the lion, the witch and the wardrobe
Now that the esteemed Senator Ted Kennedy has been laid to rest next to his brothers in Arlington Cemetery, I feel compelled to comment on why I see his legacy as a reflection of what is most wrong with our political environment here in the United States of America.
Ostensibly a representative republic, We The People exercise very little control over who we send to Washington DC and seem oddly reluctant to bring in new blood to help move the country in more innovative directions. For much of our nation's history, we had a steady turnover in Congress due to a large number of voluntary departures. As soon as it became clear that these clowns weren't leaving of their own accord, it was our duty, and actually a protected right for every American as of 1964, to turn these folks out if they failed to live up to their oath of office. Yet for the last forty years, the average turnout for presidential general elections has been under 60 percent, and the turnout for primaries barely registers on the scale of influence.
This is how we created the government we have instead of the government we need.
As much as the Lion of the Senate actually did in his long and distinguished career, none of which I dispute was largely beneficial to the country in general, the journey itself seems mostly marked by a long and undistinguished series of failures to accomplish his stated goals due to a rigid set of partisan blinders as well as an almost willful inability to see beyond his party to do what was right for his country.
Ted's time to head into the sunset was in the mid 1970s, after he decided to not run for president and long before he took a sitting president to the convention, thus ensuring the election of Ronald Reagan and all the crazy shit that followed. Ted's partisan disregard for Jimmy Carter is largely responsible for our current state of affairs. I can already imagine the flaming that last sentence will bring to the blog, but I stand by that assessment and would apply it to every member of Congress, in both major parties, over the last forty years who kept their seat by maintaining the fiction of representative government. They played the game they always have in order to be reelected, sacrificing their morals and ethics as much as necessary depending on the individual member and/or issue.
A shell game at best.
The reflective desire on the part of the democratic faithful to canonize Kennedy, both while alive and after he died, is another symptom of our political disease. The republicans did the same thing with Ronald Reagan and an assorted crew of mediocre deities. In both cases, the action simply confirmed the opinions of each party toward the lack of sanity and reason of behalf of their political rivals. How could anyone with half a brain cell possibly think so highly of that SOB!? is the cry from the fringes of each party and has just enough truth for the moderates of both to ensure our partisan divide continues to widen while our country goes down the shitter.
On the flip side of the sainthood coin is the need to vilify each and every political adversary to point of caricature. Sarah Palin cast as the conservative witch that all good liberals must cast on the bonfire is a perfect example of that trend. No matter how many republicans on this site disavow her more inflammatory comments, the idea that they think she is the messiah of the republican party is a democratic prejudice that won't go away. Every critique of the republican party is couched in the idea that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN believes that Bush was the Second Coming and would usher in an era of the Christian States of America.
So what can we do about it?
That remains the challenge of the next generation. How can we fix our broken political system to actually deliver the return on investment in government that our tax dollars represent and our outcomes rarely reflect? I think it is incumbent upon the moderates of both parties, as well as the sensible independents that defected from both over the years, to meet every single fringe posting from their side with facts and shame.
It can only be done by the grassroots moderates of each party, because the fringe won't listen to anything that comes from the opposing party. I have been at TPM since April of 2008, over a year of which I have been a registered republican, and have been able to make very few inroads with the Looking Glass Left despite the basic similarity of my positions as a former member of their clan. Mostly it seems they are pissed because I gave them such a jaunty name. Something with the same panache as the Rapture Right. Labels can be helpful in defining the fringe, but when we try to apply them to the majority, the process falls apart.
Which brings us to the most nefarious part of our journey today, the ever-expanding wardrobe of the Corporate Media Complex.
I have posted clips from the movie Network repeatedly. I would do so again here as being entirely appropriate, but for some people embedded video clips makes it impossible to see the rest of the post. A film that was an award-winner in 1976 may seem an odd place to find parables to today's environment, but the simple fact is that we have known about this fantasy we have created for more than 30 years now. It has gotten worse almost in direct proportion to everything else that is fucked up today. Small, disconnected policy decisions made during a time of national crisis have been maintained in the absence of any credible evidence to suggest they should be maintained.
Further, both parties have spent us into bankruptcy based on mistaken interpretations of the actual threats we faced as well as the solutions we should implement to meet those challenges, real or imagined. Be it terrorism or communism or fascism or whatever-the-fuckism, Americans have been played the fool since at least the end of World War II, and most likely since the very beginning of the country as a group of enlightened aristocrats sought to carve off the most profitable piece of a well-established empire to call their own.
This is yet another one of those blogs that I have no idea how to end. The problem is much too big for my mediocre skills. I hope to spark comments, both pro and con alike, as well as any recommendations that seem fit to the occasion. Beyond that, I usually feel much more powerless to affect anything resembling real change absent some sort of divine intervention I don't really believe exists outside of our own ability to evolve beyond our limitations.
Ostensibly a representative republic, We The People exercise very little control over who we send to Washington DC and seem oddly reluctant to bring in new blood to help move the country in more innovative directions. For much of our nation's history, we had a steady turnover in Congress due to a large number of voluntary departures. As soon as it became clear that these clowns weren't leaving of their own accord, it was our duty, and actually a protected right for every American as of 1964, to turn these folks out if they failed to live up to their oath of office. Yet for the last forty years, the average turnout for presidential general elections has been under 60 percent, and the turnout for primaries barely registers on the scale of influence.
This is how we created the government we have instead of the government we need.
As much as the Lion of the Senate actually did in his long and distinguished career, none of which I dispute was largely beneficial to the country in general, the journey itself seems mostly marked by a long and undistinguished series of failures to accomplish his stated goals due to a rigid set of partisan blinders as well as an almost willful inability to see beyond his party to do what was right for his country.
Ted's time to head into the sunset was in the mid 1970s, after he decided to not run for president and long before he took a sitting president to the convention, thus ensuring the election of Ronald Reagan and all the crazy shit that followed. Ted's partisan disregard for Jimmy Carter is largely responsible for our current state of affairs. I can already imagine the flaming that last sentence will bring to the blog, but I stand by that assessment and would apply it to every member of Congress, in both major parties, over the last forty years who kept their seat by maintaining the fiction of representative government. They played the game they always have in order to be reelected, sacrificing their morals and ethics as much as necessary depending on the individual member and/or issue.
A shell game at best.
The reflective desire on the part of the democratic faithful to canonize Kennedy, both while alive and after he died, is another symptom of our political disease. The republicans did the same thing with Ronald Reagan and an assorted crew of mediocre deities. In both cases, the action simply confirmed the opinions of each party toward the lack of sanity and reason of behalf of their political rivals. How could anyone with half a brain cell possibly think so highly of that SOB!? is the cry from the fringes of each party and has just enough truth for the moderates of both to ensure our partisan divide continues to widen while our country goes down the shitter.
On the flip side of the sainthood coin is the need to vilify each and every political adversary to point of caricature. Sarah Palin cast as the conservative witch that all good liberals must cast on the bonfire is a perfect example of that trend. No matter how many republicans on this site disavow her more inflammatory comments, the idea that they think she is the messiah of the republican party is a democratic prejudice that won't go away. Every critique of the republican party is couched in the idea that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN believes that Bush was the Second Coming and would usher in an era of the Christian States of America.
So what can we do about it?
That remains the challenge of the next generation. How can we fix our broken political system to actually deliver the return on investment in government that our tax dollars represent and our outcomes rarely reflect? I think it is incumbent upon the moderates of both parties, as well as the sensible independents that defected from both over the years, to meet every single fringe posting from their side with facts and shame.
It can only be done by the grassroots moderates of each party, because the fringe won't listen to anything that comes from the opposing party. I have been at TPM since April of 2008, over a year of which I have been a registered republican, and have been able to make very few inroads with the Looking Glass Left despite the basic similarity of my positions as a former member of their clan. Mostly it seems they are pissed because I gave them such a jaunty name. Something with the same panache as the Rapture Right. Labels can be helpful in defining the fringe, but when we try to apply them to the majority, the process falls apart.
Which brings us to the most nefarious part of our journey today, the ever-expanding wardrobe of the Corporate Media Complex.
I have posted clips from the movie Network repeatedly. I would do so again here as being entirely appropriate, but for some people embedded video clips makes it impossible to see the rest of the post. A film that was an award-winner in 1976 may seem an odd place to find parables to today's environment, but the simple fact is that we have known about this fantasy we have created for more than 30 years now. It has gotten worse almost in direct proportion to everything else that is fucked up today. Small, disconnected policy decisions made during a time of national crisis have been maintained in the absence of any credible evidence to suggest they should be maintained.
Further, both parties have spent us into bankruptcy based on mistaken interpretations of the actual threats we faced as well as the solutions we should implement to meet those challenges, real or imagined. Be it terrorism or communism or fascism or whatever-the-fuckism, Americans have been played the fool since at least the end of World War II, and most likely since the very beginning of the country as a group of enlightened aristocrats sought to carve off the most profitable piece of a well-established empire to call their own.
This is yet another one of those blogs that I have no idea how to end. The problem is much too big for my mediocre skills. I hope to spark comments, both pro and con alike, as well as any recommendations that seem fit to the occasion. Beyond that, I usually feel much more powerless to affect anything resembling real change absent some sort of divine intervention I don't really believe exists outside of our own ability to evolve beyond our limitations.
Advertisement
Jason, that is a very thoughtful essay.
The problem is that as an electorate, we are motivated more by pain than pleasure. In other words, things have to get incredibly bad before we vote out a set of fools en masse, even if only by a relatively narrow margin (the 'en masse' refers to the fools, not the voters). People, otherwise, stay in their comfort zones and ignore politics.
Yes, we vote because we don't like something, for the most part. That is why the Right realized that it could use one issue to rile a relatively small segment of the population (abortion, preeminently) to create a segment that would stimulate its nucleus accumbens with every pull of the electoral lever.
I voted for Obama because I had SMALL hopes for him and a great deal of FEAR of a McCain/Palin Presidency.
But I'm not an optimist by nature, not an activist, only someone who is trying to understand what the hell is wrong with us/myself as collective and individual electorate(s).
September 2, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the thoughtful comment.
I confess to a total lack of understanding when it comes to knowing what will shock America out of its somnolence. It seems we have entered hell by way of the best intentions of both parties and nothing "moderates" have to say makes the slightest bit of difference.
I was much less of an optimist as a pissed-off independent waiting for the democratic party to deliver all of the very worthwhile goals they had espoused for my entire life. As a newly minted reformist republican, I feel a sense of optimism that I never felt as an independent. There is a battle to be won and it isn't happening on the fringes nor will it be happening in the ranks of those who opted out by way of disenfranchisement with both major political brands.
It is in the center of both parties that Americans can still be called to arms to deliver us from the depredations of extremist ideologies by way of consistent participation in the political process.
September 2, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, here we go again. Bashing the "people of this country", "Americans", "citizens" and this really accomplishes a lot--blaming it all on the American citizen.
The reality of it is, those in power have learned to IGNORE US. Let me say this again. THEY HAVE LEARNED TO IGNORE US. It is not that we are not out there making our voices heard but between the corporate puppet wack jobs ("Town Hall meetings") and a media that no longer covers US, we are buried under layers and layers of mire. Add to it essays like yours, in which you blame "Americans" for their somnelence or somberness or something like this, well, hell, I think I will just stay in front of the television. What's the point?
I am someone who is still using all the normal channels of a "democracy" only because I have been using them my entire life and I know no other way. They USED to work (protests, writing letters, calling, etc). After all, Nixon did step down (contrast this with Cheney and Bush).
But these normal channels do not work anymore NOT because we are not USING THEM but because we have a media that is stupid and entertainment driven
and politicians have learned they can ignore people and get away with it.
Last year, I was one of 200 people who attended a protest to end the war in Iraq. We held it near the capitol where I live. There was a moment where someone said, "there is no one here from the media? Is there anyone here from the media?"
NOT ONE. Sure, we can take pictures and post them on U-tube but the point is even with press releases, THE "MEDIA" MEANING THE LOCAL NEWSPAPERS AND TELEVISION STATIONS DID NOT SHOW UP FOR OUR PROTEST. Please contrast this with the 60's or 70's. No one from the local media SHOWED UP.
So who would you like to blame in this scenario? It infuriates me when I read pudnit after pundit whining about how "apathetic Americans are" but let me tell you. We are OUT THERE but no one, including even you apparently, gives a damn anymore. We're all just a bunch of apathetic losers now. Well, sht. Maybe I will just skip that next health care meeting. Whose the real fool here?
September 2, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And contrast the coverage of a similar size Fox led tea pot party.
September 3, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment, while very passionate and heart-felt, is an example of why we are failing as a country to deliver on our promise.
The average turnout for midterm primary elections is 16 percent. That is not getting involved. That is staying home until November and then bitching a lack of real choice and having to pick the lesser of two evils. We all claim to be involved but how many of us really are? The political junkies are but most people's answer is: "I don't do politics."
I blaming the majority of the country who can't be bothered to vote twice a year every two year like clockwork. That is what will make politicians listen to us in way they never have.
September 3, 2009 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Your comment, while very passionate and heart-felt, is an example of why we are failing as a country to deliver on our promise."
Your comment shows you are the most condescending prick on this entire site. Hell, maybe the entire left side of the blogosphere.
September 3, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. You really don't pay attention. I am not "left" nor have have ever claimed to be. As to the rest of your continuing attempts to derail important conversations with ad hominem hackery. Keep trying.
September 4, 2009 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"important conversations"
LOL.
September 4, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"what will shock America out of its somnolence."
Becoming a third-world nation?
TOO LATE!
September 3, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are probably right, which is why things are starting to change.
September 4, 2009 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could you say more about Ted's disregard for Jimmy Carter? In those years we had no television or radio, so we missed a lot of history. I saw a bit of that era on teevee bios during His funeral week, but I was unfamiliar with it.
September 2, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was only ten at the time but have since come to understand the period via the historical record as I researched Jimmy Carter over the years.
I really had no opinion of Ted until I saw his path intersect with Carter's by way of the 1980 democratic primary. Seeing how damaging the extended democratic primary in 2008 was to Obama's general election run, I became convinced this dynamic was at play in 1980 as well.
Barack avoided the same fate and prevailed in the general, but I think he might have gained an even wider margin had he not needed to tack left to win the nomination.
September 2, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, shoot, that didn't illuminate much for me. Guess this blog isn't for history lessons.
September 2, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy, here is a little bit of the story. I don't remember the convention but I have heard over the years - that vague "heard" - that Kennedy cost Carter his second term.
http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2009/08/26/your-morning-jolt-how-ted-kennedy-and-jimmy-carter-created-each-other/
It also looks like the NY Times will be previewing the Kennedy bio and there is something there today. It is one of those stories political buffs love to talk about.
September 3, 2009 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, blue. I only became interested in the Kennedy part of the story when I became interested in Carter himself. Most of this is new to me.
September 3, 2009 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, I was 12 on the day Reagan was elected. I stayed up that night watching young, well-dressed, slick-talking NCPACers explain how epochal the change for this nation was, how America could have self-respect again, how 'our values' would prevail.
It was probably the most disheartening thing I have ever seen in my life. I don't blame Kennedy for it. The American people must bear a share of the blame.
September 3, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't "blame" Kennedy as much as I think he made a tactical error with unintended consequences for the long-term progressive strategies he seems to have always had for the country but never quite fully delivered.
September 3, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Kennedy's move was tactically poor. I don't doubt it, having seen a generation of Democrats run tactically poor campaigns against Republicans.
But I think you're not giving enough 'credit' to Reagan, who lit up the Republicans' pleasure bulbs like Sarah Palin does, and also (unlike her) those of the 'moderates.'
Remember,it was more than just Carter who was swept out in that election. Liberal lions like George McGovern, Frank Church, Birch Bayh... Kennedy was the 'last lion' standing. (I have no idea if he was up for election that year, but as a Kennedy he had lifetime tenure in Massachusetts, and that is certainly not his fault. But the other 'lions' were gone.)
September 3, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It still seem that whatever gains Reagan may have been to make that year, it would have been exceedingly tough unseating a sitting democratic president with a united party behind him and a country very wary of the GOP brand that close to Nixon.
The odds, from an historical perspective, would have all been in Carter's favor but for a very long and bitter primary battle against his own party's most popular member that left him emasculated in the eyes of a country that was already feeling vulnerable.
The primary race left just enough doubt to get the country to roll the dice on Reagan.
September 3, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, wonder why the Democratic Party was not united behind Jimmy Carter -- you could make an argument that he was too centrist or moderate to unite his base behind him. He certainly was not lighting up their pleasure bulbs.
Obama looks to be making a similar mistake.
September 3, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may be part of why Obama is losing part of the middle as well: if he won't stand up for his backers, who will he stand up for? Independents don't want someone who is in lockstep with one wing(nice mixed metaphor,isn't it?) but they don't respect anyone who is clearly disloyal either.
September 3, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go confusing yourself with the base again. Ideologues are not the base. The base is the silent majority in each party who actually turnout to vote. Most ideologues don't fall into the category.
September 4, 2009 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
What cost Carter the election was the failure of the economy (due to gas prices) and the PR failure of his rescue mission in Iran (and of course, Ray-guns was bargaining behind his back with the Iranians for weapons.). I was 17 when I worked for McGovern in his first campaign, you figure out how old this made me for Carter's term and subsequent re-election bid.
September 3, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
A challenge to a sitting president by one of the most influential members of his own party was a blow to Carter's image that nothing would repair.
All the other things you mention would have been easy to overcome given the place where the republican brand was at the time. Reagan shouldn't have been able to get elected dog catcher.
I understand your view of this issue given the history you shared. I just don't agree with it for a number of reasons.
September 3, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, I agree that voter apathy, an uninformed public, a system gamed to favor re-election, and an entrenched duopoly that limits any independent challenge has created a government almost completely out of whack. It’s true that much of this began to take hold under Reagan and has grown to a point where the federal government is almost dysfunctional when it comes to doing the “people’s work.”
But you're castigating Kennedy for challenging the incumbent while condemning that very system of assured incumbency. It is not the fault of any one politician and especially not one who fought against the corporate interests because it’s the corporate stranglehold on DC and the media that is largely responsible for the misinformation (and apathy for that matter).
Neither the left nor right has a corner on truth, legitimacy or morality (though today's political right seems at times almost proudly dishonest and corrupt). But it doesn’t follow that all solutions to our problems are then found in the middle. The left and right have different definitions of our social compact but when it comes to policy, either one can be unfaithful to it. And politics today is almost all spin (not true of the past). Besides, that middle line of moderates has been moved. The left has been demonized for so long as radical that a true moderate liberal can be called extremist by the right and a “moderate” of today would have been on the right side of the aisle before Reagan.
September 3, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Presidential incumbents and Congressional incumbents are two totally different things, Don, but I do regret giving an impression that I was castigating Kennedy. I certainly don't think he deserves castigation, but constructive criticism always seems appropriate to me.
September 3, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. Lobbying, not just corporations but powerful lobbies like the NRA or influential groups like the Christian Right (diminished somewhat) distort the system more-so than ever (I omit unions, environmental groups, trial lawyers, etc. as powerful lobbies because they usually lose out to corporate interests).
I'm not so sure that the presidency is much different from the congress in regards to the systemic lock on elections. It may be more apparent in congress (with the open door to lobbyists) and no term limits but the same institutional duopoly (you can probably list some of the independents for president last year but I'd bet 99% of the public cannot) and fundraising advantages apply.
How many presidential candidates get to the finals without corporate cash? How much of the presidency is politics over policy? Rahm Emanuel, just like Karl Rove, understands whose bread to butter. And I cringe at how cynical I sound about politics these days, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
September 3, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama mostly made it through the primary election on hundreds of thousands of hundred dollar donations and republican voters in open primaries. Bill Clinton was most a grassroots effort as well, if I remember correctly.
If were as much a lock as you surmise, we would be talking about the Hillary Clinton presidency and the far left would be moaning about her compromising all of their most important goals.
I think the rise of the career politician led to the rise of lobbying. We had very little of that sort of nonsense when a healthy percentage of Congress quit before each election. As soon as they set up camp in DC, though, the wolves started coming out in force.
I think we are all trying to be a little less cynical and a little more optimistic, as hard as that is right now. Wash, rinse and repeat. We are in for a long transition I am afraid.
September 4, 2009 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. But Hillary wasn’t far behind Obama. He did raise more in individual contributions than most but also more in industry money. And he hasn’t kept the lobbyists out of the WH; the revolving door is still spinning. The President is not only president but leader of the party and chief fundraiser (even presidents with 20% approval ratings can pull in large donations-wonder why that is?).
Obama, for example, appears to have received about 10% from donations under $1000 and, what, about 20% under $2000. Who has the greater influence, a lowly individual who gives a few hundred dollars, a PAC giving hundreds of thousands, 527s spending millions in ads or a bundler bringing in millions from industries and large individual donors?
Also, the money poured into congress spills over to the president in that he has to cut deals with congressmen who are influenced by lobbyists filling their coffers, not to mention media spending (the health insurance industry alone is spending $1.4 million a day pushing their agenda).
September 4, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the proof for me is in his performance, which has thus far appeared to try and accomplish what he ran on.
I don't care where his money came from or where it comes from because most "corporate" money is simply sliced and diced data from individual contributions. If he continues to be consistent with his campaign platform as well as his two books, I will continue to generally support his efforts.
If he comes out next week and announces a deal to "kill" the public option for now, I will think he is a grandmaster and is indeed playing chess while everyone else plays checkers. A bill that is supported by even a token handful of republicans will go a long way toward getting a strong public option by way of Medicare reform.
At least that is how I see it, now that I have apparently been successful at transforming myself into a "real" republican.
September 4, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Obama will be judged on his ultimate accomplishments. But the money is corrupting the whole system, especially with regard to incumbency as you said. But it also acts as a gatekeeper regarding what gets discussed and how it’s debated. And of course, we’re paying for this. All of the money comes from our pockets ultimately. Setting aside the influence benefiting moneyed interests instead of the general public, how many jobs could be created with just that $1.4 million a day the health insurance industry is throwing away on their “message”?
September 4, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this analysis, plus the Republican machine became a thing of genius under Reagan.
September 3, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are not bankrupt. That is the same bullshit I heard for the last fifty years.
The economic oligarchy has soooooooooooooooo much money, so many assets hidden and otherwise that debt nationally is a figment of the imagination of right wing pundits.
A one percent tax on stock trades would CLEAR THE NATIONAL DEBT IN A FEW YEARS.
Work with both sides.
Both sides of what.
There once were two sides, hell ten sides. Where is Dirksen? Where are the liberal repubs?
They are gone.
TED KENNEDY CARED ABOUT THE POOR, THE MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKED FOR THAT END HIS ENTIRE LIFE.
What in the hell has McConnel ever worked for except corporations and the monied oligarchy.
Jason I do not buy this anymore
September 2, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not surprised that this is your reaction to my blog, Dead Eye. Your own journey has pretty much determined your view on this particular subject.
The facts are that despite Ted's good works, his inability to guide the democratic party to a place that captured the imagination of the silent majority is also part of that legacy. The "other side" is all the people you will never know but determine the outcomes of elections.
They are the people you deride as centrists but can be guided by way of redefining the center you refuse to admit exists.
September 2, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well, thank goodness we have Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, the Nelsons, etc. to do that. I'm sure their versions of "the Dream will never die" are out there somewhere on the internet.
September 2, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank goodness we do or the president would be even more upside down on this current debate. The only way to get this country moving in the right direction will be through a series of progressive compromises to begin the long, hard road of deprogramming a significant number of our fellow citizens.
Or I suppose we could round up every republican (and democrat and independent for that matter) who doesn't agree with the far left and toss them in reeducation camps. Might be a bit quicker than coming up with actual solutions, but I am sure it would feel good to finally "win" while the rest of us continue to lose.
September 3, 2009 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? You think their contributions have been helping him make his case? I'd apply the old cliche with friends like these who needs enemies.
September 3, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer Sun Tzu: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
The Blue Dogs contributions will lead to a bill that is as bipartisan and progressive as this first effort was ever going to be. They are acting as the Rosetta Stone between the ultra conservatives GOP and the mostly moderate democratic party that nonetheless sounds extreme to much of the country.
Changing a paradigm by fiat only works if you want to wreck the country like the last administration. If the goal is to fix the country, a little more patience and strategy is required than most of the far left seem willing to have.
September 4, 2009 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason says;
Why do you assign to Ted Kennedy the job of guiding the Democratic Party "to a place that captured the imagination of the silent majority"?
You not only assign that task to Kennedy but in so many words criticize him for failing.
September 3, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because he was the Lion of the Senate, the democratic party's undisputed don.
September 3, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very authoritarian view of the world and a rather complete lack of understanding of where public opinion started in the 1950s.
September 3, 2009 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
September 4, 2009 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear DD . . . My fellow "Old Warrior" . . .
Just quietly step aside and get that touch of gray out of the way before the Bluster Bus blows your pajamas off.
Signed,
A fellow "Old Warrior," incorrectly labeled and presumed member of the "Looking Glass Left" ...
~OGD~
Oh ... but before I leave this empty space . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsnBpzBT-4
As a foot note for those who presume they have a read on history...
Humans have a tendency of attempting to stuff the genie back into their own self-made bottle.
~OGD~
September 3, 2009 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your generation were the glass blowers, not mine and not my brother's.
September 3, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
And . . .
And Mister Bluster seems to be pissed that our generation doesn't miss the double-standard he sets out, nor have any problem sticking those glass blown bottles right up the asteroid-orifices of overly wordy blustery types that denigrate, stifle, and vilify others for some jackass political agenda.
Mister Bluster doesn't realize that he's just too damn transparent.
~OGD~
September 3, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since I have yet to bring orifices of any kind into the discussion, the true ideologue who debates with ad hominem attacks instead of facts is easy to unmask.
September 3, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bluster on... Bluster on... Bluster on...
Oooo ... "ad hominem attacks" ... Check.
Next in line out of Mister Bluster will be the ol' saw of hiding behind the safety of an anonymous screen name as Mister Bluster continues the overly wordy blustery type of rhetoric that denigrates, stifles, and vilifies others for some jackass political agenda.
Next.... !
~OGD~
September 3, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Broken record rhetoric is not a logical argument. You speak to no one but yourself and the gullible left wing of the democratic party who "think" the same way.
September 3, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Broken record rhetoric is not a logical argument?
Huh? I wonder why Mister Bluster employs "broken record rhetoric" in his arguments?
Oh ... that's right. Mister Bluster is unable to see the double-standards he sets.
Too damn transparent in his ways
~OGD~
.
September 4, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because you keep offering the same shit as responses. Perhaps if you ever commented on what I actually wrote than what you think I wrote, we might actually begin to communicate. As it is, you seem perfectly content to stink up your own house.
September 4, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sneer all you want -- the men of your generation were still backing Bush in 2004.
September 4, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't vote for Bush. In fact, the turnout in 2004 was as pathetic as all our elections and the result was pretty much even, so the historical record is hardly this cut and dried.
September 4, 2009 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah Palin cast as the conservative witch that all good liberals must cast on the bonfire is a perfect example of that trend.
Is anyone forcing Sarah Palin to spend any more time on the stage than allotted?
I know she wasn't for real when she started making up the Constitutional role of the vice-president.
I knew the media was going cash in on Sarah Palin when they didn't seriously ask her how she planned to accomplish her goals as vice-president if the Constitutional says otherwise.
September 2, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This blog wasn't about Palin or her crazy rise to notoriety. She is simply the most recent example of demonization of political opponents and isn't confined to the left side of the house, which I mentioned.
September 2, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
but if she wants to get off this ride all she has to do is step off.
And then we can stop using her as an example.
September 2, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, it could just as easily have been Coulter or Limbaugh or Gore or Clinton or anyone the fringes of both parties demonize. Please try not to take all my words quite so literally as there is a good deal of allusion and metaphor in there as well.
September 2, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Sarah Palin, any one of those individuals can resume a life outside the spotlight. No one is forcing them to continue a public or political life.
I digress
As someone who considers himself left of center, I don't think Obama went left as stated in this post but he is stuck in the mushy middle. His approach has been moderate as many on left have called for him to be more aggressive with several of his initiatives.
He hasn't gone far enough in several key areas. I think he has to be pulled more to the left.
September 2, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't commenting on Obama's effort to date. I actually think he has remained remarkably consistent and largely effective given the liberal bleating from the far left and the intractable obstruction from the far right.
September 2, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intractable opposition from the entirety of the right, in Congress.
Clean your house.
September 2, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Takes time. We have election every two years, not every seven months.
September 2, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crazy rise? Who's dissing your Republicans now? Since Palin had a 72 / 21 favorability rating among Republicans as of July as per Gallup, her support among mainstream Republicans is a fact, not a Democratic canard. She was also coming in a close second to Romney in a mock primary.
You need to explain why the Republicans fell for her so hard.
September 3, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because she reminds them of themselves, just a egular 'merican. Kinda like Dubya.
What the difference between Dubya and Sarah Palin? LIPSTICK!!!!
That joke will never get old!
September 3, 2009 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not harboring ill will toward someone and thinking they are a political leader are two different things. Again, you confuse what the numbers are saying because you apply your own liberal filters to polls done on republicans. It is comparing apples to orangutans.
September 3, 2009 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason,
For this statement alone:
'I think it is incumbent upon the moderates of both parties, as well as the sensible independents that defected from both over the years, to meet every single fringe posting from their side with facts and shame.'
I will Rec'd. with one caveat. I don't believe it is only incumbent upon moderates - but for all who profess to prioritize honest and quality government (equating to best for country and society).
So sick and tired of different tenets and actions applied dependent only upon political source as opposed to uniform outcry for all lies, distortions, misrepresentations, ethical and moral infractions, or worse.
By large, I endorse and support most elements of your post. As usual, it is well sourced and well written. Greatly appreciate the time, thought and effort.
September 2, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Sam, thanks for the kind words and the thoughtful response. I totally agree with your caveat. All Americans, regardless of label or intention, should be willing to speak out against shit that doesn't sound right.
It's not like its a secret. Even those who stay silent know the crazy shit we are all talking about. The political stances that aren't in any way, shape or form credible. The opinions that are ridiculous on their face but we accept out of some sense of loyalty to the crazies because they are our crazies.
I became a republican as a statement of refusing to allow labels to define my political ideals. I could just as easily reached into the New Deal past of the democratic party for that identity.
September 2, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironically, one of the reasons I'm an Independent is the same!
September 2, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was an independent until I realized the futility of being such in a two party system. I am just dumb enough to think I can change one party to be more to my liking.
September 2, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck with that!
September 2, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
:O)
September 2, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. I am sure that you love the new improved Republican Party you are planning to create dearly -- it just bears an extremely limited relationship to the Republican Party which actually exists. Unless you are extremely careful most of your effect will be to enable the latter.
September 3, 2009 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
More inane musing from AJM. The only political constant in this country is change. You better love yourself some new republican party as well, or nothing the democratic party wants to achieve will ever happen.
September 3, 2009 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The political stances that aren't in any way, shape or form credible.
There's the key to it all and it is the only thing that can turn the lock, credibility. We have abandoned credibility. An opinion is considered something sacred, because it is personal, rather then a theory yet to be proved. An opinion has become a partisan declaration. Watching Tom Ridge on Maddow, he managed to call her evaluation "radical". Talk about having had the warning decades ago, what is next, calling her "liberal, fanatical, criminal! Whooo!" You know the music, and it was decades ago. Rachel made a very rational evaluation of the history we have learned related to the run up to invading Iraq. But Tom is now toeing the party line and it defies logic.
Other examples of credibility abound. To get old, we can simply consider that G. Gordon Liddy, a convicted criminal related to Watergate, is given a platform to discuss politics. Oliver North is given a platform to discuss the military, after lying to Congress. Sanford, Ensign, and Burris - it's not isolated to one party. It's insidious that these people remain in power when they have lost all credibility.
It seems to me the apathy is spreading because there does not seem to be any way to stop it. Dubya and Cheney offered no-bid contracts, and billions of dollars disappear. Contractors get paid for products and services before they are even provided, and in some cases, regardless of whether they were provided. Wall Street and the financial industry run rampant and we put up billions to save their bacon with nothing to show for it provided to the American people. One might allow favoritism to the wealthy if they paid their fair share of taxes, but they are not. This is a one way relationship. We're looking for signs this will actually change, but except for the rumor Obama would provide Change We Can Believe In, there do not appear to be many changes. I know, give him time. The time is now for HCR. Then will we move on to the other issues, like war crimes?
September 3, 2009 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was after midnight when I wrote this. Can you tell?
September 3, 2009 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Either way, some good thoughts in there. I do believe the apathy is a result of an American trait to provide an unlimited amount of self-justification for their actions rather than any actual powerlessness. We have all the power we need yet decide not to exercise it.
It happens every two years like clockwork and most states even publish the dates well in advance. They are called the primary elections and barely 16 percent of us bother to turn out during midterms and less than 30 percent turnout for presidential election years, with this last year as no exception, despite the hype and press.
It wouldn't take much of an increase in the primary turnout to totally change the make-up of both parties. We could make them reflective of FDR and TR. Ike and LBJ. We could make them something completely new that can work together to achieve a common set of goals as articulated by We The People and who we send to Washington.
Or who we send home.
September 3, 2009 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a lot to comment on, but here's one thought: The view of the moderates as opposed to the fringe (if we are to divide things that way) is not inevitably the proper view.
On the one hand you hold the moderates up as elixir for our country, yet at the same time see the need for radical change. The moderates by nature seek to maintain the status quo for the most part (e.g. stop people from getting kicked off their health insurance when they get sick, but let the health insurance companies continue to exist in order to profit off of health care).
Sometimes we need to take a principled stand on the issues at the grassroot level. Other times we need to compromise. It shouldn't be: no matter what the issue, I am a moderate. It should: what is the issue, where do I stand and where I am willing to compromise based on the evidence (and my heart).
September 2, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
One simple example: Moderates would have told Kennedy not to send in the national gaurd to force the integration of schools.
September 2, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you make a lot of good points, but misunderstand my use of the word moderate. I think moderates are the ones that have a very fluid view of historical reality.
They would look at the use of the National Guard to enforce desegregation much the same way as they would view using the National Guard to quell the riots following Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination.
In both cases, the mechanisms of the state were used to enforce the rule of the majority.
September 2, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes our language is not up to the task. Currently the fringe is often used to describe people like the loons who show up at these town halls, but in the course of our history the fringe has included those opposed to slavery and for the right of women to vote, as well as those opposing the war in Iraq.
If what you're talking about are ideological moderates as opposed to the fanatics, then I would be more inclined to say you're on the right track as far as the grassroots movement.
September 2, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am talking about ideological moderates vice ideological extremists.
Most of the "fringe" movements you mention, though, were widely supported by a diversity of Americans. Even people with anti-war sentiments has been a fairly wide majority for a number of years.
It is less about ideas for me than it is about methodology.
September 3, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
It appears that by your definition moderate is conflated with flexible thinkers. There may be little or no overlap with those whose opinions are in the political center. Centrists can be just as dogmatic as those at the ends of the political spectrum.
What you speculate and what I speculate that the 'moderates' would have thought about calling out the National Guard to enforce integration differ. Got any data or do you live solely in an imaginary world?
September 3, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are the one doing the disputing, so it isn't on me to provide data for an opinion that doesn't require any. This country has mostly hewed to a centrist path on most issue, sometimes swaying to the right or left, but mostly steady as she goes.
September 3, 2009 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
'Moderates' sound good, at least, the word does. (And I appreciate your qualification that it refers to methodology, not ideology.)
But who is a moderate? Lindsey Graham? Joe Lieberman? Ben Nelson? Mary Landreau?
I would accept that all of these are 'moderates,' but their value is really as weathervanes, that if they tack left (on anything) it is a sign that a hurricane is driving them in that direction.
I think of myself as a 'moderate.' Hurricane Bush has driven me far to the left.
September 3, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't consider anyone in Congress to really fit that description, though I was pleasantly surprised by Lindsey Graham's comments on why he voted for Sotomayor's confirmation. I think the others you mention as well as many more do indeed blow with the prevailing winds, which makes any of their sensible statements automatically suspect for me.
I though Obama was (and still is) essentially a moderate who had too much faith in the current crop of GOP representatives being composed of people he could work with to be progressive and innovative and fiscally responsible. A state of being that I consider very possible with a slight modification of our individual frames of reference.
Then again, I have been accused of tilting at windmills, so perhaps I am the one with too much faith in the "silent majority" of both parties and their ability t mitigate the influence of their respective fringes.
September 3, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please explain why your opinion about what moderates would have thought about using the National Guard to enforce desegregation should be thought to be persuasive without data?
Your proposed decision rule 'I said it first so I don't have to prove it' doesn't cut it.
September 3, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have alternative views or data? It was actually the National Guard that had to be taken over by Ike because Arkansas governor was deploying them to stop the enforcement of the Supreme Court's decision.
September 4, 2009 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right on . . . AJM . . .
And you're comment there AJM was in response to a prime example of a faux-centrist (poser) with an overabundance of dogma, as if you didn't know it already. How else can one take someone who describes himself as a Republican progressive conservative?
Bi-polar politics?
~OGD~
September 3, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's quite easy if one actually understands history and is willing to learn from it.
September 3, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 25 words or less.
September 4, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Explain American history in 25 words or less?
That you don't see how utterly unrealistic that expectation is explains why the far left is having such a hard time understanding some fairly simple points about the average voter.
Maybe you should do your own homework and come back when you are an A student.
September 4, 2009 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
**Ad hominem attack**
Come back when someone's an A student?
To hang Mister Bluster on his own words:
Mister Bluster just can't see the double standards he sets.
Again ... Too damn transparent in his ways.
~OGD~
September 4, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Telling someone to do their own homework and come back when they can debate at the level of an A student who actually know the allusions being offered at TPM is not an ad hominem attack.
Absent the entire rest of the thread, perhaps it could be construed as such, but there is context in every communication that you continue to dismiss as soon as anything is said that suits your argument.
It is the same technique your pal Rove perfected under George Junior. Irony continues to elude you.
September 4, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who's rules?
Mister Bluster sets the rules, expects everyone else to go by them, yet he himself never abides by them. Mister Bluster is not a nice person.
~OGD~
September 4, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
No where in that comment was any mention of rules, but this is another nice strawman. You getting those on clearance somewhere?
September 5, 2009 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes ... He never mentioned rules . . .
Mister Bluster doesn't quite get the meaning of prima facia when related to his continuous complaints of his prima facia rules against "ad hominem attacks" and the "strawman"...
And then Mister Bluster goes on to use a strawman to complain about what is perceived by Mister Bluster to be a strawman within the rules Mister Bluster has set out.
There's that double-standard again . . .
He must be Mike Woodson's doppelgänger.
hahahahahaha
~OGD~
September 5, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You point to strawmen of mine that you never to actually quote. You imply the sin without using my actual words to make the point valid.
September 5, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's called...
..innuendo.
It's his TM.
September 30, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
More rules.. More rules.. More rules..
You'd think Mister Bluster was still serving in the Navy and playing acey-duecy at the chief's club... vary the game and or the rules at Mister Bluster's whim...
Yo ho Yo ho ... A sailor's life for me. . .
~OGD~
September 7, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
For God's sake, jason, how can you possibly ever hope to maintain any credibility when you so casually rewrite history to make it bend and fit your argument, when in fact the reality of events discussed so often completely undermines your point?
Eisenhower certainly did NOT call in the troops to Little Rock to "enforce the rule of the majority." He took the extraordinary measure of using Federal Troops in this enforcement action precisely because it was so vehemently OPPOSED by the majority. (Hell, even the police in Little Rock refused to enforce the law or protect the school-bound citizens from the mob set against them.)
Eisenhower acted upon principle; upon a belief in Civil Rights and in an exercise of his oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. (This dispute was triggered, after all, by Brown v. Board of Education wherein the Supreme Court - certainly not majority consensus - determined that schools must be desegregated.)
Eisenhower wasn't interested in triangulating the issue to arrive at consensus. He wasn't interested in negotiating incremental change. He never sought a bi-partisan solution. He certainly wasn't looking for the middle ground in Little Rock, but rather was insistent upon standing fully upon principles that are inviolate.
You insult Eisenhower and the memory of this courageous example of true leadership by your flip assertion that this was an act of a politician representing the majority.
And you totally surrender any credibility you might have had in your argument that ideologues who insist there are principles that cannot be compromised stand in the way of progress. Eisenhower stood tall in defense of the Constitution and against the majority mob in Little Rock. And it is through this radical, in-your-face political move that Civil Rights in this country took a major leap forward.
Fuck the Insurance Companies and their "Health Insurance Enhanced Profit Reform" legislation, Mr. President. Be a rebel, and let's start insisting on legitimate health care reform that cuts the extreme waste in the present system and that establishes health care as a right for every man, woman, and child in this country. Charge the Dems in the Senate to get it done, with or without GOP approval or the approval of the astro-turf mobs. Universal Health Care is a civil rights issue. Get it done.
September 3, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ike?
Wasn't Eisenhower an "Old Warrior"?
And SleepingJesus: As it was appropriate in response earlier in the thread I once again say that I await the onslaught of Mister Bluster's response to rationalize his position related to your comment and his answer resembling a twelve-fold twisted pretzel (no mustard).
Picking jaw off of keyboard now . . .
~OGD~
September 3, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The racists may have been majority in that state, but they were not the majority of the country, which is why Ike felt comfortable using military troops to enforce those rules.
He was enforcing the majority rule, as handed down in the Brown v Board decision. There is certainly nothing in what I wrote that could be construed as bashing Eisenhower and what he accomplished during his presidency. He was the last true conservative to sit in the Oval Office and his record reflects that.
That you would presume to lecture me on historical accuracy is pretty funny given the limited accuracy of this comment with regards to the historical record.
September 3, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
A "jason world" reality tendered in support of a "jason world" argument once again. But I wouldn't expect any different.
What next? The Civil Rights Movement was a mainstream majority enterprise?
Hey. I lived it. If you think 1950's America was a majority in favor of school desegregation you, my friend, should explain that to the heroes who fought so hard to make it all happen - DESPITE the calls from the centrists and the mealy-mouthed middle who insisted we need to take our time and accept incremental changes and blah, blah, blah.
You've lost all credibility, jason, in your disingenuous attempts to twist history in effort to make your arguments. The historic record prevails, and it don't look so good for your "go-along-to-get along" style of politics over principle.
I'm left feeling almost embarrassed for you, but then again you deserve the indefensible corner into which you have painted yourself with the lack of integrity of your arguments. Guess that's what happens when you so easily surrender principles in favor of a "greater good."
September 3, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the time Ike was sending in troops, it was mainstream idea supported by the majority that had been building since the end of the Civil War.
This is not my world. This is the real world, well documented by dozens of historians.
The rest of your comment seems more of the same bombastic and hyperbolic reaction to everything I write. I would be embarrassed for you but it would clearly be a wasted emotional response to an ongoing series of partisan rants.
Good luck massaging the historical record to suit your rather murky and contradictory goals.
September 3, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am more than happy to let the historical record speak for itself. You, sir, are delusional and arrogantly dismissive of many who gave their lives in pursuit of equal rights in opposition to the "majority" mob. What a world is this "Jason world." You're welcome to it! Just don't expect the rest of us to get on the bus for the ride to your fantasy land.
September 3, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is the predictable strawman for you slay and throw on the bonfire so you and the rest of the loons can dance around chanting war songs.
I offer the opinion that Ike took over the Nation Guard and sent in federal troops to quell the racists in Arkansas because that was the way the trend was going in the country at large and had been going for most of the country over the course of the previous century since the End of the Civil War. Somehow that becomes evidence that I dismiss the civil rights movement and all the brave people who sacrificed their lives and reputations to create that environment.
Only in the deranged mental landscape of the true political ideologue is such an illogical leap even possible. Keep on flying, Peter Pan!
September 4, 2009 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Word.
September 4, 2009 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you truly serious in expressing your opinion as fact that "By the time Eisenhower was sending the troops in, the only people who opposed civil rights were ideologues" or "Troops entering Arkansas in 1957 was the end of nearly hundred years of struggle"?
This is really too funny. If my grandson's High School History teacher were to receive such an explanation of the Civil Rights progression in this country as you have conjured here, he'd paint a big "F" on it and staple it to a job application for Burger King.
It's really tough taking you seriously anymore, such is the level of intellectual dishonesty you choose to employ. About all the credit I can muster in your favor is that even YOU gotta' know that so much of what you write is nothing but hooey. The contortions to which you will go in your attempt to cover over ass in defense of your many incredible "statements of Fact from jason world" is almost entertaining. Kinda' like watching a little girl playing "dress up" in her mother's clothes. Kids say the damndest things, after all.
As for any integrity in your arguments, you consistently offer up half-baked opinions as "facts" that are about as substantial and as useful as a fart in a mitten.
Thanks for the laugh. And I'm sorry for you that it sucks to be exposed as a poseur.
September 4, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are not going to discuss the complexity of the civil rights movement in a couple posts on a blog. You continue to use strawmen arguments as those are the only type you can slay.
Then you throw in some choice ad hominem attacks without providing a shred of evidence that by the end of the 1950s the country was already moving toward passage of that landmark legislation that would arrive in 1964 by way of that hundred-year struggle.
The contortions your go through in order to disagree with fairly straightforward and non-controversial opinions is what remains comical. The fact that you never respond with anything resembling a thoughtful opinion of your own is what remains so damaging to your party's long-term goals.
Good luck confusing tactics with strategy.
September 4, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
And to think . . . SleepingJesus
This is what the center-right has to offer as moderate?
If so, they have a hill larger than the current centrist-libertarians to climb before ever being taken as serious representatives of the people as whole.
Just saying ya' know...
~OGD~
September 4, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you see, OGD? We're reduced to the same old "ad hominems" and "straw men" and all the other whines that come up every time someone gets the better of him. (Which, btw, is actually about as challenging as identifying the comic relief in a Michelle Bachmann interview.)
Gotta admit, though, the Black Knight from jason-world is persistent!
"Alright, then! We'll call it a draw!"
September 4, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have yet to actually debate anything but your own prejudice and stereotype at every turn.
Until you make a comment to what the thread was actually about - career politicians destroying the American government - anything you offer is by definition ad hominem.
As always. Ad nauseum. You are a broken record that has been playing the same lame tune since 1968.
September 5, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I think moderates are the ones that have a very fluid view of historical reality"
Amen, Brother! Your flowery bombast comes back to skewer you. Perfect!
September 4, 2009 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's put the quote in context shall we? You didn't even reply to a message where the quote supposedly came from. Do you even read this stuff before hitting submit?
September 4, 2009 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Source for claim that majority supported ending segregation? Saying it was so does not make it so.
Saying that the Supreme Court correctly interpreted the Constitution does not equate to the assertion that the majority of Americans wanted to stop treating black Americans as badly as they had been treating them. What -- the majority of Americans who had been mistreating blacks 'wanted' to end segregation but were just waiting for the Supreme Court to tell them to?
September 4, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the time Eisenhower was sending the troops in, the only people who opposed civil rights were ideologues.
That is why all that legislation passed with such wide margins every time it came up for a vote. Saying the whole country was racists and segregationist doesn't make it so. Troops entering Arkansas in 1957 was the end of nearly hundred years of struggle.
Have any of you so-called liberals even read People's History of the United States or watched Keep Your Eyes on the Prize?
September 4, 2009 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I think it is incumbent upon the moderates of both parties... to meet every single fringe posting from their side with facts and shame."
So left-wing fringe we're talking Kucinich and his army of socio-pathic terrorists, and right-wing fringe ... hm... something like the whole Republican caucus barring Maine, and the small wierd group of people who voted them into office.
Something like that?
Okay, think you have a deal, as long as you hold up your end of the bargain. I'm real impressed with your work on Farrar by the way. Promising!
/end of snark.
Seriously, as I've said, as much as you want to believe this madness is equal opportunity wierdness, I really think you're very wrong.
Comparing the more strident leftists, however unpleasant they may be to you personally, to right-wing wackos like Chris Broughton is beyond misguided.
September 2, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not equating ideals or tactics of each fringe. Obviously both have significantly different makeups and have inspired vastly disproportionate responses from the truly crazy in each camp.
I am comparing the response of the opposing party to the ideas of the fringe.
In both cases, it provokes a circling of the wagons and a condemnation of all that is OTHER! By failing to reign in the eccentricities of each party's fringe, the moderates in both are failing in their duty to mitigate the influence of the extremists tendencies in any political movement.
For what it is worth, I do not believe the expression of each fringe is simply defined by the word "madness" and would agree the right fringe must lay claim to the bulk of the insanity that has resulted in modern American politics.
September 2, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus. Let's start with where we agree. I was never a fan of Teddy's. At all. Full stop. I am no fan of how the Democratic Party has organized itself these past 30-odd years. Network is well worth watching. And things need to change. There, those are the areas where we agree.
Now. Jason. In the kindest possible way, I want to ask, "Have you fallen on your head lately? A lot? Or.... were you (real hesitation to ask this, because it gets personal) dropped maybe?" I know about these things, suffering as I have from post-concussion syndrome lo these many years. But you appear to me as a newcomer to the region. A stranger in a strange land. And you're babbling. Making no goddamn sense at all. In need of a firm slap and then a cold drink.
Start here. You are the self-proclaimed KING OF COMPROMISE. Compromise, you luvs it. Compromise R U. Nooooooobody on this site can compete with you, when it comes to compromise. You are THE MAN for wanting bipartisan, practical, legislative, no airy-fairy schtuff, no unelectable fringe ideas, no "out there" radical madness.
Naturally, this would lead you to conclude that Ted Kennedy is basically Satan. He is "largely responsible for our current state of affairs" and "his legacy as a reflection of what is most wrong with our political environment here in the United States of America." I'm sorry... but.... Nurrrrrrse! Jason's off his meds and he's frightening people! (Wink.)
Dude. Every article I read about Ted's career talked about his ability to make deals. His friendships across the aisle. And while you especially seem to detest his last 20-30 years in office, those were the years MOST marked by compromise. FOR DECADES, TEDDY WAS CONGRESSIONAL COMPROMISE.
Naturally, to make your case, you'd have to run as far and as fast away from these facts as possible. This probably explains you writing... Ted K is "largely responsible for our current state of affairs." He's to blame for Reagan? No. the person most to blame for Reagan is RONALD GODDAMN REAGAN. And who's 2nd most responsible? The powerful people who devoted their lives to working for him and backing him. 3rd? The moronic voters who put him there. 4th? The guys who screwed it up on the Democratic side. Like Teddy.
You have taken your "both sides are to blame" thing and stretched it to the point where I just read it and think... Jason's lost. He's talked himself into shit so deep that it's clogged his intake valve. I really hope you shake it off and clean the pipes dude, but I can't be polite anymore. You're saying stuff that is destroying your credibility. I don't feel as if you can weigh differences and distinctions anymore. A 4 year old could cry and a grown man beat it with a bat... but you'd feel forced to mention that the kid had irritated him with its crying.
I mean, you say shit like this - "Coulter or Limbaugh or Gore or Clinton or anyone the fringes of both parties demonize." Think about that, will ya? The Right demonizes Al Gore. The Left demonizes Ann Coulter. You list them as equals. Casually. I'm sorry, but that's criminally insane. If not, then fuckit man, let's elect Coulter and Rush in 2012. And I agree with Obey, the day you start comparing Broughton and Farrar to... I donno... single payer activists here.... is the day the chat ends.
When this stuff is pointed out to you, you recognize there's a failure in the thinking process and you shift to lines such as, "By failing to reign in the eccentricities of each party's fringe, the moderates in both are failing in their duty to mitigate the influence of the extremists tendencies in any political movement." Which sortof sounds sensible. Until you stop and think about it. And then it just sounds nutbar again.
e.g. I can take a Top Ten list of RW assholes who get huge media play, people who are genuinely dangerous about violence, who are deeply racist and sexist, and who seem to live in some anti-scientific and anti-international world (namely, Rush, Coulter, most of the GOP congressional leadership, Palin, etc.) AND THERE IS NO REAL DEMOCRATIC TWIN. Same with the radicals on the ground. I know the Right freaks believe the Black Panthers are out there, organizing, and if so, yeah, I might call that a radical grassroots fringe - but who do the Dems really have that compares to people screaming about the anti-Christ and death panels and keeping their kids out of schools and who bring guns to political events? NO ONE, JASON.
But you know me... I'm just the David Farrar of the TPM Left.
September 2, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
All that being said, I really, really loved the C.S. Lewis book.
Just sayin'.
September 2, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy moly Quinn. You just knocked my socks off. You hit the nail on the head, split the log in two, slam dunked it. Thanks for saying it so well. I'm in a sweat.
September 2, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet Farrar gets more of Jason's recs than you do.
September 2, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Farrar deserves more. He's top notch entertainment.
Although that guy who used to juggle chainsaws and babies was pretty stellar too.
September 2, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo!
September 3, 2009 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
So there's no need to "...vilify every political adversary to point of caricature.."?Bravo Quinn ...
Ya' know this minefield is just too rich to pass up . . .
What is it about the following two graphs that this "Old Warrior" is having a problem wrapping my incorrectly labeled and presumed "Looking Glass Left" head around?
What? Oh ... I see. Just the one's that Mister Bluster deems are worthy of his divisive epitaphs and who he wishes to vilify. OK ... Now I've got it.
And then this beauty that underscores what I just pointed out in my last graph above...
And in addition, I can only guess that with the reasoning expressed in the last sentence of that second graph there's no basis for the labeling "liberal X conservative = progressive" (the Obama equation) when applying that to what is now supposedly the majority because the process falls apart and it can be thrown in the ash can now.
A person seriously needs a road map, a GPS and seeing-eye dog to wander through some of this bluster.
Come spot...
~OGD~
September 3, 2009 3:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
More illogical linking to blogs or comments you clearly don't understand in order to make unclear points. I find it odd that the biggest issues I have with anyone around here are the old warriors such as yourself who can't get over the past and try to shove me into their bullshit paradigm of a failed, far-left agenda that is anything but progressive.
It is the equivalent of the right fringe, but for my own good this time.
Just look how they turn out to shout down opinions that they don't like. Claiming there is no liberal left and they certainly don't debate like the far right fringe, yet you all use the same exact tactics as them, albeit for far more altruistic ends. You continue to offer the same lame solutions that simply do not work as effectively as you claim and won't accept any data that is counter to your rather limited view of reality.
You and the other old warriors around here are the reason I didn't join the democratic party, despite the similarities I may have with from a humanistic and egalitarian standpoint with regards to government and industry, both profit and nonprofit.
September 3, 2009 8:32 AM |