and tenor of your reply to me.
By that definition, this a whole conversation represents a tearing off of that ill-fitting mask. I will stand by for notice of the conservative re-education camps given your crew's performance on this blog.
To present you with the inverse of your nonsensical statement: If it takes hateful and prejudicial language to make a statement against hateful and prejudicial language has anything really changed?
Your president doesn't seem to think so, but I suppose some anonymous blogger online is much better qualified to set the direction of the democratic party than its elected leader.
March 25, 2010 6:23 AM
Again, your little trick is clever "You are hateful for pointing out that I am hateful! As a matter of fact, you are WORSE!!!"
Cute indeed.
A page right out of Andrew Brietbart's "It is racist to point out that someone is racist" book.
March 25, 2010 6:34 AM
Another "I'm Rubber & You're Glue" defense from a democrat acting just like those nasty republicans they so love to denigrate. Glass houses and stones come to mind but you are clearly metaphor challenged.
March 25, 2010 7:03 AM
Indistinguishable? Now you are just lying.
Is that how it works? The Republicans get to behave badly, and the Democrats have shut up about it.
Awesome!
March 25, 2010 6:59 AM
You were belittling and condescending from word one. You addressed me with an overly-familiar and paternalistic tone that is designed to do nothing but cause a fight.
Pretending that differences in specific language somehow makes the obnoxious behavior acceptable represents an odd quirk of the far left as the continue to be the biggest impediment to changing this country, closely followed by the Tea Partiers on the other side.
Irony continues to be lost on political partisans of all stripes.
March 25, 2010 7:09 AM
Your egregious moral equivalency is breathtaking. Really. Stunning even.
I have read your whiney "It is mean to point out that Republicans have gone a bit mad." I watched you interact with the regulars upthread. What you want is for them to NOT criticize Republicans because it makes the silent, complicit Republicans look like jerks as well. You want to silence them by saying that they are stooping by acknowledging the ugly truth. So no, I am not your buddy. I see you quite clearly for the concern troll trying to silence the conversation that you are.
You know I am telling you the truth. Telling me that the way that I am saying it is mean thus invalid is really not going to work, son.
March 25, 2010 7:50 AM
And you know what, if being skeptical and unwilling to accept your concern trolling is equivalent to being called a nigger and a faggot and having your life threatened in your mind, then you don't deserve ANYONE'S respect.
There are degrees of fuckery. Yes, I am a sarcastic bitch. But NO, I don't scorn you for your sexual orientation, the color of your skin, nor do I believe that because we disagree, you should die. I just think you are a disingenuous asshole. If you think those two kinds of thinking are "the same" as you put it, then I am really at a loss here as to how to help you.
March 25, 2010 7:57 AM
And Obama and Congress has delivered health care reform a la RomneyCare (from MA), very similar to the counter-proposed health care suggested by the 93 Republican congressmembers opposing the Clinton attempt at true universal health care.
The health care package just signed into law of the land contains around 200 Republican amendments.
And zero R's signed on. "I was for it before I was against it" is the meta-language of that series of actions.
Obama was supposed to do what in the face of that solid wall of political partisanship, exactly? Hell, he let "bipartisanship" consume almost one quarter of his elected term — to the point of nearly alienating those on his left (which is a very large proportion of his supporters since he is so centrist).
Bipartisanship, according to the New Republican Dictionary, is defined as "do it exactly our way, do not deviate, and we will deem that bipartisan."
Nothing has changed along those lines since the 2004 election, where Bush the Lesser pledged on the campaign trail to "reach across the aisle" if re-elected. I remember the words of his very first press conference as though it was yesterday, when asked about his pledge, and he responded that he is going to happily reach across the aisle to those who accept his plans and policies.
Yes. Obama spent the time that was necessary reaching across the aisle so that it could not be more clear exactly how totalitarian in philosophy that today's Republicans have become: "You do it our way, we will brook no compromise, but we promise violence if you challenge any of our ideas."
March 24, 2010 7:31 PM
Your point? I never offered anything that would be counter to any of this, so I am not sure what you are arguing against.
My last blog was all about why the republican house should have voted in favor of this bill because it everything they have always said they wanted.
Not sure what it is you are trying to say here.
March 24, 2010 8:17 PM
I notice your avatar is of President Lincoln.
He would be ashamed to associate with today's Republican party, and would find it unrecognizable as the Republican party of his day.
I suspect he would immediately seek to change his registration.
And playing "who knows more about Lincoln" with you would be akin to LeBron going one-on-one against me in a dunking contest, so I just suggest you not go there, and I won't taunt LeBron...
March 24, 2010 11:56 PM
I am pretty sure he wouldn't have simply become a democrat, though, but would have instead worked to fix the party.
Further, as he did in his second inaugural speech, Lincoln would have entreated us all to forgive past slights, bind up our wounds as a nation and march forward as one people.
Blogs like this and feeding frenzy that followed are the exact opposite of that ideal.
March 25, 2010 6:25 AM
This blog represents what by that scale of partisan ugliness?
Seems to me that many comments on this very board is mindless demagoguery in pursuit of ideology.
That you agree with the ideological pursuit in question is very much beside the point.
March 24, 2010 2:31 PM
Jason, since I know you are trying against tremendous odds to change your new party, I will give you a pass on some of your comments on this thread, but I have to confess, I am surprised by your defense of this current behavior.
I think we all know that politics is an ugly business, and there is enough blame for the current gridlock to go around. But I still contend that the right set themselves up as the "moral" party. It was their claiming to be moral while being horrifically immoral that chased me out of the party.
I do not think the dems are the be all end all. There are loads of problems in this party, as well. Hypocrisy abounds, even in those of us who try so hard not to be. But the current day repubs/teabaggers/conservatives, whatever you want to call them, are taking hypocrisy to a new level...an art form even. That they can stand there with straight faces and tell the lies they are telling, rewriting history before the ink has even dried, and whipping up the ugliest parts of the human spirit instead of appealing to our higher angels is just begging to be called out, and this post does that.
If you have given American Dad any credit at all, I missed it, and at the very least he should be applauded for bringing all this into one blog. It is damning, but it is also true. If anyone takes the time to submit a similar piece on the libs, I will give credit where credit is due...
March 24, 2010 3:22 PM
That you see a defense of bad behavior in any of my comments is odd. I didn't comment on the list of charges one way or the other, except to stipulate that they are all probably true if totally beside the point.
The behavior of a small percentage of republicans being used to denigrate anyone who claims that label is what I object to and will continue to object to. Does any of the quoted material resemble your husband? If not, you should be making the same defense as I am.
That your own inattention as one of the republican faithfully led us to this place isn't something I will even go into, but your newly found "liberal" creds do nothing to erase the part you played in the growing republican tragedy up until 2008.
The problem with this country isn't the politicians. It is citizens who are incapable of finding a common cause and then holding our politicians to account. Blogs of this nature are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
If "AmericanDad" really wanted a dialog with actual republicans he would have positioned his thesis with a bit more empathy and intellectual honesty rather than yet one more one-sided repetition of shit we all already know.
March 24, 2010 4:04 PM
My husband is more libertarian than anything else, and really dislikes most politicians. Obama is the first he's been able to stomach in a long time. Even he can see that the repubs have been pooping in their mess kits big time, lately. For months all I heard from him was big government this and big government that....Now it's more like wanting to see the right get thrashed because of the way they are behaving. It's been a refreshing change in attitude, one I think we will be seeing more and more of.
As for taking blame for my lack of participation and enabling of the bush administration in the past? I'll never stop feeling badly about that, but there comes a time when you have to forgive yourself and move on. I've done that, and have been more involved since mid 2008 than the whole rest of my life combined.
The msm has all but given the right a pass on all of their bs for months and months, mostly because they LOVE the drama. Their continual pounding of Obama has been a shame. Now that he has come up with a win, they are quickly changing their tune, and even a repub is now trying to take credit for parts of the health care bill (grassley...what a joke.)
Does this post change the landscape in any way? Maybe. I've seen a few admitted repubs step up and say there is much truth here. I salute them for their willingness to see it. You, with whom I can often see much common ground, have been surprisingly defensive, and I found it, well, interesting, for lack of a better word.
At the very least, this post has shown us a lot of the crap from the right all in one place, and reminded us that we are not paranoid, it really has happened. The problem is, it makes those who stand quietly by and watch it happen squirm a little to see what their fellow conservatives are doing in their name. I can imagine it is an uncomfortable feeling. Thank God, NOW I only have to imagine it.
March 24, 2010 7:00 PM
I have been defensive? Over what exactly? I would love to see a quote of such.
I think that breaking out the bonfire and marshmallows will cause way more problems than it will cure, but perhaps you have a different experience.
There are very few conservatives who would see this blog as anything other than fanning the flames.
I still love the casual disregard you show for your own part in the blog's historical list of crazy.
March 24, 2010 8:20 PM
Wow, Jason...I've done everything but wear a hair shirt, and you, of all people are very aware of that. This is a new low water mark for you.
March 24, 2010 10:12 PM
It's not about wearing a hair shirt or some sort of mea culpa, it is about statements like: "This is a low mark for you." Such tone and tenor represents a fringe voice, but only from the left side of the fence now.
If you really wanted to fix the republican party by leaving it, I would suggest stop talking and acting like a typical liberal when you got to the other side. I get enough lecturing from OGD and Weeping Jeezus.
This entire thread and the ridiculous number of high-fives it generated represents a new low for TPM.
March 24, 2010 10:30 PM
The "low water mark" comment was meant for our relationship which has always been cordial, and all of a sudden you are coming across as much more contentious with me than you ever have before.
I continue to wish you well in your attempts to change the party. There really is little that would make me happier than to have a political landscape where grown ups can discuss and have rational conversations. But, I could no longer call myself a republican and look at myself in the mirror w/o feeling ashamed. Plus, I needed them to know their behavior would not be tolerated. Obviously they didn't get the message and are ramping up the bad behavior. I didn't abandon them, they chased me out by doing things I refuse to be associated with. I continue to respect your decision, Jason. You used to respect mine.
March 24, 2010 11:22 PM
I am tired of the melodrama and the accusations. You spent this entire threading accusing me of some how condoning this sort of behavior and now you are the victim of my bad behavior?
Sorry, but I don't put up with that sort of victim-based nonsense from my liberal wife and I certainly won't put it up with from a virtual stranger online regardless of party.
You were out of line from the very beginning of this conversation. Perhaps you should go back to the beginning and read it again.
It has nothing do with respect. That you would make a conversation like this so personal is beyond ridiculous. Feel free to join any winning team you want to after your team starts to lose.
The GOP didn't drive you away or you would have left decades ago; you allowed them to go crazy through inattention and then left when it got to be too much.
Huge difference.
March 25, 2010 6:08 AM
Jason -
Cool it. You're talking to Still, and you know her.
She doesn't need my defense; but I know you're better than this. You're rattled.
March 24, 2010 11:58 PM
I am not rattled. I am responding to specific charges leveled in a specific tone. I respond in kind.
March 25, 2010 6:10 AM
Jason. Deep breath. You hurt your cyberfriend. You didn't mean to. There is no face to save here. I am confident you'll do the right thing.
March 25, 2010 12:04 AM
Please see the reply to barefooted directly above this one. Stilli took this debate upon herself and has been no less confrontational in her words.
I was among the only people who welcomed her to TPM without judgment or harassment. In fact, I defended her from many of the same people who count her as a friend today.
Just goes to prove that no one political philosophy is free from hypocrisy.
March 25, 2010 6:29 AM
Enough lecturing? Obviously wrong again, but you do make a habit of being wrong. It's the one thing you do well. Everything else? Not so much.
March 25, 2010 8:07 AM
PS: I noticed you didn't respond to the actual meat of my comment, but instead focused on the parting idea that you left a mess behind in the GOP for others than yourself to fix. Hmmm.
March 24, 2010 10:34 PM
Perhaps the slap hurt so bad it made me forget what the meat was?
March 24, 2010 11:45 PM
Slap? Really? Has it been so long that you forgot the "warm" reception you received when you first showed up around here? Reminding you that you left behind a huge mess that you are now so adamantly against is hardly a slap.
March 25, 2010 6:14 AM
I haven't forgotten, Jason. Quite the contrary, which is what makes the tone of this conversation hurtful. Yes, I am guilty of acting as if we we are "friends." That I consider you, and many others here my friends is a huge part of why I stay here at TPM.
If you are feeling frustrated with your new party, I understand that, believe me. I KNOW you don't condone the recent behavior. But your tone here is not the Jason I know and respect.
In several instances on this thread, repubs have had the courage to come on and say that much of what AmDad said is true, and that their party needs to pay heed. I expected that you would do the same, and was surprised that you didn't. Instead, you struck me as being defensive. If I was inaccurate in reading it that way, I'm sorry. I am usually the one defending you, these days, so please don't forget that, either.
That others have felt like stepping up in my defense (thank you!) shows I am not the only one who found your comments to me curious, at the very least.
I know you wish I had stayed a repub and helped with the rebuilding... Rats off a sinking ship is a phrase that comes to mind, but I didn't do it to be on the "winning side." I was prepared to stay a repub and vote for Obama. The "in your face" selection of Palin as McCain's running mate was what pushed me out. But then, you know all this.
March 25, 2010 12:03 PM
This is an excellent point. And it strikes me that, in setting themselves up as all-knowing or at least morally superior, they are violating the first commandment.
March 24, 2010 10:11 AM
Clever, if you can't beat 'em, just shut the hell up.
You really didn't have to comment. The OP's entire post is filled with links from credible sources.
March 22, 2010 10:20 PM
Yeah, but he/she has probably been told by FOX "News" that everything King said is a lie.
March 24, 2010 2:13 PM
It's beyond ironic that you just shat out your own little hypocritical, hyperbolic, revisioninst rant..
You guys are just too damn lazy to come up with a list like this.
March 22, 2010 10:46 PM
Great to see the word "shat" used ==properly== in sentence.
Peace be with you
March 23, 2010 12:51 PM
What does the "H" stand for?
March 24, 2010 10:53 AM
I believe the "H" stands for "Hussein."
March 24, 2010 11:39 AM
Every member of their party? Every person who supports them? Nah.
But those elected to office? Those holding positions of authority or influence in the party? Those who say these things on TV or radio, or in national publications? Those who say these things at events they've organized? Oh yeah.
Every outrageous statement, crime or moral failure? Nah.
But those made or committed by persons of stature and influence on the Right (see above)? Those who rail against, condemn or legislate against people engaged in the same actions? (That's what the word "hypocrisy" means.) Oh yeah.
Let's cut out all the rest.
Huh. My list didn't shrink much.
March 22, 2010 11:51 PM
No one is going to accept your invitation when the tone of your post is so condescending and you find one-off examples which you seem to imply somehow categorize some larger group.
If you really wanted people to join you I think you'd do so in a more friendly way. The real point of your post is just to call other people hypocrites.
March 23, 2010 7:03 AM
Sure.... let's play "let's pretend" and make believe that there aren't several more examples easily found to echo my "one off examples." Fun game, but it doesn't restore the party to adulthood.
As for "friendly," I'm not sure that's appropriate at this point. When a family member is in a self-destructive nosedive, more of a "tough love" intervention is called for.
March 23, 2010 8:04 AM
Anybody can find just as many hyperbolic, hypocritical, insensitive comments made by Progressives/Democrats but calling out people's faults in the way you're doing it isn't really productive. Both sides have warts but I thought we were trying to get the two sides to work together. Your litany of complaints will do anything but accomplish this task.
March 23, 2010 8:58 PM
Go for it, we're waiting. Let's see you put together something as comprehensive (and as comprehensively sourced) as this post. Anyone can do it, right? So what are you waiting for?
Don't worry though, I'm not holding my breath because based on empirical evidence (much of which is detailed above), conservatives and "the truth" have an estranged relationship. To the point in the original piece:
you have yet to even come close to proving this wrong other than to say that so again, we wait patiently for the comprehensive rebuttal that you seem to believe "anyone" can find.Simply saying that you (or "anyone") can provide such a rebuttal is not the same as actually providing one and I don't know which category detailed above that your failure to provide one would better fit: Hypocrisy, Hyperbole or History. Maybe all three.
March 24, 2010 10:37 AM
"the tone of your post is so condescending,,,"
Gravitas is not condescension. AmDad's right on the money here, his criticism should not be ignored if you really have pride in your party.
You Bush Republicans were the very definition of condescending, all full of false pride and permanent majority delusions, and for at least 6 years, you treated those of us on left with arrogant, self-superiority, as if you had somehow earned your place instead of stolen it from The People.
As for that arrogance, apparently, some of you haven't given it up yet, you call a straightforward and sincere admonition from someone you should respect, "condescending."
Will it ever end? When will you and the rest of your party realize that we are all equals, yo are not our superiors. When you perceive criticism as condescension, you just prove that classic class arrogance.
March 23, 2010 9:21 AM
I don't understand your stereotypical attack such as "you Bush Republicans" when you've never even met me.
His post is not straightforward or sincere at all. Do you really believe that? He has no desire for conservatives to "join him". He just wants to bash them.
Shouting hypocrite across the aisle isn't productive at all.
I have tried to have an honest discussion with you on many topics but you never want to discuss the actual issues. Just instead everything is a big conspiracy theory and everyone who disagrees with you gets lumped into stereotypes.
March 23, 2010 9:08 PM
Since you've never met me, it's amazing what magical insights you have to my true motives! It's worse than you expect. The entire post is merely a distraction so you won't notice us setting up the internment camp death panels where we'll do away with anyon who disagrees with us. Oh, damn. Did I say that out loud?
March 24, 2010 2:29 AM
So what then was the purpose of your post? Was it truly an invitation as you claim or was it just meant to throw fuel on the fire?
March 24, 2010 5:18 AM
It was an invitation, yet you refuse to talk about what he is asking. All you have done is repeat over and over ad nausea that calling people hypocrites is pointless WHILE you call him a hypocrite. I am struck with awe sir.
He gave you an invitation to talk and condemn or even debate all of these documented facts but I have yet to hear you do so other than name dropping the top 3 offenders on your side of the aisle, and very weakly at that. You are the one ignoring the call sir.
March 24, 2010 10:59 AM
This point is that these "facts" are immaterial to the larger question of what ails the republic and don't require a point-by-point discussion.
Bill stipulates that they are all true. That isn't the point. The point is that whether totally true or only marginally true, focusing on them exclusively and exhaustively doesn't move the country in the direction it needs to go.
It certainly doesn't move the country in the direction that Barack Obama has mapped out, which doesn't include some mass mea culpa on behalf of the nation's conservatives.
March 24, 2010 2:44 PM
"This point is that these "facts" are immaterial to the larger question...
By the larger question, you mean your flagging certainty that your party is OK, no matter what they do?
I've seen it eating away at you for months, JEM, you know you represent a very small minority of your own party, and that the teabaggers consider you more a traitor than any of us on the left.
You are just trying to fool yourself. And you think you are instructing US? You are slowly talking yourself out of loyalty for a party that in no way meets your own moral code, we see it happening even now.
The Republican party and the conservatives you delude yourself are at the core of your party died with Watergate, but they were kept on life support long enough to get buried with Reagan.
March 24, 2010 3:04 PM
Wrong. I represent the 90% of the republican party you will never see on TV. My sister and brothers and boss.
That you continue to confuse the fringe for the majority is why we will never get off this partisan merry-go-round of our devolving society.
If we can't count on democrats to be the grown-ups, then what are we left with?
March 24, 2010 3:13 PM
"I represent the 90% of the republican party you will never see on TV."
So you are saying only 10% of your party agrees with the 'baggers? Then the media must be lying to us again.
You just proved one of my points, that you are deluded as to the nature of your own party. While i might accept that only 10% of the Republicans you know are 'baggers, I doubt very much if you can get 90% of your fellows to join your million-Republican march to non-partisanship.
You just proved my point to anyone who is reading this blog. You are delusional about the nature of your own party, you are wearing rose-colored glasses to view them with, and your addiction to party loyalty far outweighs your own ability to perceive the reality surrounding you.
March 24, 2010 3:28 PM
Again, you miss the point, Most Americans of whatever affiliation don't pay attention to politics. Not sure what is so hard to get about that very simple distinction.
The silent majority will not turn out to support such hyperbolic rage, from the left or from the right. The most likely scenario is that they continue to stay home and we continue to be fucked as a result.
Keep preaching to the choir, JEP. I know it feels good, however ineffective it is at convincing people who don't already agree with you yet remain quite persuadable.
March 24, 2010 3:52 PM
Yes, when your fellows (and you) are revealed to be complete idiots, then "oh no one pays attention to politics anyways. The silent majority is just like you!"
Sure. Keep telling yourself that.
March 24, 2010 11:09 PM
Take it easy, weezie, and follow the lead of your president.
March 25, 2010 6:33 AM
I will agree that it is sometimes hard for those 'on the outside' to separate the stance of the majority of the party from those expoused by its most vocal members. Part of the reason that those people are the most vocal, however, is because people are listening to them. People are supporting them enough to get high ratings. People are tuning into the station, people are buying the books they write, and showing their support of them. Or when it comes to the politicians, people are voting them in.
Unless there are people out there expousing the parties actual doctrines and decrying the behavior of the extreme within their own party, its really hard to see what the actual views are of the Republicans I don't see on TV. I would like to understand, but I do need to have it explained to me, with supporting evidence.
I used to know some of those more moderate Republicans, the people I didn't see on TV, who were willing to talk rationally with me about the issues. Across the last few years, however, I've seen basically all of those people turn away from the Republican party for precisely the reasons that Russell wrote about in his "Letter to Conservatives" They haven't necessarily turned Democrat and started voting Obama, but they have felt that the party no longer represents their interests and begun distancing themselves from it.
I grew up in a household where my parents voted for opposite political parties and cancelled out each others votes every year, but they still cared enough to get out and vote for what they believed in. With the last election, that changed.
On a personal level, I have been seeing the mass exodus of the moderate conservative people who spoke rationally about their political beliefs without getting insulting. The people I know who have stayed as staunch Republicans are the ones who listen to Glenn Beck & Rush Limbaugh, watch only Fox News, and spout hateful things about those that disagree. They give me the exact same lectures about how much the world sucks because of the government that they did in 2006, but now they pepper the lecture with hateful speech about Obama and how he's ruined things.... the exact same things they were complaining about long before he was elected. But somehow, back then when Republicans were in the White House, they never attached the name of who to blame, or loaded on the sarcasm nearly so thick. I can't have rational conversations about politics with people like that.
On the level of personal observations from the people who aren't on TV but are willing to talk politics with me, it just seems to me that the percentage of rational Republicans is dwindling as the people leave a party that they feel no longer represents their interests.
So if there's still 90% of Republicans that view the tea party, Glenn Beck, and Limbaugh as extremist that don't represent their views, I would love to hear them speak up and explain their views (preferably with citations--I am a scientist, and I have to have citations for anything to seem credible to me).
March 25, 2010 12:37 PM
The truth hurts, so stop projecting it on to others. Be a man, not a coward who blames everyone but themselves.
March 23, 2010 12:21 PM
I am not a coward. I am simply saying that there are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle. Pointing your finger and shouting names across the aisle doesn't really move the discussion forward.
March 23, 2010 9:03 PM
Much of what was in the original post was quotes from POLITICAL LEADERS of the republican party. Not random quotes from a town Hall meeting or Tea-Bagger pow wow!!
March 24, 2010 2:39 AM
And there are also many hypocritical, idiotic, spiteful and other distasteful comments that have come from "political leaders" on the left.
But what does that prove?
March 24, 2010 5:16 AM
It might prove something if you could actually back up your accusation with some, you know, evidence. That is, evidence other than your own fervent belief.
Based on the exhaustive list of examples above, you can't expect any reasonable person to simply take a conservative at their word.
March 24, 2010 10:45 AM
so let's see a post from you about it. we know there are assholes on both sides of the aisle. those who voted for bush twice and watched the country go down the drain can respond. they just don't have an credibility.
March 24, 2010 10:53 AM
So post the collection you've got and lets compare. No? What a shock. All I hear in your pathetic defense is "Blah, blah but, but, blah, blah, blah"
March 24, 2010 4:32 PM
You're as bad as an ex-smoker. Might want to take a little responsibility for the craziness you left behind as well as acknowledge that a few short years ago you would have already had that list compiled.
March 25, 2010 6:38 AM
Are you familiar with the phrase "false equivalency?"
Let's assume you had found some examples of liberals committing acts of the same caliber as the countless conservative examples provided by AmDad. You haven't, but let's assume you had.
Not only would they be a few drops in the ocean, they most likely either would not be in a position of power or, if they were, would have resigned their positions already.
Yet the GOP hold themselves to no such standard. The first spokesman the GOP trotted out to "repeal" HCR was Sen. David Vitter, a diaper-wearing client of the DC Madam. If he had been a Democrat, he would have resigned his senate seat long ago. Senator Ensign remains in his seat, as does Governor Sanford. Time and space do not permit a comprehensive list of the conservative Republicans (either in office or in positions of authority) who claim to be on the moral high ground while involved in one scandal or another.
Democrats don't present themselves as paragons of virtue. They aren't perfect, but there are far fewer hypocrites in their ranks, perhaps because the racists defected forty-some years ago, to the detriment of the GOP and the benefit of the Democrats.
Please try to come up with the list you claim would be so easy to compile. I'd be fascinated to see how you could come up with a contrary list amounting to even 10% of the ills documented above.
March 24, 2010 12:33 PM
You have a point. Would you try to compile such a list? I think TPM would print it if you did it in good faith. You would be doing everyone a service.
March 24, 2010 6:40 PM
based on this rebuttal... not so clever, Bulldog
March 23, 2010 12:46 PM
There's no sin in calling other people hypocrites when those people re in fact hypocrites.
Peace be with you
March 23, 2010 12:49 PM
Most politicians are hypocrites, as well as media figures. That's true for the ones on the left and the ones on the right.
Maybe you don't consider it a sin, but just shouting "hypocrite!" back and forth isn't going to solve anything.
March 23, 2010 9:02 PM
those on the left aren't obsessed with what people do in their bedrooms (except for "conservadems" like stupak). they also don't whine about government spending after blowing a trillion on unjustified wars. plus, they don't claim gummint is evil while aspiring to be a part of it.
i don't care if two consenting adults have affairs if they don't try to interfere with how i live.
yes, both sides have losers, but the republicans are authoritarian, controlling, hypocritical whiny losers. if you point it out to them, they get their little feelings hurt, while condemning anyone who is not white, corporatist and Christian in the same breath.
March 24, 2010 10:59 AM
"Shouting" hypocrite? The blogger that penned this post isn't "shouting hypocrite across the aisle." What he did was to calmly and rationally compose an exhaustive (but certainly not complete) list of concrete examples of GOP hypocrisy.
What you're doing is "shouting hypocrite across the aisle" in response because you're merely making the accusation without providing any evidence to back up your claim like the author of this piece did.
I, for one, am getting awfully tired of hearing the utterly unproven GOP "conventional wisdom" that "there are just as many wackos on the left as there are on the right" go unchallenged. It isn't true and the author of this piece hit the nail squarely on the head when he said:
If you think that isn't true, then it is up to you to do more than simply say it isn't true. You need to prove it because as I said in a previous comment, based on the list above, you can't expect any reasonable person to simply take a conservative at their word.Credibility matters. The author of this piece has credibility based solely on his sourcing. You? Not so much.
March 24, 2010 11:03 AM
one off examples? did you READ the post? There are so many references that I lost count!!
March 23, 2010 5:02 PM
Yes I read it. But when I said "one-off" I meant that they refer to one person. And I don't think that one person is representative of a group.
For example, just because Michael Savage says something about women in the Navy that is somehow supposed to be applied to all conservatives???
Or because somebody used the F-word with Barney Frank that it somehows speaks for the entire country??
Someone could have just as easily come up with hypocritical and nasty things said by Democrats/Progressives, but like I said in the original comment, that wouldn't be productive
March 23, 2010 8:55 PM
Of course not, silly Billy. And I didn't say that one person's ugly remark represents the whole group. In fact, the entire post says exactly the opposite. It says that these wild-eyed hate talkers are NOT representative of conservatives. It calls on conservatives to rebuke, reject and otherwise disassociated themselves from these people -- for they are, at the moment, the face and the voice of conservatism in America. And the face and the voice are false.
You've missed the entire point.
March 24, 2010 2:33 AM
I didn't miss your point at all. But somehow you think that anyone who is a conservative, such as myself, is associated with (for example) Michael Savage or Rush LImbaugh or Glenn Beck? I don't consider myself associated with any of these people but you somehow think I am. You think that whatever they say is simply taken as a given by regular conservatives like me who aren't lucky enough to be in the media spotlight.
Do I care what Chuck Grassley has to say on healthcare reform? Have I told you that he is "my leader"?? Or Michelle Bachmann?? They are just as slimy as all of the Democratic "leadership" in Congress which I'm sure you have found lots of faults with as well.
I could go down the list and make the same comment on many of the other points you make. But I don't think you really care because it seems like you've already made up your mind that me and the rest of the country that considers themselves as "conservatives" is some equal to all the people you mention.
March 24, 2010 5:38 AM
You're still missing the main point: the leadership of the Republican Party has repeatedly allowed the actions of those in AD's list to pass without remark. They haven't distanced themselves from these people and have allowed them to become the face of the GOP.
Just because one conservative finds them to be "slimy" means nothing because you are not a GOP leader. You don't have the ability to pull the entire party back from the brink.
March 24, 2010 10:39 AM
Pulling anything back from the brink requires time.
That liberals refuse to build on the disgust of mainstream conservatives as a means of changing the GOP over the coming election cycles shows just how short-sighted democrats are when compared to the new democratic president.
Isn't it enough to know that not every "conservative" believes the same things the craziest of the crazies believe?
March 24, 2010 2:34 PM
No, it is not. You have been a lazy, complicit enabler of these fucking people tearing our country apart and now you want us to pat you on your head because it wasn't YOU out there spitting in congressmembers faces or calling for a civil war.
You know what? You and your supposed majority of reasonable people have had plenty of opportunities to say "wait, this is not who we want representing us" but you kept pulling the lever for the authoritarian demogogues. You turned on AM radio and snickered and nodded your head. With great self satisfaction, you slapped the yellow magnet on your SUV and smirked when liberals were called anti-military and anti American.
You LOVED these lowlifes when they suited you. You let them in and you celebrated them. Now that they embarrass you, you wonder how they got in and cant for the life of you figure out who those crass people are and which one of them took a shit on the carpet.
Please.
March 24, 2010 11:43 PM
I haven't been any of those things as I didn't even join the republican party until August of 2008 to help out the president by changing the republican party from the inside.
Turns out it doesn't need to be fixed at the grassroots, it just needs new leadership that is more representative of its mainstream majority rather than the fringe.
Just as it would be nice if the democratic party would be more liberal, rather than passing an essentially republican health care plan and claiming it as a great liberal victory.
March 25, 2010 7:20 AM
MiddleclassBill:
One offs? OK lets call them one offs, all 300 or so of them. Also referred to as a PATTERN by most thoughful people. But, the simple fact that you can't even see that, more succinctly makes his point!!
March 24, 2010 2:49 AM
Greggy - I could have come up with an equal number of comments made by Democrats/Progressives/Lefties or whatever you want to call them. I could have "invited" those people to come to my side. But that would just have thrown fuel on the fire. Coming up with a list of hypocritical or controversial comments doesn't really help move the country forward. It just throws fuel on the fire.
March 24, 2010 5:15 AM
MiddleClassBill's "arguments" are logically false, ie-he has no argument. He is using numerous logical fallacies.
For example, he claims "the other side" does exactly the same as conservatives, yet does not back it up. Therefore, since he is stating it, it must be true--not logical.
Also, he uses a false continuum by stating the same that both sides are basically the same, when no proof is provided by him and the evidence show the sides are not the same. Not logical.
MiddleClassBill also presents this as a "strawman' to argue against. Without proof, not logical.
But, what occurs is many of you, well meaning in trying to have a logical discussion with this individual waste your time. I found out in the 1990's how to handle these people--tell them you will discuss it when they actually provide evidence that proves their point. This has rarely happened and I suspect, it will rarely happen in your life if you ask them for factual evidence.
March 24, 2010 9:38 AM
bulls#*! - because there aren't nearly as many hypocritical or hateful sentiments coming from the left. Some, mind you. But not nearly on the level. What's more - the wing nuttery of the left is not supported by the Democratic Party. We had more anti war protesters out there than the tea partiers ever had - yet we got very little support from the party and none from the media. Right wingers think it's unpatriotic to disagree with them. How totalitarian is that! And they are delusional enough to think that it's only legitimate and patriotic to protest when they are the ones doing it! My grandmother calls the Republicans "political terrorists. It's easy to throw a bomb," she says, "but much harder to govern." She's right.
March 24, 2010 11:15 AM
Really? I live in Washington DC and there hasn't be a good anti-war rally since 2006. However, anti-abortion protesters shut the entire area around the Capital down for hours just a few short weeks ago.
March 24, 2010 2:37 PM
Organization is everything...
March 24, 2010 4:32 PM
jason everett miller:
Nice try, I'm not about to whine that there has not been a recent anti-war ralley. Of course that's because the Iraqi war-of-choice is winding down so there is little call or need.
March 24, 2010 4:50 PM
We are fighting two wars in case you missed it and neither are "winding down" in any real sense.
March 24, 2010 5:27 PM
How "virtuous" of you. If you can produce even half as many covering the same amount of time as Amdad's does you'd do it in a minute!! I love hoe you freaks always want to "rise above" the vitriol when it's concentrated at you but the rest of the time it's "free speech!" You make me ill
March 24, 2010 4:43 PM
Wow, greggy. A little harsh given your political home for how many ever years it felt just cozy and fine.
March 24, 2010 5:45 PM
The pubic party of today was NEVER my home. In fact, I don't even recognize it
March 24, 2010 10:55 PM
Bill, we've called this bluff over and over again in this string. PLEASE produce such a counter-list. Pretty please even! We continue to hear "but the Dems say mean things too ... and I COULD prove it except that I'm not gonna" from you and others here, as if that negates AmDad's points that 1) Republicans in leadership roles (note: not conservatives, but the Party) hold We The People to a higher moral standard than they hold themselves to (quite unlike Democratic Party leadership, who indeed f*ck up at times but who do not wag their fingers at the rest of us and tut-tut us for our f*ckery; and 2) the GOP would be well-served to be scrubbed clean by conservative people just like you claim to be who can restore the Party to its original ideals. All this defensiveness feels like the grown-up version of "Oh yeah? Well YOU'RE a boogerhead. So there." Time for a more sophisticated argument, some evidence that what you say is backed by fact, or something -- anything -- new to say.
March 24, 2010 11:43 PM
You say:
The reality is not that it wouldn't be productive but that it wouldn't be possible. Otherwise, I suspect that you (or someone from one of the many, many wingnut think tanks) would have already done it.I challenge you to actually prove your point with real proof other than your own fervent belief.
Furthermore, you say that this simply amounts to shouting hypocrite across the aisle, implying that there is no substance to the accusation and therefore, you conclude that it is not productive. Let me ask you, was it or was it not productive when Joseph McCarthy was asked whether or not he had any decency? Because based on your logic, that was just partisan vitriol that both sides are equally guilty of and should therefore be dismissed as simply unproductive. Right?
March 24, 2010 11:33 AM
MiddleClassBill, your reading skills could use some work.
"One-off example" is an oxymoronic term. If something is "one-off", then it exists in isolation, and so it's not an example of anything. The examples you dismiss are anything but one-off; they demonstrate a pattern.
Second, you're expending an impressive deal of energy to declare your refusal to an invitation that was probably not even addressed to you. The post is clearly addressed to people interested in re-gaining the GOP/conservative movement's former "rational, responsible" stature, by "draining the swamp" of hypocrisy, hyperbole, and hatred. Are you interested in doing that? Or are you interested in hypocritically defending your party's present hypocrisy?
It's a big question; take your time.
Are there hypocrites in the Democratic Party? Absolutely, no question. That's a constant of politics because it's a constant of human nature. That's not to say that hypocrisy is acceptable. What we don't do in the Democratic Party when we see hypocrisy is shrug our shoulders, rationalize that it's commonplace anyway, and then re-double down on a position we have no intention of living up to.
A case in point: Elliot Spitzer's career is over not because he patronized a prostitute, but because he did so after waging a public campaign against prostitution. That's what makes it hypocrisy. So we have no time for him. You could learn from that, if you were inclined to.
What we certainly don't do in the Democratic Party is build our entire platform on brazenly hypocritical positions designed to divide the electorate. What you're missing about this post is that it amply demonstrates that this is precisely what the GOP/conservative movement has descended to. Does that disturb you? Then pull your movement out of the mire.
March 24, 2010 1:35 PM
No, the point is to get the truth out there - instead of the lies blabbered everyday by the Republican politicians and their supportive talk radio idiots and Fox news. Gee, why did Rush backtrack on his promise to move to Costa Rica when if the health care reform package passed? i saw the video he said he would - it was during one of his daily rants to incite his ignorant followers and Tea Party idiots with untruths regarding health care reform. Sure wish he would have stuck to his promise! A hypocrite.
Hypocrites! Tea Party idiots who travel to states where they can't even vote, to voice their smears, threats and untruths against politicians who disagree with them. Sorry, the majority of Americans don't even listen to them. It's sickening what the ignorant right wingers are doing to the Republican party and the country at large - and mind you, I'm not saying all right wing conservatives are like that - only the ignorant ones!
March 25, 2010 12:46 AM
FABULOUS job, AmericanDad!
Will be using this for reference on many issues!
March 23, 2010 9:39 AM
"You want me to take the time to make up some (poster's hate redacted) list like you produced, ..."
Yes. Please do.
That's kind of the idea here. It has gotten to the point where (like yourself) these so-called conservatives are makeing wild accusations and patently false statements because no one is demanding that they actually back them up with facts.
So yes, please do provide links to proof of your vitriolic claims, otherwise you appear to be just one more "frothing at the mouth", hate filled radical.
March 23, 2010 9:13 AM
You are honestly saying that a similar list couldn't be compiled over democratic hypocrisy if one was so inclined. Hell, I could compile a list of henious shit said by liberals just at this single site.
In fact, let's start with a list for the last democratic president to sit in the White House. Now apply that to the entire democratic establishment and punditry, most of whom have been in place for the last two decades or more.
No one in the political arena is without sin, so tossing stones is only going to bring our entire glass house crashing to the ground.
March 24, 2010 8:23 AM
To my knowledge none of the peope who post "on this very site" hold elective office as Dems, hold positions of authority or influence in the Dem party, have their own national TV or radio show, or wind up on the news with regularity and out of proportion to either their numbers or their significance.
The Anti-Clinton Fetish seems to really turn on the fake conservatives, but it fails as an argument -- not least because both of them took, and continue to take, an awful lot of heat from the Left and from within the Dem Party.
March 24, 2010 11:43 AM
Way to dismiss a point-by-point list of what you specifically asked for. Pick a decade in the last four and I could make a similar list of democratic representatives.
Further, you claim some sort of grand perfection on the part of liberals, yet some of the shit they say on this very sight is as hateful and ignorant as anything I hear out of the Tea Party crowd.
Again, I am not trying to absolve anyone on your list, but to pretend such a one-sided snap-shot is the whole picture of American politics over the last forty years or so that this dysfunction has creeped in is intellectually dishonest.
Now back to preaching to the choir. They LOVE this shit!
March 24, 2010 2:41 PM
ason everett miller:
Nobody is claiming it's one sided. Where in the original post is that even suggested? It's the behavior of the radical-right that the topic is, if you can't stay on it with FACTUAL rebuttal then your just another piece of the problem!
March 24, 2010 5:03 PM
This coming from a guy who aided and abetted the current GOP idiocy we are discussing before cutting out rather than cleaning up the mess.
Don't blame me. I joined the republican party in August of 2008, inspired by family members and the president to lend a hand in implementing his post partisan strategy.
"Former republicans" who won't come back and take personal responsibility for the mess they left behind need to spend some time with the mirror.
March 24, 2010 5:22 PM
I left the party at the end of the Clinton presidency so that dog won't hunt. And if I ever had any doubts, 3 yrs into Bush was all the evidence I needed!!
March 24, 2010 11:11 PM
You don't get it, G44, JEM is defending his delusion of what the Republican party is, not the actual party.
Go back and read his comments again, and the ones coming up, he's defending his delusions, not the party we see in the media every day.
March 24, 2010 5:24 PM
I am defending what you refuse to see in applying your broad brush accusations to millions of people you don't even know and would never bother to understand in any case.
March 24, 2010 5:47 PM
I would like to see your list with the related links. Please make that up and post it for us.
March 23, 2010 11:31 AM
Clever Bulldog, I would accept your challenge any day, even though your comparison is false. Go ahead and make a list. Oh, and judging by your whining, Republicans are never going to change. They will just whine and call their critics "impolite". This too, is getting old and obvious.
March 23, 2010 4:08 PM
[citation needed]
March 23, 2010 4:53 PM
Yes, please make a "Stupid Ass List" for us moderates it would be nice to see a rebuttal. Make sure you get all your references also so we know you aren't making things up. It's easy to throw out claims like you did at the end of your post, so lets see this huge list you come up with, and have references for. Also, people will stop branding everyone when you stop listening and acting like those same people.
March 24, 2010 11:23 AM
Heehee you're funny. You say things like "Gee." But to reach out beyond your target demographic (4th graders) may I suggest using actual evidence (not just speculation or allegation) and perhaps doing a little background research? OH WAIT.... you're a republican, right? So you'll just fall back on Faux news's talking points rather than developing your own opinion. Then, if anyone dares to contradict you, you can just talk over them loudly like a brat on the playground who wants to be team captain of the kickball squad.
March 24, 2010 1:48 PM
Not-quite-so clever, you're not even getting your slurs right.
No one (except maybe you) accused Barney Frank of a gay porn ring. I mean, there are some fans of bear porn who might want to see the gentleman from Massachusetts naked (and he's had boyfriends). Nevertheless, you have cited the wrong thoroughly debunked slur.
This is, of course, the sort of behavior that AmericanDad is pointing to: find a convenient lie and repeat it long after it has been proven a lie.
Here are the facts: Frank paid Steve Gobie $80 for sex, befriended him, and gave him a job as an aide. After Frank found that Gobie was not only still working as an escort, but bringing clients to Frank's home, he kicked Gobie out. Two years later, Gobie went to the media with the unsubstantiated claims that Frank knew about his activities. The House Ethics Committee found no evidence for Gobie's claims.
THe House voted to reprimand Frank. A motion to censure and expel Frank was introduced by Larry Craig. It failed.
There was no Barney Frank porn ring. There was no Barney Frank prostitution ring.
I am dismayed by the casual disregard for the truth I see from some conservatives.
March 24, 2010 2:25 PM
CleverBulldog, I wonder if you have a functioning synapse in that pin head of yours. The point of the screed was that your party has become a haven for liars and hypocrites. That it has become the party of the misinformed, of bobble-headed lemmings. You respond with Gerry Studds (40 years ago), Barney Frank (gay porn ring? WTF?), the tired old canard about Teddy, you toss in a few examples of womanizers, Klan man Duke (one of yours, by the way. It's called Google, you ought to try it.), and for whatever reason you mention Ayers...who was never a politician (c+ for effort though). None of whom were liars or hypocrites. And you close by spouting some claptrap about all prison inmates being democrats. Nice.
You are, quite obviously, an idiot. No doubt with spittle at the corners of your mouth. Why do you hate America?
Please, for the love of all that is Holy, TURN OFF FOX NEWS.
March 24, 2010 7:16 PM
You may make a list if you'd like. That's your prerogative. What we would like you to do, however, is to grow up and demand that those who represent your party grow up and act like adults.
I'm not sure this is possible, since you have mentioned in your comment someone who is simply living their life with the partner of their choice, just like any other couple, ("Barney Frank (the gay porn ring)"). I don't think that is a crime, though there are many who would like to make equal justice under the law a crime. You also mention someone who not only paid their debt to society long ago, but has since led a responsible life, and whose former transgressions had nothing to do with the current President ("the terrorist Ayers"). Also, this comment is from somewhere in left field, since there are bound to be at least as many republicans and conservatives in prison as democrats, though I do have to congratulate you on owning some fairly high profile ones, like Timothy McVeigh ("all the murderers, thieves, and rapists in prison who are democrats").
If you want to make a list, by all means, do so. If you disagree with Democrats, please, take advantage of your right to free speech and make it known. However, it would move things along in a much more positive manner and would be very helpful to the American people if you and your party would actually participate in the process, give us your honest input to bills that we propose and not act like a bunch of horse's asses. BTW, shutting down all meetings in the Senate just because you didn't get your way is, by definition, acting like a horse's ass.
We need you. Democrats need you and your points of view. We need Republicans to be involved and honest about what their views are. The reason we do, just in case you haven't studied the concept of democracy, is because your input helps us craft better bills for the people, whom those in Washington are working for. Democrats don't have a lock on good ideas and neither do Republicans. We need to work together so that, together, we can create a government that really works for the American people. This government is not, nor ever has been 'my way or the highway'. It is based on reasonable people debating and compromising to reach the best laws for the people they represent. The current crop of Republicans has been largely absent on that point for some time now.
So, do what you want. Make a list, bitch and moan, scream into the night, whatever you want to do is fine with me as long as you elect leaders that are committed to the idea that they are going to work together with their counterparts from the other side, whether they are in the majority or not. That's really when government works best, when we all work together.
March 25, 2010 8:10 AM
That amazing, Russell! I'm going to save that for future reference,
They are hateful slugs and it's hard to slog through all of that, but we need to constantly remind ourselves of the kinds of things our enemies are capable of. This does it masterfully. Good job.
March 22, 2010 5:54 PM
This blog has more referenced facts than my high school history book.
March 23, 2010 9:21 AM
Had a Texas history book, did you?
March 23, 2010 10:34 AM
Now THAT's funny!
March 23, 2010 10:45 AM
awww, come on, guys! I promise that not all of us Texans are like that. Some of us are even profoundly embarrassed by the way the political loudmouths and religious crazies keep portraying us.
Stupid Governor Hairspray. Making us look bad all of the time....
March 23, 2010 6:23 PM
I know. My parents and most of my siblings are Texans. But man, when they give us a set up like that how can we pass on the jokes?
March 24, 2010 2:36 AM
That is FUNNY!!!!
March 24, 2010 2:59 AM
Very nice well researched reference page American Dad. Yes we do need the conservatives. They are part of the United States too. I hope you don't mind if I bookmark and cite from this.
peace and good health to you and yours.
March 22, 2010 6:05 PM
Please do! And thank you for your warm wishes.
March 22, 2010 11:54 PM
I hereby render unto you the Dayly Blog of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe Site, given to all of you from all of me.
This should be the blog of the month.
I have never seen a finer list of repub sins in my life.
It usually takes me ten blogs to squeeze in half of these POINTS.
Very fine post!
INDEED!!!!
March 22, 2010 8:11 PM
AmDad's really got a thinky-linky thing going here, eh?
Excellent! Textbook-of-the-future kind of stuff.
March 22, 2010 8:20 PM
I think my linky thing's got a blister!
March 22, 2010 11:54 PM
I hope you grow calluses from future efforts.
March 23, 2010 9:29 AM
And I had to leave a ton of their sins on the cutting room floor. Maybe another post on another day....
Hey, thanks for the award! I'm going to tell my kids they should be impressed with me now. ;-)
March 22, 2010 11:58 PM
"Maybe another post on another day..."
...don't like that word "maybe" here, we definitely want MORE!
March 23, 2010 10:13 AM
I do have my own little blog where I do my think-link thing more often. Stop by and check it out: http://filterednews.wordpress.com/
March 23, 2010 11:02 AM
I just told Ramona, this blog has more referenced facts than my high school history book.
March 23, 2010 9:46 AM
I'll take that as high praise -- thank you -- but after reading James Loewen's books I'm guessing that having more facts than a history book isn't really too hard to do. Apparently, history booksaren't real big on facts (starting with the bylines on the covers!) It seems that writers and teachers of history are frequently quite open about seeing their mission not as helping students understand what happened and why (and how it affects us now), but as making them "proud" of America. The disconnect between history textbooks and the real world is both overwhelming and heartbreaking.
March 23, 2010 10:56 AM
I graduated in '68, so it's not that high a praise. most of what I knew then wasn't true.
This posting is worthy of the praise and acknowledgments listed in the comments. Not to mention the (current) 73 rec'd, haven't seen numbers like that since the '08 primaries. You've managed to drive the lurkers from their havens
March 23, 2010 11:04 AM
This is fantastic! Thank you for the time you put into this. Even without the links, it's a great read and should be part of the November elections!
March 22, 2010 8:46 PM
I only wish I had the ability to make it so.
March 22, 2010 11:56 PM
Sounds accurate to me, progressivism is the cancer that is destroying this Nation and Democrats have embraced progressivism as their ideology of choice.
March 22, 2010 9:20 PM
dugfart alert
March 22, 2010 9:26 PM
Well hello to you too...smile
March 22, 2010 9:29 PM
On the Constitution and Bill of Rights:
[ANTI-Federalist] Charles Turner . . . always [opposed] the proposed Constitution. Just before the final vote was taken, he arose, and in a speech . . . announced his conversion. "The proposed amendments," said he, "are of such a liberal, such a generous, such a catholic nature and complexion, they are so congenial to the soul of every man who is possessed of a patriotic regard to the preservation of the just rights and immunities of his country, as well as to the institution of a good and necessary government [empasis mine], that I think they must, they will be universally accepted. . . ." The Contest Over the Ratification of the Federal Constitution in the State of Massachusetts (NY: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1896), Samuel Bannister Harding, at 90.
March 22, 2010 9:46 PM
Progressives have a recent history of making SEDITION against our Constitution but Liberals were at one time in history guardians of our Constitution and Liberty, is this your argument?
March 22, 2010 10:08 PM
They made SEDITION againft His Majesty the King.
March 22, 2010 10:15 PM
Progressives are currently in SEDITION against our Constitution by not recognizing the limited enumerated powers of the Congress.
March 22, 2010 10:23 PM
Thank GOD you're here, Dumb Fum Jumbly! Errr... Dam Jam Fambler! FARK. I mean, Dun Fun Jumblers!
Whatever, thank God you're here!! That idiot Clever Bulldog is loose, see? And apparently he's looking for his missing Dog Fum Jumblers.
Be careful though. He's gonna wanna lick ya.
March 22, 2010 10:59 PM
You need to take advantage of the new ObamaCare polices of mental health, false ideology is covered!
It's just a matter of time before you are cured of Liberalism, just thank ObamaCare!
March 22, 2010 11:22 PM
Glenn Beck desperately needs that psychiatric care. Did you ever notice how he sounds exactly as psychotic as Heath Ledger playing the Joker? It is really creepy, check it out:
Beck=Joker? You decide
March 24, 2010 2:20 PM
So far the White House has not called his "RED PHONE" to challenge him on any of his facts, so the White House has conceded the truth to Glen Beck!
March 24, 2010 2:59 PM
I think that's "dung fun jumblers".
March 23, 2010 9:51 AM
LO Fucking Loud.....
March 23, 2010 11:36 PM
The fact is that the Founders/Framers were LIBERALS -- that's why the PROGRESSIVE First Amendment guarantees freedom of belief and speech even for those who hate LIBERALS and LIBERALISM.
By contrasst, it was John Adams -- of "lub-rul" Massachusetts-Bay who drove the Continental Congress to declare independence. Opposed were the CONSERVATIVES -- until they got what they wanted in exchange for their support:
Preservation of slavery.
March 22, 2010 10:51 PM
No, the facts are the words "CONSERVATIVE", "LIBERAL" or "PROGRESSIVE" and "slavery" were not part of the Constitution of 1787 and can not be found!
STOP MAKING UP YOUR OWN HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION!
March 22, 2010 11:50 PM
"Slavery" may not have been mentioned overtly, but it was certainly addressed implicitly in the US constitution.
You stop making up your own history.
March 23, 2010 12:50 AM
I never said it wasn't...
March 23, 2010 8:45 PM
Fairly simple minded and literal, aren't you.
This was in the Constitution of 1787:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Now just who do you those "three fifths of all other Persons" were? Yup, you guessed it -- slaves, only even then they were too embarrassed to say so directly.
And to start learning the history of which you are ignorant:
The Constitution mandates that a Census be conducted every ten years to determine the populations of the States, and this clause provided for a temporary apportionment of seats until the first Census could be conducted. The population of a state originally included (for congressional apportionment purposes) all "free persons", three-fifths of "other persons" (i.e., slaves) and excluded untaxed Native Americans. Presently, the Census counts illegal immigrants, and Census figures are used to determine congressional seats. The three-fifths arrangement was a compromise between the slave-holding states like South Carolina and Virginia, which wanted slaves to count as equal to free persons (including both the majority white population and thousands of free blacks living in both Northern and Southern states) in order to increase their voting strength in Congress and non-slave holding states like Massachusetts and New York which did not want slaves to count for congressional apportionment at all. This compromise had the effect of increasing the political power of slave-holding states by increasing their share of seats in the House of Representatives (see Three-fifths compromise), and consequently their share in the Electoral College (where a state's influence over the election of the President is tied to the size of its congressional delegation). Following the Civil War, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments changed this arrangement by (respectively) abolishing slavery, and superseding the three-fifths clause by requiring that a state's population for apportionment purposes was to be determined by "counting the whole number of Persons" in the state, "excluding Indians not taxed." Since there are at present no such untaxed Native Americans (Indians),[36] all persons inhabiting a state — whether citizens or not — count towards the population of that state in determining the state's congressional apportionment.
March 23, 2010 1:04 AM
I'm calling your bluff:
Quote the language in the Constitution, in full and verbatim, which prohibits We the people directing that the taxes paid by We the people be used to meet the needs of We the people.
March 23, 2010 2:07 AM
For this:
"Quote the language in the Constitution, in full and verbatim, which prohibits We the people directing that the taxes paid by We the people be used to meet the needs of We the people."
Please note which article or amendment. Quote the specific language, please.
March 23, 2010 12:47 PM
That demand wasn't made of you, but of the loon who doesn't know the meanings of the labels he slings.
March 24, 2010 3:44 AM
First you show me where in the Constitution under Art I Section 8 that grants Congress the power to force any citizen to buy private health insurance.
March 23, 2010 8:58 PM
Go ahead: keep avoiding the issue --
I'm calling your bluff:
Quote the language in the Constitution, in full and verbatim, which prohibits We the people directing that the taxes paid by We the people be used to meet the needs of We the people
_____
In fact, the HCR bill is virtually identical to the 1993-94 REPUBLICAN alternative to the Clinton bill.
And the "mandate" you hate is one of the Republican "ideas" that got included.
Now provide the language I demand which you believe supports your hatred of We the people, and of the idea that We the people have the right to spend We the people's money on We the people.
March 24, 2010 3:48 AM
First Mr. Seditionist against our Constitution answer this...
March 24, 2010 10:08 AM
First, no one is being forced to buy insurance, last I checked. The mandate would not apply to dependents, persons receiving Medicare or Medicaid, military families, persons living overseas, persons with religious objections, or persons who already get health insurance from their employers under a qualified plan.
Second, it is not actually a mandate. It is a tax, which people would not have to pay if they purchased health insurance.
And guess what, Congress *can* levy taxes! Remember the General Welfare Clause? The power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”
Now that we're done with this nonsense, can we move on?
March 24, 2010 2:35 PM
Congress has no power to establish a health insurance exchange.
Congress has no power to direct a tax at individuals in a punitive nature for any reason!
March 24, 2010 3:38 PM
I'll address both of the above in this response.
1: Article 1, section 8: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes (emphasis mine). Now, the Supreme court has for many, many years held that this authority applies to all economic activity. Choosing whether to buy insurance or impose your health care costs on others is economic activity subject to that authority.
What's more, they've said to the states "Hey, you have a choice: you can set up the insurance exchange or we can. Your call."
As to your second point, you forgot amendment 16, which clarifies the line you quote in Article 1, section 9: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Translated: Yes, they can lay and collect the tax.
2: Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States (emphasis mine)
Dude, how much clearer can I make it. They most certainly can promote the general welfare. It's right there in black and white!
March 24, 2010 4:29 PM
Your two wrongs don't make it right...you are misreading the Constitution to advance your progressive agenda.
March 24, 2010 4:37 PM
So, lacking any further factual support, you fall back on that tried and true response: "Nyah nyah, you're wrong and I'm right" All that's missing is the pejorative, like "poopyhead".
That barely worked in Kindergarten, dude. It ain't gonna work in the real world, either.
If you are unable to accept facts, then there is no help for you. Have a nice day.
March 24, 2010 4:44 PM
I already lay out what is in the Constitution to support my positions, you have twisted them around to support your progressive agenda and that makes you wrong!
I can prove just how progressive you truly are with just one word from the Constitution..."Invasion"
...tell me what is the Constitutional definition of "Invasion"?
Your answer proves how progressive you really are!
March 24, 2010 4:58 PM
Hm, let's see. Since the term "Invasion" appears in 3 places in the Constitution (Article 8, sections 8 & 9 and Article 4, section 4), two of them dealing specifically with the safety of the US and it's states, with the other dealing with Habeas Corpus, this would refer to "The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer".
However, none of this Constitutional arguing addresses the core point: No one is making anyone buy health insurance. End of list.
March 24, 2010 5:26 PM
Go to the bottom to see reply.
March 24, 2010 6:00 PM
DugFmJamul:
It's right there in black & white, and been affirmed by the Supreme Court! You may want to get off that branch before it snaps!
March 24, 2010 5:31 PM
The SCOTUS has not ruled on the constitutionality of Obama-Care.
March 24, 2010 5:40 PM
Promoting the "general" (as opposed to special interest) welfare is not a grant of power to Congress.
Please don't ignore the Tenth Amendment!
March 24, 2010 3:50 PM
He doesn't have to, because no one is making anyone buy health insurance.
March 24, 2010 5:58 PM
If you keep quoting commies, you are going to prove his point.
March 23, 2010 9:53 AM
Huh?
March 24, 2010 3:52 AM
snark
March 24, 2010 7:34 AM
At least he referenced his source, this time.
March 23, 2010 9:48 AM
Great posts here. Love the open letter to conservatives. I grew up in a republican home and in a very republican neighborhood. I left the party in 1961 when JFK came on the scene.
I still have friends from my childhood who left the party in 2008. They don't recognize the party anymore. When McCain chose Palin, that was the final straw. Now that they see what a great President we have in Obama, I doubt they willl ever vote Republican again unless they shed these idiots.
March 23, 2010 10:36 AM
Check your pedigree --
Hitler also hated, demonized, and marked for extermination PROGRESSIVES.
March 22, 2010 9:29 PM
Hitler is forever banned as a reference to promote or demote a debatable position or stance within the common scope of a civil discussion.
Once one refers to Hitler, one automatically loses the debate or argument...didn't you know that?
March 22, 2010 9:39 PM
When one states SUBSTANTIATED facts -- regardless your antipathy against them -- they are relevant, and not "debatable," regardless source or to whom they may apply.
The FACT is that Hitler hated, demonized, and marked for extermination -- along with Jews -- Communists, Socialists, Trade Unionists, Liberals, and Progressives.
You'd know that if you weren't an history-illiterate ideologue.
March 22, 2010 9:51 PM
Referencing Hitler to my post just proves you are one "fascist bastard"!
Progressivism is closer to fascism, not conservatism and you would know that if you were not indeed a "fascist bastard", but your fascist ideology prevents you from telling or acknowledging the truth from others with opposing points of view.
March 22, 2010 10:19 PM
I would take advantage of the links.
There isn't more than one right answer here, and yours isn't it.
March 22, 2010 10:35 PM
Referencing Hitler to my post just proves you are one "fascist bastard"!
_____
Hitler was a fascist.
_____
Progressivism is closer to fascism, not conservatism and you would know that if you were not indeed a "fascist bastard", but your fascist ideology prevents you from telling or acknowledging the truth from others with opposing points of view.
_____
LIBERAL is CENTER-Left. Progressivism is left of Liberal. Between LIBERAL and Fascist is CONSERVATIVE. FASCISM is far RIGHT.
Again: thanks to the LIBERAL Founders/Framers, and their PROGRESSIVE First Amendment, even America-haters such as you have freedom of speech that is PROTECTED.
March 22, 2010 10:56 PM
My America would not force Americans to buy private health insurance when they don't need it, your America would, who is the "fascist" now?
March 22, 2010 11:18 PM
My America would not force me and my fellow premium-payers and tax-payers to pay for the health care of those who choose to go without insurance, essentially betting my paycheck that they'll not have a catastrophic event or chronic illness. Nor would my America allow 112 of my fellow patriots die every day because they don't have enough money. Come to think of it, my America would not allow predatory health insurers -- who actually produce and deliver no product or service -- suck billions of dollars out of the economy and divert billions from actual health care each year.
I guess yours would. How sad.
March 23, 2010 12:07 AM
Oh, and for the record (and as I noted in my original post) the individual mandate was a Republican idea. Their opposition to it makes them hypocrites. I'll leave it to you to take up with them what they're doing to your America.
March 23, 2010 12:09 AM
You seem to be imposing a standard of excellence on the Republican Party that Democrats could never live up to...its nice to see such high expectations coming from the other side!
If only Democrats could live up to your standards of excellence, then all will be well in today's politics.
March 23, 2010 10:05 AM
..."standard of excellence" and 'Republican Party" in the same sentence creates a serious oxymoronic conundrum.
March 23, 2010 10:19 AM
DugFmWhatever does anything moronic very well.
March 23, 2010 10:21 AM
Oh my no! "Excellence" is not a standard I'd ever think a political party could manage. I'm recommending that consrvatives insist their party return to a standard of mere responsible adulthood.
You seem to want to cling to the idea that there is some measure of equivalence between the stupid acts and statements of leaders on the Left and leaders on the Right. Alas, quite objectively, there is not.
And when there is some similarity, the context denies the equivalence. Do, as you mentioned earlier, some Democrats cheat on their wives and engage in sexual adventures that the rest of us might not? Sure, but Dems don't tell people what they shoudn't or can't do with their stinky parts, so there's no hypocrisy. Republicans, however, have made Pelvic Policy a central plank of their platform and Pelvic Theology THE moral force behind their Family Values platform, so their hypocrisy stinks to high Heaven.
March 23, 2010 11:17 AM
There is more to "hypocrisy" than "stinky parts", for example shouldn't Rep. Rangel be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors?
March 23, 2010 8:54 PM
DFJ, fail.
You mischaracterize the position you're arguing against. No one claims that the definition of hypocrisy pertains to stinky parts. The definition of hypocrisy pertains to acting in contradiction to one's own avowed public stance. It's way more simple than you allow. Hypocrisy can pertain to anything whatsoever, but the MEANING of hypocrisy is not dependent on the case. Neither is every instance of someone being in the wrong an instance of hypocrisy. If I direct my dog to crap in my neighbor's yard and I make no effort to clean up the mess, then I'm some kind of jerk -- but my being a jerk in this fashion does not render me a hypocrite unless I'm also they guy running for city counsel on a campaign against inconsiderate pet owners. Similarly, you don't have to be in the wrong to be a hypocrite. In a generic example of the top of my head: if I claim that my neighbor's porch ornaments are an unacceptable color for our neighborhood, but I have porch ornaments of the same color, I'm not in the wrong to display whatever color I want, but I am a hypocrite for trying to inhibit my neighbor's right to do something I do myself.
In any event, who do you see defending Rangel's actions?
It looks that Rangel is out of line. But he shouldn't be impeached, for the two simple reasons that
a) squirrelly tax reporting isn't what "high crimes and misdemeanors" is understood to mean, and
b) Members of the legislative branch don't get impeached; members of the executive and judicial branches do.
When their behavior calls for rebuke, and political winds allow for the right thing to happen, Representatives are censured, removed from their committee positions, and/or expelled from the House. Rangel has been removed from his committee chairmanship, although he was allowed to step down voluntarily in the face of a challenge. Sure it would be neat if political winds allowed for a more stern rebuke. All that notwithstanding, his staunchest allies called for him to step down from that chairmanship. So what's your point? Who do you see defending his actions?
March 24, 2010 3:07 PM
You're correct but the House could expel Rangel by a two-thirds vote and I would argue his misdeeds warrant an expel-ion from the House.
Where are the Democratic Champions of Standards demanding Rangel to be expelled? No such champions exist in the Democratic Party, but if Rangel was Republican democrats would be shouting loudly for his removal from the House and the Republicans would oblige them.
March 24, 2010 4:18 PM
I would think the in the 8 to ten year gap its possible to become more educated on the subject of mandates, and that this may not necessarily be hypocrisy.
March 23, 2010 5:24 PM
How about 2.5 years ago?
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=BE8620D7-18FE-70B2-A8A28D49930CF413
March 23, 2010 6:01 PM
Better yet, how about 7 months ago? In August 2009, when asked “how does this bipartisan group that you`re a member of get to more health insurance coverage if you don`t mandate that employers provide coverage,” Grassley replied “through an individual mandate and that`s individual responsibility and even Republicans believe in individual responsibility.”
During a June appearance on Fox News Sunday, Grassley said, “there isn’t anything wrong with it [an individual mandate], except some people look at it as an infringement upon individual freedom."
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/18/grassley-mandate/
March 23, 2010 6:27 PM
Cool, I will check those out. I was specifically talking about the Orrin Hatch comment cited in you article. Thanks for the new stuff to check out, do you have the article on Grassley and Wyden now supporting those mandates? I can research around, if you don't have them, I am just looking for the easy way out if you do.
March 23, 2010 7:21 PM
oh crap nevermind.. I only read partially down that one page. I guess it does have both...
March 23, 2010 7:23 PM
The rule of law, including mandates, is not ipso facto "fascist". Or are you suggesting the Founders/framers were "fascists" because they enacted legisilation regulating and limiting freedoms?
And that they were "fascists" because they enacted drafts in order to raise sufficient troops for their purposes?
Were they "fascists" because they disarmed the Tories, thereby preventing counter-"revolution"?
Were they "fascists" because they totally disarmed those who were "disaffected with the revolution" -- that is, those who refused to sign the loyalty oath?
It's fascinating an ideological idiot such as you -- while standing at the far-right lunatic fringe, next to Hitler -- would bash those to your Left as being "fascist".
Get it through your blinders: the Founders/Framers were for "ordered liberty" -- liberty WITHIN the law, NOT in spite of it.
Do yourself a favor: pick up the 11-DVD "The World at War" and watch the extras on DVDs 9, 10, and 11. On one of those you'll find an in depth exploration of Hitler's list of those he hated, demonized, and marked for extermination -- which began with Communists, Socialists, Trade Unionists, Progressives, and Liberals, BEFORE he got to the Jews.
Hitler was far-RIGHT wing -- almost everyone else being to his LEFT.
March 23, 2010 1:41 AM
Hi Jonestown,
Would you please go read a book (try Hannah Arendt's work) about the political terms you are misusing. You are not allowed to reference the ham-brained Beck's slop. He's a conspiracy theorist with all weaknesses of one — for instance, he cannot reason logically.
Your rhetorical tactics might work with others, but they won't fly here.
See you in a few months.
March 23, 2010 3:44 AM
Would your America, refusing to force people to buy health care, also refuse the same people health care should circumstances require it? I'm perfectly happy to let persons ride their hogs without helmets and leathers if they pledge to survive on their own resources if they crash a tree. The have to agree not to hold any medical personnel accountable for treating trauma, long or short term, whether they have the bucks to pay for it or not.
March 23, 2010 2:26 PM
How is anyone being forced? Look, if you're able-bodied, of a certain age and making over $X/year and you choose not to buy health insurance and to go uninsured, you will pay a higher tax rate than someone who does buy insurance, that is all.
This is absolutely no different than someone who rents paying higer taxes than someone who chooses to buy a home (due to the home-ownership tax credit).
So you still have a choice. But going uninsured has a cost to society (in the form of higher premiums for everyone else, and a strain on hospital ERs), so you will pay for that choice, but it is your choice to do so.
Kinda takes the wind out of your sails on that little talking point, doesn't it?
March 23, 2010 5:21 PM
Hi Pot, my name is Kettle. Have you noticed that you're black?
March 23, 2010 5:24 PM
You should read your own links, friend.
According to the link you provided, Godwin's Law is...
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
It has nothing to do with winning or losing the argument, just an observation that the Nazis eventually get dragged into every internet conversation and that inappropriate analogies should be avoided.
March 23, 2010 2:35 AM
Heh, indeedy.
March 23, 2010 8:13 AM
You're the one who opened with a quote from Glenn Beck, aren't you? Find me 15 minutes of Beck that doesn't include (anyone who doesn't agree with Glenn Beck) "is Hitler."
QED, you lose. You and yours had your 30 years to destroy America. Almost succeeded, too.
Now, please quit wasting our time and leave.
March 23, 2010 3:01 PM
Including the 8 years that Clinton was president? I'm confused.
But I understand the gist: now it's your turn to try and destroy America, lol. Nice start too.
March 23, 2010 9:16 PM
Majority rules. You lost. Please get over it.
(chicken makes a sketchy kinda cross)
You are hereby, marginalized. Hey, don't blame me, your over-the-top rhetoric, ignorance, and ugly behavior are what really did it. You only have yourselves to thank. Normal people don't want what you are peddling.
=D
Hooray for civilization! Brought to you courtesy of the Democrats and their Progressive allies.
March 22, 2010 9:54 PM
How fitting you cite Glen Beck as a source.
March 22, 2010 10:49 PM
Thank you for making my point!
March 22, 2010 11:59 PM
If you had ever read a history of the US, you would realize that "evil" progressives are the only reason anyone besides white male landowners can vote, the only reason we have any sort of unemployment insurance, medicare, or social security, the only reason we work less than 16 hours a day in relatively safe workplaces, the only reason we have public schools, and the only reason women aren't automatically fired from work upon becoming pregnant.
However, it is conceivable that you believe we shouldn't have any of those things, in which case you would only be an idiot and not a hypocrite.
March 23, 2010 6:51 PM
Excellent job, American Dad. But you seem to be more forgiving than I of far-right lunatic fringe reactionaries who hide behind the once-respectable label "conservative".
March 22, 2010 9:31 PM
Sock puppet heads-up . . .
And JNagarya ... You should be one of the first to recognize it.
See, I have an itchy-twitchy feeling that this bozo may presently in this thread be hinding behind "the once-respectable label 'conservative'" but for the past month or so has been hanging around these parts as a self descibed common sense centrist.
The writing technique and use of dimwitted slurs are too numerous to overlook.
Just saying . . .
~OGD~
March 23, 2010 4:04 AM
Superb! You really took a lot of time and effort and for that I am thankful, it will be a lot easier to send the link to the Conservative apologists in the family who believe Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck over my "liberal agenda". Ah, this is just too great! Thanks, rec'd for sure!
March 22, 2010 9:32 PM
Oh yeah, I've got a crazy aunt who will be getting this in an email. It's only fair, since she sends me the Rightwing viral emails with regularity (and then I am FORCED to spend the time to take them apart piece by piece, with links of course).
March 23, 2010 11:24 AM
Yeah I had to do that for awhile with my grandmother but it became so tedious I finally told her "Don't send me this crap anymore!" It isn't like she believed the research I came up with anyway.
March 23, 2010 4:45 PM
My boyfriend is what he likes to call a "recovering Republican" and his Mother sends him emails filled with loony conspiracy theories (Obama wants to sign away our national sovereignty!)and hypocritical hater nonsense all the time. I forwarded this link to him immediately after I read it so that he can pass it around the family. I can't wait to see what the reaction is going to be. Your work here is extraordinary, and I think you've done a great service to our political world. I KNOW that there are good-hearted, rational Republicans out there - my beloved Grampa was one. But their voices are just being drowned out by all the screamers. My Grampa would be very, very dismayed by all this had he lived to see it.
Anyway, add my name to the list of people thanking you for this post. Please keep up the excellent work!
March 24, 2010 6:21 PM
Lol. We all have family members like that. I just had a blowup with my teabagger sisterinlaw who unfortunately is one of the most uninformed (I am being kind here) people on the planet. She said well "let's see what Obama is going to do to our health insurance". I lost it.....needless to say and then she spouted about all the terrorists he hung around with. I told her if she continues to get her news from Fox, she can expect more lies. I tried to give her facts but she had no desire for any facts, she preferred her own.
There is no talking to these folks. They hate us and we hate them and it's not going to change unless their politics change. Dems have liberals, progressives, moderates and conservatives in their party. The republicans who are the face of this party are all teabaggers. They have left the likes of AmericanDad and David Frum out in the cold.
And, AmericanDad, you may think you are a republican, but you're really not, you just haven't made that leap of faith yet..
March 24, 2010 9:06 PM
Absolutely wonderful! I emailed a link to myself, so as to have it very, very, VERY handy. When I heard the anger and nonsense spewing out of the minority leaders mouth on NPR tonight, I thought, "Good grief! When will they STOP?" It's beyond ridiculous now.
The amount of work here is really incredible, thanks so much AmericanDad. I plan on reading every link. Every one. It is like an education of the poor and damaging tactics of the right. It's rather overwhelming seeing it all here like this. I have been telling the fringers on the right that they are hurting America. This gives chapter and verse on just how hurtful they really are acting. My dad was a conservative, so I hear you, they need to clean this up. We can't do it for them.
=D
You rawk!
March 22, 2010 9:48 PM
This blog reminds me of the Bible I had when I was a kid, where all of Jesus's words were in red.
American Dad's Epistle to the Romans.
March 22, 2010 9:49 PM
lol, you are one funny dude.
March 23, 2010 10:04 AM
I like it. Slip me in between Luke and John and nobody'll notice.
March 23, 2010 11:26 AM
It was a revelation to me.
March 23, 2010 12:32 PM
Very punny!
March 23, 2010 1:03 PM
terrific. thanks for the post.
I suggest that you also post this at predominantly conservative and independent blog sites, if you haven't already.
March 22, 2010 10:03 PM
Toss me some suggested sites, I'll be happy to share.
March 22, 2010 11:31 PM
Amdad:
You asked for a list of right-wing blogs, and I aims to please!!!!:
http://www.urbanconservative.com/2007/02/13/best-conservative-blogs-on-the-internet/
March 24, 2010 5:27 PM
Great Work. You obviously put a ton of time into this (and tpm's format makes posting difficult).
Not to quibble but do you realize that the health care bill just passed is much much more conservative then Richard Nixon's proposal. More conservative then the 1994 Republican proposal. I know that the right has gone off the deep end (as you document clearly), but I can't help but note that they seem to be winning the policy game-even out of power. Now obviously I support the best progressive legislation that we can pass (and I love grandma pelosi) but I am left wondering just what the hell has happened to our country if this is all that democratic supermajorities can muster. Sad.
March 22, 2010 10:22 PM
No quibble taken. I believe one of my links makes the same point you do -- that much of what just passed is very conservative, very Republican. It makes the current shark jumping all the more outrageous. Such behavior may win ratings on talk radio and may bring in checks from 'the base,' but it drives away common folk with a touch of common sense and is likely to lose elections.
March 22, 2010 11:37 PM
But what about policy?
March 23, 2010 4:31 AM
...isn't this just semantical maneuvering?
Saladin, are you playing Devil's advocate or are you actually the devil(R)?
Why would you atempt to re-phrase a question that is already answered, except to discredit the answer or the answerer??
Isn't "policy" the very root of this discussion?
..where could you go with this but down?
March 23, 2010 10:28 AM
Please reread my original comment. The actual policy we passed was a conservative one. It seems to me that they are winning the policy game. Sure they are going crazy because we have taken their reasonable policy positions.
Devil? wtf?
March 23, 2010 12:56 PM
I think I answered that early in the post. Responsible conservatives will have to build a new platform -- that is, policy aims -- for the GOP that isn't predicated on paranoia. But before they can address policy they're going to have to take back control of the party from the people highlighted in my post.
March 23, 2010 11:30 AM
Please see my comment above to guitar dude.
March 23, 2010 12:59 PM
OK. Understood.
I actually don't think they've won the policy game, because the health care reform bill is merely the gambit. Policy is never a one-shot deal, and large policy shifts, in particular, come in pieces over time.
How long did it take us to admit women have the right to vote? How long did it take us to kill the policy of slavery? How long to kill the Jim Crow policies?
Much policy will follow this, build from this, and it will move away from where the GOP is. The GOP lost the BIG POLICY DEBATE this week -- that is whether the government has a responsibility for seeing that the people have access to health care. In short, it's the "right" vs "privilege" deabte over health care, and the coservatives lost.
The next big policy debate will be about whether the government has a responsibility to protect us from corporate predation, and this will doubtlessly include the health insurers. I'm betting they'll lose that debate, too.
Although these are not the end of these debates, they are pivotal, historic, moments that will determine the terms, context and focus of the ongoing debates, and the tide is going our way.
It's hard to be patient. Take comfort -- indeed, take pride -- in knowing that we had the luck to take part in these markers along our historic path.
March 23, 2010 1:20 PM
We are not fussy enough about who we support as Democrats -- Stupak is a case in point.
March 23, 2010 8:57 AM
We do not have a purity test and at least for myself believe that diversity is better for us all.
March 23, 2010 12:29 PM
A core difference.
March 23, 2010 1:42 PM
Great post!
March 22, 2010 10:25 PM
Great post. What amazes me is one of the ranters called David Duke a democrat? Trust me, he ain't ours! He ran as a Republican when he ran for Governor of Louisiana. We (the democrats) had the CROOK. They (the republicans) had the white supremacist. Get it straight. LOL.
March 23, 2010 12:01 AM
Dude...this is epic. Awesome work.
March 23, 2010 12:14 AM
This is gold - thank you, Mr. King!
March 23, 2010 12:15 AM
This is what I call required reading.
Well done!
March 23, 2010 12:51 AM
Incredible blog.
March 23, 2010 1:12 AM
+1 fanfuckingtastic!
phenomenal. the time investment and attention to detail are so very appreciated. not only a great read but a great resource. thank you!
March 23, 2010 1:18 AM
Well put! I would like to pass this aroundalso.
March 23, 2010 1:21 AM
Feel free!
March 23, 2010 8:47 AM
Brilliant.
March 23, 2010 1:51 AM
I like the article, but the pic of Bush kissing the Saudi king on the mouth is photoshopped. I've been in that debate with others before about the bowing, and as much as it would be cool if Bush were kissing that dude, it looks really fake. :(
March 23, 2010 1:54 AM
It only looks fake because it's a still from a video. Here's a clip from CNN in which Blitzer and Perino are carrying on about the Obama bow and Blitzer shows her video of Bush's hand-holding and kissing, and Perino -- Bush's spokesperson -- excuses it with "that's just what you do."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyKWAv-6WEA
Note that Perino, in her now infamous ignorace, repeats the canard that the president never bows to anyone. A remark easily and repeatedly shown false by the photographic record. This sort of casual lying is just the sort of stuff conservatives need to put a stop to if anyone is ever going to take the GOP seriously again.
March 23, 2010 9:39 AM
I think the main problem with that video is the white house spokesperson took a wimpy way out... Also do you got a link on the actual protocol,I have been looking for one. Also I see no kiss in that youtube video only hand holding.. You argue that there is photographic evidence, however, none is provided for bowing, only hand holding at this point.
March 23, 2010 5:47 PM
Someone else pointed out that Bush's kiss was on the cheek and that it was photoshopped to the mouth. I'll have to change that reference. And if Dana Perino says on national TV that Bush kissed him, who am I to argue? ;-)
March 24, 2010 2:41 AM
AmDad:
"This sort of casual lying is just the sort of stuff conservatives need to put a stop to if anyone is ever going to take the GOP seriously again."
That ship has sailed. Perhaps next generation. I wonder what the pubes will change the name of their paty to next time, "No-Nothings" has already been used!
March 24, 2010 5:50 PM
I think before you lump all conservatives together you should talk to different ones and see if we're all the same. I can pretty much guarantee that we aren't. You say we "call members of Congress n*gger and f*ggot; elect leaders who say "I'm a proud racist"; state that America has been built by white people; and say that poor people are poor because they're rotten people, call them "parasitic garbage" or say they shouldn't be allowed to vote." Umm... no. There are some who do, but they should never be put into the same category of conservatives that love this country. I am 23 years old, I know... a little young for you to probably believe that I know what the world is like, but I do. I have seen racists, I've lived with them even, but there's nothing that makes me more sick than someone who looks down upon others because they are different. Isn't that what this article of yours is pretty much about? Looking down on something because it's different than you? I think that Jefferson should never be removed from textbooks to be replaced with Calvin. Jefferson did more for this country than many people did combined. Isn't that what you made a comment about? That conservatives would rather have that than teach about one of the greatest men who lived in this country? I believe you did. And it's not that we think that poor people are parasites, it's that they are having a tough time. I for one feel that anyone who needs help should get it, but those who abuse the aid should be punished. Take my town for example. There are people who "say" they are disabled or unable to work and collect a disability check every month. They do anything that a normal person does, sometimes more. I KNOW that there are more of those people out there. All conservatives (or at least the many that I've talked with) want is to have people want to work to make their lives better and to not have everything handed to them. It's sickening to see this happening to the next generation still in school. For schoolwork, mind you, students expect to have the answers just given to them. They are not willing to work to find the answer. I only graduated from high school 6 years ago and I've already noticed a HUGE change in the work ethic of high school students. (I'm finishing up my education degree this year so I have to study this type of thing.) Sure there are a few of the students who generally care, but not nearly as many as there used to be. It is just sad. And now what is going to happen with this healthcare reform bill being passed? I do think that people who need help should get it, but let's think about it logically for a second. If healthcare is free for everyone it's only a matter of time before people are going to the doctor for EVERYTHING! Then the people who really need help are going to have to wait because someone with a cold is ahead of them. Granted this may not happen everywhere or by everyone, but if something is free people usually take advantage of that. Welfare? Disability? Yep. The people who need it, like I've said, should get it, but make it much harder for the people who don't to leech off of it. Anyway, after that rant I'd just like to say that I hope you really do talk to other conservatives than the ones you have the information on. Not all of us are racists who hate poor people or those who are different. We do have compassion believe it or not. And FYI, I'd rather have someone be honest to my face by telling me that they hate me than having them pretend that they care about me and talk about me behind my back. Didn't someone on here say a comment about that? "The dem party is far from perfect, but at least they pretend to care about everyday folks...repubs have given up even the pretext." Yeah... umm... Whoever said that this is for you - I'd MUCH rather have someone hate me to my face and KNOW that they felt that way than have someone pretend to care and they really don't. Wasting my time on someone like that, no matter what situation, is just ridiculous and I really can't believe that someone said that...
March 23, 2010 2:09 AM
Wow ... Thanks Kris . . .
The day I turned 20 in 1966 while serving in the US Navy this is what I realized.
Now please... Try not to buy into every political wedge issue that comes down the pike.
~OGD~
March 23, 2010 4:21 AM
"Try not to buy into every political wedge ssue that comes down the pike."
Also, try the occasional paragraph break. There's a reason writers invented them.
March 23, 2010 1:28 PM
Kris,
My post was a call for people like you to clean up the party and restore it to a responsible member of our political system. I thought I made that clear. I'm sorry that it wasn't clear enough.
Most -- what 99%? -- of the examples here are from people who hold (or held) elected office, positions of power in the party, or have a national bullhorn to use. The rest are the lunatic fringe. They're not the regular -- the "real" -- conservatives I grew up with. House cleaning is past due.
Your remarks about students, you should be aware, have been made by the "previous" generation for thousands of years. We all seem to think we're better than the next generation. I caution you to take care in forming and expressing opinions of them.
As for "entitlements," I could write another very long post about "fat cat entitlement." The rich and powerful in this country too often feel that they are entitled to things others are not, and their sense of entitlement does far, FAR more damage than all the "welfare bums" put together. The goodies they get from the federal and state budgets total to dollar amounts that dwarf the welfare budgets.
On health care, you seem to have bought into the garbage the party has been spreading. Not only is"free health care for everyone" NOT in the health care reform package, it's never been -- to my knowledge -- proposed in an amendment, a bill or even a party platform. THIS hyperbole-to-the-level-of-dishonesty is exactly to sort of stuff conservatives have got to quit doing if anyone is going to take the seriously again.
And anyone who says they'd rather have hatred expressed to their faces than behind their backs has never been on the receiving end of a mob burning a cross, a fire hose or a police baton. Certainly, they've never had a family member on the business end of a homemade noose. Please, if you're carrying the ugliness of prejudice inside, keep it to yourself. My family ( http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/m/americandad/2010/01/the-president-is-black-thank-g.php ) would rather not have it expressed to them.
March 23, 2010 9:24 AM
Kris, are you a doctor? No? Then what gives you the right to judge -- or even comment on -- whether a person should or should not be eligible for disability? Are you a social worker? Have you conducted interviews with welfare-seekers to determine their eligibility for public assistance? No? Then what gives you the right to determine who "deserves" welfare benefits? You seem like a good person who wants to do good things in the world ... I caution you not to make the mistake of making too many assumptions about people, their situations, and their choices. ESPECIALLY if you plan to be an educator!
March 23, 2010 5:41 PM
'cos don'tcha kow, i love going to the doctor whether i need it or not. /s
March 24, 2010 11:12 AM
excellent work! bookmarked!
March 23, 2010 3:24 AM
Dear lord in heaven please help me refrain from becoming enraged at yet another person who glances at me from across a busy parking lot and who does not have a medical schooling but who insists s/he can diagnose that I have do not have a real disability, and that because I am seen driving a car or buying groceries, that I should be able to work like them, because lord, only you know that it took me 6 hours to get dressed this morning, and the daily pain I endure, and the side effects of 8 medications, and that im unable to staying awake long enough during the day to complete any meaningful work, except from home, and except part time, which does not provide me with enough income to support myself and which is why I qualify for disability in the first place and lord, help me you know that it took me 6 years of denials and loosing everything before I was accepted and you know I live off about $600 a month, and lord you know I am doing the best I can and really am heartsick about no longer doing the work I loved (Chef on luxury ship, Scuba Diver, Film Set Photographer) and so please dear jesus pardon me for calling this nice young man an idiot in response to him calling me a fake and for my run on sentence I ask your forgiveness. thank you. amen.
PS. never ever assume you have the power to diagnose the disability of another human being. especially without a medical degree.
March 23, 2010 4:07 AM
Dear Moose . . .
Your plaint has not fallen on deaf ears...
I can only assume that it was in response to Kris' rambling comment?
~OGD~
March 23, 2010 4:29 AM
Well done, OGD.
March 23, 2010 10:08 AM
OGD.
yes.it is.
6 years younger than him Kpax when I lost my health, savings, insurance, and everything after. Almost 2x his age now. Still struggle daily with my health...And living large off $600/mo.
*never seen anyone ill working the system.
love
moose
March 23, 2010 5:28 AM
I'm a nursing student who also has peripheral neuropathy and epilepsy, some days are harder than others but because I look "normal" everyone assumes I'm capable of doing the same amount they can. Some days I can, some days I cannot. It only will get worse too so now I have to try to get everything in I can while I can before I end up in a wheelchair. Funny though when I'm in clinicals, I do more than the "able-bodied" folks do. I took short term disability from my last job for 8 months (most spent in bed, which created depression on top of it) and no doctor could figure out what was wrong. I had people give me dirty looks when I'd get pain meds because I "looked okay". The so called "invisible diseases" are the worst. You look fine so you are judged harshly for not being fine. If you are an amputee that is different. People can see you aren't fine so they give you a pass (unless you have Parkinson's apparently). One day I won't be able to be in my garden, treat patients, do research I'm committing to HIV patients, hug my grandchildren (I'm still really young but when I get that age I won't be able to do much), etc. I'm one of the lucky ones who found out early most with my condition don't find out until they lose ability to function completely. I'm sorry you go through this, but I promise you aren't alone in this and I at least understand.
March 23, 2010 4:55 PM
er Kris. no disrespect. well some. but just cause u called me a faker.
March 23, 2010 5:29 AM
Erm Russell King, you really meant to write "irrepsonsible" :)
March 23, 2010 5:32 AM
Yeah, there were a few cringe-worthy typos. I wish there was a way to go back in and edit after I've posted. I was focused on content and links and typing too fast.
March 23, 2010 8:09 AM
AmDad, you CAN make changes after-the-fact, just click "blog now" then click "manage" then click "entries".
Or, as you construct your post, if you keep the original blog-post page open in a separate tab, you can always go back and revise it and republish. But once you close that page, you have to use that "manage entries" route.
Once you get to the list of your entries, just click the one you want to revise and the composition page pops right up, with your post waiting revision.
March 23, 2010 9:37 AM
Thank you! You're a face saver.
March 23, 2010 9:47 AM
great post- thanks
March 23, 2010 9:10 AM
I'm no great fan of either party as neither is really truly free of sin and corruption. However, that being said the republicans have been shooting themselves in the foot as of late by backing the most radical, hateful and sometimes downright insane members. In my own present state of Virginia the State Attorney General recently told a State university they were outside the law when asking that sexual orientation be added as a protected status against employment discrimination ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/Cuccinelli.pdf ). Now I'm originally from Ohio and I used to proudly say I bled Crimson and Silver, but even that is no longer a locked Red state. The clever bulldog is right that this list doesn't represent all the conservatives in the party, but wrong to believe this list is with out merit. The conservatives cited on this list are those that have tainted and poisoned the image of the party so thoroughly that Republicans now vote for Democrats more out of disgust of their own candidates than agreement of their opponents.
March 23, 2010 9:42 AM
Crimson and silver? Do you mean scarlet and gray, perhaps?
March 23, 2010 11:47 AM
Which makes this year's primary season more important than ever yet only 20% of us will bother to turn out. We The People are still the most pathetic part of this tragic tale. Great comment.
March 24, 2010 8:52 AM
Thank you for taking the time to put this together. If you don't mind being plagiarized a bazillion times, please cross-post the hell out of this!
March 23, 2010 9:49 AM
It would make my day to be plagerized far and wide! Feel free to link to or copy and post anywhere you like.
March 23, 2010 10:22 AM
AmericanDad:
What a comprehensive summation (with footnotes) you have wrought; thank you. I hope you will post it and cross-reference it, everywhere.
March 23, 2010 9:57 AM
Lots of sound and fury here -- nothing in the end. We have to get past these stupid left-right games, folks. It is a Hegelian structure designed to control us, while the elites actually control both parties.
If you look into these health exchanges, you will discover Goldman Sachs is at the top of that food chain, just as they are positioned to control the carbon trading markets Obama wants. So, the left is being played to enrich one of the greediest, corrupt financial institutions in the world, just like the right was played to enrich Haliburton. This is how the game is played.
The solution is to step outside this left/right paradigm, be an American and stand up for your country. We need you.
March 23, 2010 9:58 AM
It looks to me like he IS being an American and standing up for his country.
What is un-American or "being played" about a call for "drain[ing] the swamp of the conspiracy nuts, the bold-faced liars undeterred by demonstrable facts, the overt hypocrisy and the hatred"?
Nothing.
How are we playing into the hands of the wealthy elite by asking our self-identifying conservative friends to "offer us a calm, responsible, grownup agenda based on [their] values and [their] vision for America"?
We aren't, of course. By calling our conservative friends and neighbors into a real, civil discussion about how to move our country forward, we're doing just the opposite by empowering ourselves.
March 23, 2010 10:13 AM
Thank you, you have made my points.
March 23, 2010 10:17 AM
With respect, i hope you're not going to tell us you believe Democrats when they tell you this health bill is going to reduce the deficit. only 4-yr-olds would fall for that sleight of hand they are using to fudge that fantasy. So, my point is made -- stop trying to prove you're with the white hats. Lying is habitual in both parties.
Wake up and take a look at the over-riding agenda and you will see that Lindsey Graham and John Kerry both play for the same team. Obama is just as much a media-generated elitist creation as Sara Palin who is just a safety valve they can use, if people turn too heavily against Obama. This is why his economic team comes from the same elite group as W's did. it's plain to see who is really in charge, for anyone who cares to look.
March 23, 2010 1:06 PM
Hmm, Brook,
Even if the CBO is hideously wrong -- very wrong -- disastrously wrong -- and the health care bill increases the debt by a trillion dollars over the next ten years, it will *still* cost less than 1/3 what we have spent on an unnecessary, illegal war in Iraq.
Seems to me that anyone who rooted for W and his henchmen doesn't have a leg to stand on, from the financial perspective.
March 23, 2010 6:15 PM
1 trillion is not 1/3 of 974B... http://costofwar.com/ thanks for proving both sides have hyperbole
March 23, 2010 8:46 PM
Sorry, I was using total defense spending since 2003 -- which is close to $3T -- rather than specifically-earmarked dollars for the wars. The point still stands: even if the CBO is unimaginably, disastrously wrong in their estimates (they have a pretty good track record, by the way), health care will still be quite cheap compared to programs that the GOP stands behind.
For them to be that disastrously wrong, they would have to have underestimated the cost of insurance by a factor of more than two, and/or blundered badly enough that there are *no* savings or revenues to be gained: the estimated 10-year cost of the insurance provisions in the current bill is under $1T, and is more than balanced by additional revenues and spending offsets.
(reference to CBO report -- http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/Manager%27sAmendmenttoReconciliationProposal.pdf)
March 24, 2010 12:15 AM
yeah, Doc, i worry about you. if $ 1 trillion is less than 1/3, Iraq cost us $ 3 trillion.
Stop with the Bush did it too, will you? Bush was a tool, just like Obama is a tool. You can practically see the puppet strings attached to both. when you turn your anger at the diminutive Oz then you'll be getting somewhere.
March 23, 2010 11:50 PM
The "Bush did it too" stuff is not a way of justifying spending, it is a way of getting some perspective on the scale of spending we're talking about. Republican / tea party rhetoric would have you believe the health care reform bill is a kind of economic Armageddon that will explode the national debt. My points: (A) it's not. (B) even if it were, the worst conceivable scenario, budgetwise, is small compared to what played out to the sound of Republican cheers in the last administration.
March 24, 2010 11:42 AM
Nothing, eh? Hatred, bigotry, violence, dishonesty and hypocrisy amount to nothing in your world? The only thing that matters in your world is who is getting rich off whom? That's it? Money? What a frigid, barren wasteland you must inhabit.
Corporatism is, doubtlessly, a grave threat to our nation, but it does not render all other threats meaningless or impotent. And it wasn't the subject of my piece. If you'd prefer a post on corporatism, please find one or write one. But asserting that posts on other topics amount to nothing is... well.... just dumb.
March 23, 2010 10:18 AM
yes, nothing, Dad. Anyone can come out here and hurl insults based on their personal biases. It does nothing to make an honest appeal to conservatives for understanding where you are coming from.
March 23, 2010 1:11 PM
The bulk -- and we're talking something like 95% -- of what I wrote were statements of fact with links to sources to back them up.
Now, I described the acts and statements contained in those documented facts in disapproving terms because I disapprove of them -- but that's a FAR cry from merely "hurling insults." (As a matter of fact, that touches on one of the hypocrisy links in my post.)
Your reply completely ignores the acts of hypocrisy, so I'll assume you're conceding those points. Even if the outrageous statements are removed, the factual record is damning.
The fact that the Right is saying the Left is being driven by a lunatic fringe because the Dems just passed a bill that contains a great many Republican ideas merely proves my point. And it's a point I made in the post.
When nearly 80% of the nation says providing universal access to health insurance is important, and 60% -- including more than 60% of independents and nearly 50% of Republicans -- say they're willing to pay more in taxes to make it happen, working toward making it happen is not, by definition, radical or finge: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/washington/02poll.html
Now, so far as I know, none of the three Hollywood liberals you mentioned: has ever run for (much less held) elective office; does not now, nor has ever, held a position of authority within the Democratic Party; does not now, nor ever has, had a radio or network TV show*; has ever had a Dem politician or party official publicly apologize for disagreeing with them or retract a negative statement about them. (*And, no, Moore's two brief cable shows years ago, don't equate with what the Right now enjoys.)
Try as you might, you cannot fabricate a false equivalence. The facts just don't support it. The attempt, however, does underscore my point.
And, just for the sake of argument, even if there were an equivalence, the hypocrisy/hatred/hyperbole and lying of one party does not excuse the hypocrisy/hatred/hyperbole and lying of the other party. My kids try that tactic too. "She/he hit me too!" or "She/he said it first!" It's childish reasoning and doesn't belong in grownup discussions. It's use in these comments and elsewhere also underscores my point.
March 23, 2010 2:16 PM
How about Harry Reid's racist comment about Obama? How about Bill Clinton saying this guy would be making our coffee a few years ago? How about Obama saying there were no earmarks in an $ 850 billion stimulus bill? Hypocrisy can be matched comment for comment.
It's time to move beyond these parties -- they are not serving us. this is my point. letting go is very liberating. It forces politicians to earn your vote based on their personal integrity and willingness to listen. there are rogues on both sides for sure and we need to get rid of every one of them.
March 23, 2010 2:50 PM
Nope. False equivalence. Three does not match the truckload I delivered, especially when their meaning is debatable. There is no debate in the meaning when a white person screams "n*gger!" in the face of a black person. There is no debate in the meaning when someone screams "f*ggot" at a gay person.
I can't recall a single time when the Dems suggested doing something, and then working against their own idea when the Republicans agreed with them. Can you? I've provided you with numerous instances of the reverse happening.
But, really, anyone who asserts that both sides do these things with equal frequency and equal fervor either isn't paying attention or isn't being honest. In either case, continued discussion with such a person is not likely to prove fruitful.
We could, however, engage in the time-honored tradition on flaming each other online if you like...
March 23, 2010 5:04 PM
Come on, AD. Democratic politicians promise one thing and deliver something substantially different all the time.
We didn't get to a $4 trillion federal budget that is perennially in the red through the misdeeds of the republican party alone.
March 24, 2010 9:38 AM
The bulk -- and we're talking something like 95% -- of what I wrote were statements of fact with links to sources to back them up.
Now, I described the acts and statements contained in those documented facts in disapproving terms because I disapprove of them -- but that's a FAR cry from merely "hurling insults." (As a matter of fact, that touches on one of the hypocrisy links in my post.)
Your reply completely ignores the acts of hypocrisy, so I'll assume you're conceding those points. Even if the outrageous statements are removed, the factual record is damning.
The fact that the Right is saying the Left is being driven by a lunatic fringe because the Dems just passed a bill that contains a great many Republican ideas merely proves my point. And it's a point I made in the post.
When nearly 80% of the nation says providing universal access to health insurance is important, and 60% -- including more than 60% of independents and nearly 50% of Republicans -- say they're willing to pay more in taxes to make it happen, working toward making it happen is not, by definition, radical or finge: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/washington/02poll.html
Now, so far as I know, none of the three Hollywood liberals you mentioned: has ever run for (much less held) elective office; does not now, nor has ever, held a position of authority within the Democratic Party; does not now, nor ever has, had a radio or network TV show*; has ever had a Dem politician or party official publicly apologize for disagreeing with them or retract a negative statement about them. (*And, no, Moore's two brief cable shows years ago, don't equate with what the Right now enjoys.)
Try as you might, you cannot fabricate a false equivalence. The facts just don't support it. The attempt, however, does underscore my point.
And, just for the sake of argument, even if there were an equivalence, the hypocrisy/hatred/hyperbole and lying of one party does not excuse the hypocrisy/hatred/hyperbole and lying of the other party. My kids try that tactic too. "She/he hit me too!" or "She/he said it first!" It's childish reasoning and doesn't belong in grownup discussions. It's use in these comments and elsewhere also underscores my point.
March 23, 2010 2:49 PM
These are your personal biases that the right is led by a lunatic fringe. They are saying the same thing about the left right now. It doesn't take many stupid Michael Moore, Danny Glover, Sean Penn comments to make their point -- if you want to go down that road.
March 23, 2010 1:41 PM
Ah Yes . . .
Brook Dataski ... The voice of balance and reason.
The defender of the easily fooled American people.
The same Brook Dataski who back in February 14, 2007 @ 11:05 AM defended the sexually predatory habits and actions of one Mark Foley as an "indescretion" outed by a left-wing hit job to smear Foley at election time.
Please Dataski ...
I wish not to pull your finger...
~OGD~
March 23, 2010 1:40 PM
Nice try -- and you've got way too much time on your hands, but i never defended Foley. Indiscretions are not acceptable after you've achieved certain levels of public trust.
March 23, 2010 11:57 PM
Nice try Brook, but you in fact DID call the incident w/ Foley a "left-wing hit job pure and simple." Click the link, Your words are forever immortalized in the pages of the internet, much as you wish them not to be.
March 24, 2010 6:09 PM
100% WOW!
Have forwarded link to every RWNJ I know, and those in my circle who, like me, though raised in multi-generation GOP families left it long ago for just these very reasons.
March 23, 2010 10:21 AM
Me too. This needs to go viral.
Thank you America's Dad. I too grew up in a republican conservative home and left them right around the time JFK came on the scene and showed me the light.
The republican party of today is a far cry from what it used to be for certain. I will never vote for a republican again unless he's another Barack Obama and the chances of that happening are slim and none.
March 23, 2010 5:05 PM
No way dude is he for real??
Lou
www.privacy-news.us.tc
March 23, 2010 10:29 AM
American Dad, just wanted to say thanks for that. It's the thing a lot of hoodwinked conservatives who just go with the flow and don't really pay attention (ie, my parents) need to hear, daily, until they come to their senses. It would be a nice companion piece (perhaps divided into parts over several days) to the load of third rate hack propaganda they receive daily in their inboxes.
March 23, 2010 11:23 AM
Republicans? Democrats? Nobility? It doesn't matter any more which party - They are all career politicians - our "nobility."
You sad, sad, sad sheeple. You were given the greatest form of government by the greatest document every written - The Constitution of the United States. You were give the opportunity to govern yourselves. You were given the opportunity to pursue your goals, shouldering your own responsibilities and therefore assuring your rights. You were given protection from nobility- a ruling class. Yet, you squander it and instead elect and continually reelect career politicians - your nobility. You call them your "leaders," forgetting (or ignoring) that they are your "representatives." You are too lazy, scared, and ignorant to keep your responsibilities - not knowing and not caring that each responsibility you shed is a right lost. Sad, sad day for the USA - now become the UWSA - United Welfare State of America.
March 23, 2010 11:36 AM
Sore loser
March 23, 2010 1:14 PM
I normally dislike posts that paint with such a broad brush, but you've covered so many good points that have gone unaddressed that I gotta give you the thumbs up. I'm even gonna forward this to my diehard RINO friends. Nice job. :)
March 23, 2010 11:38 AM
I cling to the belief (fantasy?) that there is this great resevoir of "real" conservatives in America who are - or would be, if they stepped back to look at what's going on in their name -- angry, sorrowful, or both at how low the GOP has been dragged. My intent was not to paint with a broad brush, but to point out to that broader group what's being done in their name by a lunatic fringe minority. I'm hoping they'll stand up and say "knock it off!" They cannot be happy, much less proud, of what's going on.
And even if they're not especially ticked off by the character implications of the Right's recent actions, they'll surely be put off by the practical implications: This behavior is how you remove yourself from the mainstream, strip yourself of respectability and lose elections.
March 23, 2010 12:01 PM
I do not think its a broad stoked painting you have created. Its the very specific outward projection of a party in total chaos. Those who do not speak out are just as responsible for their party as those whose actions they find despicable. The gop has launched an all out war and all actions are deemed acceptable as long as they are directed at the dems. Even those actions that clearly go against the very morals that the gop claims to uphold. The war of words is being driven by the financial goals of the conservative media with distortions and lies. The only way to maintain the war is to continue to push the envelope further and further. Horace Mann summed it up best "Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge."
March 23, 2010 12:46 PM
I am not angry at how low the GOP has been dragged. I am angry at how low all of our leaders have been dragged.
March 23, 2010 11:02 PM
AmDad,
I'm afraid that the party you seek is beyond the fence and is irretrievable. There seems to be no moderate voices heard from anymore. Even people of standing like Dick Lugar or McCain (when he was a sensible man pre-2000) seems to be silent or pandering to the extreme. The voices of DeMint and Bachmann, Steve King and Louie Gohmert have taken over the party's megaphone. As well documented, (and as a professor who teaches ed. classes kudos to your resolve in all your citations and links) as your letter is, I think it speaks to:
1. Deaf ears
2. Exposes those who comment in here that you are attempting to steer away from.
3. Aggravates the folks who cannot see that forest for the trees; "What, me racist?"
4. Cant unseat those who advocate and push the agendas that seek the return of power at any expense or deed, and will say anthing and do anything.
It's also a sad letter, because when I served in the military there was an understanding that whatever someone was or believed in, we all depended on each other to get through, which is what I think youre desirous of. The parties can disagree, but the parties also find consensus and put Country first.
And in answer to young Kris (i'm 33 years older than he) I dont think AmDad was shooting all the dogs because a few have fleas, but it certainly seems like those are the lead dogs and are pulling that sledge in the wrong direction.
Remember Russell, Illegitimi non carborundum (dont let the bastards grind you down).
MVdL
March 23, 2010 12:39 PM
Hi! Good to see you! I told you we have a good time back here!
March 23, 2010 6:21 PM
Another eloquent, well written, hypocritical, self-righteous, work of a biased perspective, by another self-righteous, self-declared educated, entitled, elitist.
The simple fact is, you crave comfort. You are scared, afraid, and do not feel you can survive without some behemoth running your's and everyone else's lives. You lack the faith to believe this country can survive and grow without people being forced to "contribute" to the greater good. What kind of ideology are you pushing? This is America!
Regardless of the attitudes, slurs, retorts, what have you, the simple fact is, the constitution has officially been dissolved. We might as well just throw it out the window and start over from scratch.
HCR was a good idea. Really it was. However, government takeover is not "reform", it is an all out war against the people. You all moaned and groaned when Bush was supposedly stomping on the "rights" of the Iraqis (another country!), yet are willing to stand aside, belligerently, excitedly, and watch your own government perform this atrocity to over 60% (yes, that is based on facts) of your own country. Something is seriously wrong here.
No matter how you slice and dice it, its true. You are unwilling to see the picture from the other's window.
Notice I didn't comment on anyone's actions here, only on the topic at hand. Something people should learn. Emotion is a human trait, don't perform psychological analysis of people in a time of great distress and perturbation, it doesn't fly.
March 23, 2010 12:46 PM
Isn't all perspective biased since it is merely an opinion? How is your little rant not self-righteous? I also find it funny when conservatives are called on their b.s they claim you are being elitist as well as a few other terms. As for psychological analysis, isn't your first paragraph just that? I think you miss the whole point of AmericanDad's post and your comment here proves that very point.
March 23, 2010 12:55 PM
Are you trying to agree with me or provide a valid argument? I never said I wasn't reciprocating anything. I just stated a fact about this particular article.
Everyone has an opinion. My frustration (yes, I realize I'm doing the same thing as the author) is in people judging others under extreme stress. You can't do it. Pointing out flaws in character does not validate your perspective on HCR, only issue a statement that you are opinionated about how people are reacting to it.
Sure, judge a person by their character. But if you felt your personal, constitutionally guaranteed rights were be trampled on, I'm sure you'd have some not-so-nice things to say about those taking away your rights.
I guess I'm reacting to how people are reacting. Weird conundrum.
If the worse thing I say to someone is they are self-righteous, elitist, so be it.
March 23, 2010 1:08 PM
Oh ... really?
One word... Four letters: V-O-T-E
And in this case ... "vote" the ill-mannered reprehensible representatives out of office.
Without that, there's no common ground.
And I remind you: Worst President Ever!
That is all . . .
~OGD~
March 23, 2010 2:16 PM
BINGO!!!!!
March 23, 2010 5:40 PM
"if you felt your personal, constitutionally guaranteed rights were be trampled on,"
...so, then, you probably hated the Patriot Act?
NO? The Patriot Act didn't bother your loyal American conscience?
But extending healthcare to millions and protecting millions already covered from unfair practices DOES bother you?
I'm SO confused!
Or at least someone is.
Actually, lets be accurate here, let me finish your statement for you, in proper context.
"if you felt your personal, constitutionally guaranteed rights were be trampled on, you probably watch Fox News and listen to Rush."
Simple as that. Nothing that has happened since Obama got elected even comes close to trampling on your rights the way the "Patriot" act did.
March 24, 2010 3:22 PM
No, you weren't stating a fact - you were stating an opinion. I'm willing to bet you don't know AmDad or anyone else posting on this site, so there is no way you can know with certainty whether or not they are" "scared" or "in need of comfort" or elitist" any of your other ridiculous ad hominem attacks. Saying something is a fact because you believe it doesn't make it so. It's been said before, and I'll say it again - you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
March 24, 2010 5:29 PM
You put the word rights in scare quotes, as though being American is what entitles a person to them? Explains a lot.
March 23, 2010 1:07 PM
Actually, the quotes were meant to exaggerate the fallacy that we have rights.
March 23, 2010 1:12 PM
Two things:
1) Yikes. At least you're up front about it.
2) That was just provocative enough to get me to check out your website.
March 23, 2010 1:26 PM
Sore loser
March 23, 2010 1:16 PM
Are you seriously calling me a sore loser for challenging the most bloated, costly ($1 trillion), damaging piece of legislation to ever be rammed through the doors of the legislative branch?
Please.
Hope you have a good job.
March 23, 2010 1:19 PM
The most costly legislation? Please try again. Once again you are proving AmericanDad's point with your fear-mongering and distortions. If you want to have a debate then at least have an honest debate.
March 23, 2010 1:29 PM
Deficit neutral for the first ten years; boon to fighting deficits further out, according to the CBO. You bring your GOP talking points and go waaaaaaaaaaaa, yup, sore loser.
March 23, 2010 1:36 PM
That's right, continue to drink the toxic cool-aid.
That's the problem here, you have absolutely no capability (or desire?) to challenge your leaders, especially those that have very poor resumes when it comes to doing anything fiscally sound.
For every "expert" opinion on how this won't affect us, I'll show you the opposing "expert" opinion.
March 23, 2010 1:54 PM
Waaaaaaaaaa
March 23, 2010 2:43 PM
Uhhhhh . . .
Seeing that your personal blog queue here at TPMCafe is empty, I suggest you get busy and show all the "...opposing 'expert' opinion..." instead of flapping your lips in this thread. I look forward to your supporting links and information. And please, go easy on the Obama is a socialist slant. We here at our home have already endured enough of that from the fresh faced young men on their bicycles and little white helmets during their visits. Enough so that we had to inform the Bishop.
~OGD~
March 23, 2010 2:45 PM
Do I really need to explain to you why my newly created account does not have mountains of data to justify my argument?
March 23, 2010 3:01 PM
No, just provide the data.
March 23, 2010 8:35 PM
Double Bingo!!!!
March 23, 2010 5:44 PM
Did you challenge your leaders from 2000-2008 as they waged 2 unfunded wars, implemented a domestic spying program which renders the 4th amendment moot and turned a budget surplus they inherited into a $1T+ deficit?
Or did you just chant U-S-A, U-S-A as Bush said 'mission accomplished' and call people who questioned our government 'terrorist sympathizers?
March 23, 2010 2:47 PM
Hey, straw man, the George Bush forum is in the other room.
March 23, 2010 3:03 PM
Hey pal...if you had spent any time here, other than the time it took for you to troll this blog, you'd know I have been very critical of Obama at times. From 2000-2008 did you do the same of Bush? So why don't you troll, troll, troll your boat merrily right out of here...
March 23, 2010 3:08 PM
Why didn't you challenge your leaders who aided and abetted each of those henious acts? There is plently of blame to go around.
March 24, 2010 2:48 PM
I did and I still am jason...(as I having annoyed many of my liberal compatriots here attests to)
March 24, 2010 2:56 PM
You are the exception to the rule. Most people are perfectly willing to accept shit from their own representatives that they denounce when done by members of the opposite party.
March 24, 2010 3:18 PM
C'mon jason you have been around these parts long enough. You know me. That is why I was kinda amazed that you directed those comments at me of all people...
March 24, 2010 3:24 PM
I guess it was more the tone of the accusation and the bolded letters. Most of your fellow liberals don't question anything either as long as they are winning.
March 24, 2010 4:13 PM
Projection. It is an amazing thing.
March 24, 2010 11:30 PM
People (many of them, I expect, here) did challenge them, THEY GOT PUSHED BY BUSH'S COPS INTO THE "FREE SPEECH ZONES" and when they had Senate minority committee meetings THEY GOT THE LIGHTS TURNED OUT ON THEM.
March 25, 2010 7:26 AM
Please explain then the Medicaid Drug Plan that was, and let me use the hyperbole of the day, rammed thru the congress and down the throats of seniors that took monumental arm twisting, cajoling, threats and wasn't paid for and why that isnt a disaster?
March 23, 2010 6:32 PM
slowroneck: Thank you for proving my point. You did it so concisely, so eloquently that I fear people will suspect I put you up to it.
March 23, 2010 3:28 PM
Proving your point? Which one, you had quite a few of them?
March 23, 2010 5:32 PM
Um.... what is your first paragraph if not a comment on my actions? Well it's also a comment on my character. And it's false: no where in the post did I declare my level of education. Nor did I claim any entitlement. Or an elitist.
As an aside: Are we to understand you as saying that being educated is a BAD thing? Huh. Good luck with that living in ignorance thingy you've got going.
And thank you (again!) for proving my point for me. The constitution, you say, has been "officially dissolved." Let's take a look and, just for grins, start from the bottom up.
Congressional pay still regulated? Check.
Voting age still 18? Check.
Presidential succession plan still in place? Check.
Poll tax still prohibited? Check.
DC still part of the electoral college? Check.
Presidents still limited to two terms? Check.
Still able to sell, by, have and consume booze? Check.
Women still able to vote? Check.
Each state still electing two senators? Check.
Congress still able to have an income tax? Check.
Still unable to deny rights based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Check.
States still prevented from infringing on constitutional rights? Check.
Definition of citizenship still the same? Check.
States still prohibited from interfering with privileges and immunities? Check.
Due process and equal protection still required? Check.
States still subject to punishent for denying voting rights? Check.
Confederate officials still barred from holding seats in Congress? Check.
Slavery still illegal? Check.
Process for electing president still in place? Check.
States still have immunity from being sued in federal court by someone of another state or country? Check.
States still have powers not prohibited by the Constitution and not assigned to the fed? Check.
Are our rights that are spelled out in the Constitution still not the limit of our rights? Check. (No matter what Rep. Paul Ryan says.)
Are excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment still prohibited? Check.
Do you still have the right to speedy, public trial by jury? Check.
Still get to have a lawyer and confront your accuser? Check.
Still get to represent yourself in court? Check.
Still able to refuse to testify against yourself? Check.
Still protected from being tried more than once for the same offense? Check.
Still have a right to due process in civil and criminal cases? Check.
Grand jury still required in capital cases? Check.
Still protected from unreasonable searches? Check.
Feds still prohibited from housing soldiers in your home during peacetime? Check.
Still have the right to own and use guns? Check.
Still able to attend the church of your choice and believe as your heart directs you? Check.
Still able to speak your mind? Check. (As we're doing here.)
The press still able to print or say just about anything it wants to? Check.
Still free to get together with other people? Check.
Still able to try to change a law or rule? Check.
Nope. There all still there.
"Officially dissolved"? You must have really strong shoes to be able to shoot yourself in the foot so often and still function.
March 23, 2010 4:23 PM
Daaaang, you're good! Where have you been all our lives???
March 23, 2010 6:17 PM
Ditto. I am surprised I did not have him on my Follow list - adding him now.
March 24, 2010 2:26 PM
We're not the only ones! I've NEVER seen anyone go from 0-52 follows in 2 months, let alone 2 days!
Woo hoo!
March 24, 2010 2:40 PM
not sure you can count this one as much as they make: Congressional pay still regulated? Check. :)
March 23, 2010 8:43 PM
Hey American Dad, you've got it going on. Thanks for all your work here.
You've left them nary a hole to hide in.
March 23, 2010 10:19 PM
First, to your initial question.
"what is your first paragraph if not a comment on my actions? Well it's also a comment on my character. And it's false: no where in the post did I declare my level of education. Nor did I claim any entitlement. Or an elitist."
Let me clarify.
"Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy"
You insinuate that ALL Conservative Americans are irresponsible and unable to make democratic choices. Explain how this isn't elitist?
"I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation"
As if anyone needs advice on a topic so monumental. But ok. I'll continue to read. I haven't had enough biased opinions yet obviously.
"Come back to us"
What is us? Those who haven't fallen into the oblivion? Those that have no heart. Please! Spare us your self righteous gloating. This is a common thread amongst my liberal friends. Everyone else is "lost" and need to be found.
"You're going to have to come up with a platform that isn't built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own"
I would argue a more appropriate definition: giving the government carte blanc to launder tax moneys from one social class to another, rather than provide a solution to the problem. You have one opinion, someone else may have another. This, in my book is not a show of cowardice, rather a difference of ideology and vision for the future.
"Your party -- the GOP -- and the conservative end of the American political spectrum has become irresponsible and irrational"
I would agree. But from what I've seen the past 2 weeks, so has the democratic party.
"Worse, it's tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred"
Sensationalized YouTube videos and articles of clearly irate and irrational people are hardly grounds to provide a blanket stereotype against ALL Conservatives. Let's be real. Can you honestly tell me you found no similar videos, articles lambasting conservative philosophies and beliefs? If you need some, I'm sure I can find some. Twitter is a good place to start.
And since you spent the time to iterate "most" of the key constitutional line items, I will reciprocate with my "personal" favorite:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
and per AHD definition of the word Welfare in this context:
"Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution."
Notice the specific mention of NOT to benefit the poor, or public assistance.
I think you forgot that one.
I know you're going to throw that roads, post office, etc etc crap. And then I'll throw in energy, gas, utilities (South America sound familiar), and then you'll respond with yet another ad hominem, then I'll rebut with something else, and the cycle will repeat itself, over and over.
Contrary to the direction your article leads readers, there are very bright conservatives (and liberals). The same ones you are criticizing here. Most have REAL concerns about things you haven't even discussed, as you have chosen to focus primarily on the human aspect rather than the real question: is this (now) law, infringing on the rights of Americans?
Stop skirting our questions, then we can talk about human behavior.
March 24, 2010 2:14 AM
Funny how you think I smearing ALL conservatives when I say that most -- and real -- conservatives are NOT represented by the people, acts and statements presenting in the post. That, in fact, the links show us the non-conservative false face presented by the most vocal on the political Right, most especially the GOP, Fox and the Tea Party thugs.
If you fail to see that I'm calling on conservatives to reclaim their party from an unrepresentative minority this hurting them, hurting their party and hurting the republic, then you're missed the point of the post.
With that, I just can't help you.
March 24, 2010 2:50 AM
Having dug into your links and arguments, I cannot discount them. I do not claim to agree with the tactics being used by a party that is supposed to be representing my conservative point of view. And it is unfortunate there are leaders in congress (both sides) that bring this upon themselves. After all, perception is reality.
I think you've spend a great deal of time on something in which you have great fervor and emotion. I respect that. I wish I had the time to present as eloquent and concise an argument.
I'd like to reciprocate your "advice". If your intent is to reach out across the isle, might I recommend a less belligerent, condescending tone. Otherwise, you sound like another zealous liberal/conservative asking for retorts.
March 24, 2010 3:14 AM
Well said, skowronek. I would add that, in this case, the golden rule of effective persuasive writing is that "less is more." American Dad has done a great public service with his research and the posting of his results in this matter. I will certainly utilize parts of his list to help educate people. But AmDad's post runs way too long. Hit the high points, dude, and then refer the reader to another page of extended details if s/he so desires to pursue them. Just some free editorial advice from a seasoned technical writer and communications specialist.
March 24, 2010 11:33 PM
You need to read the last reply to this particular sub-thread. It is exactly the point you need to hear if you really seek to convince conservatives to step up to the plate.
March 24, 2010 4:18 PM
I have been recovering from Catholicism for 40 years! The POPE is the ANTICHRIST, and worse.
March 23, 2010 12:50 PM
AmericanDad, I just sent a link for this to the RNC. Didn't know if you, or anyone else did, but I thought they should be thinking about these things.
Good stuff.
March 23, 2010 1:18 PM
This is a big fucking deal.
March 23, 2010 1:38 PM
LOL!
March 24, 2010 11:11 PM
Excellent post. Thanks for taking the time.
March 23, 2010 1:43 PM
A very interesting and somewhat apropos article written by a conservative to the "Conservative Movement." Dear Conservative Movement: Stop Ruining My Life, by Michael Brendan Dougherty
March 23, 2010 2:00 PM
Reminds me of The Teabagger Pledge:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/18/783895/-The-Teabagger-Socialist-Free-Purity-Pledge
March 23, 2010 2:03 PM
So AmericanDad, why do you insist on using "conservative" and "Republicans" as synonymous words? You do realize that they aren't necessarily the same, right? Or is that part of your hypocrisy, hyperbole, revisionist history, and hatred?
March 23, 2010 2:05 PM
Also, it's quite telling that damn near all of your links go to other left-wing sites, and that somehow that validates what you are saying. Should I post some BS about how Obama is a muslim and then link to a far-right site as proof?
March 23, 2010 2:07 PM
Welcome to the debate!
March 23, 2010 2:08 PM
Waaaaaaaaa
March 23, 2010 2:45 PM
Now that's a startling weak response! Follow the link trail. The sites I've linked to provide links to entities that at least pretend to be objective and nonpartisan. Or use Google.
Or better yet, give us a list of actions and statements I've listed here which you of which you dispute the existence.
Your reply -- these sources of information are unreliable because the people working at them are liberals! -- is not really an argument. If you wish to say that these actions were not taken or these statements were not made, say so. All you've done given so far is an indirect swipe at their veracity with a limp swipe at the integrity of the sources of information.
This is exactly the sort of weakness, the sort of dishonest argument by nudges and winks, that is helping to undermine the GOP and conservatives in general. To be taken seriousl, more is required.
March 23, 2010 3:15 PM
Sore loser
March 23, 2010 2:46 PM
Conservative and Republican as synonymous? Of course not. And it's really quite clear in the post. I've called on conservatives to clean up the party that presents itself as representing them, because it is NOT representing them. In fact it's hurting them.
GOP (first entity) is hurting conservatives (second entity): two different things, see?
Conservatives (first entity) needs to clean up GOP (second entity): two different things, see?
I don't understand how you got that mixed up in your mind. However it happened, your confusion is not my hypocrisy/hyperbole/history/hatred. And your confusion does not undermine the post.
March 23, 2010 3:23 PM
You really have no intention of taking a single piece of feedback? Odd choice given the traffic this particular blog has generated. You could do a lot of good by paying at least pretending to care about dissenting views.
March 24, 2010 5:54 PM
I'd say he's paying quite a bit of attention to those people (like you) who are attacking his position. Then he quite calmly and eloquently lays out why he thinks they and you are wrong. The people who aren't taking the feedback are the ones(like you)who continue to insist he's making his assertions against the entire Republican party and all conservatives. HE'S NOT. In fact, he's saying that the majority of conservatives are rational, well-intentioned people.
Face it - there are a lot of crazy shit-birds who claim to(and many of them are elected leaders)speak for the entire Republican party, and that their words and deeds are creating a huge problem for the GOP, and this country as a whole. Admit the problem then start doing something about it, instead of trolling around here trying to argue (poorly I might add) that what AmDad is saying is not the truth.
Be a part of the solution!
March 24, 2010 7:15 PM
Actually, he isn't listening to the feedback (nor yourself apparently) at all because none of us are criticizing what he said or that it is inaccurate in any way. Nor did any of us say that this blog says all conservatives support or agree with the crazy shit he linked to.
We are saying that presenting this argument as some sort of open-hearted appeal to conservatives is facetious at best because no conservative would ever be convinced by this argument. Preaching to the choir is not the same thing as starting a dialog with people who don't already agree with you.
This entire blog is part of the problem in that it brings together the worst elements of both sides of the political divide.
March 24, 2010 9:24 PM
Conservatives won't read this.
March 23, 2010 2:12 PM
Why not? Or is this more hatred flowing against conservatives?
March 23, 2010 2:15 PM
This one's a treasure. Thank you.
March 23, 2010 2:15 PM
It is a treasure; one giant treasure of a misleading vividness fallacy.
March 23, 2010 2:17 PM
Sore loser
March 23, 2010 2:55 PM
If you're going to be taken seriously, your form of argument must be something more than the automatic gainsay of the other person's statements.
But then, the Right acting and speaking in such a way as to lose its credibility and respectability is what this post is about, so I guess you've driven home my point for me.
March 23, 2010 3:06 PM
Thank you for this.
March 23, 2010 2:27 PM
Reading through both sides of this debate confirms what most Americans I believe are felling now days.
It is like being in a car with two drunken fools. The one who is driving at the moment is being told to pull over by the other drunken fool and let them drive. As the one's who have not gotten drunk on power or acting morally irresponsible and risking others welfare, we want both the fools on ether side of us to shut up. The dems and the republicans need take a nap and clear their heads. No matter who we are, all of us are in this together. How about the two parties that are both obvious screwing up, clean up their sides before pointing fingers. Yes America it is time for a third party to come out of the "middle" of the ashes of these two corrupt parties.
March 23, 2010 2:37 PM
Sorry, the preponderance of evidence is against the notion of equivalency. As stupid and as mean as some Dems can be, there is nothing on the Left that even comes close to what's going on with the Right, not in number of reprehensible acts and statements and not in level of wingnuttery.
If you perceive that there is an equivalency, please write a post with examples and links, as I have done here.
One important point to keep in mind when doing our comparisons is that on the Right the wingnuttery isn't being said and done by some guy wearing a tin foil hat in his basement -- it's people who hold elective office, who hold poistions of authority within the GOP, who have great infuence among conservatives and who have nationally known TV and radio programs. There's simply nothing like it on the Left.
March 23, 2010 2:55 PM
Okay, Dad, how about a Ways and Means chairman that doesn't pay his taxes? Ditto for a Treasury Secretary. How about a House Speaker that laughably promises the most ethical Congress in history? How about a corrupt New Orleans sleazebag with $ 90 grand in cash found in his freezer, a state governor that sells a US Senate seat to the highest bidder, a Congressman that likes to "tickle" his own staff, a President that examines his White House staff with a fine tooth comb, while simultaneously sealing every record pertaining to his former self and hiding them all from public view. The same standing up and telling us there are no earmarks in an $ 850 billion stimulus bill. How long do you want me to keep going?
You're like an alcoholic in denial. You refuse to admit that you are an idealogue. A biased, unobjective, totally blind left-wing Kool-Aid drinker, who can't bring himself to see the same pitfalls and disgusting hypocrisy in the ranks of the left as well as the right.
We can only hope you'll rise above this partisan nonsense and get with the program. The future does not lie in these two parties. they are relics of the past century, devoid of any meaning or value. stop engaging in this juvenile ranting and find some real substance, will you?
March 23, 2010 11:44 PM
Ooh, you're good at name-calling! You'll fit right in.
Notice how the trend is that when the Dems get caught in corruption and sex scandals, they get booted out and rejected by their own party, while the Repubs tend to stay in office?
Nothing you've mentioned even touches the hem of the GOP's robe of shame. Not conservative's robe of shame (I seem to have to spell that out for our Righty readers over and over and over), but the GOP, Tea Party, Fox hate-talkers and hypocrites' robe of shame.
But hey, if it makes you feel better, keep trying!
March 24, 2010 2:59 AM
you sound like a 2-year old arguing with his older sister. GROW UP AND LET'S MAKE A MATURE DISCUSSION AND STOP THE PARTISAN BICKERING.
March 25, 2010 2:35 AM
I think you covered all the bases with that one. Just brilliant!
March 23, 2010 2:41 PM
I am a former conservative, small c--and I can say it was when the truth, the naked truth hit me square in the face, post-Katrina, that I made an open decision to abandon those who have really abandoned me. They have done nothing, absolutely nothing since to make me regret my decision.
Conservatives need to hear this. Sadly, many will never have the benefit to have the truth shoved down their throats with such precision and care.
Very well done, my friend.
March 23, 2010 2:50 PM
If we all were to step back a bit and ask whether or not two parties may both be right, and both be wrong at the same time, we may be closer to getting a range of answers that could prove helpful.
If I say that I approve of this post, does that mean I completely agree with everything? Does that mean I subscribe to everything the gentleman says, including his choice of references and sources? I would hope not.
Can we not agree that if we only look at things from one perspective we are limiting our understanding?
As a wise person once said, from the view of the tiger the villagers exist to be eaten, so as to feed the cubs. From the view of the villagers, the tiger is a threat and must be killed so as not to endanger the children.
Both are "correct", as seen from their respective points of view. But in this debate, this steel plated rock throwing, where is the context? What does each provide that is there to be learned?
I know that each viewpoint (tiger and villager) will make mistakes based on what they believe they know; they will act on their beliefs until one or the other comes to a different conclusion.
How does one come to that different conclusion in this pressure-cooker atmosphere?
Those with experience in quality control of systems will fully comprehend how wrong each can be, and how difficult it will be if the aim is to state a proof the other will agree to. This is wrong headed thinking, linear thinking.
There is no dividing line here, only a rather large batch of noise, making signal identification very difficult. And frankly, what we don't need more of is noise.
Life happens, and it doesn't require a two lane highway. In fact, that two lane divided highway is what causes the very sloppiness in our collective thinking. Our perception is flawed, and so we swing wildly in the mistaken belief that Group A will suffice when Group B did not.
It is a problem of perception, and it is our problem. Hire whom you will, fire whom you will, but if the perceived problem still exists, and even gets worse, it is only ourselves that we can blame if we so choose.
There is no 'best', there is only 'better', and our aim for this society is to forget the best and work on improving what we have, and in doing so make it better, not perfect.
My thanks to the gentleman for his excellent post.
March 23, 2010 2:53 PM
These comments say it all about what this is really about....it's sad that for every right thing we need to do as a country - we have to be dragged kicking and scratching into doing it - from Civil Rights to Civil War - it's amazing that we still haven't learned our lesson about treating your citizens right. Lady Liberty should have covered her face in shame when we supported apartheid for decades, without voting rights, invaded sovereign countries, bombed churches, killed women and children in others countries, stole land in the name of democracy and Christ, held people in slavery for almost 300 years, denied women the right to vote, almost wiped out an entire race in the name of manifest destiny, spit on our veterans during the Vietnam War, gave our current veterans substandard care when they returned home after serving. This debate is not only about healthcare - it's about what we really think of our country and what's the right thing to do. Yes, this bill needs more work - but doing nothing has put us in the position we are today. Every president since T. Roosevelt has tried to fix this situation - and failed. This bill includes things that both sides have campaigned for since Roosevelt's time, but now "all of a sudden" they are not for it anymore. What could have changed I wonder? And, those people that voted for and against that bill have FANTASTIC health insurance because we elected them. Are we really saying that the people we hired to work for us deserve better healthcare than the people who hired them? Are we really saying that other countries around the world can do something that we can't? Is it any wonder that our children today have a SHORTER life expectancy than the previous generation for the first time in almost 150 years? What does it say about us when we went from having almost the highest life expectancy in the world to now being NUMBER 49! What the heck? Let's go for 100! I know a lot of you - have grown up with a lot of you and I hope that I am wrong about what really seems to be going on here.
It's a lot of money we are being asked to deal with, but it is a lot of money to fight 2 wars, keep troops in places where the war was over 50 years or more ago (Germany, Japan, Korea, etc.....), paying for the uninsured (now) that have to be treated by the hospital whether they have insurance or not, pay for people to sit on their butts and not work, etc.... instead of using that money to pay for universal care to prevent disease and other conditions before they become expensive to fix as opposed to cheaper to prevent - and pay for college for everyone that wants to go so that we can compete abroad.
There is common ground in this bill - but to sit back and do nothing is immoral and those men and women in Congress should be ashamed for turning this into politics when people are being bankrupted by the current system (not in dispute), life savings being wiped out, being dropped from coverage because (oh ...the horrors.....) they got SICK! Social Security was and is a great idea considering what was in place prior to it's existence (NOTHING) and the great depression taught us that when that type of national disaster strikes, it's the poorest and most innocent in our country that take the brunt of it's effect. Medicare was fought tooth and nail - probably by those (now seniors) all of the country that today depend on it so much and would kill you if you
tried to take it away from them. It's amazing how much sympathy people get when it's their turn to need help.
Sorry everyone - I know you weren't expecting this "speech". I respect you all for what you believe, but I hope that it's for the right reason and not because you hate who and what Obama is as a person....Thanks.
March 23, 2010 2:54 PM
AmDad! Congratulations! It is rare that a piece from the cafe gets linked on the front page! I've enjoyed having some of the voices that never get back here showing up!
I wouldn't be surprised if we see this on MSNBC! (I sent them a link! As I'm sure others have!)
March 23, 2010 3:41 PM
Really? Now that's awesome!
March 23, 2010 4:42 PM
The front page link must've gone up and come down in a hurry. I don't see it there.
March 23, 2010 4:46 PM
As one from a conservative background who has moved much closer to the center, I really enjoyed this post.
I believe that there's quite a list that could be made about Democrats as well, but I don't deny the factual evidence about Republicans that you've shown here, nor do I have the time or the talent/skill to build such a list, nor do I want to - because regardless, the above cannot be dismissed.
I believe there are a few on the right that are still level-headed, but you're right that the majority of conservatives/republicans seem to have gone off of the deep end.
I don't claim a particular party, because there are parts from each that I agree with. I guess I could call myself an independent, but that may connote things I don't desire, I don't know.
I agree that level-headed conservatives really do need to clean house - the hyperbole has gone nuts, to the point where most of the things said are lies. Although, I believe there's some hyperbole coming from the left as well. Politics in general is a terrible mess, on the left and right both.
I think everyone needs to clean house and start over. It may not be feasible, but it seems it would be nothing but helpful.
March 23, 2010 3:51 PM
Stick around Brandon...I came here as a conservative nearly 2 years ago. Keep an open mind, listen and learn, and you'll find more and more reason to face left and keep walkin'!
March 23, 2010 4:45 PM
Wow, I didn't realize that. I am so delighted that conversion is possible. Democrats aren't perfect, but we do try to help the regular folks first.
I have two friends who converted in 11-08 and have just about totally let go of their right roots and moved to center left. I am delighted.
March 23, 2010 11:40 PM
Brandon, I agree with most everything you say.. I think to many Republicans on this site went into whiny defensiveness instead of saying yes, there are some problems in our house thanks for letting us know where they are. The hyperbole does coming from both sides and the tv shows that promote it are at the center of alot of it.. You gotta keep those ratings up... I am very Republican, but I can admit some of these are right on and need to be dealt with.
March 23, 2010 8:36 PM
American Dad. This was so informative and truth-telling.
Your post shines a bright light on how irrelevant the GOP has become.
I am going to crosspost this at my blog with your permission.
March 23, 2010 3:52 PM
Please do! And thank you.
March 23, 2010 4:33 PM
Yes, we are cutting and pasting and sending it viral. I've sent it to some friends with a great website called planetpov.com for them to post.
Thanks AmericanDad - as a former member of a republican household growing up I understand totally..
March 23, 2010 5:46 PM
This was well written and researched. Thank you for sharing.
March 23, 2010 4:02 PM
American Dad, thanks for this blog! I was referenced to this from Facebook.
March 23, 2010 4:11 PM
Ok. Now you've done it! You've finally proven that number one, I am not insane, and number two, I am not the only one out there that realizes how far off track the GOP has really gone! This post is like an index of everything that I've been writing in blogs, columns, and on Twitter for I don't know how long! If I had caught the disease that has made most of the GOP so crazy, I'd be accusing you of somehow jumping into my brain and stealing this all!
But seriously, it is great to see that someone else in the party "gets it". I think we both know that there is little chance that anyone in power in the party will own up to the nonsense and do anything about it. So, what now?
March 23, 2010 4:33 PM
A very wise man once told me that the world changes at the rate of one coversation at a time. Keep up what you're doing.
And don't worry about that implanted microchip that allows me to read your thoughts. I hardly ever share with the world what I see there (interesting dreams though....)
;-)
March 23, 2010 4:37 PM
If anyone needs a scenario by which to compare what has occurred in the past several weeks, they need only think of the loyal opposition as the Sunni's who stayed home and didn't participate in the first Iraqi election.
Today, the loyal opposition are coming out of the woodwork, literally, jumping and shouting Teacher, Teacher, ME! ME! I have a new idea, I have a new amendment!!!!
So now we have a new revitalized Sunni bloc right here in Washington DC. Now they have all the ideas and are making happy talk to any who will listen.
And by so doing, they are continuing to use the same tactics as before, saying "it will never work, never work, never never never!"
Until we find that it does.
I will now emote: the new Sunni party in D.C. has s**t for brains.
March 23, 2010 4:34 PM
I could never chronicle this path of cowardice, fear, and meanness without collapsing under the weight! So thank you you, above all, for the fortitude and clarity. And thank you for defending those brave Dixie Chicks.
March 23, 2010 4:46 PM
Great post American Dad...and judging by the number of conservatives who have come here to give their 2 cents I think you have hit on some fundamental truths that make some very uncomfortable.
March 23, 2010 4:53 PM
Thank you, AmDad. Thank you thank you thank you thank you. This was so well done, and I appreciate that you've taken concrete examples from a variety of sources. I also appreciate that you've made it pretty clear--in my mind, anyway--that your appeal is aimed at cleaning up a party that, at one time, *was* a respectable political party, or at least to the extent such a thing is realistically possible. How unfortunate that a few comments from people here have missed that point. Hopefully they'll take the time to sleep on it and read your post again with fresh eyes, having gotten the initial reaction out of their systems. And then send the link to everyone they know. Repeatedly.
Though I don't affiliate with any party in particular, I 100% agree that the GOP has gone off its rocker. I, too, grew up in a family of conservatives, and though they're well-meaning people, they generally don't make much of an effort to research issues, or at least understand them on a basic level; they're more apt to regurgitate popular media sound bites from ratings-influenced extremists (Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck,...take your pick). I think this is the central problem, actually, that Americans rely too heavily on sound bites to form an opinion rather than putting some work into forming our own opinions with some good old-fashioned research. (I can't imagine the time and effort you must have gone through, AmDad, to compile your veritable vat of links.)
To me, it seems we've lost sight of the purpose of a democratic political system: American politics is looking more and more like a reality TV show, wherein the most outrageous tend to stay in the game and the sensible ones tend to get voted out because they're just...kind of normal. The thing is, each of us has the power to vote sensibly--in a way that helps people more than it hurts them--but we get so wrapped up in the drama that we skew the issues in any way that makes us look good and the other guys look bad. That's why we end up with wild-eyed representatives like the ones you referenced in so many of your links above, instead of the kind-of-normal variety that *aren't* hell-bent on destroying people in the name of patriotism, political loyalties, or whatever the reason du jour. WTF, I ask you?
As far as bringing the GOP back into a healthy relationship with non-Republicans, it starts with the more sensible constituents you're appealing to: If all anyone elects is the Bachmanns of the world, you can bet the Party will keep digging itself into a deeper hole. (And the same would be true if the problem were as deep on the liberal end...but let's hope we only have to deal with *one* party in crisis at a time.) You can't rely on the crazed tunnel-vision types to help change the world we live in, so it's up to people who can see the bigger picture: When the sensible speak up, sensibility will follow. It's a simple formula, but it requires changing some habits. Like killing your television rather than your neighbor, for example.
Yeah, it would be great to see the two main political parties working together toward solutions rather than points. If even one sensible conservative was moved by this post to help make that happen within the GOP, I would consider that a step in the right direction. No pun intended. Honest.
March 23, 2010 5:13 PM
Instead of being a letter to conservatives this should be a message the "conservative" politicians. The ones that run on a platform that I generally agree with, but their lives, votes and statements post election turn out to not reflect those views. Am I to blame for their deceit? Nothing the article said was anything that I've ever done in my life, if more people could get it out of their heads that the officials in office don't usually represent what we want (on both sides of the aisle), this nation might be able to get more done and stop arguing. Not that there aren't just outright stupid people out there that need to read this: I'm looking at you Faux News, but I'm sick of people hating me because of these beguiling politicians I am forced to be represented by. I make sure to speak up against those that state some of the thing you mentioned, but I don't appreciate that the whole conservative mind set is blamed for those radicals. I agree with almost every point you made, but you're making too broad of a generalization. Is it right that people do these things? No. Is it right for you to blame every conservative for the idiotic few?...
March 23, 2010 5:18 PM
Wow- that's a beautiful piece of work. The hipocrisy of the right is the thing I take biggest issue with. I know the Dems aren't perfect- and so do they...;)
I will be forwarding this link to a lot of folks.
Thanks again for the post & FACTS!! :)
March 23, 2010 5:19 PM
I give you credit for putting a lot of effort into this, but it's not much more than recycled liberal cliches, logic errors, misinformation and half-truths.
I think the main problem is that you are confusing conservatives as a group with the actions (and mistakes) of conservative politicans. As a conservative, I no more have to apologize for the misstatements of a Republican Congressperson than you do for a Democratic one.
We are not on different sides here, nor should we not be. It's not my team is right, and yours sucks. That's superficial, childish, and acheives nothing...must like your post. The very harmony you supposedly want to achieve is undercut with everything you say.
March 23, 2010 5:29 PM
Spoken like someone who wants to achieve harmony.
March 23, 2010 5:42 PM
I don't care about harmony. Truth comes first, harmony later. we have no choice to work together, whether it's harmonious or not.
March 23, 2010 6:05 PM
You're the second conservative who seems confused by the conservative vs Republican notion. I'm not mixing them or blending them, I'm saying that until conservatives clean their house of the politicians and talking heads that are now the face and the voice of the GOP, the GOP will not represent them and the American people will not take them seriously. It's really pretty clear.
March 23, 2010 7:09 PM
Thank you, AmDad. I've been fighting Republican hyperbole for years with reasoned arguments backed up by links from news sites, and it's the only way to EVER open a crack in the blind dogma of the average FOX News watcher.
Your list but scratches the surface of the Republican hypocrisy that is so utterly infuriating. It's like arguing with drunks, and they wonder why intelligent individuals can so easily write them off.
It's because they (usually) bring nothing to the table but lies and innuendo, backed by the occasional link to a site that is simply regurgitating the same falsehood.
When you point this out to them, and link them to the facts, the denial mechanisms they employ are astounding in their complexity and vitriol, yet we must try to maintain an objectivity to the truth, and be ready to call out our own mistakes as well as theirs, if we are to hold on to our dignity.
I appreciate your time in developing this list, and I understand as you compiled it, how therapeutic it can be to simply remind oneself that the facts are indeed facts, and that the drunk in front of you is revealed as such in light of the facts.
March 23, 2010 5:49 PM
"Thank you, AmDad. I've been fighting Republican hyperbole for years with reasoned arguments "
Doubtful, but anything is possible.
It's because they (usually) bring nothing to the table but lies and innuendo
An example of this supposedly constant lying would be...illuminating. Is it really likely to you that disagreement is really motivated by such ignorance? In other words, are people on one side of the ideological fence stupid, and the other side smart?
Not only is it unlikely, it's just about impossible.
March 23, 2010 6:09 PM
I think that 80% of America pays very, very little attention to politics and politicians. So, yeah, I think there are a number of people who usually vote Republican who are not aware of what's been done to the GOP.
March 23, 2010 6:15 PM
Rob,
I didn't think it was required to repost all of AmDad's links exposing the lies and innuendo everyone is discussing on these posts, so I simply suggest you start at the beginning of his excellent list of examples and work your way down.
As for your question of whether people are smarter on one side of the fence or not, let me answer with a few questions:
On which side of the idealogical fence do you find more misspelled signage, blatant racism and illogical rhetoric based on political propaganda from media sources known for their invective?
On which side do you find more college educated, anti-war progressives? Don't get confused here, as contrary to Glenn Beck, "progressive" is being used in a positive sense, meaning "to progress" or "move forward", as opposed to regressive, meaning "to regress" or "move backward".
So, I refute your assertion that it's unlikely or impossible to characterize an idealogical movement as being attractive to differing levels of intelligence and insight, in the same spirit of drawing a line on the ground and asking a group of schoolchildren to assemble on either side according to their belief in the Tooth Fairy. Those that think for themselves and have based their decision on an observance of reality will usually choose the non-believing side, while the younger ones that trust their parents to tell them the truth will steadfastly cling to their worldview, especially since they earned a shiny new quarter last month.
March 23, 2010 7:21 PM
This is just one big grouping of logical fallacies...
March 23, 2010 9:02 PM
Your important point about the end of legitimate conservative discourse cannot be undone by whiny retorts.
Progressive conservatism historically was rooted in a sincere belief that the greater good was advanced by economic liberalism, tolerance, church/state separation and strong, secular morality.
That kind of thinking has been shouted down by the self-centered, thuggish, pseudo-Christian mentality of Roger Ailes and the John Birchers, falsely masquerading as patriotic "tea partiers" who believe in democracy only when their party is in power.
March 23, 2010 6:13 PM
I should do one of these, too.
I could point out that many of the same people who claimed Bush went into Iraq on "false pretenses" are often the same folks who were willingly duped by the rigged-CBO numbers to pass Obamacare! False pretenses, indeed.
Also that deficits were bad when Bush was President, but no biggie now.
Also that the Patroit Act was supposedly destroying our liberty but the health care fiasco, like not at all.
Also that if you want to see a real "Party of No" in action, you can ask Democrats in the minority to try to repeal aspects of the welfare state. Remember Bush's Social Security Plan?
Also that Bush wass supposedly shredding the Constitution, while Obama makes speeches criticizing Supreme Court justices for protecting the First Amendment.
And has anyone heard of a liberal, ever, supporting the Tenth Amendment?
Or of all the whining that went on when the filibuster looked like it was going to derail healthcare? Remember hearing criticisms from liberals on that rule when THEY were in the minority?
Or about a hundred other things....see? It's REALLY EASY!
March 23, 2010 6:20 PM
Please do, and make sure you include those links or citations. Looking forward to your blog.
March 23, 2010 6:35 PM
The links and citations above prove very little. They (probably!) prove that something happened, but they can't prove if that something is actually relevant to the larger point being made.
I think people are not thinking very clearly when they are impressed with the mere presence of citations, without regard to what they actually add to the discussion.
March 23, 2010 6:43 PM
I will tell you this because the source has to be credible, but your insistence in discounting it makes me see intellectual laziness. I teach graduate level classes in education and I think teaching, after a military career, I understand the merit of having a well rounded and coherent argument.
You just send up smoke signals of bullshit, and just validated that. So you just keep on thinking you wax eloquent when youre just a verbal four-flusher.
Dont bother reciprocating as I'm not interested. Just another lazy conservative liar.
March 23, 2010 7:58 PM
Hi Marinus....you have a way with words...tell it like it is...
March 23, 2010 10:40 PM
Yes, Rob, you should do one, except you can't, as all of your "points" are demonstrable lies.
I dare you, (as AmDad has done), to back up your ridiculous claims with links to reputable news.
It is a FACT that there were no WMDs in Iraq. So yes, reality having a liberal bias proves that Bush DID invade Iraq on false pretenses.
It is a FACT that the Patriot Act negates several key provisions of the Bill of Rights. Once again, you lie and obfuscate, as trolls do.
As for Bushes' Social Security Plan, it seems the FACTS back up that regardless of his "plan", his actions were to take our surplus and give it away (plus billions more) to tax cuts which only forced us into more debt.
The FACT is, the speech President Obama made criticized the ridiculous decision that a corporation is the same as a full human person, and can therefore spend any amount of money to support its political aims. This empowers faceless corporations to outspend the American people on any issue, thwarting true Democracy. If you support this, you are truly misguided.
I'm a liberal, and I fully support the 10th Amendment. In FACT, you have my full support to move to Texas and secede from the Union.
March 23, 2010 7:56 PM
Wow, just wow. This might just be the blog of the year around here. In terms of content and in terms of the response. Nicely done.
March 23, 2010 6:30 PM
For all the infinite numbers of mistakes Republicans have made, it's still time to begin to dismantle the welfare state. It will either be dismantled by choice, or by insolvency, but it is going.
We have over $100 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare. These can't be paid without massive inflation or even more massive tax hikes, and it's doubtful they can be paid at all. And, of course, this figure does NOT include the current healthcare for all Barry-ego boondoggle. Well, the good news is that the States are broke, too (unfunded pension liabilities).
We can only solve this problem with joint action. If you hate the other side and think their stupid, that's irrelevant. Maybe some of them ARE. We don't have to love each other. But we have to put away the childish he-said, she-said nonsense and realize once and for all that the government can't possibly provide crade to grave anything. People are aggrivated with Obamacare because it's obvious we are going in completely the opposite direction we need to.
March 23, 2010 6:30 PM
In other words, we'll all get along just so long as we agree with your view of things. Nice.
Love the name-calling toward the President!
Thank you for proving my point.
March 23, 2010 7:04 PM
"In other words, we'll all get along just so long as we agree with your view of things. Nice."
No, of course I never said that. You made that up. I said crazy and irrelevant accustations, like you are making in your posts, do nothing to solve any problem.
March 23, 2010 7:15 PM
The best place to begin with stopping the "he-said, she-said nonsense" is the hate speech talk radio, FOX news 24/7 propaganda and GOP lie machine.
Every bit of this nonsense stems from this side, and you have voices like Rachel Maddow and others who work very hard to refute the mud-slinging.
I find it so telling that as you offer this platitude, in the same breath you sling mud by calling the President a derogatory, schoolyard name.
As with most all Republican trolls, you are here with but one objective: to be divisive without offering any real meat to the discussion.
Grow up, Rob. Stop wasting everyone's time. We've got real work to do in this country.
March 23, 2010 8:07 PM
Wow, there is hope after all. Thanks American Dad you're a real American. I hope others are ready to put away the childishness and roll up our sleeves and let's get this country rebuilding again. Nice work, its long over due.
March 23, 2010 6:50 PM
Loved it
March 23, 2010 6:55 PM
This is impressive to some extent. No doubt it took a lot of time to compile examples of Republican hypocrisy. Why not title your post "An Open Letter to Republicans?" Well, no one likes Republicans so it wouldn't be nearly as interesting. Problem is, it's also not very honest. It's a classic leftist bait and switch, playing fast and loose with language, knowing the acolytes won't get it (as is painfully obvious by all the commenters who have heaped you with praise, Russell) and banking on the fact that most conservatives won't pay you much attention so you don't have to actually argue with those who may be your intellectual equals, even superiors. Dewey was supreme at this. But the only thing this post shows is that you cruise quite a few left-wing blogs and you have an awful lot of time on your hands. Counterexamples for the right to bash the left are myriad and mostly boring, as was this post. (You mean there are examples of politicians acting badly, not representing the best of the party's ideals? Shocker!) The difference is that conservatives tend to find such examples embarrassing and progressives don't have arms long enough to embrace all those who show their true colors. One brief example: Bill Clinton is the sexual-harrasser-in-chief? NOW ain't got nothin' to say. But I digress. This is really just more of the same demonization, dehumanification of political opponents and ideas, trite from the left, to which the rest of us are inured, a tactic which is truly irrational and irresponsible. (It's a tacit admission that you cannot engage the ideas.) You contribute to that which you claim to condemn. You are as much a hypocrite as those you seek to expose. If the left were capable of shame that last line would mean something to you.
March 23, 2010 7:08 PM
Lots of words there, but they're just a verbose version of "Sez you!" Real argument is something more. This is the sort of stuff, as noted so many times now, that hurts the GOP and undermines conservatives.
The attack the messenger tactic is familiar, too. The leaders of the Right treat taht like taking their daily vitamin. More of the damage being done to the American Right.
You make the all-too-common mistake of thinking that the Left did not (and do not still) bash Clinton for his sexual stupidity, twisted defenses and love affair with corporate interests. I suspect you need to believe that of us, but your need does not magically transform reality. And the vocal Right's Clinton fetish (with both Bill and Hillary) is yet another weakness that undermines real conservatism.
Trite? Really? Hypocrisy, dishonesty, bigotry and hatred are trite to you? Violence is a small thing? Most revealing. Remind me not to invite you over for dinner.
March 23, 2010 7:22 PM
Oh snap, The Last Man just got schooled, baby!
Sorry, I had to go there. You're absolutely right, AmDad; it's shoot-the-messenger, attack dog invective at every turn by the Conservative Right. The easily fooled fall for it every time, but then again their focus audience has an attention span uniquely suited to WWF wrestling and monster truck rallies, so this type of idea-free bluster is usually mistaken for actual reasoned thinking.
March 23, 2010 8:19 PM
You cleverly sidestepped my argument, Russell. I don't blame you. I can see how it would be hard to see how you're promoting exactly what you condemn. This is simple straw man argumentation. You distorted one aside and made that the centerpiece of the attack. I won't dwell on it for long: I couldn't care less about Clinton's peccadilloes. It would be impossible for you to conclusively say where I stood on that issue. My point was that hypocrisy exists on the left as well. Unfortunate but not surprising that you would miss that for your own rhetorical purposes. (I'm not sure it's charitable to assume you would on purpose, because if so, you would be dishonest. Possibly it's more charitable to assume you did not, though that would lead to the conclusion that you're not too bright. I'll let you choose.)
And again, the accusations of hypocrisy, dishonesty, bigotry and hatred themselves are trite yet your embodiment of such are on full display here. What an assumption to make! You won't have me for dinner! I should be ... what? Again, you unwittingly prove my point. This is all too easy.
The problem with this post and all of your subsequent responses (All? Maybe not all, but I don't care to read ALL of them. I got the cut of your jib after a few dozen which oozed of the self-congratulatory) is that it doesn't address in anyway, certainly not substantively, the ideas at the foundation of conservatism. It's merely ad homineim. Not that ad homineim is always a problem, as Nietzsche thought, but there must be some connection between the ideas promoted and the resultant corruption. The reasons these types of posts are utterly unconvincing is because, besides the lack of coherent argumentation for a proscriptive idea or a serious critique of the foundation of the political opposition, the behaviors that are lamented aren't connected to the foundations. Any conservative who reads this understands intuitively that you aren't engaging ideas here but you're promoting a base tribalism. Nothing in this post would -- nor even seeks to -- persuade conservatives that their ideas are wrong. This is typical of the left, which seeks to rationalize emotion by attacking the person rather than the arguments.
And so the problem with this thinly veiled, disingenuous post parading as sophistication, is that most conservatives, like myself, won't disagree with you in the particulars but ultimately won't be persuaded by such cheap trickery because we make room in our worldview for individuals acting imperfectly and even in some cases as corrupt, hypocritical politicians.
Engage in the ideas, if you can. And then we'll see if you're thoughts are made of something more than the wispy fluff on display here. Problem is, you're so transparent. And therefore completely boring.
But, I'm sure you're a nice guy and pleasant dinner company whenever those of your intellectual depth and ideological stripe are in attendance. And maybe, hopefully, even when they aren't.
March 23, 2010 11:49 PM
I'm sorry. I have to point something out here.
Given the eloquence of your responses so far, I have to believe that you are possessed of at least some intelligence.
So why is it that you have missed the central point of the post? AmDad is not, repeat *NOT*, attacking all conservatives. What he *is* doing is asking them to get rid of the hypocritical, hate/fear mongers who have established themselves as the "face" of conservatism. These people, who seem unable to hold a simple discourse without resorting to demonizing the opposition, give all conservatives a bad name - just as any fringe wackaloons give the group they are associated with (however tenuously) a bad name.
Yes, he does point out (and back up) a number of examples. And while no group is without fault and wackaloons (yeah, I like that word), just because they exist elsewhere in no way diminishes their existence or the need to deal with and/or distance them from the majority of conservatives.
They're there. You want the real moral high ground? Clean them up. Tell the wackaloons that they are no longer welcome, and to take their idiocy elsewhere.
Read. Comprehend.
March 24, 2010 3:17 PM
Persuaded to what? You won't be persuaded to weed out the bad apples because you feel he approached something from a point of view? Should you even NEED to be persuaded? Rather than admonishing the lefties for lumping the righties into a group, or playing the "I know you are, but what am I?" game, why not take that zeal and affect change?
March 25, 2010 5:27 AM
FACT: Martin Luther King was a CONSERVATIVE REBUBLICAN. Enough said!
March 23, 2010 7:18 PM
Enough said? er ... not really. I don't get your point.
March 25, 2010 12:42 AM
That certainly was "enough said". Despite the brevity, I couldn't wait for it to end.
March 25, 2010 6:30 PM
Democrats can't be in favor of Civil Rights, when they largely supported the Confederacy in the Civil War.
Democrats can't say public abortion funding is bad, and vote for a bill that contains it anyway.
Democrats can't be in favor of racial quotas, because they said during the 1964 Civil Rights Act debate quotas wouldn't happen.
Democrats can't be in favor of Obama's Afghanistan surge, since they were against Bush's Iraqi surge.
Democrats can't critize Israel, not when it was a Democratic President (Truman) that recognized Israel in the first place.
What am I solving or proving here? Nothing. Nada. Zip.
March 23, 2010 7:20 PM
"Democrats can't be in favor of Civil Rights, when they largely supported the Confederacy in the Civil War."
I'm pretty sure that no Democrat currently serving in any elected capacity -- or indeed, breathing -- supported the Confederacy in the Civil War.
Seriously? You seriously just tried to suggest that that is equivalent, or even relevant? That a certain policy was held over a century ago by a collection of people with the same corporate name?
This is exactly the sort of obfuscation that is being addressed in the article. I'm almost suspecting AmDad of planting you.
March 23, 2010 11:45 PM
You're right. When you have to reach back more than 140 years for your first example -- and ignore the decades between -- you really do prove nothing.
I'll help you out. Democrats can't claim to be for social justice because they did not object when Jesus was going through his mock trials and being crucified!
Democrats can't claim to be for the environment or endangered species when they did not lift a hand to help Noah build the ark.
Democrats can't say they're for women's rights because they were absolutely silent when Eve took the heat for the Big Fruit Incident.
March 24, 2010 10:17 AM
I think I just came a little.
March 23, 2010 7:28 PM
This has been carefully researched. That is unlike the hyperbole that if offered by the Rabid Right!
March 23, 2010 7:31 PM
AmericanDad
I took the liberty of cutting and pasting into an email to Rachel Maddow. I have a feeling if her assistants see my email, will take interest in your blog.
Thank you again. I think this is one of the best blogs I have read here in a long long time and there have been many
March 23, 2010 7:37 PM
Hey, AmericanDad!
Tomorrow is my 65th birthday, so thanks for the present! It's beautiful and I can really use it!
Ken Forst
March 23, 2010 7:41 PM
Happy Birthday! Glad I could help celebrate.
March 24, 2010 2:51 AM
Thanks, AmDad for this very useful repository of info chronicling the descent of the GOP. I've bookmarked this as a valuable reference tool. Kudos.
I hope they find their way back as voice of reasoned dissent to act as a check against any single party's tendency for overreach and political insulation and dominance.
Clearly, at this point, the GOP is way behind the reason and honesty curve. But absolute power doth corrupt--and I haven't tons o' faith in the Democratic party's increasing penchant for corporate interests and filthy lucre either.
Publicly funded elections--as always--are sorely needed. Will they ever be a viable reality?
March 23, 2010 7:43 PM
Democrats can't be for gay marriage, as they have voted in several states to outlaw it.
Democrats can't criticize the actions of the Fed under Bush because Obama reappointed Bush's Fed Chairman to another term.
Democrats can't criticize racists, because Senator Byrd was once a member of the Klan.
Democrats can't say tax cuts only benefit the rich, since President Kennedy cut tax rates on the rich.
Democrats can't say pre-emptive wars are bad, because of The Bay of Pigs.
March 23, 2010 7:56 PM
Great Post...
Let's add this....
How can the Democrats vote against the Patriot Act, an Act that would peer into citizens emails/phone calls from Islamic Terrorists overseas...weakening our National Security but at the same time vote for Obama-Care that adds over 16,000 new IRS Agents peering into our private checking accounts every month looking for non-buyers of health insurance?
Limiting personal liberty to enhance "Social Justice" is a tenant of Progressivism, while catching Islamic Terrorists at the expense of personal privacy is verboten to progressives.
March 23, 2010 9:18 PM
First, to the author of the passage: This is amazing; part of me feels like it would be better not to comment, given the high tempers - but I wanted to make sure that the author could get the textual a gold- star he deserves.
Second, Mr. Stumpf... I want you to know that I'm only replying to YOU because you made a reasonable statement about this not being us vs. you.
1. Democrats should NOT be given a free pass; not for corruption, nor for hypocrisy. If Bill Clinton was out there telling me that I'd be going to hell and did not deserve equal rights if I cheated on my wife, then I'd be pretty pissed at him, too. (I might still admire his positive traits though, as I do Nixon's.)
2. I believe the essence of this post is asking that the 'right' (Aside: I really hate that term, as back in the day, the Republicans were actually lefties; and the label 'conservative' doesn't really work either, because they do not 'conserve' the heritage of action that birthed this country) stop acting in a manner that HURTS the nation, for the sake of having more R's in D.C. (And, if I saw dems do this, I'd call them on it, too!)
Really, would it be too hard to be HONEST about what is actually in the bill, and have a REASONABLE and HONEST debate about it?
Would it be possible to stop using the terms 'socialist' or 'communist' for programs meant to protect/help the public? (This is my biggest pet peeve here. If health care is socialist, so is the military, public education, policemen, firemen, FDIC, consumer protections, employee protections, emergency response, courts of law and any other service provided by government. Shall we forgo these as well? I mean, one would get to keep their tax dollars!)
3. You're right, the Patriot Act is something right out of 1984, and I hate that the dems have allowed it to stay in place. Hell, I don't even really blame the repubs for this one; it was a group effort.
4. I am failing to reconcile helping people afford healthcare and intervening on a monopoly and 1984. MAYBE Brave New World, if you take it REALLLLY far.
5. I have nothing against reasonable war. I do have something against wars being started under false pretenses.
6. Bush inherited a surplus. He left with a mega-deficit. And, really, one could not run a successful company with that kind of accounting. :)
7. Obama inherited the deficit. And, a broken economy. In order for an economy to exist, it requires spending. Not really sure how to get around that one, and I hate it when people refuse to hear that.
8. Dems & Repubs are both in the pockets of the banks, it seems. :( All of whom should not have left this crisis without a boatload of hurt.
9. Term, possibly even age, limits. Even for you, my beloved Nancy Pelosi. :(
10. Fiscal Responsibility does not mean being stupid about the economy, or refusing to examine expenditures that may in fact save money in the end.
Example: If I run a business and find that by investing upfront in my manufacturing line, I can cut my operating costs by net 25% - AND I don't even have to put up all of the capital at once! - it seems like it'd be a pretty wise move to make.
Flip Example; If I run a business and it turns out that in ten years, my operating expenses are going to completely deplete my cashflow, but I can make investments now to bring those expenses back in line ---> seems kind of dumb not to act.
11. Mandates suck without a public option. :( Then again, I think our system of healthcare is way too complicated as is and am upset that neither party seemed to suggest an idea that I think would be brilliant -> Investing in people who want to take up the medical career, and making it easier for them to make the commitment. Not to loosen our standards of quality care, but to expand the pool of excellent/educated care providers. Greater supply to take care of the demand, etc.
12. Don't hate on reconciliation after using it so much. No, seriously. Fess up to having used it, at the very least. Anything else is a disgusting lie - or worse.
And now, my brain is dead. :) So, I leave on this final note, Mr. Stumpf. Please don't take these things too personally. I agree, name calling each side is pointless. And, furthermore, I think that the basic republican philosophy of fiscal responsibility, individual rights and keeping government from being stupidly labyrinthine is right on. But, that's not what I'm seeing. I see people hating on others for the color of their skin, their sexuality, and other things that really aren't their business. I see people trying to force their religion on others. I see people trying to rewrite history so that their side looks good, and the other side looks bad.
The hate-mongerers of conservative media, the legislators who outright lie to their constituents, or who refuse to work WITH people to make things better for the people of this country - they're the ones who I despise; and unfortunately, they seem ubiquitous. It's time someone took over the Republican party, returning it to its TRUE roots, but not forgoing sensibility.
I'm going to lay it down on the line; I'd love to talk. I'll admit my faults. I'll condemn bad actions by lefties, and listen to honest rebuttals to my theories. I am willing to admit that maybe my theories are wrong; in fact, I'd be willing to bet that our ideas shaken, not stirred, would be better than the ones we have individually. But this can't happen if you can't be honest, too.
March 23, 2010 9:33 PM
Also, I figure I should toss this in here - I am NOT blaming YOU for the actions of people in your party, saying it's your fault, you're dumb, all of your ideas are wrong and that you are the most terrible person that ever lived just because you vote R.
However, should I see evidence of it, I WILL blame people for willful ignorance, partisan-hood or oversimplification of society and human nature. (On any side of the 'spectrum.')
March 23, 2010 9:41 PM
It's actually worse than that -- precious few Dems had the spine to vote agaist the Patriot Act. To their everlasting shame.
March 24, 2010 2:24 AM
Bwahahahaha!
Republicans shouldn't vote against anything involving morals, because most of their elected officials seem to have been married at least twice, including at least once to a mistress.
They shouldn't vote on anything involving education, because they don't believe anyone needs to learn more than how to make a mark where they're told to make it. (And learning to think and reason is right out.)
They shouldn't vote on anything involving government, because they don't believe government should exist.
When all y'all decide to rejoin the civilized world, we're going to have a lot of teaching and retraining to do.
March 24, 2010 1:37 AM
Sore loser
March 24, 2010 8:13 AM
Thank you, AmericanDad - not just for the excellent and well thought out letter, and not just citing sources extensively, but for approaching things as level-headedly as possible.
I've spent most of my adult life being called many a nasty name by people who hold opposing political views to mine, and there was a time that I slung invectives right back as well, but really, all this does is create more fuel for the fire.
I don't want to hate conservatives - I'd like the Republican party to be a viable opposition to the Democratic party simply because we need some sort of balance to the system. Absolute power does corrupt, and I can't imagine any party, no matter how well intentioned, not going off the rails without being properly checked.
So Republicans - come back. Be the conservative voice that gives us pause and second thought and keeps us from galumphing joyously into a minefield (because come on guys, we're not infallible here, and even as the most compassionate liberal possible, it's entirely too easy to wreak havoc with the best of intentions). Most of all, stop listening to the pundits who play on your fears.
It's easy to be scared right now with everything that's going on, and everything that has gone wrong - I am right there, right beside you as an American citizen, more uncertain than ever about my future, the future of my family, and the future for us all. But please stop listening to those who capitalize on our very real and justifiable fears for political gain. Turn fox news off. Turn Rush Limbaugh off. Let's actually stop yelling at each other and start talking.
And that goes just as much for my friends on the left, too - After being bashed over the head again and again with scathing and irrational ditto-head-esque propaganda, it's really easy to think that balance is achieved because there's someone on the TV telling us that hey, here's how dumb those Republicans and Tea Party nut jobs are, hyuk hyuk hyuk (I'm especially looking at *you*, Keith Olbermann) - it's the same fuel on the fire, just out of a different gas can.
So seriously - guys, let's not hate. Enough, okay?
March 23, 2010 8:12 PM
Sushispook,
I don't think you see the larger picture. No appeal to their better side will EVER work. The level of fingers-in-the-ears, na-na-na refutation is too high. No amount of facts and truth will prevail, as it is seen as some kind of liberal trick. You have a better chance of convincing a Southern Baptist to renounce Jesus than you do of appealing to their sense of fair play and equality.
To the Conservative Right, the Liberal Left are cockroaches to stomped out of existence. We've reached an open hand across the aisle so many times, only to draw back a bloody stump. It's no use - they have a siege mentality. All or Nothing. Black and White.
The key is to ignore the baiting (easier said than done) and push forward with real progress. Words won't do it. Reason will be trampled. Only action and result have a chance to work.
Once they see the benefits, only then will they open their eyes, begrudgingly.
Aw hell, who am I kidding? They'll never see: If you ask them today what the think of Social Security, they'll tell you it's the best thing a Republican ever devised, and that without it, we'd have Socialism. ; )
The powerful will always use the intellectually weak to further their own aims, twisting the truth 180 degrees to cause them to dig their own grave.
March 23, 2010 8:49 PM
Hey qxe -
Well, here's my viewpoint: If you spend all day getting exposure to definition of Conservatives and Republicans in comment sections such as this, it would be pretty easy to surmise that there is no possibility of a common ground.
I don't believe that's the case, because I've had reasoned and friendly conversations with people who hold Conservative and Republican viewpoints.
So, I think the larger picture is stepping back and realizing that the vilification and demonization of a party that so many people self-identify with (whether you agree that they're being led to the slaughterhouse or not) is simply an impossible and untenable situation, and can only breed more ill-will on both sides. We've got plenty of that, and examples we can point to on the Tea Party side of things, and it's getting us nowhere - people keep feeling marginalized, especially when they believe that they've got nothing to lose... marinate that in fear, and things will get violent and stupider. And that's something that's even harder to come back from.
March 23, 2010 9:36 PM
Sushispook,
If you can tell me how these two sides can come together reasonably, I'd love to hear it, but in my experience (and not just hanging out in an echo chamber), I've never met a Conservative or Republican or NeoCon (or whatever splinter group they call themselves) that didn't have utter contempt for me once I identified myself as Liberal Left.It was no use hiding it, any talk of politics and our differences stood out like the sun.
No, as long as hate radio and the GOP Fox channel is shoveling it, they will always divide and conquer. Find a way to get them to tone down their frenzied, spittle dashed rhetoric and the sheeple will calm down.
Naive calls for love and peace won't do it I'm afraid, though I'd love it if they could. I can't seem to get through on that level, and when I try, they act like doberman pinschers and if they see you being nice, they take it as a sign of fear so they attack and ridicule. THERE IS NO TALKING TO THEM.
Just look at the comments on this blog. Do you see any Republicans offering a handshake? Not a one. All they offer is vitriol. Fine by me, I'm ready to let them pull back some bloody stumps for once.
I've come to hate them. I hate their misspelled racist signage. I hate their self-congratulatory manner as they trade Beck's one-liners as if they dropped from the lips of Christ himself. Their obstructionist, mean-spirited, bullying-but-acting-as-if-they're-the-salt-of-the-earth manner is intensely grating.They can't tell you why they hate something, they just know they hate it. If they can't remember who to hate, they just need a moment with the AM radio in the pickup.
I grew up with these redneck neanderthals and they have about as much collective sense as a bag of hammers. I know, I seem bitter, and I am. After eight years of Bush, and listening to them talking about what kinds of "enhanced interrogation" is most appropriate for liberal traitors that talk shit about the President, I'm not about to try to work with these a**holes anymore.
If they want to listen to all their beloved hate radio and whoop in unison to Michael Savage and Michael Reagan, then let them. Just don't ask me to welcome them back into my arms as brothers after the way they treated me in the Bush years, and after they've spent the last year calling Obama every name in the book.
They made their bed and they need to lie in it. When we Democrats had to lie in our bed we made with Clinton, when Bush was installed they enjoyed p*ssing on us where we lay, and laughed all the while.
March 24, 2010 1:17 AM
I'm a libertarian, not a Republican or conservative, qxe. So I don't say what I'm about to say to exculpate the GOP for any of its boobs, buffoons, or boors.
The reason that you and I can never find common ground has absolutely zero to do with me regarding you as a cockroach to be exterminated. It has everything to do with the basic fact that nobody, Democrat OR Republican, is willing to leave me alone.
That's all I've ever wanted: to quietly and peacefully pay my own way through the world, living my life as I see fit while doing no harm to others. Nevertheless, at every turn I've got both sides of the aisle sticking their fingers into my pockets and their guns into my face, demanding that I do this and pay for that, for some loosely-defined "common good" that I neither need nor want, and certainly never asked for. And then there's the ongoing vilification: that I'm some selfish asshole for only wanting to pay for the commons according to my (extremely limited) consumption rather than according to my means.
You want accommodation and understanding from this particular member of the proverbial Other? Get the guns out of my face and the hands out of my pockets. Deal with me as an individual rather than some faceless member of a collective that requires Team Blue's benevolent management. If you fail to convince me of the merits of your plans through reason, don't then turn around and dragoon me into them through force. Stop yoking me to your utopian designs through the fiction that I owe "obligations to society" or, indeed, to anybody except to the extent I undertake such obligations voluntarily. For the love of God or Gaia or whatever secular savior you give thanks to: Leave. Me. Alone.
I absolutely promise I'll show you the same courtesy. No bullshit.
But until you're willing to do that, there will be no joy in Mudville. Not because you're a cockroach, but because you're trying to make me your slave.
March 24, 2010 2:53 AM
Most Libertarians I meet these days are ex-Bush supporters who put on a new coat when they realized the old one was out of style.
As for leaving you alone, that's up to you. If you don't want to participate in all the burden of society trying to pick your pocket with a gun in your face, why don't you go live away from it? Of course, you'll be forced to travel over interstate highways to get there. You might not want to use the telephone or any number of other "progressive" things you weren't asked if you wanted to pay for or not, because that would be wrong.
You can escape your "slavery" just as easy as that. Try Thailand, or a shack in the Rockies. No one's stopping you. Bring your tools and beef jerky and a good book on gardening and self-dentistry.
Oh, I'm sorry, am I "vilifying" you? I'm sorry, please, go ahead and vilify me for wanting to slow down the corporate takeover and polluting of this nation, and perhaps use some of our collective money for worthwhile projects like roads, bridges and education.
But I see your point. Leave. You. Alone. OK, Ebenezer. Dial the clock back to 1720 when a man died of scurvy on his own two feet and 7 year olds were free to work as long as their parents liked.
So, America, you've heard cf! Stop everything and deal with him as an individual! All this tomfoolery of enacting legislation for huge swathes of the population at a time is no good for cf! How should we leave you alone, cf? How can we, the American people, accommodate you, cf? Can we enact some special law whereby people like cf can go to get away from all our taxes and gifts to the poor and the wealthy, and cf and his clan can be left alone to whittle some guns?
How, cf, how may we do this? Maybe if we let Texas secede, cf can live there! They can kick out all the loser poor folks, and have one big Libertarian circle jerk, where everyone makes their own shoes and depends on no one else.
Sounds like heaven, cf. I so wish you could go there. Us mudfolks here in Mudville are just way too needy for you.
March 24, 2010 4:15 PM
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I am so sick of this infantile behavior that Republican Party leaders and their "unofficial" friends, the "Tea Party" mob. behaving like the Bad Seed. The leadership is delusional.
The Party of Lincoln, and Roosevelt and Eisenhower has become a hostage to the likes of Mitch McConnell and his henchmen, all of whom have sold their souls to the Social Conservative movement. THEY NEED TO GO.
And thank you for supporting every point with a verifiable news story.
March 23, 2010 8:16 PM
I love how he puts up all of this information and explains himself in a calm, concise maner and all anyone can say is "well what about the democrats!?" what about them? Who cares? Why don't you make a counter post that's just as good as this one highlighting the democrats hypocritical natures? Honestly, these are the types of responses that ruin a great commentary on a great talking point.
March 23, 2010 8:33 PM
Amen to that!
It's amazing, too, how after they've just been accused of saying hateful things about people and going way over the top too often, their response so many times is to go way over the top saying hateful things about me.
Don't they see the humor at least -- even if they can't see that they're making my point for me?
March 24, 2010 2:17 AM
I see all the usual folderol arguing via memes. Hack. Look, Bush was not the worst president ever, just the worst so far. The -real- issue underlying this indictment is that it is unhealthy for American democracy that one of only 2 parties is bereft of ideas. I suspect there exist sincere conservative thinkers who are completely shut out of party dialog by loudmouth, hypocritical thieves, the billionaire club's running dogs. Cutting capital gains taxes does not constitute a permanent platform for the future. We need to see real thoughtfulness appear. Where is it? ... Oh Repubs may win some meanwhile, but only to thieve while mouthing hypocrisies, waiting to lose again.
March 23, 2010 8:40 PM
Nothing less than a tour de force! Bravo!!!
March 23, 2010 8:50 PM
Quite simply... thank you!
March 23, 2010 9:10 PM
Wow AmericanDad I feel really sorry for you, but I feel worse for your family.
March 23, 2010 9:14 PM
No need. Since I'm a liberal I already feel sorry enough for myself -- right? Say... you gonna drink all the koolaid yourself?
March 24, 2010 2:13 AM
Very clever posting. Very clever, indeed.
I could offer a counter-point to each of your very cleverly-phrased points, but for the fact that my time is better spent elsewhere. If that sounds like a cop-out, it is. It's not worth my time.
I'll pick one off the top of my head; first, the myth that tea partiers called several black representatives the n-word. Ok, there are several videos on youtube and elsewhere that show those congressman walking (all of it, from one door to the other) and nowhere on those videos does anyone scream the n-word even once, much less "15 times." Same with calling Barney Frank a f-. Show me a video that does show these unsubstantiated claims and make me a believer.
Everyone has a video phone and if such a video existed it would have surfaced by now. Surely such a clever and thorough columnist could find such evidence - except that it doesn't exist.
And honestly, I'll be surprised if this posting makes it past the moderator. Can't say I'll be checking back anytime soon to see if it does, though.
March 23, 2010 9:18 PM
Hmmm.... Seems those big bad liberal moderators missed this one! Hey, c'mon TPM censors! You're suppsed to shield me from the comments of people who ... dare I say it? .... are outdate movie references too much these days? .... oh who cares, out with it: People who can't handle the truth!
Now please, return your head to your hole in the sand. You'll be more comfortable there.
March 24, 2010 2:11 AM
@TheTruthBringer: You should have just stopped at "cop out."
March 24, 2010 5:01 AM
By your logic the French Revolution didn't happen because there's no video of it on youtube? I can tell that you're new here because you think their is a moderator that censors dissenting opinion. Sorry to disappoint you but this is not redstate.
March 24, 2010 1:11 PM
Thank you. Please, GO On.
March 23, 2010 9:25 PM
More ammo, from the blog of Georgia Rep. Jack Kingston:
“At 1:00 pm, I spoke at the TEA Party rally on the Capitol lawn. At least 20,000 grassroots activists have come to Washington today to protest the high-handed manner in which the process has been perverted. Their energy level and enthusiasm is incredible. If not for their push back, this bill would have passed in August last year! Unlike so many pro ObamaCare groups, such as the Federal Employee Union, the TEA Party people pay for their own expenses out of their own savings. My hat is off to them. My office remains open and phone lines are manned for them and anyone else who wants to be heard.”
http://kingston.house.gov/blog/?m=201003
Lots of vitriol in his blog.
March 23, 2010 10:05 PM
A fresh one today: stopping hearing on transparency to complain about lack of transparency. http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/reid-spokesman-as-hcr-passes-gop-throwing-a-temper-tantrum.php
March 23, 2010 10:06 PM
Thank you American Dad. This is great.
March 23, 2010 10:22 PM
Thank you. This is truly a work of art.
THANK YOU for your hard work.
Thank you.
March 23, 2010 10:27 PM
You had me..right up until the last sentence. A parallel essay can just as easily be written with factual information from the conservative view also. Hyperbole and a ' do unto others before they can do it to you mentality' are the things that all politics are made of.
Secondly, in the geographic landscape we call those who view the world in terms of only two dimensions "flat earthers".
In the political landscape, we call them "liberals and conservatives".
Seems you can't tell which is worse here, the sore losers or the sore winners. Its time to just get over it and move on!
March 23, 2010 10:29 PM
Great bit of fact finding, something the conservatives seem to have not mastered.
March 23, 2010 10:32 PM
March 21, 2010 was a sad, tragic day for America.
Fortunately, the Health Care bill did not come down the mountain carved in stone. Obama thinks he is God, yes, but in reality he is just another egomaniac on a power trip.
And bad legislation, like this, CAN be repealed.
Go to this Website: www.repealit.org
Sign up. In the past few days, thousands of citizens -- not to mention dozens of congressmen -- already have.
Yes, like you, I am tired of this. Yes, like you, I am tired of fighting this battle. I wish Nancy Pelosi would take her socialist agenda and crawl back under the slimy rock from which she emerged. And take a lot of you brainless morons with her.
But what are we supposed to do, just give up? We're talking about your children's future. Thanks to Obama, it's pretty bleak. Pelosi and her crowd are counting on you to just go away. We can't do that.
www.repealit.org
The future of our country is at stake.
March 23, 2010 10:42 PM
Misses some fundamentals as far as I'm concerned.
Ya want a socialized system of medicine? Great, lobby for one in your state, but the Federal Government lacks the authority to do that. If you have a government that won't respect the limitations placed on it why does it deserve any respect from the people? It doesn't.
I was a conservative before healthcare but now I think I'm leaning toward anarchist as far as philosiphy. Screw Both parties I see no reason to support either of them in their current form until they start respecting their own damned laws.
March 23, 2010 10:49 PM
I have to say that many of the points you made are right on. But please don't have the absolute arrogance and short-sightedness to paint me with the same brush as the "conservatives" who claim to represent me in the government. I am proud to believe in small government, strong defense and individual freedom. Because of this, and because I choose to use my brain to think through issues, I actually depart from my fellow conservatives on some issues. On many issues, I am in complete agreement.
I am also proud to say I am not a hypocrite. I do practice what I preach, to the very best of my admittedly fallible nature.
What I have seen over the past 10 years in the political arena in this country has disgusted me more and more each day. Our elected "leaders" are constantly striving for new lows, and hitting them. Not just Republicans, but Democrats as well. We do not have good, conscientious, well-meaning, intelligent, thoughtful leaders, and we desperately need them. It is a serious problem that we have to face before it destroys us entirely.
As far as the argument that Democrats don't preach about morality so therefore they can't be called hypocrites when they do things that are bad, GIVE ME A BREAK. How anyone can claim a moral high ground just on the basis of "it's not so bad that I did that because after all, I never told you YOU couldn't!" is a complete mystery to me. We must hold all of them to high standards, once and for all.
And being smug, taunting, condescending, and shrill is not going to help the dialogue in any way.
Those of you who love the post above, and who are going to use it as reference, talking points, etc... you were already in agreement from the start. Try for once to read something that you don't think you'll agree with (as I've done here) and try to find areas that are actually reasonable, thoughtful and (while you may not agree with them) coming from a well-intended point of view. They are out there. Listen to people you disagree with, and have the decency to not immediately brand them as "stupid", "racist" or "war-mongering." I am none of those things. I just happen to approach my views of government and American society differently than you do.
March 23, 2010 10:59 PM
First, if you read carefully, you'll see that I'm not "arrogant" enough to lump you in with the lunatic fringe -- I'm calling on you to rescue your party, and conservatism in general, from the lunatic fringe (from which you pointedly disassociate).
And I think you need to look up the definition of hypocrisy.
March 24, 2010 2:05 AM
anyone who allies closely with either party is a fool. unfortunately, the only 2 parties with any power in this country currently devote the majority of their attention to controlling the People's lives; Democrats (and Bush) try to control a larger and larger portion of our (and future generations') money and Republicans try to tell us what we can and can't do in our personal lives. also, a piece pointing out the hypocrisy of one party is sadly missing half of the picture.
March 23, 2010 11:14 PM
The problem with your article is that you attempt to use logic. Conservatives can't comprehend logic. They only deal with simple catch phrases like ''YOU LIE'' and ''BABY KILLER.'' They aren't a very bright lot. Look at all the ridiculous signs they bring to their ''protests.'' Full of misspellings and odd phrases.
They have a new war cry: REPEAL THE BILL! However, nobody has told them that even if they win every seat up for election in November, they still won't have enough to override a Presidential Veto. You see, to repeal a law, you need the President to sign the measure that comes out of the House. Do you really think that President Obama is going to sign a measure to repeal a law that he JUST signed? Well, come to think of it, conservatives would do something as silly as that so maybe that's a bad example.
March 23, 2010 11:15 PM
Ted Kaczynski the Unibomber has written his second Manifesto. This manifesto is crayier than his last one!
March 23, 2010 11:22 PM
This is great, Russell. Great job. I hope someone on the right does try to make an annotated list as good as yours, but somehow I doubt they can.
That said, I have to bring attention to the link to the photo of Bush kissing Abdullah on the mouth. I just brought that up into Photoshop and it is pretty plain to see that it's been photoshopped from one of the two about to kiss on the cheek. Hard transitions with a whitish line showing attempts at anti-aliasing, and Bush's cheek shows a uniform color instead of darkening from the change of light were he to be pressing his mouth against someone else's. There's also some amatuerish editing between the two foreheads, erasing part of Bush's brow.
I would also agree with those that say in the first Bush photo that he was bowing to accept a medal.
Just saying that we need to be meticulous about things if we're going to call people out. Of course, it doesn't really change that there was the appearance of fealty being paid.
March 23, 2010 11:30 PM
Thank you for that. Is a kiss on the cheek that different from a kiss on the mouth? But accuracy really does matter. I'll change that line.
March 24, 2010 2:00 AM
Thank you Mr. King. You have produced a first class reference source. What amazes me the most is that the examples you cite happened within the past 15 years. I cannot imagine how long the list would have been if you would have included GOP/Conservative behavior during the Vietnam War, the Civil rights movement, Medicare, FDR's New Deal, Women’s suffrage, or TR's progressive revolution.
Sadly their words and deeds have not changed much over the last 100 years and I fear that the additional pages would seem repetitious
March 23, 2010 11:37 PM
This is an exhaustive and exhausting list, but you make the argument amazingly well. Thank-you for this!
The greatness of this post is evidenced by the general failure of critics (conservative or otherwise) to marshal a meaningful response to your evidence in the comments that follow. The best we get is an unsupported "tu quoque" fallacy in response. (For those of you who don't study Latin or argument, that basically boils down to, "But but but you do it too!")
Of all the critics in these comments (and there are thankfully few with the temerity to challenge the evidence), Brook comes closest to making a good point by asking that we not be distracted by the theatrics of politics but, instead, see the corporate puppetmasters behind the scenes. Too bad that that analysis quickly devolves into a defense of conservatives and the GOP.
I had to wonder why, and then it hit me. The conservatives KNOW this is all theatre and that the rational world paradigm need not apply. The Dems are bad because they try to hide their corporate puppet strings; the GOP is proud of them! And conservatives are good at theatre. They remind us that Western theatre got its start in the homily (well, way before that in pagan religious festivals, but I was trying to keep a conservative frame that only the Christian era matters). Blovation and wild claims to sway the masses are the stuff that theatre is made of, whether the stage is in an actual theater or a legislative assembly. Hyperbole and revising history are, well, the stock and trade of theatre -- just ask Shakespeare.
Often lost in our liberal love of the arts is that theatre (whether as pagan Bacchanal or guilds putting on Passion Plays) also quickly (d)evolved into competition. Conservative political operatives (mostly GOP) have no interest in the common good or actually governing; they are only interested in WINNING, in gaining a "permanent majority," by whatever means necessary. The lockstep obstructionism at the heart of the "Party of No" is a deliberate political strategy to break their opponents, to get back in power. They do not believe that they can work with the opposition; they see no place for liberal or progressive thought in their future for this country (and in the process, they erase the rich progressive traditions of this country, including in their own party). They are deep into groupthink, giving each other purity tests to determine who is "us" and what vermin are "them," mindguarding against the information that would contradict their pre-agreed-upon views. And in this competition, beyaches, there are no rules.
Or so they would believe. But they forget that the curtain comes down and the audience goes once more into the dark streets filled with crime and pot holes. The audience must put food on the table and educate their kids. The audience is concerned about its health and access to quality health care. The audience has plenty of outlets to be entertained, but needs people in government to actually govern. And they forget that the contemporary audience, even for politics, is fickle and not likely to stay with actors that run the same lame performance over and over.
So, kudos to this dramaturgical list of their greatest hits. May our conservative friends soon realize that we do, in fact, value their presence on the stage. We just need them to start actually doing something instead of trying to rig the contest and chew the scenery. And really, melodrama is so 19th century. The modern audience prefers cinema verite realism, with maybe a healthy dose of pomo self-reflexivity. And hubris, my conservative friends? Well, hubris has long been the downfall of many a stage hero.
March 24, 2010 12:11 AM
Damn. I wish I'd said that.
March 24, 2010 1:58 AM
Unbelievable.
March 24, 2010 2:18 AM
Bungy: would you post your comment as a separate blog? And cross-reference it to the the other arms of TPM and elsewhere? What you've written is really insightful. It might quell some of the fear that is building on the left as the Baggers get more aggressive -- and, it's a damn fine read.
March 24, 2010 2:38 AM
Indeed.
March 24, 2010 10:26 AM
That was excellent! Now,can we put that in a petition enging in "now would the real politicians elected to serve the best interest of the Americans people, please stand up?" I promise I'll sign it.
"The most destructive element in the human mind is fear. Fear creates aggressiveness; aggressiveness engenders hostility; hostility engenders fear-a disastrous circle."
- Dorothy Thompson
March 24, 2010 7:21 AM
"We just need them to start actually doing something instead of trying to rig the contest and chew the scenery."
This one sentence is the sum of their entire performance.
Thank you.
March 24, 2010 4:31 PM
You wrote this as if conservatives just might adopt the liberal worldview if they could but be convinced conservatives sometimes act like jerks. (Those are sarcastic quotes: because this letter reads a bit more like a pre-homecoming-game set of notes for the cheerleading squad leader to use during Friday’s pep rally than like a thoughtful plea to conservatives to take a serious look at Democratic thought; I kept waiting for a “We got spirit, yes we do! We got spirit; how ’bout you?” that never came.)
I admit that I skimmed the last 2/3 of the letter, having gleaned from the first third that you didn’t take your task — or conservatism, or even liberalism — seriously enough to put some thought into it. It’s merely a screed against individual or collective Republicans. From what I could tell, you didn’t advance a single serious argument against a school of thought here — just a bunch of gnashing about the students themselves: “Republicans have done X, too, and Democrats aren’t the only ones who did Y, and Mom, Republicans started it!” and so on.
But, of course, for every example you mentioned of Republican hypocrisy or dirty politics, Republicans can find examples of Democratic hypocrisy and dirty play. As a minor example — because I don’t have time to respond in kind with a 3,000-word link-laden tome — Bush was monumentally stupid for his gaffes, but what’s Biden for his? Oh, wait, that’s right: cute. That’s the answer. Biden — The Foreign Policy Don of the Senate! — is cute when he says the dumbest — I mean, darndest — things.
You boiled down what should have been a serious discussion about the major policy differences between conservative and leftist intellectuals to nothing more than a street fight between Republican and Democrat operatives and politicians – as if what matters about the road our country should travel should not be determined by whose policies make better sense, but should instead be determined by who wins a cleaner victory or who is less hypocritical along the way.
So, despite all your clearly painstaking research, what you wrote edifies no one. I didn’t need to read all that — much less waste time on your links to the rest of the known Internet — to learn that Republicans can be huge hypocrites, huge asses, and that a legislative procedure they denounce today as un-American was probably employed daily when they were in charge. Of course this is true. That’s politics. What I “learned” (I love sarcastic quotes), then, was that Republican politicians are — wait for it — politicians. What I didn’t learn, though, was why that should make me a Democrat.
What a tribal and immature way to fight for one’s “side.”
March 24, 2010 12:38 AM
Thank you for providing such a good example of what he's talking about!
March 24, 2010 1:31 AM
Looks like you were hoping it was about something other than what it was about. It's not about getting conservatives to adopt liberal views. It's not about cheerleading. It doesn't even mention Bush's IQ. So, really, your entire comment is irrelevant.
I'm writing about X and you're acting as if I wrote about Y.
Typical.
March 24, 2010 1:55 AM
Everyone needs to understand how invested some of our resident conservatives are in their Republican Party self-identity, they have attached themselves at their very soul to a very finite political instrument.
So when you dis their party, you dis their very being, you dis their total self-identity, and they respond accordingly.
Too many Republicans are Republicans first and Patriots second.
March 24, 2010 8:53 AM
lbrlzsuk:
I guess it's lost on you that you just partook in exactly what you accused the author of doing. You offered much criticism and substantive comment. At least he referenced his "bulls***" You? Not so much, no, but, in fairness to you, you really didn't say much aside from "blah, blah, blah"
March 24, 2010 4:36 AM
This is a great piece and as a former republican, before they became pubes, I'm familiar with their rants. It became too absurd to be a part of any longer.
March 24, 2010 12:58 AM
Yet instead of staying to change it, you leave it in the hands of zealots?
Odd response given that the republican party's motives have been pretty consistent for the last three decades or so, even of the rhetoric is more heated these days.
Just what was so good about the party before it became so absurd you had to leave?
March 24, 2010 8:27 AM
Wow, that was amazing. Thank you! I know you won't mind that I pass it around.
March 24, 2010 1:13 AM
Wow AmericanDad, you're my hero. This is the best political dialogue i've seen in years, and the best documented diatribe against a disgusting mind set that i've even read. The GOP lives in a glass house and their stone throwing needs to be seen for what it is and you have documented that well. So many here have added such wonderful and insightful comments and logic, thank you all. Think of all the wonderful conversation you started...and as one post said, change starts one conversation at a time.
Perhaps one day politicians will divest themselves of theatrics and act in the public interest again. Real debate on issues may someday enuse, and I hope someone doesn't say...yeah and some day pigs will fly...LOL
We have real problems in this country and we need real solutions, and this conservative idealogue bullshit invective masquerading as substance helps no one.
@ibrizsuk, that rant you posted as an argument was posted before and easily deflated...bong-thank you for playing but you lose. Had you read everything instead of taking the lazy way out you would have seen that.
Why is it people always do things ass backwards,..conservatives now are like people who bought a lemon car but are too afraid to admit they made a mistake and will go to absurd lengths to justify their original decisions. They'll go to great lengths to argue that the car they really wanted is actually the car they needed instead of the more sensible reverse and despite the uneasy feeling they have in their stomachs that they made a mistake but would rather not admit their expensive folly.
Most of the conservatives here have agrued 'well democrates do it too. (you bought a lemon too)' And your whiney ass point would be? What part of 'its wrong (its a lemon) don't you get?
here are opinions based on information logic and understanding and opinions based on irrational feelings; which one do you prefer America? Lets stop putting our minds on the procrustean bed of vague feelings and simplistic patriotic blather.
"A mind uninformed by a heart is a horrible thing a life not worth living, yet a heart untamed by a mind is that any better?"
March 24, 2010 1:36 AM
actually this isn't a "Dialogue" as that would entail a response, this is a monologue, as in a sophmoric rant. But this guy has clearly mastered Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals.
One of those rules is "identify the issue, Freeze it, and personalize it." Instead of having an honest discussion with conservative americans about the differences in our beliefs he chooses to make it personal. He starts off by alleging that we are fear mongering racists and then goes on to "justify" those claims by using quotes from people he views as being representative of all our views. Of course this is the old "I know a lazy black guy, or even 100 lazy black guys, therefore all blacks are lazy" ironic that he uses the same argument structure used by racists to indict all conservatives as racist.
The second thing he does is make his argument so long and thorough (with links to back it up) that anyone who responds and does not use as many examples or back it all up with references can be dismissed out of hand because they are clearly arguing apples to oranges.
These are tactics of people who do not in fact want to have a real dialogue, as these are conversation killers. The good news is, the only people blind enough to be swayed by this type of argument are those who are already drinking the same cool aid. This guy is not really trying to convince, just venting his anger.
March 24, 2010 2:44 PM
It amuses me that you accuse him of not wanting to have a dialogue in the same response where you take him to task over something he never said.
He never said that all conservatives were "Fear mongering racists". He did say that the Party had been taken over by them. He called on conservatives to take back their Party from the fringe wackaloons - the people who give all conservatives a bad name.
Of course you can't establish a dialogue. For that to happen, you have to be talking about the same thing. And you, whether unintentionally or otherwise, are not responding to his message of "Conservatives: Take back your party and ditch the wackaloons".
March 24, 2010 3:44 PM
Great article. Thanks for all the hard work.
March 24, 2010 1:45 AM
Very insightful and terrifying to see it all laid out. It seems that to be Republican these days one has to suspend one's intelligence, education, and dignity, and act like a neanderthal in every respect. You need to reject science, learning, and logic. The reason Republican politicians can get away with the hypocrisy and horrific double standards is that their base doesn't care or know any better. Nobody is holding them accountable for the things they say or do. How far the party of Lincoln has fallen.
March 24, 2010 2:09 AM
A bunch of Garbage from both sides! Stupid sheeple will never change! Clueless as a blond at a football game cheering for a basket...so sad
;-{
March 24, 2010 3:03 AM
Dear AmericanDad,
This the most engrossing blog I have come across in many a year.
I not only love "An open letter to conservatives," but the posts were fascinating.
Gotta go tweet this.
Confused about the meaning of "OGD."
March 24, 2010 3:15 AM
~OGD~ is OldenGoldenDecoy's world famous signature...
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/oldengoldendecoy/
March 24, 2010 2:00 PM
One more thing, AmericanDad. Do you have a twitter name, so we know when you have posted something new?
March 24, 2010 3:24 AM
A perfect post from lbrlzsuk. This entire "letter" is a waste of time as the point of it seems to be, "Politicians often act like politicians." Well no kidding.
As lbrlzsuk wrote, "for every example you mentioned of Republican hypocrisy or dirty politics, Republicans can find examples of Democratic hypocrisy and dirty play." Completely true.
To have a meaningful conversation, one must focus on the core issues - spending, taxation, the role of government in our lives, etc. This letter is simply a silly distraction.
March 24, 2010 5:23 AM
Let's take your last assertion first: The example before our eyes -- the inability of our leaders to discuss and of our government to address the "real" problems we face -- blows an enormous hole it. It is painfully obvious that no discussion can be had and no progress can be made when people act in the way in which I have documented.
So, no, a discussion such as I've initiated with the post are not a distraction, it is a prerequisite. The behavior I've noted is both irresponsible and irrational, and those characteristics preclude any meaningful dialogue on issues and slow, if not stop, the discovery of any real solutions.
Your preceding assertions -- that this is just how politicians act, so it's no big deal, and that ALL politicians act this way, so I've wasted time in bringing it up -- are equally weak.
But worse than weak, they provide moral cover for those who deserve censure with the "boys will be boys" and a false equivalency (not to mention they insult those people who work in politics but do NOT engage in these behaviors). The tactics may be ancient, the but volume and vigor is aberrant. And even if it were not, even if every politician acted precisely this way and at this level, it would be irresponsible for the rest of us to shrug it off and accept it as normal and unavoidbale, especially when it's killing discourse, killing off a major political party, silencing most conservatives and preventing the government from getting on with its business.
When people act in these vile ways -- and by any standard they are, indeed, vile -- it is harmful and we have a duty to speak up against it. I never consider the fulfillment of duty a waste of time.
March 24, 2010 9:47 AM
If we had a barely functioning objective national media, posts like this would be self-evident. Our national media is a DISGRACE for not calling to account the very items you mention and reference.
Any American who watches a Faux program OF ANY KIND, buys the NY Post, or purches a ticket (or rents) a 20th Century Fox movie is contributing to the downfall of America.
Journalism is dead, or at least moribund. There is much shame to go around.
March 24, 2010 5:56 AM
AmDad's the NEW 4th Estate, as are all of us who use the blogs for that very purpose.
Who needs yer stinkin' media. when we have instant access to every side of an issue, without the corporate spin. Just learn how to google, and you become one fo the New 4th Estaters.
Putting together pieces of a puzzle like AmDad did here is what the media should be doing. With all their reporters and writers, and their billion-dollar production facilities, you might think the media would just do some basic, simple googlin'.
March 24, 2010 10:35 AM
Thank you for this list, it's quite a lot to get through, but I'm fascinated. As a Canadian I find American politics confusing, but very interesting. I especially don't understand the vehement hatred of having government sponsored health care. I have spent my entire life either paying a small fee monthly, or having the insurance coming out of my taxes. We never have to worry about not being covered, we don't have anyone telling us what doctor to see, what hospital to go to. Of course you don't have to pay for medical coverage, but that seems a bit foolish, when it's such a low amount of money and covers most everything except glasses and teeth, and if you are poor enough, the government helps with that and prescriptions as well. I certainly hope that your government and people can find a way to have a system that works.
March 24, 2010 6:05 AM
I so appreciate these comprehensive and referenced articles as archives for talking points. So much wingnuttery, so little time!
March 24, 2010 6:29 AM
Bravo Am Dad!!! I agree with most of what was written; politicians (in general) do not always speak solution, but strategy.Though, I am starting to think that Republicans, conservatives, Christian-right, right wing, GOP are more pompous and self-righteous than the Democrats, liberals, progressive, left, or left wing. It is sad but unfortunately, true what I feel is most peculiar is instead of American people being the ones to correct their party's superfluous overtures they choose to be defend them,disregard them, or immediately point the finger at the other side of the isle.This also a popular gambit of Republican party.
"The most destructive element in the human mind is fear. Fear creates aggressiveness; aggressiveness engenders hostility; hostility engenders fear-a disastrous circle."
- Dorothy Thompson
March 24, 2010 7:08 AM
It doesn't matter how much evidence the writer provides because millions of Americans have been brainwashed by the Corporate Controlled Conservative Press to believe whatever they are told.
What really hurts me is how my family is totally brainwashed. Sending me e-mails about how Obama is the Antichrist was the last straw. Now, anything they send me goes right in the trash.
Honestly, if Glenn Beck went on TV today and said that 2+2=5, millions of Americans would call C-Span, flood school board meetings, send prefabricated e-mails and march in the streets demanding that be taught everywhere.
Sadly, I think that the US is going to break into pieces like the Soviet Union did. This love of ignorance and unchecked love of materialism are combining to unravel this country.
March 24, 2010 7:52 AM
You're right, but it's only because people stand by and do nothing about it.Simply put,Glenn Beck,Bill "O Really",Rush Limpburger and others like them are who they are because most see them as harmless ranters for the simple minded and apprehensive.People disregard it because it's easier to ignore the "witch hunt" than to oppose their propaganda and slurs;not actually wanting to become a part of it.
"A president can not change America.We change America, we just have forgotten how significant we are when we are united."-Unknown
March 24, 2010 8:47 AM
When you're mean spirited, hateful, racist, selfish, stingy, greedy, and homophobic, your brain doesn't have room for logic. It's consumed by focusing on self satisfaction. It knows nothing of peace, love, generosity, patience, and charity. These are the things Christianity teaches, these are the things the Republicans know Christianity teaches. Yet they choose to do the opposite. That's why great artists and gifted individuals are always liberal. You cannot harbor the attitudes we find in conservative minds and be able to express profound talents of creativity and reverence for love and life. Because negative thinking creates negative results. And positive thinking creates positive results, even though, in many instances, evil may seem to have the upper hand. As MLK said many years ago, the arc of the moral Universe is long, but it bends towards justice. So don't worry too much about the Republicans. Their behavior is self defeating. It may not be apparent right away, but it has failure written all over it.
March 24, 2010 8:22 AM
Extroardinary claims require extraordinary proof. Got any links to back up your contentions?
March 24, 2010 8:46 AM
The areas of text in red are links to back up his commentary.
March 24, 2010 3:02 PM
I remember the first time I told my parents that I had joined the Republican Party, my dad looked at me like I had lost my mind. Circle 20 years later after living and working abroad I returned to a party which spewed hatred and divisiveness which I refused to tolerate.
Returning back to the South was even worst because both parties seemed to be as divisive as ever and I left the GOP and will not join the Democratic Party either because they were not as supportive to their candidates of color during election times. I guess for some people old habits are hard to stop.
Now I am a registered Independent and proud of it. I'm not going to let political party affiliations and the labels that come with them define me as a human being as the majority of people have. They serve nothing but as limitations on how far you visualize your life and the lives of others.
Never in my life have I seen so many people want something that they want for themselves but then they don't want for others to have it and that's a damn shame!
I'm a retired veteran so when I volunteered to serve "MY COUNTRY" I did not do it just so that certain individuals can enjoy their way of life!
I dare any individual to deny my children and I our rights, opportunities and everything else that comes with being an American citizen because it's for all of US and not just some of US!
March 24, 2010 8:57 AM
Thank you for creating this incredibly well researched letter.
I was raised to care for the welfare of my fellow human beings regardless of class, color, religion, etc, and strangely and sadly enough in our society this aligns me with a political party.
You make an incredibly compelling indictment that makes the people discussed angry. It only makes me sad. I wish we communicated and shared differently. But there i go again, being compassionate.
Thank you, and as an American I'm proud of what you have created.
Todd Slutzky
Atlanta, GA
March 24, 2010 9:27 AM
Well done, American Dad. Bookmarked and emailed.
Thanks.
March 24, 2010 9:28 AM
"They shouldn't vote on anything involving government, because they don't believe government should exist."
Of all the countless lies about conservitives, this one is the most ridiculous. We believe in limited government, not NO government.
What do you expect? You think we're dumb, we think you're dumb. And nothing, unfortunately, gets resolved for the better.
March 24, 2010 9:36 AM
In the context of these arguments and criticisms, I wonder if you realize how ridiculous you sound here? Sound and fury buddy nothing more.
But for the sake of argument..demonstrate to us here your postion. Take the time to elaborate for us on your political philosophy, I am dying to hear it.
Read a quote from Thomas Jefferson on limiting Gov't and think you have a handle on it now...well go ahead big guy, explain. LOL
March 24, 2010 9:46 AM
No, we think you are ignorant and you think we're dumb. We're right, your submissions to this thread prove your ignorance.
March 24, 2010 10:42 AM
I enjoy reading all these posts.
You cannot dismess this out of hand. It needs to be discussed.
I have posted this link on Bill Maher's page and on FB and sent to people I think should read it.
I think America has not only lost it's heart, apparantly much of it has lost its mind as well. Thanks again AmDad for showing us a better way.
You're arguments are simple enough for anyone with a mind to grasp, "you can't..x,y,z, cause its really wrong and in so many ways."
The right is simply wrong, deal with it.
March 24, 2010 9:39 AM
"I was raised to care for the welfare of my fellow human beings regardless of class, color, religion, etc, "
So was I. But not by stealing money from people to put in the pockets of money you feel sorry for at that moment in time. If you want to help someone, no one is stopping you.
March 24, 2010 9:39 AM
"I was raised to care for the welfare of my fellow human beings regardless of class, color, religion, etc, "
So was I. But not by stealing money from people to put in the pockets of money you feel sorry for at that moment in time. If you want to help someone, no one is stopping you.
March 24, 2010 9:41 AM
Sore loser
March 24, 2010 10:39 AM
I saw this and had to register just to say "Bravo!" This speaks to my heart, it absolutely put the arrow dead-center in the bull's eye.
I was a part of the "conservative movement" for probably 40 years. I started turning away somewhat during the Clinton impeachment, which I thought was ludicrous. I really started turning away after doing some serious study and reassessment of history and of FDR in particular, and eight years of Dubya finished the job for me. I voted for President Obama in 2008, am looking forward to voting for him again in 2012.
The thing is, I still label myself a classical conservative. I cut my political teeth on the writings of Bill Buckley and a lot of that stuff remains in my DNA.
I still believe in the smallest possible federal government, and in limited government, but I accept that there are things that are the government's responsibility as far as promoting the general welfare (like health care, I personally favor the French single-payer model), and I want the government to be large enough to do those things. Limited government doesn't mean no government.
I still believe in free markets; the problem is that the system right now has been gamed by a bunch of people who don't care about anything except sucking as much money out of the system as they can, they don't care who or what it hurts, and who were given a blank check to do so for a lot of years.
I'm still an individualist, I still believe in individual responsibility and initiative; but again, the system has been so gamed that it's become impossible for anyone to pull himself or herself up by the bootstraps.
I still believe in American exceptionalism; it's just not very exceptional to start a useless war that basically was to settle family accounts a la Michael Corleone at the end of "The Godfather" movies, and get thousands killed in the process.
I'm a Christian and I would not presume to tell anyone to check any set of values they possess before entering a voting booth; but I've never felt comfortable with the "religious right" thing and I don't think it's healthy for a segment of the political spectrum to be beholden to and to kowtow to an element that basically are Christian Shiites, who don't seem to give two ca-cas about what Jesus actually said and advocated and who because they are sitting around with their bags packed waiting to be raptured any second now, don't care about doing anything to make things better in the here and now and in fact seem to want to impede making things better in the here and now.
I voted for Barack Obama because I liked what he proposed to do, and I'm satisfied with what he's done. In my eyes he's been a dead-level centrist, the Limbaughites who rail about him being two shades to the left of Leon Trotsky are babbling nonsense.
I also voted for Barack Obama because he exuded competence, and that's what this country needed after eight years of Dubya, who will go down in history as having destroyed the conservative movement and maybe even the GOP.
There is no competence on the GOP/conservative side right now. There is no competence, there is no intelligence, there is only smarminess (Mitch McConnell induces nausea in me every time I see him). Is there anyone in the GOP/conservative leadership with an IQ in triple digits? It speaks volumes that Sarah Palin, who is not worthy to drink the preserved bathwater of somebody like Bill Buckley or Barry Goldwater, is viewed as Joan of Arc by those people.
The line I always heard was that liberals and conservatives wanted to get to the same destination, they just wanted to take a different route to get there. What has finally dawned on me is that this group of conservatives don't want to get there at all. And that's why I've abandoned them. I want to get to the destination of making this a better country for everyone.
I hope this made sense and doesn't sound like ranting and raving, just had to chime in with my .02.
March 24, 2010 9:42 AM
Well said. Thanks.
March 24, 2010 2:33 PM
I will ask you the same thing I ask every "former long-time republcian" when they give us a story such as this: Why instead of staying to change the party for the better did you simply leave it in the hands of zealots?
That seems an odd response given that the republican party has been pretty consistent since Nixon in 1960, even of the rhetoric is more heated these days.
What was so good about the party before it became so crazy you had to leave?
March 24, 2010 3:05 PM
"call the Pope the anti-Christ"
why ever not? other than that, this analysis is spot on.
March 24, 2010 10:44 AM
Some of us former Bolsheviks remember how our great party started in mother Russia. The Tzar cared not for the people so we heard the voice of father Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels promising hope and change.
It looks like you Americans are now jumping into the same trap of a non-veted father leader who cares not for the people but for his own power to be perpetuated. Foolish western democracy....
Declaration of Independence - paragraph 2
"... That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security...."
Why do you think the people will not revolt against these new dictators who take your rights for your pursuit of happiness away from you? You at least have the right to weapons against these tyrannical Bolsheviks.
March 24, 2010 10:47 AM
"You at least have the right to weapons against these tyrannical Bolsheviks."
even if those weapons don't exist?
http://www.kansas.com/2010/03/24/1238926/bill-exempts-kansas-guns-from.html
March 24, 2010 10:56 AM
And it is about seven years too late to oppose the real tyrants with some good old fashioned revolutionary mob violence. You should have been fomenting violence back when we were really threatened by a totalitarian regime(albeit a no-bid, book-cooking, neocon regime managed from that REAL axis of evil, K-Street and Wall Street and Madison Avenue...)
March 24, 2010 11:00 AM
THE REAL TYRANTS????
The entire world envied your democratic system and for that reason hated you. The people of America had their rights to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. You are speaking of those that didn't want to work; seeking instead for a handout from the govt instead of helping hand up. Even Bill Clinton was not out to bankrupt and destroy freedom in this very unsual country.
Hussein Obama and his minions couldn't care less about healthcare for the people. The system of healthcare wasn't perfect but it was definitely the best in the world. I should know, for people of wealth around the world came here for their healthcare when it was totally free in their countries. This country made billions on the rich foreigners who knew where they could get well instead of dying. (see the priminister of New Foundland coming to the USA for his heart surgery) when it was free in Canada as long as you had to wait in line to get care.
This is all about having everyone's life and death in the hands of tyrants thereby forcing a perpetual power over the citizenry.
You ignorant Americans can't see any further than the end of your noses. You are being hoodwinked by a snake oil salesman and his conspirators.
Your freedoms and civil rights are being taken from you like candy from a baby.
There are enough weapons in the hands of the people and the armed services will not protect a government who wants to destroy their families. NOT IN THIS COUNTRY....
March 24, 2010 11:56 AM
You lost any tiny shred of credibility you may have had when you called the President "Hussein" Obama. You smug, ethnocentric, ignorant prick.
March 24, 2010 6:41 PM
Still changing hearts and minds I see.
March 24, 2010 10:50 PM
"No, we think you are ignorant and you think we're dumb."
I am an economic conservative and I disagree with this statement. I don't think liberals are dumb, but I do believe that in their desire to make everything right/better, they often don't worry about the details.
Take the recent healthcare debacle. I'm a conservative but I still believe that reform is needed and I also believe everyone should have access to medical treatment. However, I don't believe the government should be responsible for making that happen because they're not GOOD at it! You can use Medicare and Social Security as examples; whenever the government gets involved in these kinds of programs, bloated, bureaucratic, inefficient cronyism follows.
Liberals and conservatives want the same things, we just disagree on how to get there. Unfortunately, that message seems to have gotten lost over time and that's why there seems to be so much anger.
March 24, 2010 10:58 AM
"Liberals and conservatives want the same things,"
would that it were so simple. Moderates want the same thing, but liberals and conservatives don't, or we would not be so terribly divided.
In a nation of 300 million, suggesting that we all really want the same thing won't fly. You can say "we all want peace and harmony" but that isn't true by any measure, in the conservative military industrial complex upper echelons, they are addicted to war, adn will use us a foddeer to profit from it.
And you might say "we all want to be healthy and safe from disease" but there is so much profit in suffering, there are cures and treatments (like pot) that are marginalized or vilified for the sake of profitability.
I agree, most of us want similar comforts and consolations, but when that comfort threatens some corporate bottom line, forget about it.
March 24, 2010 11:08 AM
Who just sent a 700 billion dollar "defense" budget to Congress? Our military mania isn't a right or left issue. Why you continue to paint it as such is beyond me.
March 24, 2010 3:00 PM
i want the government to run healthcare. so no we don't want the same things.
March 24, 2010 11:20 AM
You want to suck on the tits of mother Pelosi and the small head of Reid and Obama.
The US government that was elected by ACORNS who fraudulently made out fake ballots and by those who want to have a free lunch on the backs of others.
Government is necessary for 3 things only...
1) print money
2) protect America from domestic and foreign invaders
3) settle dispute between states
Nothing more for Americans are the bosses of the government; pay their salaries and entrust that the government will do no harm.
Obama was protected from his fake birthplace by the DNC and a group of lawyers who were paid millions to lock all proof of his inability to be the Commander in Chief of the United States.
The world laughs at you and people like the author of this article. People who have no idea of what is happening to them and their progeny.
March 24, 2010 12:07 PM
you are so charming as are your fellow republicans who hate government, but will steal elections to be part of it.
March 24, 2010 12:23 PM
Please answer me this:
Why is the only measure of success conservatives pay attention to, the dollar? Why not quality of life? Educating and training our children for the future? Freedom of choice? Don't those contribute to what makes a country a great place to live?
March 24, 2010 12:51 PM
WOW! Somebody forgot to take their meds this morning.
Strange, but didn't your party just eliminate Thomas Jefferson from the list of founding fathers? How can your party quote history from a man who you have deemed not worthy of you party ideologies?
You post illuminates the GOP perfectly. Ranting, raving, screaming, threatening, insulting and lying to the end.
Birth Certificate? Hmm, I think Oily Tits may want to date you.
From the gist of you posts, I can ascertain that you are one very angry citizen. You are also scary and intimidating as well, but then, isn't that how you wanted us to see you?
As for the world laughing at the US, I think perhaps you may have your glasses on crooked or maybe they are tainted with the wrong shade of rose. Firstly, you have to read from sources other then the Drudge report or Newsmax. Give NPR a try and turn off Fox for an hour or two.
I know as a RW religious person, Jesus is the main motive for your logic. I think he would conclude that love emanates from your soul and not the mirror you seem to standing in front of.
I leave myself open for further ranting and raving from you and yours. I only hope to be allowed the right to vote for the candidate I personally feel is correct to lead our country into the future.
Personally I would rather be lead by a man you portray as a jackass and a jackass party that a entire party of boot jacked jackasses portrayed by a scowl carrying an AR-15.
I hope none of my comments portray you as a hypocrite. That is best left to a party of professional hypocrites. You know, like yours.
March 24, 2010 1:05 PM
"ACORNS who fraudulently made out fake ballots"
I know this is the story that conservatives have trumpeted, but it isn't actually true (which is what AmericanDad is talking about).
ACORN hired people to register voters. Some of these people inflated their registration numbers by creating fake registrations. If you register "Mickey Mouse," you'll get your pay for a registration, but no one is going to show up at the polls.
ACORN was required by law to turn in all completed registration forms. They flagged ones that they thought suspicious, fired the people, and gave their names to the authorities. Some of the people who created fake registrations were convicted with ACORN helping the prosecution.
ACORN was well known for their management problems and probably should have done more to prevent their workers turning in fake registrations. ACORN has now disbanded.
ACORN did not create fake ballots. Certainly there were legitimate criticisms of ACORN. Let's stick to the facts and not make up stuff they didn't do.
March 24, 2010 2:58 PM
ARE YOU SERIOUSLY TRYING TO DEFEND ACORN???? HOW EMBARRASSING FOR YOU.
March 24, 2010 5:31 PM
This is a very powerful thread, but I think it misses the point. I can't drain the swamp because that task is too large. I do not have an Undo button or a human hypocracy eliminator.
The left has beaten the right because it is far more committed to its ideals than the right. The left has insinuated itself in every part of our society where power and influence can be wielded. The left has written tracts about how to frame issues. They put themselves where they are.
The right's insults and ineffectual charges show temporary pique but not a history of dedicated work. It dreams of a bloodbath in November but shows a lack of interest in the many spring primaries. Its tweets and blogs show clever word play but little interest in any legislation or concrete action to promote its ideals if and when it gains power.
March 24, 2010 12:02 PM
>
quite to the contrary. the "ideal" here (and they haven't been shy to state it) is transfer of wealth to the rich and they have performed splendidly in this regard.
as for "small government" and "curbing government spending", it's just a lot of soundbytes, as the bush era illustrates.
March 24, 2010 12:27 PM
Wrong verb, though. Of course they can; they'll continue to do so regardless. They just may not if they want to have any shred of legitimacy. {ProfJonathan}
March 24, 2010 12:12 PM
"Yes We Can" may be their only answer to AmDad's post...
But haven't we already claimed that one?
March 24, 2010 1:19 PM
I predict this diary will live on the blogs forever, it perfectly delineates what has become of the Republican and conservative movements in the USA. But what's great is the fact that it's so well sourced and provides the links to prove it.
We need to spread it across the 'nets, we need to add to it as they continue their unAmerican trajectory and we need to use it every time we're confronted with the outrageous lies of Fox and company. Great work!
March 24, 2010 12:34 PM
I think that American Dad's critics are missing the more salient point of this whole post, which is: This is a man raised in a republican household with moderately conservative values who is voicing (still a right here) his legitimately held views about the behaviors within the Republican party that have become repugnant and dispicable to his own sense of what is morally and politically acceptable in a country that is supposed to be for the people and by the people. He didn't put the Democrats on a pedestal, or protest that they had no flaws. More succinctly, this is an American citizen and a VOTER who holds views of recent political history that many of us agree are deterents to supporting the Republican party. Simply, retorts don't fly, shut up and listen or suffer the consequences...fewer votes, less confidence, shifts in the polls and shameful dissappointment of your constituents. If you want us to listen to you seriously, behave like the serious, intellegent educated legislators you were assumed to be when you were voted in...Republican or Democrat!
March 24, 2010 12:41 PM
Outstanding rant! Well worth the time to read it. And the verbal spanking of the extremists that are pretty much all that is remaining in the GOP base is well beyond deserved.
I can see why some in the GOP might be offended at looking in their own mirror.
March 24, 2010 12:49 PM
This is a worthy companion piece to Emil Zola's J'accuse.
No one claiming to be a genuine Republican deserving of the name can be taken seriously without their first calling out Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck publicly and with no exemptions. I'm not saying that there aren't thousands of responsible Republicans who look on both of these men with loathing, I'm saying they are kept quiet by fear, self-interest or their reluctance to accept that the separation of Church and State as a founding principle of the Constitution. The Democrats spent many years in this Religion Rules desert before finally coming to their senses. At the moment the Republican Party has created an Augean stable, but with a river of decent Republicans, deciding that they aren't going to take it anymore it can be a river large and strong enough to clean it out and become the strong, principled party it once was.
And thank you, Russell King for saying what needed to be said and saying it so well.
March 24, 2010 1:01 PM
I was scrolling through comments over on 538 last night.
They have some really wonky thread posters.
This one popped out at me.
jtc007 said...
Just My Opinion, but it seems we can't use ANY polls right now as we're in uncharted territory. I'm going to be 55 Monday & I can't remember in my lifetime there being a time when the Dems grew a spine, and sets of (figurative) balls to go with 'em. And didn't wimp out--and got something major passed. Seems like we're in new paradigm territory here. If BHO, NP, Steny, & Reid all collectively have finally taken up the mantle that Truman & Kennedy laid down, pass several additional things that keep the already-starting-to-move economy moving while adding jobs, who knows what will happen in November?
This is the real story here....Democrats finally avoided the circular firing squad.
The Republicans have got Nothin!
March 24, 2010 1:22 PM
The majority of the conservatives comments proves the accuracy of this article, even with out all the links and research that went into writing it.....but they still won't/don't get it...and thats exactly what makes them so obvious...question is..do we really need their input...? Rarely is an institutionalized person in a straight-jacket ever listened to..their vitals are taken they are kept healthy, fed and as comfortable as possible....then their treatment professionals turn and lock the door behind them as they leave them in their rubber rooms...(where they can do themselves or others no harm)
March 24, 2010 1:29 PM
Congratulations Russell, Andrew Sullivan Diggs it
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/some-advice-for-republicans.html
March 24, 2010 1:31 PM
I think this is a fantastic list. Not only pointing out the systemic hypocrisy of the GOP, but providing detailed sources (often with video) as evidence. Now my response to several commenters: All sides have corruption, but rarely is it on the democratic side that those people who misbehave do it directly in relation to things theyve crusaded against being horribly immoral. Republicans do this time and time and time again, having affairs while claiming to be for family values, then continuing to decry others being chief among them. Second, pointing out the hypocrisy DOES serve a real, useful purpose in advancing the discussion. Since the republicans have refused to work with us no matter what from the very start, if we point out their blatant hypocrisy enough, they will get fewer voters to the polls. This means republicans will get elected less often as a whole when people know conservative is synonymous with corruption. That will leave room for more progressives to come in and start pasting back the peices of the country George Bush, Dick Cheny and their republican polarizing cronies left in their wake. At this point, we'll be able to actually start improving things. This is why we point out your hypocrisy.
March 24, 2010 1:32 PM
Proving once again that Americans have a memory only ten years long, left and right.
March 24, 2010 2:49 PM
Wow, what narrative. I would love to see one of Republican leaders respond in kind. Who am I kidding, they have not played it even partially straight with the American public since Ike's time in office.
Keep up the excellence....
March 24, 2010 1:33 PM
EXCELLENT post - I am bookmarking it and I am now following you :-) Thank you for this and all of the references as well.
March 24, 2010 1:43 PM
Personally, as a conservative, I'd like to thank you for the invitation. I would like to see where you stand on things, and for that, I suppose I'll read more of your posts when I get the time. I appreciate that you aren't actually bashing conservatives, at least as ~I~ define the term.
One note for some of those who have responded above: This is a blog. In blogs, you find opinions. That's how it works.
March 24, 2010 1:57 PM
thank you. where can i find more sane conservatives? not at too many forums, i'm afraid.
i'm a flaming liberal, but am disillusioned to find that the sane conservatives seem to have been silenced. we need to hear more from them.
March 24, 2010 4:01 PM
http://firedoglake.com/2010/03/23/new-harris-poll-finds-nearly-one-fourth-of-republicans-believe-obama-may-be-the-antichrist/
You are not dealing with rational thought here. The base tends to be simple and open to ridiculous wild accusations. Why else does Glenn Beck appeal to so many people? His rambling paranoia has no basis in logic, truth or simple linear thought.
When Bush was in power he was completely inept and polarized the entire nation. Now anything not fitting that model is threatening the American way of life. Bush did more to threaten the American way of life than any other president that I have lived under.
The Bush administration did this under the guise of 911 and a constant level of fear. This is still being perpetrated by Cheney and Rove trying to cling on to that dream of their peak years.
I like this article, Im moderate, and I have been wondering why the right keeps distancing itself from reality. But that is what has been happening since 2000. Anything not falling into line with their acceptance must be anathema, because that is much easier than learning acceptance.
March 24, 2010 2:01 PM
Set aside the bristling arrogance of this adolescent piece. We'll just say it's clear proof that the deplorable kooks of the right retain a cosmic balance with the hysterical kooks of the left. When you seriously scold the other side of the ideological spectrum for having a corner on the market for stupidity, you've lost your argument.
The more critical discussion is not about the grocery list of the other side's political mistakes, policy failures and open-mic gaffes. It's about the flood of liberal triumphalism that has greeted Obamacare's signing. Remember that we celebrated an end to "welfare as we know it" in 1996 under Clinton. In 2002, William Grabner wrote a piece called "The End of Liberalism: Narrating Welfare's Decline, from the Moynihan Report (1965) to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (1996)." I'm not sure liberals got the message.
But history is rife with examples: recall declarations of "permanent shift/permanent majority" after victories by Reagan, Clinton, Republicans in 1994, Bush in 2004, Democrats in 2006 and 2008. Recall George Bush in 2003 as he stood declaring an end to major combat operations in Iraq beneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner. It's a common phenomenon, so it's understandable you'd let your enthusiasm over a victory cloud your perspective.
In short, the "open letter" device amounts to a confident declaration of ascendancy and moral superiority over 40% of the nation (the percentage who self-identify as conservative, see http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx) -- and an unspoken claim on the minds and hearts of the thrid who call themselves moderates. You're kidding yourself.
Mr. King, here in the safe confines of progressive back-slapping, your cry of "hypocrite!" will go largely unchallenged -- heck, as you can see, you'll be lauded by those who agree with you. But there's no power in winning converts among members of the choir. If you want a serious debate about the fundamentals -- economics, role of government, impact of incentives and subsidies, American exceptionalism (or your taking exception to the notion), liberty, moral obligations, right vs. responsibilities, then the right will debate you.
In the meantime, your exhaustive repetition of the scandals of the right is a side show to the real war of ideas, which you seem to hold yourself above.
March 24, 2010 2:17 PM
Staunch, thanks for your clear, calm, intelligent response. As I had suspected Mr. King has not chosen to respond. But of course he was not really looking to have a real debate.
March 24, 2010 2:50 PM
"staunch," the moment you used the word adolescent you identified yourself as an arrogant pretender.
The intelligent adults around here are pretty much agreed that anyone who tells someone else to grow up or that they are childish (or adolescent) is identifying their own childish delusions of class or intellectual superiority.
You can't condescend here, slick, too many smart OLD folks who have already been where you will never be able to go because you are so afraid of real people that you can't even reach the street when you are walking on it.
And as for you, 12:16, you sound like "staunch" has a sockpuppet.
March 24, 2010 2:56 PM
In taking time to write this open letter I am sure you did alot of fact checking to make sure that all of your comments above were accurate and factual. Could you please list your resources for the above list so all who are interested can see your sources for the information you have documented on these lost people. I think it will add crediability to the letter so all can see its not from just left wing news sources such as Move On or other dedicated right wing bashers. If this is factual that should not be an issue for you. Right?
March 24, 2010 2:27 PM
Whaaa? Does that little clicky thing on your mouse work?
March 24, 2010 2:52 PM
john, you must not have your HTML turned on...
and "staunch" the moment you used the word adolescent you identified yourself as an arrogant pretender.
The intelligent adults around here are pretty much agreed that anyone who tells someone else to grow up or that they are childish (or adolescent) is identifying their own childish delusions of class or intellectual superiority.
You can't condescend here, slick, too many smart OLD folks who have already been where you will never be able to go because you are so afraid of real people that you can't even reach the street when you are walking on it.
March 24, 2010 2:52 PM
You say shit like that all the time, JEP. A little less hypocrisy and a lot more humility would go a long way toward healing our political divides all around.
March 24, 2010 2:58 PM
from whom?
March 24, 2010 3:05 PM
"A little less hypocrisy and a lot more humility would go a long way toward healing our political divides all around."
Tell that to the Republicans in Congress.
Then you might be accomplishing something.
Surely they respect your considerable knowledge enough to listen?
March 24, 2010 3:06 PM
Seriously, JEM, you do not even realize the irony of your accusation, do you?
March 24, 2010 3:09 PM
You aren't speaking to republicans in Congress. You are speaking to fellow citizens who may or may not agree with you.
Changing Congress is going to take a number of years, but the democratic party can't afford for you to wait that long before being reasonable and rational when discussing politics outside the choir.
Then again, what you have been doing has been so effective, so perhaps you should keep doing it.
March 24, 2010 3:10 PM
"You aren't speaking to republicans in Congress."
Yes, I am.
I wouldn't even post to this site if I didn't know how many elected officials either read it daily or have their staffers read it daily for them.
I KNOW things! One of them is that this blog is referenced in the beltway, and is respected way more than Drudge. And I get that directly from staffers I worked with in Iowa and Colorado and California election battles over the last 20 years, who are IN Washington and work for some notable lawmakers.
TPM is required reading for most new interns.
This blog, for all it's homey charm, is one of the rare places where you can, occasionally, reach those DC eyes, without being lost in the forest of comments like Huffpost, or surrounded by enraged, cliquish zealots, like FDL.
Not that we don't have a few enraged cliques and ideologically constipated zealots here...
March 24, 2010 3:41 PM
You are speaking to real people on this blog, regardless of the pols that might be lurking as a secondary audience. You continue to mistake your fellow citizens for the creatins who are wrecking the republic.
Further, you won't convince a single lurking pol to change their mind, but there is a chance you could change the hearts and minds of your fellows given half an ounce of charity, a trait you seem to lack in any measure.
Again, I point to the president and the non-partisan tone he has established as our only way forward.
March 24, 2010 3:46 PM
JEP07, let me get this straight you call the guy "slick" (clearly condescending) and tell him he can't condescend because you all are too smart and old that you won't allow anyone to be condescending? Anyone except you and the other intelligentsia on this forum that is.
You also criticize Staunch for labeling the "Letter" as adolescent yet the argument you use is circular in nature forcing you to commit the very sin you accuse Staunch of.
Of course you haven't heard one word I have said because I am not telling you something you want to hear. Staunch has posted the most well reasoned, intelligent response I have read on here but you choose to single out one word and write him off as a pretender. Clearly sir, you are the one who is afraid.
March 24, 2010 3:55 PM
and I also called you a sockpuppet, no response to my direct comment, or do you always work for others?
March 24, 2010 4:27 PM
Ummm john, you do know that if you click on the pretty red words it takes you directly to the sources of information he's using, right?
March 24, 2010 3:03 PM
Excellent!
My only concern is that the most serious allegations are levelled at both ordinary, everyday American Citizens misled by their party and caught up in the rhetoric of those who would seek to divide us, and at the leaders of the parties and groups who are spewing this rhetoric and polarizing our Nation.
Many dear friends and family members of mine are Conservatives, and they all have very valid reasons to believe the way they do. When they are lazy (and I've been guilty of this) and simply parrot talking points from media they feel addresses their concerns, the discussion becomes an argument based on who has the best one-liners.
Please don't implicate them in this mess- while they are part of the problem, they have real jobs and families and concerns, and don't always have the time or inclination to fully research an issue before championing a side. Blame the people who stand to make political or financial profit by misleading them and demonizing other Americans with opposing views.
By the way, there are plenty of centrist and leftist leaders who employ the same tactics, admittedly not to the extent described here, but to the same end: misleading and confusing the American people for long enough to get paid for their trouble.
March 24, 2010 2:48 PM
Eddie, while I can understand your viewpoint, and certainly support your concern and care for your friends and family, I have to disagree that people should be given a pass for being lazy or not having the "time or inclination to fully research an issue for championing a side." For the political process to work as it should, people must educate themselves. To not to so is to be both willfully ignorant, and as you can see from what's happening now, destructive. I don't think any teacher worth his or her salt would give a pass to a student who wrote a paper that wasn't researched - especially if that student didn't do her homework out of a lack of time or inclination. Why should we let that kind of behavior pass when it comes to the political process that affects us ALL?
There were thousands of people who had real jobs, and families and concerns yet they still refused to serve blacks in diners, supported hoses being turned on them in the streets, hung them from trees and generally fought tooth and nail against Civil Rights, Medicare, Social Security, Title IX, Women's rights and every other major positive social change legislation this country has managed to enact over the years. Don't misunderstand - I'm not accusing the people you know of those atrocities, but I am saying that ignorance can lead to those atrocities because it supports and encourages the people who commit them. Willful ignorance, especially in this day & age of information at our fingertips, should never be supported or excused
March 24, 2010 3:50 PM
80% of the country doesn't participate in mid-term primary elections. 70% won't turn-out for presidential year primaries.
Sorry, but if you are politically aware and active in America you are in a distinct minority that hasn't changed more than a few percentage points since everyone got the right to vote in 1964.
This comment is better directed at everyone but a citizen who would spend time on a political blog trying to open a few minds.
March 24, 2010 4:23 PM
Wow, you are an unhappy one aren't you? If you had read my comment with care, instead of skimming it while rabidly thinking about your own condescending response, you would understand that my comments were TO Eddie and ABOUT the people he knows who are too busy or disinterested to educate themselves. Perhaps if he agrees with my assertion that there is no excuse for willful ignorance (and he has every right not to agree with me) then he will take it upon himself to direct the spirit of those comments to that group of people and perhaps help them to help themselves and become more politically aware and involved.
In other words, my comments were, in essence directed at "everyone but a citizen who would spend time on a political blog trying to open a few minds."
March 24, 2010 5:14 PM
Wow, you are a condescending one aren't you?
You once again presume to lecture someone who is at least as well educated as yourself in political realities and apparently better educated if you would advise people to not be so ignorant as a method of persuasion.
I think I am safe in assuming most people understood my actual point rather than the one you provided.
March 24, 2010 5:25 PM
Yeah! Read what he meant, not what he said! Ya' gotta' learn to play by the roolz if you are going to venture into the jem playground!
At least as well educated in political realities? Aw, you really are kinda' cute, jem, but in a fashion not unlike the Wal-Mart Cowboy pretending to be a Rodeo Star.
And while we're discussing political realities... all the whines about equivalencies you can muster will never excuse the fact that the Repubs are into a serious meltdown that is quite ugly and dangerous in its expression. There are no equivalent threats against Repub Members of Congress. Period. And that is only one example of the extreme behavior of your Repub brethren (and their leaders, fer chrissakes!) that is unmatched
If you choose to excuse these actions, be my guest. But don't EVER insist that they are the acceptable norm because "everyone does it." That is, quite simply, a lie.
March 24, 2010 5:36 PM
More hyperbolic rage masquerading as thought. Good try, Weeping Jeezus.
March 24, 2010 5:42 PM
PS: Why bother commenting at all if you are directing your words at people who won't ever read them?
March 24, 2010 5:56 PM
Because I have an opinion on the matter, and it's my understanding that posting comments is one of many ways one can put one's opinion out there. I also find it really funny, or sad - I'm not sure which - that you think educating oneself is not a viable way to improve political dialogue in this country.
You are a fool.
March 24, 2010 8:08 PM
Again, putting words in my mouth as I didn't say a thing about the value of educating one's self, which should be obvious and not in need of stating to tell the truth.
Notice you are the one hurling insults when I am simply questioning the logic behind your taking credit for writing comments to people who will never read them. How exactly are you providing an education to those that need it?
The ones who you could actually convince about anything using a logical argument will never be persuaded due your lack of imagination when presenting those ideas to people who don't already agree with you.
March 24, 2010 9:34 PM
PS: When I said that your advice amounts to "Stop Being Ignorant" I meant that it lacks sophistication as an argument.
That tone and tenor is more likely to piss an audience off more than make them think, "You know what? I am as dumb as a box of hammers. I should go read People's History of the United States and get a clue."
The art of political persuasion requires a bit more empathy than you seem capable of being when it comes to those of us in the "enemy" camp.
March 24, 2010 9:38 PM
When you have a minute, could you stop by my blog? http://www.everythinginitsowntime.com/ Have an idea brewing, would love your input, so would like you to drop me a line. Don't mind leaving my URL about, but not my email addy. ;-)
March 24, 2010 2:48 PM
That's great stuff. You can replace every use of Republican or "conservative" with the flip side of the status quo coin, Democrat and "liberal" and it's just as poignant.
They both are "take it or leave it" and "you're either with us or against us!" Force and mandates, their unrelenting mantra. Live and let live, the "golden rule" have no meaning in their world. Choice is not an option to them. Fear of their neighbor/friend/family drives them. Clearly "WE the People" to them is justification for Us against Them government. Unfortunately they impose themselves on the rest of us. What to do for those of us just wanting to peacefully go about our lives, as we see fit, respecting individuals no matter how different their choices are from our own? What to do? Where to go? Is there a defense to the R/D's All or Nothing philosophy?
March 24, 2010 3:33 PM
I found AmericanDad's twitter: It is @RussellKKing.
AMERICAN DAD, please start posting on twitter when you have a new blog. THANKS!
March 24, 2010 3:38 PM
This open letter addresses the Republican Party; not conservatives in America. I suppose if I was unemployed and had a LOT of time on my hands I could unduly group all liberals under the umbrella of racist, bigoted, left wing, gun-hating, bomb throwing, riot causing, criminal loving, slave running, commie kissing, tree hugging nutter-butters too. There certainly is enough material to link to.
I won't do that though. It isn't fair to group people like that - IT MAKES YOU A BIGOT YOU FREAKIN IDIOT.
March 24, 2010 4:00 PM
Sir, thank you for an well written, researched, and documented piece. It was a pleasure to read, and I have spread the word via my blog and Twitter. Would that some of your commenters have read this properly and completely.
One wonders if they're not complaining about being compared to the lackwits and wackaloons that act as frontmen because they see too much of themselves there, and they don't like what they see.
Nah, can't be that. I'll give 'em the benefit of the doubt and say that they're just misguided and lost the point in the forest of facts.
March 24, 2010 4:01 PM
call members of Congress n*gger and f*ggot;
You do understand that this allegation has been debunked as a lie? But then again, what else should I expect from someone who uses ThinkProgress as references.
March 24, 2010 4:07 PM
"you do understand that this allegation has been debunked as a lie?"
...you do understand that this allegation about this allegation has been exposed as a lie?
March 24, 2010 4:18 PM
yes, they found that they were liberals pretending to be tea party members. This author is clueless.
March 24, 2010 4:21 PM
"they found"
who is "they"?
Last I heard, that was the only excuse "they" could still come up with short of admitting their fellow wingnuts are bigots.
March 24, 2010 4:29 PM
any common sense American.....notice how they didn't find the people responsible? Eye accounts say they saw a man run up and shout these things and then vanished quickly. Why haven't they found the people? because they were paid by the likes of Frank and Pelosi to do it.
March 24, 2010 4:34 PM
And your proof of this is??? Link please.
March 24, 2010 4:33 PM
prove that it WAS a tea party member. Common sense says it WASN'T a tea party member. No tea party member has ever been 'caught in the act' in any of these racist allegations. Isn't that a coincidence? The thousands of protests and hundreds of thousands of people at these events and no one was caught? yeah right....
March 24, 2010 4:42 PM
As the great Stuart Smalley says "denial is not just a river in Egypt".
March 25, 2010 12:42 AM
Wow. I've NEVER seen anyone with blinders on as much as you---I guess school must be out in your area, because you aren't the LEAST aware of what bigotry on this level can do----and, like the teabaggers, must believe in lynching as well (oh, excuse me, according to you, that NEVER happened in this country)........
Just like the teabagger who wants President Obama to be assinated (again, according to those who believe the word N* was never said, I guess you'll tell us THAT never happened either).....
Yeah, you believe what you want, but people like yourself, as well as teabaggers, birthers, and those who listen to the fat man rush would do well with the Nazi party before war broke out in Germany!
March 24, 2010 6:34 PM
Love how he takes isolated incidences of radical idiots and generalizes them under all conservatives. Most conservatives don't believe or take part in most of his points.
March 24, 2010 4:18 PM
now let's write a letter about Olbermann, Jesse Jackson, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, etc... and gerneralize their messages and actions as all liberals/dems.
March 24, 2010 4:25 PM
Olbermann? That's the worst you can do? The few wing nuts remaining in the GOP right now really aren't the brightest...
March 24, 2010 5:06 PM
OK, here's some more for you... Van Jones, Cass Susteen, Al Gore, Rick Sanchez, Chris Mathews, Ed Schultz, Nancy P, Barbara Boxer, Maxeen Waters....I can keep going if you want....
March 24, 2010 5:18 PM
AmDad, I don;t think I have EVER read so many thinly veiled guilty-sounding comments.
You really dug the Freud up with this post.
Anyone who considers themselves a conservative is desperate to assure themselves they aren't part of what you so eloquently uncovered. Since they can't quite justify that in their confusion, they attack you or your facts.
But 'neath those wimpish whimpers, there is a sheer sense of contrition, and/or the frustration of someone resisting contrition and humility.
Next, they will say we are "gloating" about healthcare.
March 24, 2010 4:25 PM
You really dug the Freud up with this post.
This made me chuckle. A lot. Thank you.
March 24, 2010 4:48 PM
Wow, AmericanDad. This is excellent post. I have my own blog similar to yours and it's pathetic by comparison, so much so I won't phish for hits by providing a link!
I think honestly, I'd read a Republican version of it, if someone were to take the time to write it, (also, if it's even possible to write), but I also feel like that's kind of the difference between Republicans and Democrats; I bet more Democrats would be willing to read a post from the opposition, with an open mind, than the other way around.
Anyhoo, keep up the great work!
March 24, 2010 4:27 PM
he makes good points, but the funny thing is, when a Republican President is in office, this exact letter can be written about Democrats or liberals (with some variations of course). Most politicians are hypocrites and liars, on both sides of the party line. That's why Congress now has a 17% approval rating.
March 24, 2010 4:30 PM
1: Funny, I don't see anywhere in the article where he excuses the Loony Left from their hypocrisy. he only notes that there's less of it.
2: You do realize that this was not a post which said all conservatives were lying, hypocritical bastards. Instead, he was exhorting the other, what, 95%+ of conservatives to stand up and take their party back from the wackaloon 5%. Just as the liberals, progressives, libertarians, and every other group (political, religious, social, scientific, etc) does.
Have a good one!
March 24, 2010 4:40 PM
kudos greyhawk ... of all the hilarious new terms I've picked up in this string, I think "wackaloon" is my favorite. I plan to use it in at least one sentence every day. Thanks for some much needed comic relief, even if that isn't what you intended! Brought my blood pressure down just enough to continue reading the righty ranting.
Cheers.
March 25, 2010 12:40 AM
Fully fanned! One of the best pieces I've ever read at this site. Thanks Mr King!
March 24, 2010 4:35 PM
AmericanDad,
This is excellent work and I'm even tempted to term it "epic".
I hadn't spent any time in the TPM Cafe for a long while, but I just devoted hours to devouring this post, this comment thread, and links therein.
Upthread, you mentioned that you weren't sure that your post had gotten front-paged. I'm not sure about that either, but I can tell you one reason it's getting so many visitors: it was featured on Memeorandum.
http://www.memeorandum.com/100323/p70#a100323p70
Kudos.
March 24, 2010 4:42 PM
This post is so awesome that I, long time lurker, was compelled to create an account, and say "This post is so awesome!"
Damn.
March 24, 2010 5:11 PM
So can someone clarify for me.
The post is linking conservatives and republicans as one, correct?
I guess my biggest problem is all of the "you conservatives and your republican leaders" crap. Yes many republicans are conservative, but they are definitely not one in the same.
Just like democrats and liberals are two different entities with sometimes similar values.
In the end I adhere to a fiscally conservative policy, everything else is open for debate.
March 24, 2010 5:45 PM
Grayhawk:
I already lay out what is in the Constitution to support my positions, you have twisted them around to support your progressive agenda and that makes you wrong!
I can prove just how progressive you truly are with just one word from the Constitution..."Invasion"
...tell me what is the Constitutional definition of "Invasion"?
Your answer proves how progressive you really are!
March 24, 2010 6:04 PM
::reposted from above::
Hm, let's see. Since the term "Invasion" appears in 3 places in the Constitution (Article 8, sections 8 & 9 and Article 4, section 4), two of them dealing specifically with the safety of the US and it's states, with the other dealing with Habeas Corpus, this would refer to "The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer".
However, none of this Constitutional arguing addresses the core point: No one is making anyone buy health insurance. End of list.
March 24, 2010 6:07 PM
You failed to answer my question which proves you are a progressive of the highest order and of course the federal government is going to force citizens to buy health insurance, what do you think the 16,500 new IRS Agents are suppose to do?
Help you read the Constitution the Progressive way?
March 24, 2010 6:13 PM
OK, that's it. I'm done with you.
I answer your question. You ignore it.
I provide facts. You dismiss them.
And then you drag out fantasies and hypotheticals worthy of the tinfoil hat brigade.
I've been keeping a civil tone through this whole thing. And out of respect for AmericanDad, I will continue to do so.
But you, sir, are exemplifying nearly everything that our host was railing against. You are a prime example of what is wrong with both political parties: When presented with fact (not truth, fact), you withdraw into a protective cocoon of denial and namecalling.
I will not play your game. Good day, sir.
March 24, 2010 7:48 PM
Are you saying the Constitution gives Congress unlimited powers to tax and establish government programs at will?
I showed you in black and white from the Constitution itself why Congress does not have the power to force health insurance on its citizens, but you twisted the meaning of text of the Constitution.
When I simply asked you what is the constitutional definition of "Invasion", you spin away your answer shielded by progressive conjecture and refused to give a honest answer to an honest question. What's so hard about defining "Invasion" constitutionally?
60 Democratic Senators refuse to debate the unconstitutionality of H.R. 3590 on the floor of the Senate, likewise on the floor of the House Madam Speaker shutdown the debate. Not one Democratic Congressman or Senator stood up to defy their Democratic Party on the floors of congress to debate the unconstitutionality of Obama-Care, not one!
Where are all of the Democratic Statesmen and women who would put Constitution before Party? Why did 60 Democratic Senators and 219 Congressmen renege on their oath of office?
There is over 13 States (the number is growing daily) filing lawsuits against Obama-Care on the unconstitutionality of Obama-Care, so this issue is not going away just because Progressives misread the Constitution to justify their unconstitutional progressive policies, this is nothing new...its been going on for over 100 years.
March 24, 2010 8:47 PM
For the record:
One cannot use a form of a word to define a word!
So you never did define invasion!
March 24, 2010 8:59 PM
One might be decieved by the term "mandate", of course. But indeed, buying health insurance is not mandatory as long as one is willing to tolerate the punishment meted out by the government for not buying health insurance.
March 24, 2010 8:24 PM
Kudos
Epic job documenting the ridiculousness that passes for GOP politics today.
March 24, 2010 6:07 PM
Conservatives who are aware that we are at the beginning of what could be a tough "culture" war go to pjtv.com and watch:
Schooling The Hip: How Conservatives Square Morality, Philosophy, And Law
Afterburner with Bill Whittle
We have Nothing to apologize for!!!
March 24, 2010 6:16 PM
WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW. Somethings should be read by EVERYONE, ALL OF US. This is it, damnit that was epic.
March 24, 2010 6:24 PM
I'd venture to say 99.9999% of ALL people, not just politicians, are hypocrites, or have done something hypocritical during their life span. I'll even bet the author of this article has said or done something hypocritical in his life too. If you say you can't do something, because of something that was done in the past, then nothing would get done.
For example, health care, the Dems, including Obama preached until they were blue in the face that they would need 60 votes in the Senate and 60% in Congress to pass Health Care. see following links...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkMkUmT_EB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZYU6--i718
So, what now? Don't pass health care because the Dems and Obama are hypocrites? It goes both ways my dear.
March 24, 2010 6:36 PM
GOOD POST, AD!!! I am a uuber liberal, and I was impressed with what you had to say to the conservatives!!! I would say also, that there are those who would welcome back the racism, bigotry, hatred, ignorance and intolerance that was the hallmark of the American experience back in the late 50's......like the poster here who is hellbent on telling all how the N-word was never uttered (you hear that more and more from the teabaggers, the conservatives, and those who just try to act as if racism doesn't exist)......but I digress. Your letter to conservatives should be read by everyone with a brain; perhaps it will begin to put civility back into those who are so filled with hatred and bigotry (hello, republican party) that they would rather the US were involved with Civil War than anything else!!!
March 24, 2010 6:40 PM
You really are clueless aren't you? It was not a Tea party member who yelled those racial slurs, it was a liberal posing as a tea party member. So actually, it was one of your own. Find me one shred of evidence of a tea party member saying or doing anything racial. It's all hearsay, and the progressives trying to vilify the right.
March 24, 2010 6:47 PM
Chris, you can say that as much as you want; unfortuneately, you'd have to contend with:
N-Word and F-Word Shouted by Tea Party at Black, Gay Lawmakers
By Gail Zoppo
DiversityInc. Reproduction in any format is absolutely prohibited.
Mar 22, 2010
Also read: hate crimes, racism, healthcare
Democratic U.S. Congressmen John Lewis, who is Black, and Barney Frank, who is openly gay, were targets of hate-filled racist and homophobic epithets on Saturday; Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, who is Black, was spit upon.
Although historic legislation passed by Congress Sunday night would extend healthcare to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, many wonder if the Tea Party demonstrators' actions were a platform for virulent racism and homophobia.
What motivated the mob of about 1,000 protesters in Washington, D.C., on Saturday?
Former President Jimmy Carter said that racism was a key factor in the Tea Party's opposition to the bill. That racism is directed at President Barack Obama and also takes into account that Blacks and Latinos, who disproportionately have lower incomes, would receive the most benefits from the healthcare bill.
On Saturday, Lewis, a civil-rights leader who was nearly beaten to death during an Alabama march in the '60s, was leaving the Cannon office building across from the Capitol when he heard protesters shout "Kill the bill, kill the bill," reports McClatchy Newspapers. "I said, 'I'm for the bill, I support the bill, I'm voting for the bill.'" That's when Cleaver, who was walking a few yards behind Lewis, reportedly heard the N-word hurled from the crowd and was spit upon. U.S. Capitol Police led him into the building to ensure his safety.
According to UPI, the person who allegedly spit on him was released after Cleaver declined to press charges.
Protesters also hurled racial epithets at Rep. Andre Carson, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, The Washington Post reported Sunday.
"It was like going into the time machine with John Lewis," said Carson, according to BusinessWeek.
"I have heard things today that I have not heard since March 15, 1960, when I was marching to get off the back of the bus," House Majority Whip James Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black member of Congress, told UPI.
According to the Post, Frank was confronted by about 100 protesters inside the Longworth House Office Building where he was targeted with anti-gay slurs and urged to vote against the bill.
"The healthcare bill is proxy for a lot of other sentiments, some of which are perfectly reasonable, but some of which are not," Frank reportedly told the Boston Globe.
It "appear[s] that at least some of the opposition is rooted in something other than philosophical differences over individual mandates," stated NPR's Frank James. "Some of us have long suspected that at least part of the opposition to the overhaul is part of the freeform hostility some Americans feel toward the political ascendacy of people who don't look like them or who have a different sexual orientation."
A posting on NPR concurs: "From what I have observed, the election of the first [B]lack president has made it impossible for those who were sort of able to contain their feelings on race, almost impossible for them to do so. I do believe much of the anger and hatred expressed at the town hall meetings during his campaign, and at the political rallies now, and in the rhetoric of entertainers like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and others, and in the protestors waving signs with racial slurs, all of it, is the same mentality that did allow people to call [B]lack people n****rs, and allowed segregation and discrimination, allowed lynching and the acquittal of the murderers, and allowed open Klan rallies, and allowed Klan members to serve in Congress and on the Supreme Court, and allowed cops to command their dogs to bite or turn their fire hoses on people. How we see it being manifested today may be different, but the motivation is the same…"
Jee, Chris......I have to wonder who else has printed this story? CNN? CNBC? or, rather, you'd have to go to just about ALL of the news sites to try to kill the story and have it not appear ANYWHERE on the Web or out of AP......and good luck with that! Now, go back to High School and learn about American History---especially something called "Jim Crow Law". It'll take off your blinders..........or perhaps not; after all, those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.
March 24, 2010 6:59 PM
you're quoting the liberal media, all BULL. You and I both know it was impostors pretending to be tea party members. Why no names? Of all the thousands of protests, and hundreds of thousands of protesters, not one name of one person guilty of racism. NOT ONE. Go figure.... But go ahead, keep believing all the media bull crap they're feeding you.
What makes a lot more sense to most sensible Americans? That the progressive left is trying to make the Tea Party movement look like a bunch of racist bigots. Well, they've convinced one idiot, that's for sure. I've followed the tea party very closely, and have never even heard or thought of race until the liberal media started talking about it. They are the true racists, the liberal media.
March 24, 2010 7:09 PM
RIIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHTTTTT......like I said, you believe what you want--I go by the actions, not what I read. Since you believe there's no problem, I can see that you must be a troll who just comes onto sites to sell ignorance as fact.
Yep, you're one of the "true 'mericans".......and yet, the racist comments from teabaggers continue.....and now, even the Congressmen and women are being targeted for terrorism by the same people who you deem innocent; just check out the news even on fox. But, according to your mindset, it's all a lie.....NBC news has just reported how some of your innocent teabaggers are being arrested AS I TYPE for threatening Congressmen......
But, that's a lie, isn't it.........
March 24, 2010 7:21 PM
Oh, and before I go, that wasn't a quote, Chris. It is fact. Regardless of if you like it or not, this type of terrorism from the teabaggers will not go on much longer........and considering that now, it has become a danger to Congressmen, I think that you will be hard-pressed to try to tell the FBI and other agencies just how innocent they are.
End of story, period.
March 24, 2010 7:29 PM
YET AGAIN YOU ARE FOOLED BY THE PROGRESSIVE MACHINE!!! I'M WILLING TO BET ME LIFE THAT THOSE THREATS ARE FROM THE LEFT ALSO. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW SHADY THE PROGRESSIVES REALLY ARE! BUT KEEP ON LIVING YOUR MEDIA DRIVEN LIFE AND BELIEVE ANYTHING THE MEDIA TELLS YOU. HAVE FUN AND GOOD LUCK!!!
CALL ME WHEN THEY ACTUALLY HAVE SOMEONE ARRESTED AND CONFIRMED THAT THEY ARE A TEA PARTY MEMBER, BUT UNTIL THEN, SHUT YOUR LIBERAL, LYING TRAP.
March 24, 2010 7:30 PM
Chris,
Remember the guy who verbally attacked at the man with Parkinson's last weekend, who was sitting there quietly holding a sign? Was that attacker a liberal plant, too?
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/24/dollar-bill-throw.html?sid=101
Nope, not a plant. Note how he initially lied about doing it. Note how he denies any real responsibility: "I snapped" and "some may say I" had a right to do it. Who would say that, except for someone who thinks that their hate-filled prejudice shouldn't ever be questioned?
And though he said he's not politically active and it was his first political rally, he's actually a member of "Americans for Prosperity".
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/identity-of-anti-reform-protester-who-harrassed-disabled-man-revealed.php?ref=fpa
I expect if videos of the other comments got the wide play this one did, we'd get more names. And I'm sure that you'll find some way out of believing this one, too. I and AmDad would love to welcome you back to the reality-based community, but I believe that it's a lost cause.
March 24, 2010 7:55 PM
Wow. I bet your tinfoil hat is very shiny!
Also, just what is it that makes it so hard for you to believe that those protesters spit on a black man and called him the n word and a gay man a f - ? Hmm? Do you think that racism has just magically disappeared? That the whole country just woke up one day and completely accepted gays & lesbians into the fold? If that's the case, then I have a bridge to sell ya. If not, if you understand that racism and homophobia are alive and well in the good ol' US of A then you have NO reason to deny that a few members of your apparently beloved teabagger party used those atrocious words. This is, after all, the same party that held an event at which people paraded around w/ pictures of Obama as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/obama.witchdoctor.teaparty/
March 24, 2010 7:38 PM
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, THE TEA PARTY KNOWS THAT THEY LIBERAL MEDIA IS TRYING TO PEG THEM AS RACISTS, SO THAT IS THE ONE THING OUT OF EVERYTHING THEY WOULDN'T EVEN CONSIDER TOUCHING. OBAMA KNOWS THAT THE TEA PARTY IS A THREAT TO HIS 2ND TERM, SO HE IS PAINTING THEM AS RACISTS, AND YOU IDIOTS ARE FALLING FOR IT. IT'S CHICAGO POLITICS AT IT'S BEST. PROGRESSIVES WILL PLAY ANY DIRTY TRICK IN THE BOOK TO MAKE THEIR OPPOSITION LOOK BAD. THINK ABOUT IT MY BROTHER. BESIDES, I PERSONALLY KNOW BLACK AND HISPANIC MEMBERS OF THE TEA PARTY, WHAT DOES THAT MAKE THEM?
LOOK I'M NOT STUPID, THERE ARE RACISTS IN ANY PARTY OR MOVEMENT, BUT TO SEE WHAT THE LIBERAL MEDIA IS DOING TO THE TEA PARTY IS JUST DOWNRIGHT WRONG!
March 24, 2010 7:44 PM
Hmmmm.......if you are SO right Chris, then WHY are you yelling at those who asked you a simple question????? Moreover, it's really sick that you belong to a party of hatemongers, and try to spew that hatred here. You have NO concept of respect, NO concept of what is really going on, and NO concept of anything outside of parroting your teaparty's mantra. When you get a clue, contact the adults and try to have a discussion without the hate, willya? Otherwise, you will be seen as the ignorant, racist, bigoted teabager that you really are.
March 24, 2010 8:02 PM
Look, I'm not a hate monger. I am just furious at the media for what they are trying to do to the tea party. It is an obvious intentional attack by the far left to discredit them. I am just taking my frustrations out on you guys, and I apologize for that. I see it with so many movements, if the media has bias or doesn't fit into their way of thinking, they attack it with full force. It drives me nuts!!!! peace to all.
March 24, 2010 8:09 PM
Right. The MEDIA put those signs in their hands. The MEDIA is photo shopping ALL the photos of the Tea Party protests to make it just look like there are no people of color within their ranks. Look, if you really want the TP to be taken seriously then you should accept there are some racist sons of bitches within their ranks and denounce them unequivocally. That would go a long way toward proving that they aren't all bunch of racist, homophobic, frothing at the mouth white people who are scared of the black president. Because when you run around denying even the possibility of one of them hurling a racist epithet, you simply make it easier for all of us to make the assertion that you're all whackjobs. Sorry, but that's the way it works.
March 24, 2010 8:26 PM
You're wrong, they are liberal plants holding those signs, you don't understand and never will. The progressives are dirty rotten people who will do anything to make their opposition look bad. When you go to bed tonight, in your mind, you will realize that yes, it is the progressives who are impersonating the tea party members. Trust me, it's how the progressives work.
March 24, 2010 8:37 PM
This has nothing to do with progressives. Teddy and Abe are among the country's very first progressives.
March 24, 2010 9:27 PM
How interesting. You admitted a few posts up that you know there are racists in every party. Yet, now, down here, there are none in the TP - only "liberal plants." So which is it there Skippy?
March 25, 2010 12:46 AM
Okay....I'm suspicious, you've got to be pulling our leg now. I think Chris is playing a game of double agent or something. At least I hope no one could be this unhinged or divorced from reality.
Chris, you can't really believe that dirty, conniving progressives are clever enough to pull off this false flag fantasy. We're Democrats, we're not that organized.
Take a look at these pictures and see if you still believe that out of the 'thousands or hundreds of thousands of protesters' as you call them, not one of them could have uttered a racial or homophobic epitaph.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/e/a/eades/2010/03/teabaggers-and-segregationists.php?ref=reccafe
March 25, 2010 1:33 AM
Wait, what? I couldn't hear you - try screaming a little louder, that might make me agree with you. Also, I think you drooled on yourself a little, might want to wipe that up.
March 24, 2010 8:13 PM
wow, Chris. It must be nice to believe whatever the you want and then dismiss all evidence to the contrary as conspiracy by THOSE LYING OTHERS. Ignorance is bliss. I almost envy your state of mind. Almost.
Oh and one other thing: you really don't need to go crazy on those caps. We all get that you are mad. No need to e-shout.
March 25, 2010 12:16 AM
"prove your machismo by claiming your going to "crash a party" to which you're officially invited;"
Dude I love your article but you let me down right here with the 'your' instead of 'you're'. If you want to be taken seriously you must use English correctly. Cheers.
March 24, 2010 6:44 PM
Thank you, Russell. Well said!
March 24, 2010 7:05 PM
Obviously the best letter ever written. It should set next to the Constitution
March 24, 2010 7:25 PM
user-pic
I'd venture to say 99.9999% of ALL people, not just politicians, are hypocrites, or have done something hypocritical during their life span. I'll even bet the author of this article has said or done something hypocritical in his life too. If you say you can't do something, because of something that was done in the past, then nothing would get done.
For example, health care, the Dems, including Obama preached until they were blue in the face that they would need 60 votes in the Senate and 60% in Congress to pass Health Care. see following links...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkMkUmT_EB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZYU6--i718
So, what now? Don't pass health care because the Dems and Obama are hypocrites? It goes both ways my dear.
March 24, 2010 7:35 PM
The difference, friend, is that those 99% + AmDad are not making policy decisions that marginalize large groups of people (who ain't like them) while serving their own narrow interests.
March 25, 2010 12:05 AM
you're right, you're not, but they (the politicians) are! BOTH SIDES OF THE PARTY LINE.
March 25, 2010 2:23 AM
they dont care about people.
www.commentbug.com
March 24, 2010 7:58 PM
Quote: No there is nothing that even comes close to this level of wingnuttery on the American Left.)
Whatever. I'm no Republican, but you can't troll the fever swamps of DU, Kos or Pharyngula and then tell me that leftie wingnuttery isn't as bad.
It's horrible, on both ends. There is no question that Republicans stink to high heaven of hypocrisy. But if you're gonna be honest, best take a long look in the mirror, son. Your party ain't no better.
March 24, 2010 7:59 PM
First, drop the concern trolling. While flattering in a way, few will take it seriously.
Second, your choice of sourcing is excellent, ensuring fair and balanced (TM) coverage of the issues involved (Media Matters, Think Progress and the Huffington Post should seriously consider paying royalties for the linkage).
Third, one can of course critize the outline of a bill for being too short (11 pages), while critizing the final bill for being too extensive (much, much more than 11 pages).
Fourth, I am surprised to discover that Mitt Romney is considered a conservative by liberals. He certainly is not considered a conservative by conservatives.
Fifth, while I don't personally think that Obamacare will ration health care in any serious way (at least not until we get to single payer, which Obama is on videotape advocating), whining about evil Republicans being unfair on the rationing issue is just cute after attempting to sell the bill using massive doses of Orszagism and discussing how your grandmother probably shouldn't have had that hip replacement surgery.
Sixth, if you can't admit that the Obama Megabows (TM) look kind of funny, well, I guess that makes you a really committed liberal. Collect your keychain and membership card at the local DMV.
Seventh, yes, Republicans have sex and corruption scandals too (although I doubt they will ever match Democratic New Jersey / Chicago style corruption for sheer entertainment value).
Moving on to number eight, yeah, Ed Koch probably meant to say "support terrorism" rather than "are terrorists". The horror, the horror!
Number nine, one can of course use some form of federally funded health care without supporting Obamacare, while still not being a "hypocrite".
Number ten, pretending that Democrats aren't huge filibuster hypocrites is... well, it is cute.
And now for eleven: While we are on the topic of cuteness, your intense caring for decorum and language like it's some big f-cking deal is... cute. As is your implication that conservatives should somehow be greatful to a congressman who "almost" derailed Obamacare. But then decided not to.
Twelve: You have an awfully well-developed sensitivity for outrage. That's what it takes to be outraged by a political Kamikaze metaphor. Hell, I don't even like Graham, but the "liquored up on sake" line was kind of funny. Grow a sense of humor, will ya?
Thirteen: You complain about Newt Gingritch "sounding alarms" about Obama releasing Guantanamo detainees by linking to an article by him correctly noting that the prisoners in question were released in 2007. Perhaps you should actually read the contents of your wall-o-links rather than just cribbing them off Media Matters? Just a thought.
And so on. Others will have to take it from here, but I hope I have.. etc. etc.
March 24, 2010 8:00 PM
Great article......succint, truthful and calling "THEM" out for what they are.Fearmongers and LIARS!
I see the people that do not agree, accuse you of making lists, seeking attention, blah blah, ad nauseum. Utilizing the same tactics as their own party. More BS and lies to cover up the truth because the rest of the Country is tired of their same old rhetoric. It finally came back to bite em on their collective behind. WAAAH, WAAAH WAAAH!!! We didn't get our way. Do "They" really think we buy any of their crap any more??? I see nothing "clever" in any of the reponses. More lies n whining. Nothing changes. One would think that party would change tactics, cuz it isn't working for em one bit.
March 24, 2010 8:15 PM
How do you explain that now that the liberals are in charge of Congress, the approval rating is at it's lowest point ever, 17%...? Yes, those darn conservatives are so horrible! 10% unemployment, yes, your liberals are awesome!!!! Where do I sign up????
March 24, 2010 8:41 PM
Hmmm ... I'll take a shot at that one. I explain it -- at least in part -- by pointing to the campaign of fear waged by the GOP. If you want to get Joe Citizen to start listening, start screaming something outrageous and contentious like "Watch out -- Obama is going to round up your sweet old granny and march her bony old ass into the gas chamber!!" That'll get some folks to pay attention. Unfortunately, they aren't hearing fact. Should the majority of people own the responsibility of becoming better informed. Maybe. Probably. But I've got to give most people a little pass on this one ... We've got small children to play with, jobs that demand 60 hours a week, houses to maintain, school dioramas to assemble, soccer games to coach -- in other words, MANY competing demands on time that don't allow most of us to spend hours trolling news sites & sources to peel back the layers of rhetoric and learn the Truth. And while I think most people recognize that any politician will spin a story to their advantage, we do largely rely on our leaders to represent that Truth to us. Our trust is our fatal flaw here. And while both parties use spin regularly and strategically, only the GOP has wielded fear as a weapon against us. It's unseemly. It's deceptive. It's manipulative. It's not conducive with winning a debate honorably through logic and intellect. And it's not leadership.
March 24, 2010 11:53 PM
campaign of fear? LOL, you sound like Obama, still blaming things on Bush....get over it, you've tripled the deficit raised unemployment by 3% and have just passed a health care bill that will bankrupt even further. Obama has been one big failure. Find me one success of a liberal run State and I'll find you pigs that fly. Bush was a bad President, I agree with you on that, but Obama, cmon, you can't possibly try to defend this guy? really??? LOL
March 25, 2010 2:07 AM
It would serve you well to stop conflating conservatism with the Republican Party. The two are far from synonymous. Neo-Conservatism, which has been the mantra of the majority of Republicans at the national level, can actually find it's roots in the ultra-leftist ideology of Trotskyism, and the philosophy of permanent revolution.
American Dad, you are a well spoken man, and a well-intentioned one as well, but you are falling too blindly into the mire of an intentionally propagated false choice dilemma, where the uber wealthy and the power elite who have gravitated to government ask you: Out of all the colors in the spectrum, what is your favourite Red or Blue, functionally forbidding you to answer: Green.
Truth be told, we have reached the point where there are no solutions left to be found in Washington, and our leaders know this. They know our economy is in shambles, and that you can't spend your way out of debt. They know that even if you could spend your way out of debt by investing in the right things, that the right things will never be accurately determined democratically by the least intelligent amongst us who will perpetually vote in their own best self interests. They know that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the FDIC are functionally bankrupt; and that their continued existence relies on foreign interests continued willingness to buy up what they are now recognizing to be bad debt, and continuing to grow our budget deficit annually. They know that they have created a new PONZI scheme in the form of health care legislation which takes ten years of takes to pay for six years of care. And they know that in a time of unprecedented economic turmoil for the states, many of whom are already facing Grecian style bankruptcy, that the billions of dollars in new unfunded health care mandates are completely unaffordable.
So please. I implore you: stop giving them their leash. Refuse the false choice argument. Listen to the intellectual conservatives who's voices are now being drowned out in the under educated maelstrom now being perpetrated by both government sanctioned sides of this faux debate, and lets find some commonality between us.
Otherwise, we won't be able to save this sinking ship.
God Bless.
March 24, 2010 8:28 PM
IMHO this is the best response that American Dad has received from the right.
March 25, 2010 1:50 AM
Well, I just go by proof in the pudding.
The most conservative States in the Republic are in the best shape financially, such as Texas and Utah.
The most liberal States such as California, New York, Illinois are in the worst shape and in big trouble.
Show me a successful example of a liberal run State or country, and I'll show you pigs that fly.
March 24, 2010 8:53 PM
Last I heard, California was being run by Arnie, who is a Republican.
March 25, 2010 1:11 AM
mizfurball, you gotta be kidding right? Arnold is a republican in name only. Acts more like a far left liberal, you and I both know that. He has done nothing even close to conservative since he has been in office. He is a joke.
March 25, 2010 2:00 AM
I've been reading TPM since the start of the election last year, but this is the first time I've been moved to register. I've spent my afternoon reading this thread and would like to share my viewpoint.
I'm a Canadian but I have been actively interested in American politics due to our close proximity and cultural overlap. I see the effects here from American viewpoints, and am frankly disgusted at the degree of level of hatred and dishonesty practiced as a matter of course by members of the Republican heads and base.
I can speak, from the perspective of a young person, and also an outside observer, to the fact that the Republican party as we know it is dead inside, floundering and kicking in its death throes, and that its rampant racism, homophobia, science-denialism, and outright lying is the reason.
What matters to young people is realism and honesty, and unflinching acceptance of our nature as humans. The youth of today knows evolution is real. They know abortion is a sad but necessary medical procedure. They know that man is causing climate change. They are always alert, and aware. Some are poisoned by their upbringing into believing as their biased and intolerant elders did, but the vast majority could give two sh*ts whether a man and a man love each other and get married. I can see that the Republicans see this, and it SCARES THEM TO DEATH. This is their raging against what they see as the night of their fundamentalist beliefs, but this is our new dawn of understanding and prescience.
What we need to see to feel represented by our political leaders is honesty, integrity, acceptance, and above all, realism. We know what the world is. Republican leaders see us as cordwood for their corporate stoves and tin soldiers for their equally corporate battlefields. Lying so much that you believe your own fear-mongering does not excuse you.
In the spirit of the OP, I wish to reiterate that I am speaking solely of the crass GOP heads and their gullible bases. Fiscal conservatism is completely removed from this exchange.
March 24, 2010 9:24 PM
Hear, hear. Well said.
March 24, 2010 9:44 PM
You've hit the nail on the head. That's what the Republicans like JEM above just don't get. It's not simply about their behavior, who said what, who called what name. The things you listed... anti science, anti intellectual, homophoia.. these are things that the party and its leaders continually represent and openly support, and as long as the Republicans represent backwards and even hateful ideologies, they will continue to draw criticism from progressive America (and continue to be a source of amazement and puzzlement for the rest of the world looking in)
March 24, 2010 10:30 PM
The subject of my critique about this blog isn't about the validity of the links. I agree that the current GOP needs drastic and systemic changes. I will be doing my part to affect that change over the coming years.
My critique focuses on the fact that this is a facetious letter that was intended to do nothing but provide red meat for people who already agree with the author's underlying ideology and serves to simply fan the flames of our political bonfire of partisan vanity.
It is the opposite of Obama's strategy which is to truly reach out, whether the hand is there or not, in recognition that the conservative audience at home is hardly as homogeneous as many in his party believe.
All this blog did was highlight the continuing hypocrisy of a party that claims to be liberal yet wants nothing better than to grind the half of the country that doesn't agree with standard big government responses to every problem underfoot.
For our own good, of course.
March 24, 2010 10:41 PM
People that can’t afford health care are not going to receive free health care from a Government that can’t afford health care.
March 25, 2010 1:56 AM
Wonderfully well expressed, Sushi Nao -- and as a former high school teacher, I am so glad to hear your perception that the majority of youth in this generation are enlightened souls.
March 24, 2010 11:39 PM
Thank you for your Canadian take on this. It is refreshing to get the view of someone who is watching from across the border.
March 25, 2010 1:16 AM
"What matters to young people is realism and honesty, and unflinching acceptance of our nature as humans."
The day that liberals embrace "honesty and unflinching acceptance of our nature as humans" is the day that liberalism as we know it dies.
And compared to earlier waves of youthful radicalism, today´s is a tempest in a teapot which should be quite possible to overcome.
This is especially true as liberalism has taken on all the trappings of the classical doomsday cult. Watching as the Armageddon promised by Gore and co is perpetually postponed will no doubt have a very salutary effect on future generations. Hopefully there will be no last-ditch grand kool-aid drinking ceremony.
March 25, 2010 4:16 AM
...Just want you to know.
Yeah, you haz the record. Far and away.
Well done, and thank you.
=D
March 24, 2010 9:49 PM
Recommended reading:
The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party (Hardcover)
~ David Horowitz (Author), Richard Poe
The sharp decline of the Democrat Party into subversive leftwing ideology took place behind the scenes of the B.J. Clinton campaign as early as 1990. Hillary, the real POTUS from 1992-2000, had all the communist ties from her early years with the Children's Defense Fund; to develop the Democrat Party as a cohesive neo-com entity, she recruited George Soros, John Podesta and Harold Ickes to undertake the task of building a 21st-century version of socialism's traditional alliance of the "oppressed," the "disgruntled," and the "disenfranchised." They formed a coalition of pro-abortion activists, drug-addled ex-hippies, new-world order anarchists, atheist marxists, radical minority groups, and trotskyite labor unions. By the time the Clintonistas were done, they had created or helped to create six new groups, and had co-opted a seventh called MoveOn.org. Together, they constitute the administrative core of the Democrat Party. They are: America Coming Together; America Votes; the Center for American Progress; Joint Victory Campaign 2004; The Media Fund; MoveOn.org; and the Thunder Road Group. That's why it's so ironic that a politician spawned from this filth came out of Chicago and ostensibly beat her at her own game.
March 24, 2010 10:26 PM
Yeah, because that doesn't sound partisan or divisive at all. Besides, what's wrong with pro-choice, atheism, or drugs? (In moderation, of course.)
March 24, 2010 10:33 PM
Horowitz? You're recommending Horowitz? That's a joke, right?
Damn. You guys make this easy.
March 24, 2010 10:45 PM
Make *what* easy?
You began, for one line, to offer a handshake. Are you saying that was not your purpose?
March 24, 2010 11:00 PM
Are you looking for easy fodder, or honest intellectual discussion. You are the diarist. You choose your own discussions. When you choose the easy, you reject the difficult. I didn't realize we were supposed to be hacking away in a zero sum game of some sort. I thought, from your OP, that you had been seeking discussion, and commonality. Perhaps, dare I posit, even solutions.
If I'm right, join me in discussion. I'm your huckleberry. All I ask is a simple upward scroll.
God Bless.
March 25, 2010 3:32 AM
Libertarian, you should consider creating a post of your own? I would very much like to see the debate. Even if AmDad is too busy to take up your challenge I'm sure there are many others that would be willing to comment.
Thanks.
March 25, 2010 12:54 PM
Come back to you? After you link us to the sources you suggest? Not possible.
Libertarians vs. Collectivists - We seem to be as far apart now as ever and remarkably, the issues are always similar... The freedom and independence of individuals, states' rights and the proper role of government. Interesting isn't it?
But these words, "freedom,” and "independence," assume that human life is valuable.
No matter which blog I read the messages are the same; libertarians angry that the media hasn’t covered something and collectivists angry because it is being heard anyway.
I have seen a pattern emerge. Those who post in anger against the pervasive corruption of AGW "religion" recognize that the human soul has no place in globalists' paradigms.
Those who post in support of Human-caused Climate Catastrophe are also those who do not believe in the human spirit. Many proponents of AGW consider humans to be the worst of the problem. Many suggest we reduce human population as soon as possible.
When I defend my country’s founding ideals many historians remind me that our Constitutional Republic was not founded by Christians. But if Franklin and Jefferson, and Washington, and Adams were not evangelical Christians, neither were they merciless and implacable men full of hatred of all things Christian.
If we humans are no more worthy than chaff to be burned in a cleansing fire, how can we possibly even comprehend applying "freedom and independence" to these lifeforms?
This attitude is also reflected in the repeated remarks at countless blogs that conservatives are not very bright, and certainly don’t know what’s good for us.
All humans have a personal religion they live by, whether they like it or not. To ask collectivists to leave us alone to respect human dignity, self-determination, right to property and governance based on freedom of thought and personal responsibility is not possible.
Some are willing to put their faith in man. I can't give any good evidence for doing that.
March 24, 2010 10:37 PM
We have the capability as intelligent beings to rise above our chemical and biological natures and assign ourselves rights based on our simian sense and need for personal dignity. We have no need to rely on higher powers to do it for us; Indeed, they cannot, for they hold no sway in their absence. However, when these basic recognized rights fall into contention, then we are led to the worst of humanity. Also, don't tell me I have a "religion" that I live by; my inner experiences are none of your domain.
March 24, 2010 10:46 PM
Sushi Nao, I hope you stick around and post more often. You're good!
March 25, 2010 2:03 AM
This has been such a great letter with quality responses to the critics. I just wish those critics would come up with a better defense than they have.
It's almost embarrassing to watch them try.
Kudos(:
March 24, 2010 10:40 PM
Look, I am a lifelong Democrat. We are a party familiar with this kind of thing. When you allow your entire party to be represented by clowns through your own laziness or misguided idea that said idiots would take you to the promised land, you have to first admit it. Then you can fix it. If you pretend that the people you allowed to define your movement don't exist or you nervously giggle that no one pays attention to those fools anyway, you are not even past the denial stage and no where close to being in a position to make things better. You are just pissing in the wind, Jason, my son.
March 24, 2010 11:13 PM
I am also a life long Democrat. However, the sort of responses and comments I see in this thread are concerning. Why must you choose to portray the Democratic party as sarcastic and hateful? The sarcasm may mask it a bit, but overall I'm very disappointed by the amount of respect in these comments. As Democrats, we do care about every day folks, but I don't get that vibe from you people. It's very disheartening.
March 24, 2010 11:30 PM
Equality, I think you raise some very valid points here. We Dems do shoot ourselves in the foot and hurt our own credibility by overuse of sarcasm. My own take: I am tired of raising logical arguments only to be met with irrational, insulting responses from the other side. I suspect many, many others are as fed up as me. And that's when the sarcastic barbs start a-flyin'.
March 24, 2010 11:56 PM
Respect is earned, equality. You don't punch me in the face repeatedly for three decades, then demand respect.
It just doesn't work that way.
First, they need to stop the abusive behavior. Then we can talk about how to find common ground.
And pretending that you have not done it just doesn't work for me either.
March 24, 2010 11:48 PM
This post is so awesome that I, long time lurker, was compelled to create an account, and say "This post is so awesome!"
Damn.
Posted by Apnu
March 24, 2010 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
ME TOO! BRAVO, BRAVO!
March 25, 2010 12:13 AM
Well, Weezie, I am respectful in my comments whether or not I agree with someone.
"And pretending that you have not done it just doesn't work for me either." Its this sort of behavior that I am disappointed with. As many of your critics have pointed out, you don't know me, you don't know them. Stopping your assumptions may be the first step to finding this common ground you seek.
Overall, I think we should take a step back and look at the quality of life we lead here in the United States and be thankful rather than spend our lives bitter about politics. Doesn't mean that people should not be held accountable, but taking it to the level of disrespect toward each other that I see in these posts is unnecessary.
Weezie, you seem very bitter, and you very may well have reason to be, but just remember, you don't make friends by pushing them away. One great aspect of our party is we keep our arms open to ANYONE regardless of sexual orientation, race, color, creed. I know this may get old when we are turned down or insulted by our allies across the aisle, but perseverance in kindness and respect is what makes us who we are and what gives us hope for change... maybe even across the aisle someday.
Steinsicles, thank you for your comments and I truly believe that the sarcastic nature and tone in these comments give our GOP friends no reason to want to reason with us. It was said above that we are more likely to listen to their side without insult? Let's prove it. I have not seen it thus far.
March 25, 2010 12:28 AM
(sighing) I know you are right. It is very hard to take the high road sometimes, particularly when you have passion for the topic. I appreciate your reminder, and I hope others (on both sides) take note of your feedback. We can all step up and be a bit more adult in our debate. Obama is actually a superior role model for this ... Let's learn from him.
March 25, 2010 1:03 AM
When this fight for healthcare started to turn around, it was not because of love and respect. It was because the Democrats decided to call the opposition on their bullshit.
Just like I don't believe that there are always two sides to every bit of news (Some say the earth is round...let's hear from a panel that disagrees!), I don't believe that it serves me to grovel to those that continuously lie and abuse. And just because one of the Republican memes is that I am supposed to be wimpy because I am a dirty fucking hippie and thus I am always supposed to be respectful no matter how abusive they are, does not mean that that is true.
These are people that celebrated torture, illegal wars, view social justice with suspicion, and speak in racial code dog whistle language regularly. I watched the so-called reasonable Republicans wink and nod at the eliminationist talk. I saw them do absolutely NOTHING to stop the party takeover by authoritarians. I saw them clap and celebrate.
I am not an eliminationist. I don't believe that they should be wiped from the earth. I actually think conservative ideology is an important part of the American dialogue. However, I don't have any illusions about these clowns in their current form. I am sure they will recalibrate and they might possibly return to living up to being the party of Lincoln.
Someone saying that being sarcastic is as bad as 30 years of "The liberals are evil Marxists and need to be eradicated!" nuttiness is just not worth my respect right now. They need to worry about fixing their own violent, off the rails party and stop concern trolling my party.
I can't do a damn thing to change the Republican party. They have to do that. I'll wait.
March 25, 2010 6:53 AM
It's all about the money.
A few years back, in the previous century, a co-worker and I used to discuss politics. Him, being from a very wealthy ultra conservative family, once asked me during a rather heated discussion, "You want to know the truth about conservative versus liberal policy?" "The truth is that you will never get rich unless you make us, who are already wealthy, even richer first." The old trickle-down hoax. Since then I've noticed what the Republican's goals are. There are two.
Goal #1) To make the very wealthy even more wealthy at the expense of everyone else. And if they can't get more money, they will settle for everyone else having less. It's all relative.
Have you noticed that every one of their political speeches and interviews about the state of our nation includes the standard old line of "we need across the board tax cuts..err like Bush did it?" This is their answer to all problems. Any money the government collects in taxes is "stolen from them." Across the board means "nearly all for us and nearly nothing for you."
Every so often you hear the old repeated riddle of "why do 10% of the people pay 90% of the taxes?" Maybe it's because those 10% of the people make 90% of the money. Everybody who makes less money must have it really easy. It's the same logic that my dad used to have when he'd tell me, "I don't want to make a lot more money because I'd have to pay nearly 1/3 of it in taxes."
Goal #2) To use any means necessary, from lies to gerrymandering to hate speech, to re-writing history, to get any politician with a "D" by their name to be removed from office and replaced by someone with an "R" by their name in order to accomplish Goal #1. All that you've listed here in the initial post is in an effort to accomplish Goal #2, and thus Goal #1.
I have friends who have been saying for decades that the trickle-down theory works. It hasn't worked for them yet, but it will one day! All the while, the R's who delivered this trick to them are giggling, poking elbows at each other, saying "Did you see that? THEY BOUGHT IT! (wink wink, nudge nudge)."
Ultra conservatives care nothing for the welfare of U.S. citizens who aren't millionaires. They do care, however, for Iraqi citizens, even the poor ones, enough to send people to die for them, for their freedom, and to run up huge deficits, all the while spitting on the poor Americans who lost their jobs in the recession, got sick and are now bankrupt, telling them to "grow up" and to "get a job." That's what really gets to me. It's like their worst enemies are Americans who aren't exactly like them. Even poor foreigners rank higher.
I do agree with some who have posted here that most of the rhetoric from the Repubs is simply tantrums from sore losers. Did you see John Boehner's little red-faced "hell no" rant? Their anger was bad in the 90's, but tiny compared to what you hear and see today.
But maybe a few Republicans are not the way they are in order to accomplish Goal #1. Those who are not have turned congressional elections into the Superbowl. It's OUR team versus YOUR team. They have chosen a side and simply want to win. The fact that they keep speaking against their own ideas is very telling. It doesn't matter to these folks what happens to the country or their fellow citizens, just that they want to say THEY won. It's like the Red Sox and the Yankees. Beating the other side is cause for great joy. Pure sport.
I'm rather tired of hearing politics becoming the same as the WWF. It's hard to have a meaningful conversation with someone shouting the latest hate-phrase in your face.
Those who think Obama is far left need to see someone elected who IS far left. They would pray to have Obama back, just like I prayed to have Bush 41 back after Bush 43 showed us what he was like. Obama is so far to the right from radical left, 40 years ago he would be considered a solid Republican. To hear them tell it, Obama is the most left wing Democrat that ever lived! Folks, the majority have spoken, and they want the person who is in the relative center. And that's what they got. Get over it, and let's move on to make the country a better place to live for EVERYONE.
March 25, 2010 12:51 AM
Saw this letter, knew it to be brilliant, made an account just to thank you.
I respect my conservative friends and family members, and I think they feel a little trapped. They know what they believe in, and it isn't this pathetic brownshirt slapstick they are being fed, but they don't really have anywhere else to go. And acknowledging the GOP for what it has become... this is painful and difficult.
My father in law, a combat-wounded Vietnam veteran, Rotary club member, and lifetime Republican, doesn't feel like he can exactly start voting Democratic. But he's a rational fellow and he has very privately begun disclosing his gradual departure from the GOP. I hope that there will be somewhere effective for him to go.
March 25, 2010 2:07 AM
Wonderful post. And because it's so good and will be linked to for a long time to come, I have one picky suggestion.
Re emails from a powerful grown man to 16-year-old pages: sexual does not necessarily mean sexy. You may judge them as sexy but the recipients may not have.
Otherwise, amazingly well done. Bravo!
March 25, 2010 2:22 AM
YES!!!!! I'M 700TH!!!! WOOOOO HOOO!!!
Well done, Dad-dude.
March 25, 2010 2:40 AM
They can, they have, they will continue. That's just how they roll.
March 25, 2010 2:50 AM
You guys crack me up ;))
I'm a constitutionalist and patriot. I believe in the bill of rights.
Guess what, there is NO left, right political paradigm. It's all one team.
The Politicians are like the WWF... they fight in front of the cameras, then give each other high fives, smack each other on the butt, snap wet towels in the shower and laugh about how gullible the public is, and rub elbows making deals.
They want us to think in term of "Left" versus "Right", conservative versus Liberals, Republicans versus Democrat, us versus them. This distraction is good so we could keep giving up our sons and daughters for their wars, paying their taxes like good slaves and going to churches praying for salvation; all the while they loot the treasury, impose new laws, and destroy our Republic.
This is not new by the way; in the past it was the Catholic versus the Protestants, Blacks vs. Whites, Jew vs. Gentile, Muslim vs. Jew, etc. etc., it’s a smoke screen, a cover story to keep the masses preoccupied.
We the people are left confused as to why the shit keeps rolling down hill on us.
Please watch this 10-minute clip, you’ll see that the word Democracy doesn’t even appear in the constitution, and you’ll see where this is all going.
The Basic Forms of Government and Examples in History
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTYp9YJZqTI
March 25, 2010 2:52 AM
Yes. You are so above it all.
This is a republic and most people know that.
Cool that you just found out. You go boy.
March 25, 2010 6:55 AM
Yet another Marxist adviser close to the President... when are you guys gonna get a clue!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ku4lSm17Vc
March 25, 2010 3:08 AM
You're gonna sit here and argue back and forth about hypocrisy while all the while Marxists infest and ruin our country? This blog entry is pointless, let's get the real problem at hand.
March 25, 2010 3:47 AM
I am a republican and I am sick to death of the unethical and embarrassing behavior of republicans in politics.
We NEED a balance of gov't bureacracy. We NEED someone to speak up for being fiscally responsible at the expense of sacrificing well-intentioned gov't programs. We need someone to stand up for conservative values.
The republican party is failing to conduct rational arguments. I'm tired of the lies, the rediculous accusations,the slander and the ranting in general. Put down your fists, stop screaming and start speaking intelligently, ratioanlly and calmly on behalf of republicans. You're embarrassing.
I currently support Democrats because they are the only rational choice. Get it together!
March 25, 2010 5:31 AM
Good day, This is a test:
For Americans using the following words in 2010, I ask that you provide accurate definitions of the following:
Facist or Facism
Communist or Communism
Nazi
Marxist or Marxism
Socialist (or) Socialism ( all your choices)
Revolution
Anarchy
If you can actually provide clear, coherent definitions of the above words it will indicate to me that you haved some knowledge of history and a reasonable perspective of what extremism actually is.
Hint: within these definitions you may not use the sitting president's name or for that matter any president of our country over the last, oh let's say 110 years. You may not use any other person's name to define the above words or labels included above. That would be too easy.
On our National Debt: Please describe how:
You can justify the following huge increases in spending added to our national debt of muti-billions for:
war paid for with borrowed money from China (or)
unfunded mandates (for more money to no bid war contractors.)
Let's be clear: the national debt problem is real, but much of it lies in unfunded war and huge contracts to defense contrators while the actual "boots on the ground" men and women do not even have the most basic tools of war so they may at least try to stay alive and sane.
This is a test...this is only a test. If this had been an actual emergency.... well you know the rest. This is an open book test and you will be graded, sooner or later.
Thank you for your exisiting or new found tolerance.
Best regards from a small business owner, employer
and someone who wants everyone to be able to live and prosper, preferably within the golden rule approach to reality.
March 25, 2010 7:58 AM
How utterly condescending. This is a call for civility?
Bah.
March 25, 2010 11:57 AM