tpm cafe versus red state
After the break, a series of quotes from both Red State and TPM Cafe will be provided in an effort to determine which side of the political spectrum is truly the craziest.
I won't label which quotes came from which site, but some long-time readers may be as amused as I am that it is becoming increasingly hard to tell the difference between the left and right fringes.
Enjoy!
We embarked on very important project of transforming this country into one that is more progressive and less regressive when Barack Obama was elected in November with the help of many moderate republicans and conservative independents, both in the primaries and the general. The president painted a picture of an American Renaissance, a nation healed by way of a more constructive political dialogue amongst political rivals, both in Washington and at the grassroots.
Seems a pretty straightforward goal, right?
Not when his "base" acts in ways that are completely counter to their stated beliefs and ironically mirror the "base" of the clowns just voted out of office. The democratic party's biggest challenge right now isn't the republicans, crazy or otherwise. It is addressing the increasingly unhinged rhetoric coming from their left wing and mitigating the damage it does to the larger project underway to convert former enemies into allies.
Losing sight of the forest because of all the damn trees in the way is the surest recipe for continued failure to achieve anything resembing progress.
I won't label which quotes came from which site, but some long-time readers may be as amused as I am that it is becoming increasingly hard to tell the difference between the left and right fringes.
Enjoy!
Then that's not appropriate as to the virulently unpatriotic hyperoble "get my country back," so dial down your goddam seditionist rhetoric if you want to call yourself an American.
Speak once in opposition to their ideology, and your become that target of destruction. Never mind your answer. Never mind your argument. Never mind that that which you believe is also the same view of the majority of America. If you speak, act, or think differently, you instantly become a target of destruction.
You, sir, are a fucking MORON. Maybe two thirds of citizens call themselves 'Christian' (I have yet to meet one who actually IS), but 100% of the people tormenting people outside of those clinics are an extremely vocal minority of those so-called Christians.
if Dear Leader really believes all this nonsense, we have just the community organizer to send over to Afghanastan to engage Al Qaeda. As near as I can tell, he's sent his entire adult life doing community organizing and is not currently occupied in any other useful pursuit. I think after a rousing speech or two and a few sanctimonious references to his middle name, the bad guys will come around and we can all kumbaya and live happily ever after.
If a [insert party] had yelled out during one of [insert hated president] speeches he would have been lynched, seriously, called Un-American, Un-Patriotic, and they would have added whatever else they could slap on him. In fact if it had been a [insert party], he would already be officially censured, and they would be looking for way to get him to either resign or not run for office again. That shit never happens to [political rival], they can do or say whatever they want. That is why I hate them!
So if you think we're going to get hit without hitting back you've got another think coming. Quite frankly we're sick and tired of idiotic "moderates" and other invertebrates who spend more time fretting that our side behave like perfect little ladies while turning a blind eye to the brutish behavior across the aisle.I'll leave it up to the TPM community to decide which site provided which quotes, but I suspect my point is crystal clear to those without their partisan blinders firmly in place.
We embarked on very important project of transforming this country into one that is more progressive and less regressive when Barack Obama was elected in November with the help of many moderate republicans and conservative independents, both in the primaries and the general. The president painted a picture of an American Renaissance, a nation healed by way of a more constructive political dialogue amongst political rivals, both in Washington and at the grassroots.
Seems a pretty straightforward goal, right?
Not when his "base" acts in ways that are completely counter to their stated beliefs and ironically mirror the "base" of the clowns just voted out of office. The democratic party's biggest challenge right now isn't the republicans, crazy or otherwise. It is addressing the increasingly unhinged rhetoric coming from their left wing and mitigating the damage it does to the larger project underway to convert former enemies into allies.
Losing sight of the forest because of all the damn trees in the way is the surest recipe for continued failure to achieve anything resembing progress.
Advertisement
I think I'll stay well clear of the pie fight that is liable to ensue here.
September 11, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope you like Coconut Cream, Foxie?
*SMACK!!*
*Admires handiwork.*
(Beauty. Nailed him amidships. It'll take him weeks to eat his way free.)
September 11, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it's gonna be a pie fight, I'm gonna play for the Red State team. My guess is TPM has better cooks.
September 11, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you piggy, hard to argue with that logic.
September 11, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's three for Red State. Count me in as the victim of the creative and delicious liberal cooking. Farm-fresh, locally grown organic eggs and milk from grass-fed cows. I'm not moving so they can hit me more often.
Thanks for the tip, Porky! I'll bet your on an organic farm and free-ranging too! Freedom!!!!
Oh, and for the record, all the good comments were from TPM, and all the bad ones were from Red State.
DUH!!!
September 11, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've come late to the party, and Gregor, your comment is the first one since the beginning that directly addresses what Jason was demonstrating.
Jason has a point, but I think it treats both sides as independent actors in a vacuum. It ignores the interaction between the liberals and the conservatives. The liberals try to be fact-based; the conservatives tend to be authority-based. Facts are more likely to work with the reality of the various situations being discussed.
What has happened is that the conservatives really do feel oppressed and with the advent of the conservative movement they adopted the ideas of john C. Calhoun and the tactics of the John Birch Society. That includes attacking liberals without addressing the fact-based substance of many of the liberal positions. The attacks are more likely to be propaganda than arguments based in facts, and they have been the major practitioners of the politics of personal destruction since they are presenting authority-based arguments that rarely jib with objective facts.
The liberals find themselves being beaten by people who don't follow the rules, the appointment of Bush in 2000 and the Supreme Court refusing to permit real investigation of the facts (the votes)being a prime example.
People who are regularly attacked and who can see themselves being marginalized, as the liberals have over the last 16 years, get angry and attack back in ways much like the methods used by the conservatives. That's where the similarity in what the two sides write comes from.
Conservatives ignore arguments and facts and instead rely on force and power to get their way. That's why they invaded Iraq with no real objective fact based reason. That's also why they consider diplomacy to be a waste of time. They trust superior force and do not believe that diplomats can effectively deal with people who are so different in culture that the conservatives refuse to trust them.
A lot of liberals now consider conservatives to be people you cannot make a deal with, and who are too irrational to try to deal with reasonably.
What kind of rhetoric do you think will come out of both sides under those circumstances?
The conservative rhetoric is primarily based on the force-based "Just say no!" attitude and supported by their refusal to make and keep deals.
Orrin Hatch, Lindsay Graham, and a few other long-time Senators who remember the older traditions of the Senate are clear exceptions to that unwillingness to keep deals they make. They aren't enough to change the dynamic. The rest are playing to the media, the base and the talk show hosts who dominate that base instead of talking to each other and working to solve America's real problems. Some are angry true believers (like the John Birchers of the 60's) and some just are concerned about winning the next election.
Anyway, that's the dynamic I see, and I think it explains the samples Jason presented. Conservatives and liberals are not just each acting out their inherent nature. They are reacting to how they each see the other side is treating them.
September 13, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Richard. You get it exactly.
I was not trying to paint a picture of false equivalency, but it appears that is exactly what I did anyway for many TPM bloggers.
I suspect this won't be the last time we have this particular debate over the coming years.
September 13, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did someone say Pie fight? A pie fight wouldn't be complete without the scene from Blazing Saddles
Mr.Brooks is receiving a Kennedy Center Honor.
September 11, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a sign you have good tastes regardless of the political consequences of you actions.
September 12, 2009 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
ROFLMAO
September 11, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA9q3q4oVJI
September 11, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the greatest pie fight. It's so cliched that the set-up is part of the performance now.
September 11, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't feed the trolls!
Definitely not rec'd! This whining troll is not to be taken seriously.
September 11, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, I'm so sick of everyone throwing around that word for anyone who says something remotely against what they think.
I hereby ban the word "troll". It's overused, annoying, no longer means a damn thing.
September 11, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I have NEVER used the word troll to describe any other participant in this forum or any other. But jason is not interested in contributing to the discussion as my link points out. Instead, he is an agitator who cares not a wit for the integrity of his arguments or any facts upon which to support them.
Call it what you want. It's time he be called out for the nonsense he spews that sidesteps any notion of legitimate dialogue.
September 11, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm talking about the word, not your use of it here. It's been annoying me for awhile, and I finally just spouted off about it.
It's far better to just say what's wrong with a comment, or a position, than just calling them a troll. It's one of those words that are thrown around so much for so many reasons that it's become somewhat meaningless, imo.
September 11, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure agitator is the right word. Pest might be a better choice.
September 11, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well ... actually . . .
Divisive jackass works best for me . . .
Back to reflecting and meditating for me . . .
~OGD~
September 11, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sleeping Jesus says: "And I have NEVER used the word troll to describe any other participant in this forum or any other"
- YOU LIE!
September 11, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't think I needed to point out something no one at TPM would take seriously.
September 11, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
A google search took 0.2 seconds. It's all there for everyone to see.
September 11, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who made you the social director of this blog?
September 12, 2009 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any blogging site without moderators is self-policing if it would be successful.
September 12, 2009 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awwwwwwwwww . . .
Well .... YOU'RE UGLY!
And your momma wear's combat boots . . .
nanny nanny nanny . . .
~OGD~
September 11, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snert. Its tried and true, its got history, its easy to remember and it catches easily in your nasal passages that gives it just the right sound. Snert, say it, go ahead. Feels like it sounds dosen't it? It has many meanings so it's multi purpose. You can use it almost anywhere for any dismissive reason. Best thing about it, kinda like being an alcoholic or a homosexual, it you think you might be one chances are pretty fucking good you are.
September 11, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't mind me ... IF . . .
. . . I remain in contempt prior to my investigation as to the effectiveness of your advice.
I have personally found the word Schnit has worked wonders for my purposes since 1966 .
Watch out for the twisters... and say hello to Toto.
hahahahaha...
~OGD~
September 11, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch out for the twisters... and say hello to Toto.
hahahahaha...
~OGD~
Funny. My wife and I moved here two years ago and I gotta say it is hilarious how many people dress their little girls in striped socks and ruby slippers. These Kansans are rigid and dry but they have sly little senses of humor.
September 11, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Provide a link please. You tend to have the same problem as jason, inasmuch as you ask all to rely upon your credibility instead of the record. And you're overall credibility rivals that of Sara Palin's on foreign policy and Dick Cheney's on Human Rights for its notable lack of vigor.
So please show me a link wherein I referred to anyone other than jason as a troll. I am careful with the use of the English language; careful to say what I mean as the currency that lends credibility to anything I say. I understand it's a foreign concept to a few on here who, when cornered upon making simply ridiculous comments, whine mercilessly that they are so cruelly misunderstood before piling on with more nonsense. But being called a liar by the likes of those who willfully deal in lies as a strategic argument (aka "trolls") is incredibly insulting. You may be accustomed to such dialogue within the Republican Party, but there is still honorable discussion that occurs elsewhere. I'd like to see it remain that way.
Yeah, I've had enough of the nonsense, lalo. You and jason both should either get serious about making legitimate contributions to the discussions here, or else take your silly little games elsewhere.
Word. Namaste. Whatever.
September 11, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor little, WeepingJeezus! The dude chases people from thread to thread being an absolute ass of the highest order, even after repeated attempts to bury the hatchet and to even ignore his transparent tactics, yet now he is the victim. Classic ideologue distraction.
September 12, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sleeping Jezuz says: "So please show me a link wherein I referred to anyone other than jason as a troll."
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/jpieterick/2009/02/with-thanks-to-stillidealistic.php#comment-3367591
Too bad one can't put more than one link in a comment.
September 12, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/seatoshiningsea/2009/01/cowards.php#comment-3342502
September 12, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/dikkday48yahoocom/2009/01/the-appearance-of-impropriety.php#comment-3351634
And so on and so forth. You can do your own search. Better yet, clean your mouth with soap, go to your own comments and scrub all instances where you DID call people other than Jason trolls.
"They made me do it" is a lame excuse.
September 12, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even worse: "I was just KIDDING! Sheesh. Can't take a joke?"
September 12, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sleepin, addressing Lalo, said:
Hey, maybe Lalo and jason are the same person.
September 12, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I knew this had to surface eventually. Where's Elvis?
September 12, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not true - you've called other people trolls on here as well as JEM.
September 11, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you say it Middle Class Bill, it must be right (so to speak.)
Please provide a link. (See my comment to lalo, above.) It is not my recollection that it is a word I have used. If ever it were so, it is extremely rare and would be an appropriate application. I absolutely know this because I know the value I place on the responsibility to maintain intellectual integrity in asking readers and participants to expend time and energy observing/engaging in a legitimate discussion. I therefore do not throw around terms like "troll" lightly, nor do I declare someone to be a liar unless I can provide an example, nor do I make statements of fact without a willingness to defend them or admit I was mistaken. Feel free to adopt such principles for yourself. It would be a welcome deviation from what you have provided here in your comment.
September 11, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Per your request - http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/jpieterick/2009/02/with-thanks-to-stillidealistic.php#comment-3367591
September 12, 2009 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
And so it is with an apology that I cede the point that I have in fact used the term troll previously on TPM, and that I was mistaken in making the unequivocal assertion to the contrary. I had legitimately forgotten about the troll wars with spric/renae that occurred back in February. I therefore apologize for my "lie" and leave it to others to determine how sinister was its intent or its effect in its impact on the point made that I do not cast such terms about without careful consideration beforehand.
Meanwhile, I stand by my previous comment about "saying what I mean." I ask only that others here would do likewise, rather than expressing wild-ass assertions/comments/facts that they have no intention of defending.
September 12, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
SJ said - "If ever it were so, it is extremely rare and would be an appropriate application."
I would certainly count Renaye/Spring/YIKES as trolls, and of the worst sort. So, yes, the word troll was used. But appropriately.
September 12, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're full of shit. I will be chasing you around, highlighting your trolling from now on.
September 12, 2009 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's an agitator.
September 12, 2009 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
And allow me to add . . .
A blustery divisive agitator at that . . .
~OGD~
September 12, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The very first comment proves my point. If this is the best you can do, better prepare for 1994 all over again.
September 11, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get a grip man.
September 11, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously?
September 11, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well... yes. If you're going to equate Jeezus calling you a troll to the Dems preparing for losses equivalent to 1994 all over again, you're losing it. I've wasted enough time here. Adios!
September 11, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are SleepingJeezus are representative of the democratic party's "base" and how they discuss politics with their fellow citizens, then the party should prepare for some heavy losses next year. Contrary to your apparent beliefs, this country is not liberal. It is barely centrist. You need to get out more.
September 12, 2009 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you need to see a therapist.
September 12, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you need to take more naps.
September 14, 2009 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what is it? More naps or get out more?
January 7, 2010 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
word. Namaste.
September 11, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Touche!
Maybe he'll start getting his usages correct now.
September 11, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Touché.
September 14, 2009 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I initially came to TPM because I thought that the Kos site was a bunch of crazies. There's a good balance of voices here, which I really like. The past few weeks, as the country got crazy with the idiotic tea parties, I feel that we've gotten crazy with the battles here. We all want a better country and most here are progressive, one way or another.
So, when we battle it out, let's breathe and count to 10 first, and then let the other one have it.
heh, Jason, you too.
September 11, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It takes a lot of pushing for me to respond in kind, usually by way of proxies on YouTube so as not to completely pollute the threads.
I am simply tired of having to face this sort of crap, day in and day out, as the price I have to pay to discuss important issues.
It shouldn't be this hard to convince "liberals" to do unto others.
September 11, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor baby.
September 11, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about a link to your latest commercial endeavor to go along with that brilliant addition to the conversation?
September 11, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't wanna detract from your web design (cough) link.
September 11, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and my links, hardly commercial.
You Do know what commercial means, don't you?
September 11, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have never been called out for posting spam, but apparently your definition is different.
My site is actually old hat and hasn't been updated for some time. Once I finish the site for my new non-profit endeavor, that will be the link I supply.
So what is it your links are all about? I watched one and couldn't really tell.
September 11, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said spam? Not me.
You have your whole Goddamn resume up, not that I'm complaining, just wondering where the "commercialism" charge is coming from.
Again, my links aren't commercial, I do all of it for FUN.
And please stop putting words in my mouth, you are acting like the people you deride in this article...
September 11, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re my links... yeah crank calls, real intellectual stuff... sorry it was over your head.
September 11, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a bio. It isn't a resume. It allows people to have context with regards to who I am.
I didn't say you said I was spamming. I said I had never been accused of such while more than one person has pointed out your pieces come across that way, regardless of intent.
You are the first person to think that anything on my profile is commercial in any way, shape or form.
September 11, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, a link to a web design company isn't commercial at all...
I don't even think you SHOULDN'T do it, you just seem to have trouble with English.
Maybe if you look at more than one of my links you'll have more to go on than your "impression", not that I really care what you think, anyway.
September 11, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
A web design company? As I said, I don't do any work as a web design company under my own name. I used to actually cross post on my own site.
You are saying that a passive link to a site bearing my name is the same as using TPM as a commercial source of revenue? I have yet to make a single penny from a person who visited my JEM site, so this comment is just comical on its face,
I literally haven't been to that site in weeks, but if it makes you feel better, I will switch it to the nonprofit I am working on instead.
If I thought you weren't my friend, I just don't think I could bear it.
September 11, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I don't doubt you didn't make money. First step in a web design site, DESIGN it.
September 11, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't say I didn't make money in web design. I said I didn't make money via that site. It is this sort of nuance that escapes the far left and continues to prove my point.
September 11, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Assuming I'm "far left" pretty much proves mine.
Hey, I do GarageBand too. Doesn't make me think I'm John Coltrane.
September 11, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In your little game of last worditis flame war you decided to make your personal spat with Igot in to a fight against the whole "far left," whatever that means, with that insult.
This in a blog where you're wondering why you keep getting in flame wars with people. Wondering? I mean blaming others. This is what I mean when I say it appears to me you provoke as often as you're provoked and you give as good (or bad) as you get.
September 11, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's go back to the very first comments he made to me. I am finding this lack of nuance with regards to this particular subject odd.
September 11, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, lets:
More "nuanced" reply? How about "get off the cross, we need the wood?"
September 11, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Context is important when making a point.
September 11, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
as I posted below, this is post was really a broken bottle itchin for fight wrapped in can't we all get along paper. Did you really expect this to push the overall discourse of the progressive movement forward by coming into the cafe and saying it was it was as crazy as red state?
September 11, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sure the people who get this post were well represented. Those who don't agree are free to state their position.
September 11, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about whos would and would not "get" it, the explicit point of the post was to enlighten and it did so with a two-by-four. As one of my professors in education once said, we shift our understanding by pinpricks.
September 11, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
s
k
i
n
n
y
p
o
s
t
!
!
!
September 11, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh so skinny so skinny so skinny am I
September 11, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok he "started" it if that's what you need to hear. And you ended up insulting the whole far left. I consider myself far left and I think my views are more nuanced than yours. If I join in this flame war now who started it with me? Get off your poor me pedestal. You're in there throwing as much mud as those you're complaining about.
September 11, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are not far left. You were a Hillary supporter for goodness sake.
Funny to see this sort of thing from you. See what happens to non-partisans when their crazies are called out? They circle the wagons and open fire.
This blog as surely proven a point.
September 12, 2009 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have a clue about me Jason. I'm stuck in a 2 party system. If anything I was a Kucinich supporter who moved to Hillary because I wanted a fighter not an appeaser.
This is not about Igot. I'd love to see someone call him out. There's no way I would ever jump to his defense. I think he's here just to self promote rather than contribute and I don't like that. But you're not calling him out. You're engaged in silly insult trading because neither of you can let the other get the last word. And as is so common with you, you let that insult trading to extend beyond the personal to insulting whole groups.
When damn near everyone here is telling you the same thing you might want to consider you have a blind spot in this area. You simply refuse to look at or even consider the possibility that you contribute to the antagonistic dialogs you have with so many here. Its always the others fault or because of your ideology.
/shrug
whatever
September 12, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reply here.
September 12, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I will throw mud only when confronted with such. I have gone out of my way to avoid confrontation only to have it follow me from thread to thread in the form of Disco Duck and WeepingJeezus hurling baseless insults.
September 12, 2009 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whiner!
I bet Mrs. Bluster doesn't put up with this crap.
That's why he's here.
~OGD~
September 12, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
More personal insults. Big surprise.
September 13, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I Note:
The lack of denial.
~OGD~
September 14, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
September 15, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, I have a few thoughts on this.
First, I think there is some danger of the Left overreaching in its rhetoric and refusal to compromise. It could well alienate some Independents that we need to hold the House in 2010 and the executive and legislate branches in 2012. You have some point there.
Second, you presents a false equivalence of the overall rhetoric coming from the Left and Right. There simply is no comparison. Unlike Glenn Beck's musings on poisoning Nancy Pelosi, nobody on the Left ever advocated through national television the killing Newt Gingrich or Denny Hastert. The Right is profusely over the top in its tactics, profoundly bankrupt in its values and utterly destructive of itself and (small d) democratic government.
In addition, the grassroots Left did more to elect Obama than any other segment of the political spectrum. It has a legitimate expectation that the president hailed as "transformative" should actually deliver on that promise. And frankly, the Left has been serially disappointed by Obama's swing toward the center. It's goals are more forward-looking than the mainstream, and as a voting bloc, it applies useful pressure in advancing more progressive policies. Without the left, the center would shift rightward to resemble the days of George Bush.
Third, you once blogged that you intend to promote more progressive stands within the Republican Party. Yet, here you are again, trying to moderate the Democratic Party. The GOP is the one that's been hijacked by the crazies. Clean house in your party and the Left will seem much more moderate than you give it credit for.
September 11, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, how many times do we have to reach before someone says, "You can't shake hands if they are making a fist?"
September 11, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shaking your hands in someone's face isn't the same thing as wanting to shake hands.
September 14, 2009 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ripper, please see a comment below that references most of your reply.
As to the rest, without republicans voting for Obama in open primaries, we would be discussing the latest assholery being committed by President McCain.
Hillary might have made it past the old guy, but she spins republicans up something fierce and wouldn't have gotten the ten to fifteen percent of the republican vote that put Obama over the top.
In an eight point election, a ten point swing is a deciding factor.
September 11, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, I know you're a good man. Hell, you were practically my host in D.C. and contributed plenty of funds to get me along there. So I know you aren't posting this to be disruptive. And yes, some of the comments here show the Left has a way to go in developing its own communication skills.
But anyway, I don't know where below you were responding to my comment. Point me there or just elaborate.
September 11, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. I was responding to the false equivalency charge.
September 11, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I am only here to help. I am convinced the Obama might be the best chance we have of healing some deep-seated wounds in this country.
I think this particular moment in time is too important to let old divisions distract us from the mission. If I have to draw a little "friendly" fire to lend a hand, I am willing to do so for my country.
We are supposed to be all über patriotic, right? "We" meaning veterans. :O)
September 11, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your personal input on Jason. Your comment breaks the ice. Now I can sit back contemplate and reflect on reading between the lines to see his point and blow off any barbs as mere adjectives and adverbs illustrating the point he's making and not as a personal attack.
September 12, 2009 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"you presents a false equivalence of the overall rhetoric coming from the Left and Right. There simply is no comparison."
His point is, there is a comparison. There is equaivalence. You just refuse to see it because you're batting for the team.
September 11, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is also equivalence when you use a Buick to swat a fly.
September 11, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahhaha
See I hate this. I mean:
I hereby render unto you the Knightly Line of the Day for this here TPMCAFE, given to all of you from all of me for this gem:
Swat a fly with a Buick.
The end
September 12, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not exactly true. Leftists like Bill Maher publicly advocated killing Dick Cheney, saying the world would be better with him dead.
September 11, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Maher is a comedian not a news persona. Big difference between joking or being serious.
September 12, 2009 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Maher is more a libertarian than a lefist, but I see your point. No side is free from crazy rhetoric.
September 12, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, JEM.
I don't read Red State, but I recognize several of those quotes from here on TPM.
Here's what I think: People on this site are pretty well informed and mostly well intentioned. Some of us are also very passionate and intense. And some comments here are over the top. But that does not ruin the site for me.
And I think it's a real stretch to argue equivalence with any wingnut site. I have already admitted to not reading Red State (or any other wingnut sites), so I could rightly be accused of speaking from ignorance on this point. But I am not yet convinced that this site is "as bad" as they are.
It reminds me of issues aired in the media where one side is guilty of ten infractions, and the other side has one similar transgression, and the story becomes, "See, both sides do it!" (For example, the entire Abramoff scandle compared to Dollar Bill Jefferson. Or the nearly endless stream of family values conservatives caught with their pants down, compared to one blow job in the white house 15 years ago.)
I have read some of your recent encounters here. I have also read many of your other posts over the past several months, particularly on the health care debate, and I think they add something important to the conversation.
TPM is growing in popularity. It couldn't last forever, this singular bastion of online civility. But it isn't dead yet. Blog on!
-- ARG
September 11, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, ARG, thanks for stopping by and for understanding the essential nature of what I am trying to get across.
TPM raised the bar pretty high in my estimation, so this sort of trend really sticks out. No one can offer an opinion contrary to the liberal left agenda without attracting the fire of all the usualy suspects. That goes for republicans and democrats alike.
No one is safe from the irrational tantrums of the TPM Goon Squad. I would much rather talk about substantive issues, as most of my actual blogs will show, but a casual glance at the "leader board" each day shows a decided lack of nuance. There are always more than a few turds floating in the punchbowl.
I specifically don't go to sites like Red State to avoid that sort of thing and when I see it happening at popular progressive blog, I feel obliged to point out such nastiness in American politics remains our president's biggest challenge.
I am just stubborn enough to blog.
September 11, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
With hundreds of comments posted everyday there is nothing as asinine as listing a few to determine anything.
I've always thought that Obama's picture of what you call an "American Renaissance, a nation healed by way of a more constructive political dialogue amongst political rivals" was naivety. There simply aren't republicans in power willing to be a part of that American Renaissance. No matter how hard Obama attempts to be conciliatory towards them, to the detriment of specific legislation, his long term legislative goals, his presidency, and our country, he has always failed to find constructive feedback from republicans in congress.
I see nothing from the liberal base that mirrors the total inanity of the republican base i.e. birthers, death panels etc. Unfortunately democrats have to address this "increasingly unhinged rhetoric" from the republicans because some of insane republican base are pundits in the MSM.
September 11, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It strikes me that this provides no excuse for incivility to a Republican not in power. I hate to step into what one comment calls a pie fight, and jason everett miller is amply able to defend himself. But I think the principal tenor of the comment thread here proves his point rather than contests it.
I'll leave it at that and wait to take the lumps I'll surely take for sticking up for him.
September 11, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Mike. I'll be surprised if anyone is going to beat on you for defending Jason's point. I think, from time to time, we all have given Jason credit for something. He's like a brother to us, or maybe I should just speak for me, but you know what they say, you can't pick your relatives. So we/I fight with our brother all the time. It doesn't mean we would let others beat on him for no reason. He is often defended by people here. And I find that reassuring that we are not exactly the pariahs we are being pictured here as being.
September 11, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously? This is a self-serving revision of history at best, Gregor.
I have been getting kicked and insulted for months by many, many "regulars" with nary a fucking peep from any of you.
Why do think I would even write this blog? Do I strike you as the type of guy who would prefer to talk about this rather than the myriad of huge issues confronting the country?
If this is your perception of the reality of this place when it comes to ideas that fall outside the liberal left, I would suggest you remove the blinders for a minute and take a look around.
September 12, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, seriously, I have seen it and I have done it and that you forget it has happened is evidence that you are determined to remain the sole defender of a reality you are fabricating for yourself.
First point, amike just did it and he has not been cudgled at all. Cville expresses her respect for you, without agreeing with you. Some people here have agreed with you and while doing so may be rare, to deny it over occured gives me much concern for you, that you lack any re collection of these instances. I would think they would be something cherished to sustain you in your glorious fight to bridle the Far Out Left.
September 13, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and read my reply to amike. He suggested he would be beaten, not you. I was not talking about you.
September 13, 2009 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mike didn't get pummeled because he is a liberal. Liberals rarely get piled on around here with the exception of a hearty few who buck the heard.
I have no problem with disagreements at all. I actually have learned much more from people I don't agree with on most things than from dozens of conversations with those I agree with.
It is all the personal garbage from folks like WeepingJeezus and Disco Duck and the rest off hte Brigade of Brawlers that makes this place decidedly uncomfortable for anyone with contrary opinions.
September 13, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you talking about people being uncivil to Jason? I generally don't get much involved in that but as I see it he provokes as often as he's provoked and he gives as good as he gets. Its part of a long history here and that show needs to be understood within the context of that long history.
September 11, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree that in the past I would provoke as much as I was provoked, though I would submit that is no longer the case else I wouldn't feel compelled to write a blog such as this.
September 11, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps, I haven't done an in depth day to day analysis. But for some people you can't escape your history and they will continue to provoke. If you respond in kind it will be hard to determine who started what.
Its my suggestion that for the most part you ignore those you view too provocative to foster rational dialog and attempt to just dialog with those you consider rational. Over time those you ignore will drop away, you'll have less but more constructive dialog, and slowly your rep will improve.
But that takes incredible strength of will and character. I'm not always capable of practicing what I've just preached to you.
September 11, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doing my best to stay above the fray most days and as successful as most usually. It just seemed especially obnoxious the last few months.
September 11, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your above the fray like Kim Kardashian is a role model for young girls.
Well, Hannity thinks so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_plKvzNlFc
September 11, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Mike. You understand completely and remain a great ambassador of common sense from the left side of the street.
September 11, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
amike, we don't always agree but for sure I recognize you as someone from academia where people do learn how to develop a thick enough skin to debate.
I don't know if you want to take a shower because I agree with you, but it's good to see you step in and even risk a pie in the face, or a book to the head.
Cheers! And have a great weekend.
September 11, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got asny lumps? No, cuz this ain't no Red State. hahahahaha. Laughing at "them", amike, not you, you're one of "us"! hehehehe
September 12, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
But if he were a republican, you'd be opening up with both barrels. That is my point.
September 12, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You prognosticate what I would do. Yet, here is CT sharing your opinions, Lalo as well. I have fought with both of these people and have made no rebuttals to what they are saying. I have not tossed down a gauntlet against either one. Your commnt suggesting what I would do is unfair. I, as you claim to practice in your own comments, take one blog at a time.
September 13, 2009 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I meant to say, was if he were a republican many here would be opening up with both barrels.
You do tend to reserve that sort of stuff for "conservatives" in general rather than specific bloggers here at TPM.
Mea culpa.
September 13, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm always looking for diamonds in the rough. When you live in the rough, where else are you going to look? {you = me] :-{)>
September 14, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or in other words: Namaste. :O)
September 21, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argument. Please see my response below.
I wasn't trying to equate TPM to Red State. The latter is clearly much more polluted with the rhetoric I quoted. My point was merely to highlight the irony of training to attain progress utilizing such tactics and how they may in fact be counterproductive to our larger goals.
You disagree? That's cool.
I still feel such tactics will lead to a lot of our Fourth Wall maintaining poor opinions of "liberals" because of how many attack the barest hint of conservative thought.
September 11, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This equivalence is drawn by reference to a couple of select comments from TPM. Come on. Seriously, I know there's been some nuttiness and passion thrown around lately, and you've been at the brunt of much of it. But why the broad brush today? You know as well as I do that a couple of crazy threads, and a couple of over the top commenters does not equal what goes on daily at Red State.
September 11, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I would respectfully submit that your avatar now resembles a clean shaven and inquisitive Inspector Closeau, and bears no resemblance at all to a clogged up Michael Kinsely.
September 11, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sean Penn in the role of Closeau.
September 11, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm stuck thinking at Robert DeNiro. I don't know why?
September 11, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, a younger DeNiro, that was my first thought.
September 11, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A young Charles Bukowski.
September 11, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where the hell did you come up with Bukowski, they could be father/son. The resemblance is amazing.
September 11, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Musta been the alcoholism.
September 11, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a continuing hazard to the democratic party's agenda.
September 11, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget the capital "D" or I might have to carve it into your cheek in a dark alley.
Did McCain apologize for that yet?
September 11, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just like the fieldworker in Colorado faked a "hate" crime? No party is without its idiots.
September 11, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh the one no one heard about that CERTAINLY wasn't coordinated and promoted by Obama's Colorado office, that FOX News' second-in-command said would "forever link the Obama campaign to race baiting"??
THAT ONE?
LOL
September 11, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Key difference: which hoax was ENDORSED and promoted by a major candidate's campaign, which one had McCain and Palin calling the victim and ONLY Fox News was gullible to report it against the urgings of police?
But heh, it's all equal.
September 11, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That you continue to miss the point is hardly surprising.
September 11, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice non-answer. I'll assume you can't answer since it would undermine the "point" I'm supposedly missing.
Balless.
September 11, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fringes aren't the majority. Is this thing on?
September 11, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The MAINSTREAM Republicans, in this case, fell for it, promoted it, and never apologized for shameless race-baiting and the EAGERNESS they had to believe this nonsense.
The Democrats did no such thing, did they now?
Is this thing on?
September 11, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really have anything to say here ... in all honesty this exchange has gotten rather silly.
But it did get impressively indented ... and I'm just itchin to have one of the narrowest comments on the thread!
(oh to be able to turn off the reply button!)
September 12, 2009 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just say no! Tryin' to help you out bro. (one way or the other). Either way, you're one indent closer to the ultimate skinny.
September 12, 2009 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
hahahha oh Sweet Jesus, I cannot stop laughing at his.
hahahahahahha
Besides I do not have any idea how this is going to be presented in this format.
September 12, 2009 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which mainstream republicans would those be? The ones on TV or in Washington? Do you understand what mainstream means?
Mainstream republicans voted for Obama in huge numbers during the primaries and in respectable numbers for the general
The left continues to be out-of-touch with the mainstream of America and this thread only proves the point.
September 12, 2009 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain, the Republican candidate, did this. He is/was mainstream Republican, depending on your definition.
I defy you to find a similar incident, or for that matter a serious challenge from "mainstream" Republicans on guns at Obama appearances, calling Dems "nazis, socialist, terror sympathizers" (again used by McCain throughout his campaign).
Grassley and others embrace "death panels" and other lies to kill health care reform, NO Republicans will pledge to vote on it or even seriously work on it. Mainstream position on Sotomayor (and votes, I'd point out) was that she's a "racist." Republican senators questioning her made RICKY RICARDO jokes...
If there's a more sane element it's been shown the door by people like McCain, who might have had a fighting chance vs. Obama if he hadn't gone with a right-wing wacko as his running mate.
September 12, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reply here.
September 12, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would not have felt the need to write this blog had I not felt there was a trend of this sort of thing becoming more common.
Just look at the last slug-fest by way of an unapologetic embrace of obnoxious, in-your-face behavior as being the Gold Standard for "progressive" advocacy.
I still submit that the actual history of progressive advocacy contains a bit more nuance than many in that state of mind seem to posses.
Thanks for stopping by and have a great weekend!
September 11, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason
This is funny since you have derided and dismissed positions that you disagree with with baseless assertions that the other person is to ignorant, unwilling to learn ( meaning unwilling to accept your baseless assertions) and being blinded by prejudices that you with the ascendancy of angels rise above all the while refusing to deal with the issues with supporting facts.
Sorry this is a red herring you are trotting out trying to equate hate mongers such as Beck, Limbaugh and the rethuglican party structure with reasonable sane people such as Al Gore, Barney Frank and Howard Dean.
There is no equivalence. The center is not between the far right whacko's of the Rethuglican party and the false flag Blue Dogs D's rather it is between Progressives such as Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich versus Corporate D's such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Your Faux news delusions may not accept that but check the polls on americans positions on a range of issues. But alas I fear fats have a "liberal" bias.
Don't worry I can't be bothered to return to your comments I have wasted enough time on such dribble.
September 11, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos ... for this alone . . .
That pretty much sums up the whole Mister Bluster schtick in one neat tight little package.
~OGD~
September 11, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
See below.
September 11, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have to see sh!t . . .
I refuse to play by Mister Bluster's Micky Mouse mealy mouthed rules. Mister Bluster is only here to whine and cry and piss and moan and stomp his childish feet about what Mister Bluster feels that everyone besides he should do and and act and speak and live by...
He can take a long fricking walk off a very very short pier.
~OGD~
September 12, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Old Duck, same shit.
September 13, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
OGD, I believe that I pissed you off once. By being insensitive.
See, this is why I love you. You are one cranky old duck.
hahahahahah
September 12, 2009 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The true center of this country is the Blue Dogs, an essential truth the far left fails to grasp.
I will look for any links where I "derided and dismissed positions" I disagreed with rather than the tone and tenor of the language being used.
Take your time. I'll be back.
September 11, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an opinion that you cling to as an essential truth that many who are moderate or slightly left of center as well as the far left disagree with. Your assertion that your opinion is an absolute truth doesn't make it so no matter how strongly or often you assert it. I have a different opinion and I believe there is ample evidence to support my opinion.
But for both of us, determining where the center lies is very difficult. Polls are unreliable. Slight changes in the questions can produce very different results. For example, at present if people are asked if they support a public option the no answer will generally win. If they are asked if they support a public option as one choice along with private insurance plans most will respond yes. What ever they respond on the specific question most will always say they don't understand the plans, by an overwhelming majority.
Additionally public opinion doesn't exist in a vacuum. Its a complex relationship between cultural views of what ever subset the person comes from, statements from politicians, the choices of what constitutes "news" by the "news" media, the spin created by the media pundits. Public opinion is extremely malleable. Malleable not just prior to votes on legislation. Legislation can be pushed through against public opinion and some years in the future the public will decide they like it, want it, and woe to any politician who tries to take it away.
September 11, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am just going by the way the last election played out. If you have a different interpretation of the number, I am happy to listen.
This country seems to be fairly progressive when it comes to social issues and fairly conservative when it comes to fiscal ones. More than a few democrats are conservative in such a way as are many independents and most republicans, despite the various actions of the people they send to Washington.
In the specific case of the public option, the democratic party completely dropped the ball on selling that to the average voter or the numbers would be better, no matter which biased poll one has to rely on. I am all for a public option, but I am more for health insurance reform passing with a 70% margin.
Such a result is possible absent a public option given the lightning rod it has become, rightly or wrongly. Then the democrats can position the idea much more effectively as part of systemic Medicare reform.
Again, just my two cents for the half penny they worth these days.
September 11, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's one way we differ. I'd like to see a good health care plan passed and I couldn't care less how it was pushed through or what the public feels about it. If there is a plan that works as well as most other developed countries have with even half the savings in ten to fifteen years the public will love it and woe to any politician that tries to take it away. That's what the republicans are afraid of. That's why they would rather obstruct then produce a good bipartisan bill.
September 11, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any plan that doesn't have significant margins won't have the support of the public at large.
Taking two separate missions - reforming private insurance and creating a robust public plan - and treating them as unique challenges makes much more sense to me.
Without buy-in from a significant portion of the electorate, again 70-percent or more, nothing that gets through will be affective.
September 11, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason you fail to recognize the policy dynamics while only considering the political and I think you have that wrong too.
The better policy deal for patients, taxpayers, business and America in general has more reform, a more robust public option, much stricter restrictions on insurance companies and totally restructuring the way we compensate providers. These provisions have already been watered down with just prototype testing for the latter and phase ins over years for the others. Regardless Republican politicians have made it clear none of these changes no matter how weak or strong are acceptable to them at all. They will not vote for them period.
Instead they propose a number of bad ideas like buying insurance across state lines - without any nat'l regulations. These "plans" such as they are have mostly been ignored by the media. When they've been scored by the CBO or think tanks they've been panned. Cost more, do nothing to rein in prices and make us all less secure while protecting runwaway profits at our expense.
As an example under their across state lines proposal I might be able to get cheaper insurance from Blue Cross Alabama than I can from BC Illinois but chances are those AL policies are even more chock full of loopholes that will give insurance companies more leeway to screw me in the end. It encourages a race to the bottom by state insurance commissions to deregulate and look the other way when insurance companies deny care in an effort to capture the most HI business and jobs they can. It's like incorporation rules in Delaware and Nevada.
Tort reform is another GOP policy proposal which makes no sense. It's the very definition of a straw man argument. That battle has already been won in dozens of states over the last two decades. It hasn't lowered health insurance rates, in most states hasn't even lowered med malpractice insurance rates, and hasn't convinced doctors they should set up practice in rural or inner city areas. Because tort reform has made it practically impossible for plaintiffs to win med mal cases very few are even filed and only the most egregious cases result in pay outs. There is virtually no oversight by the doctors' medical associations or hospital chains. Medical malpractice insurance only adds 1% of cost to health care in this country while actual medical mistakes kill 200,000 people a year in the US.
Granted Democratic polticians have done a poor job selling the plan to the American public. Instead of policy experts who wrote the bills like Waxman, Andrews, Miller, and Dodd appearing on tv the last month to explain how they want to make health insurance into a competitive free market in the exchange with the public option as a comparison that will in fact be only available to a tiny fraction of the public they've let fear mongers and liars dominate the discussion and left Obama to do all the heavy lifting. He's made over 30 health care speeches this year but it needs to be a group effort.
There is no common ground that gets us to 70% support in either house in congress. No destructive Republican plan with provisions like those above will garner any Democratic support. Republicans have made clear they will not support the serious reforms Dems have proposed.
Let me make it clear there is no magic formula, not dropping the public option, not making it even harder for individuals to hold doctors and hospitals accountable and have their day in court, that will bring Republican votes. They are only interested in handing Obama and Dems a political defeat if they can and driving down Dem poll numbers with utter bullshit if they can't.
Politically Dems need to pass health care reform and the GOP needs to scuttle it. Success breeds success, failure breeds failure at the polls. Both parties in congress have dismal poll ratings. 21% for congressional Dems in the latest CBS poll and 12% for Repubs.
Your contention that Obama won with 10 to 15% of Republican votes I believe is wrong. Many of those voters may have voted for Bush twice but no longer identify as GOP. Not after Schiavo, the multiple scandals, Katrina, Iraq, the attempt to privatize Social Security, the economic disaster.
These are low info voters, the opposite of political junkies. They couldn't tell you who the majority whip is in the Senate anymore than I can tell you who the best soccer goalie is in Europe.
They don't know what rescission or reconciliation means. What they do know is one side wins and the other loses. And our side is going to win this debate and battle. We will pass a health care reform bill and we'll do it with very few if any GOP votes
That will bring a lot of them over next year. People like to be on the winning side. Once most of reform's provisions kick in and Americans see the benefits Dems have provided and GOP politicians once again are proven to be the unmitigated liars they are we'll see even more gains on our side.
Many of the disgruntled Dems you see here who slam Harry Reid every time his name is brought up will lay off. But on the other side? Most of those teabaggers aren't gonna have much love for Repubs who failed to stop "Adolf" Obama. And the diehards who man their phones and canvass for them will find those low info voters thinking they're nuts when they keep trying to tell them Obama still has a secret plan to take away their guns and turn us into the USSA.
September 12, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I see the potential for consensus on the broad strokes of health insurance reform, minus some huge new government-run plan, as being a very worthwhile win for the democratic party.
I think the crazier and more obstructive the republican caucus becomes the more wide-spread their demise in the coming primary elections. I think the only thing that can keep the republican party from being pulled back to a more moderate center is a democratic party that refuses to believe it is even possible.
I am not going dispute any of your remarks with regards to the republicans in Congress and the vocal minority who is supporting their asinine behavior. They are clearly unhinged and present a challenge to achieving some very critical goals for the country.
I simply think that combating them loses the persuadable voter in the middle when the circle the wagons to protect their own. This blog is a perfect example of that all too human trait.
September 12, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That "huge new government-run plan" you speak of will in fact only be seeded with $2 billion federal dollars and have to survive on the premiums it earns from it's customers. Like any other plan. Only about 30 million people will be eligible to sign up for it and the CBO predicts at most 13 million will choose to be covered by it by 2019. What Republicans hate about it is it'll always be comparable to for-profit insurance. For-profits will have to cut their prices to compete. But seeing as most of their worst practices will be outlawed they'll have ample room to cut their denial of care bureaucracy and streamline their business. Mandatory electronic record keeping will go a long way toward fixing that too. Good old fashioned American competition, it's a shame Republicans have never been for it.
I don't see how you can say the crazy and obstructive GOP caucus (they don't really have the power to obstruct, but they can make noise) is leading them to their own demise in the coming primary elections and yet if the left points out that they're crazy liars it'll lose us persuadable voters in the general.
Who is going to primary these crazy Republicans? Candidates from the center or the right? From the center it'll just force them to make up crazier lies. From the right I don't see how their opponents would be able to attract much support at all. Seriously a teabagger combo of Ron Paul fans, Glenn Beck goofs and god knows what is going to take over the Republican party? That's already happened.
It's not my job as a Democrat to make sure the Republic party regains it's position as a sane viable opposition party. My only job is keeping our majority from getting big heads. A viable opposition party would help in that respect. But there are other ways for me to keep my guys in line if your party insists on marginalizing itself by clinging ever tightly to the failed policies of your past.
We spent 50 years dominating congress and getting them to deliver for us last time. We'll do it again.
September 13, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reply here.
September 13, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too many people fail to recognize this. The Republican party is facing 40 years in the hinterland if a successful HCR bill is passed.
A third party evolution is not out of the question. This two party system we're stuck with now is dysfunctional. I have a dream.
September 11, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
So because the Democrats were not being up front with their position on the public option with the voters, the only way to salvage a working solution to better health care reform is to forgo the option for now and build a firmer foundation against insurance practices that current define the industry's policy with the public - pre-existing condition, policy recension, higher co-pays and so forth.
That's a hard pill to swallow for people who had their hopes pumped into the stratosphere on single payer/public option, but reality needs to be brought into play that even with the sky there is a limit.
So my question is, what compromises should one expect for letting the public option go by the wayside? It's an honest question being asked in complete honesty.
September 12, 2009 4:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the public option needs to go by the wayside. I think it should be strategically sacrificed today only to be magically reborn as Medicare reform tomorrow.
September 12, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The phoenix option?
September 12, 2009 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have a public option that a lot of people already love, on both the left and right, and it is in need of drastic overhaul to be an effective piece of the new medical system.
Why not let significant health insurance reform pass by way of "compromising" on the public option?
Then the democratic party can sell Medicare reform as the public option that keeps government out of their health care and saves the system for all.
Call it the Chess-over-Checkers option.
September 12, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually . . . more like the . . .
Wimpy option. "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."
Sure.
~OGD~
September 13, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Trust me, NOBODY CARES what people say on blogs! Even my own brilliant comments have absolutely no bearing on American culture or the future direction of the country. They certainly have no impact on any imaginary renaissance, political or otherwise.
How freakin' VAIN can you be? This place is a bubble; it's not the real world. Most Americans don't have time to blog.
Get over yourself!
September 11, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I think people read this, more then they are willing to admit. We're a barometer, of sorts. A place to find diamonds in the rough. We have many, many more lurkers then we have posters, but this place gets a lot of traffic. We are read.
September 11, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
We may be read, but we'd have to say something exceptional to be remembered.
September 11, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
September 12, 2009 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
With the odd exception of lurking plagiarists, that's pretty much my take on blogs, or at least their significance in shaping the so called impending "renaissance". Plus, the plagiarists will carefully edit out all the cuss words and ad hominems before going to print. Problem solved.
September 11, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not me, every time I plagiarize your blogs on other sites I add cuss words and ad hominem attacks. You're just too nice and I have a rep to maintain.
September 11, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, the screen name I use when I plagiarize you is miguelitoh1o. That way if you catch me I can claim I was 1st and you're the plagiarist.
September 11, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL :) Well I think we're giving Red State a run for the money here with regard to hyperbole, ad hominems, and bile. Oh and btw, f@#k you oceankat! There. Now I feel better!
September 11, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, when I steal your shit I actually leave it in your name add in some racist crap mixed in with a threat or two against the president and post it with your home address for good measure. You been wondering why those phone company "employees" across the street from your house have been able to get away with doing nothing but drink coffee all day? For weeks on end? (Their union ain’t that strong!)
September 11, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you think a couple hundred political junkies keep the lights on at TPM all by themselves? I am afraid it isn't me being vain if you think that is the case.
The Fourth Wall must be pretty freaking big for Josh to not only employee 11 people but to also raise venture capital to hire nine more.
TPM has made plenty of impact in the short time it has been around and one reason is a huge audience beyond the usual suspects we see on various threads.
I would call this comment naive, but then I would be accused of baiting an emotional response.
September 11, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spare me the garbage-talk, jason. You can't bait me. This is a troll post, nothing more. It's intent is to jerk people's chains, not to engage in meaningful dialogue or constructive debate. You're using clearthinker's language and ideas here and throughout, so you're not even being terribly clever. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe because you are a troll.
If you think millions of anonymous strangers will find reading you worthy of their time, then you are delusional. Meantime, Josh has gone on record to admit that the Cafe is not a money-generator. (NB to amike: Sorry to bring up a comment with your name in it, but it's the most recent comment about the Cafe that Josh has made.)
In fact, jason, I am hard-pressed to think of a single comment you've made lately that raises the level of dialogue at TPM in any way. Perhaps, therefore, you don't actually mean what you say about raising the level of dialogue. Why would you? Dogging people is much more fun. Get lost.
September 11, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen!
September 11, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Thanks, jonnie.
September 11, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice misnomer as that wasn't my point. TPM itself is the money maker and the Cafe is part of its overall brand.
Josh is being facetiousness in his comment. A robust, user-generated content section is a money maker. It is why social networks are so popular. He is preserve the essential nature of the Cafe by downplaying its role.
Content is king and TPM doesn't have enough capital to provide the sort of content the user blogs bring for free on a daily basis.
September 11, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I'll be sure to speak up the next time you agree with me. That way you don't have to rely on revisionist history to make your point.
September 12, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mister Bluster ... fails to realize . . .
Only 5.9% of total traffic to talkingpointsmemo.com bothers to visit the Cafe.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/talkingpointsmemo.com
Next . . .
~OGD~
September 11, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
All that web stat says is 59% of all unique visits enter by way of the homepage.
The top five user blogs on the homepage. There is no breakdown for how many of the 59% then click on a Cafe blog or get to a Cafe blog by way of another route.
Can't teach old ducks new technology, but thanks for playing.
September 11, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
More bullcrap . . .
. . . from the blustery one.
~OGD~
September 13, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, you are an expert in web statistics as well? Quite a resume you have there, Howard.
September 13, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This place is a lurker's delight.
September 12, 2009 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you being serious or facetious?
I am really trying to get a handle on what is a real comment and what is simply a sarcastic dig meant to belittle my point.
That I can no longer tell the difference is why this site is going down the crapper.
September 12, 2009 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Serious.
Voyeurism is a impulse trait many people have no control over. Just like an accident scene, many people stop, stare, then go on their way. As for blogs, many will return just as an onlooker to read the comments and follow the threads, but hesitant to say anything because they're not part of the group and are wary of trespassing in areas where they don't know anyone.
September 12, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for clarifying. Totally agree. I think that it is stuff like this (as well as all that boring wonk talk) that keeps the lights on around here.
I am going to make a concerted effort to better understand where you are coming from. I can let your delivery keep me from getting the message sometimes, but you really appear to be making an effort. It's much appreciated.
Have a great weekend!
September 12, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was simply asking for people to decide which site had spawned which comments. I wasn't painting any picture of false equivalence or who is the most patriotic.
When the barest hint of an opinion falls outside of the accepted norm, on either side of the fence, a flame war is what results.
No matter which site you may find yourself on.
To O-Cat's point above, I totally agree. This wasn't trying to compare TPM to Red State, which is far superior to an right wing site I have decided to sample in all but one important way - the tenor and tone of its most passionate members and the inability of those with a little more nuance to reign them in.
I don't think Obama's call for some sort of national reconciliation is naive at all. I think it is essential.
September 11, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok Jason, I'll bite. Regarding tone and nuance, perhaps one should consider how one phrases one's arguments, and the tone and nuance might be reciprocated. Some don'ts might include prefacing comments in response to other posters with phrases such as:
1. The looking glass left
2. It is clear from your remarks that you either do not read or cannot understand what I have written
3. As usual, you frame the discussion way too narrowly to be of any possible use, but please carry on with whatever it is you feel you have to do when confronted with opinions that you either don't agree with or don't really understand without the proper context.
4. You are setting up plenty of straw men to slay with your righteous fireballs. TPM needs an enema.
5. Maybe if you read what I actually wrote and saw that I was trying to help liberals come up with new framing and solutions for ideas I mostly agree with you would understand where I am coming from at this site.
6. No one can offer an opinion contrary to the liberal left agenda without attracting the fire of all the usualy suspects.
7. No one is safe from the irrational tantrums of the TPM Goon Squad.
All of these were from your comments within the past day or so. Before you go off on your "taken out of context" lecture, take a deep breath and ask yourself if perhaps you don't at a minimum contribute to the flaming with such aggressive language, though admittedly devoid of outright ad hominem attacks. I've seen you come in swinging your big dick like this too many times from right out of the box to think that you don't 'give as good as you get' as Oceankat said above in reply to amike. Just a thought.
September 11, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice list, M2O. Here's some from today:
8. "The democratic party's biggest challenge right now isn't the republicans, crazy or otherwise. It is addressing the increasingly unhinged rhetoric coming from their left wing ..." I loved that. I mean, not much mistaking it really. It's right there in the original post, no chance to take it out of context, no way to blame it on others - this is the blogger's own words, in his blog intended to show how OTHERS here are lacking civility. "Unhinged rhetoric," my, what a civil opening. And this following on the Teddy Kennedy post, where the recently-buried was roasted for being" 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 also loved further down in the comments here where JEM says, "I wasn't painting any picture of false equivalence...." This, after stating, right at the start of the post, "After the break, a series of quotes from both Red State and TPM Cafe will be provided in an effort to determine which side of the political spectrum is truly the craziest.... it is becoming increasingly hard to tell the difference between the left and right fringes."
WTF?
September 11, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Picking certain words out in BOLD TEXT won't change the meaning of what I wrote. I was clearly speaking to the style of rhetoric coming out of both camps farthest reaches.
You constantly prove my point, but by all means, jump into the fray with your method of political debate. It doesn't help your party at all, but I bet it feels good.
Where is the bonfire? Who's bring the marshmallows?
September 11, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
September 11, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pointing out similarities in tone and tenor isn't painting a false equivalence.
Had I said: "Now, which group is going to commit an act of domestic terror first?" then you could make that case. As it is, most of the blog's comments can be filed under Thou Doth Protest Too Much.
Glad to see the democratic party has more self-awareness than the republican party. We sure are going to need that in the years to come.
September 12, 2009 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote:
"Pointing out similarities in tone and tenor isn't painting a false equivalence."
That's right. It is not painting a false equivalence. We can ignore the various labels placed on the various types, or schools, or forms, of painting: pointilist, abstract, surrealist; in short, something like that defined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painting
OTOH, you aren't off any hook that may exist.
What do you think an equivalence is if not a similarity?
Your words, your argument: pointing out similarities is not [painting] an equivalence.
I reiterate: you are correct. You are not "painting" an equivalence. You are IMPLYING an equivalence.
Now if you are, as you seem to wish people to believe, genuinely interested in some sort of dialogue-centered rapprochement, you may wish to consider the feedback you've received, and that perhaps, just perhaps, you agree with how people perceive your use of language; and opt for that rather than something else...like arguing.
OTOH, you could ignore (as I mostly tend to) any random asshat (not that I think they are asshats; but that you perceive them to be asshats; and, probably, vice-versa) that does a drive-by on your blog or makes some whack post elsewhere at TPM.
September 12, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am saying one thing and one thing only - that adopting the same tactics and tone as the crazies on the right is counterproductive to the democratic party's goals of transforming this country.
I made no implications of any deeper point or meaning that you seem to be trying to find. The democratic party cannot be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be as crazy as the right has been all these years. Obama was elected as a response to that sort of partisan nonsense, not despite it. His numbers didn't start going down until the emotional rhetoric started going up.
As to you final point, I have been trying to ignore this crap for months now and it has just gotten more ridiculous and out of control as the days go by. I am hardly the first to mention it either. It goes way beyond individual comments or blogs and straight toward an overall perception of the site among mainstream readers who will never comment or blog.
September 12, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps your greatest error is your obvious perception that TPM is an extension of the Democratic Party.
September 12, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The grassroots, as represented by the citizens bloggers on TPM, are most certainly an extension of the democratic party.
Everything is part of the liberal brand, even the negatives. Perhaps your greatest error is not understanding that basic fact of human nature.
September 13, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa ... Piggy . . .
You are unknowingly helping the divisive one write his research paper for him...
hahahaha . . .
~OGD~
September 11, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are going to quote me, why not provide a couple links for context.
Anyone who is familiar with my writing on this site knows that those sorts of comments come only after a long effort, sometimes across multiple threads, of trying to explain myself more fully in response to fairly inflammatory rhetoric from word one.
Since you decided to not provide any context, even while acknowledging that would probably be my response, I will have to continue to consider the source of most critical comments about me on the site as coming from a standard panoply of avatars with a standard chorus of compaints.
I am actually willing to take responsibility for each and every word I write on this site. Who among can say the same?
September 11, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone..."
September 11, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still waiting for links where the very first reply I made involved cuss words, personal insults and purposeful caricature.
September 11, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, your Holyness. Just adding a little levity.
September 11, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read like a rebuke. Perhaps we have different ideas of comedy?
September 11, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus = ALWAYS funny.
It's on the list right after farts.
September 11, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll just cut to the chase and fill in the blanks with the standard set of your replies from here on. It is clear from your remarks that you either do not read or cannot understand what I have written. The biggest problem for the democratic party right now is other democrats. There you go again. Misdirection instead of what I actually said. When did you start swinging such a broad brush? I’m advocating a smarter strategy that relies on less revolutionary tactics". I am talking about methodology and not necessarily the specific legislation at hand. Today's progressives, as seen over the last 40 years or so, have been very ineffective at implementing their goals. Condescension (especially with regards to speaking with republicans who support most of the end goals you would see happen) isn't helpful to effective communication nor is likely to lead to broadly supported reforms that might have a chance of getting through Congress, much less a plan that will be a success. Being such a big fan of the ad hominem attack makes your denials all the more transparent. Evolution not revolution baby! As usual, you frame the discussion way too narrowly to be of any possible use, but please carry on with whatever it is you feel you have to do when confronted with opinions that you either don't agree with or don't really understand without the proper context. It is the silent majority who decides what the party becomes. Perhaps you could actually respond to what is written rather than bait people into confrontation by taking certain words and phrases out on context and then blowing them out of proportion. Not a single one of your "charges" stands-up to even a cursory reading of the threads in question, despite your out-of-context merging of multiple lines of discussion. More ad hominem attacks, lacking any sort of evidence, because you didn't agree with our opinions on the blog at hand, which is usually a screed of a far-left nature. I hate mud wrestling, too, but I am not afraid to get dirty for a good cause. You are setting up plenty of straw men to slay with your righteous fireballs. TPM needs an enema. Maybe if you read what I actually wrote and saw that I was trying to help liberals come up with new framing and solutions for ideas I mostly agree with you would understand where I am coming from at this site. Effective grassroots politics is a game of inches and not Hail Mary passes. I firmly believe that all of our differences are a matter of semantics. You continue to miss the point, so I am going to stop wasting my time. Word! (again, all quotes of yours).
Try owning it for once Jason. I have no interest in tracking down the links to what you've written.
September 11, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you so glibly put it in this post: "Enjoy!"
September 11, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
September 11, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word cloud.
September 12, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice gasket!
September 12, 2009 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pull all context out anyone's words and this is what happens. Total insensibility.
On a side not, removing all context from what appears to be multiple threads worth of "quotes" as a way of fighting a charge of creating caricatures of people is pretty funny.
You should take that act on the road.
September 12, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
As should you. Don't let the door hit you on the way out of the cafe, fraud.
September 12, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you find yourself with a bit of whiplash here ... this entire post is comprised of other people's quotes stripped of any context whatsoever and presented as if it proves a point.
By your own standards, this post is a stinker.
September 12, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
JEM's immune to whiplash. He doesn't ever move. If he did, then he'd suffer a massive attack of cognitive dissonance.
September 12, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I provided examples of quotes offered as the very first response to fairly mundane queries.
The Pig compiled the worst of my quotes offered after multiple attempts at explaining myself while only receiving smacks to the jaw in return.
This is like comparing apples and orangutans.
September 13, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason - I am going to step back into the fray here and leave you with this quote from a Politico article today:
So while you bemoan the the posters that get out of hand here and sound no better than a RedStater. I would suggest you might want to pay more attention to your own house and it's issues than the issues with bad form of the left. It would be far more productive for Republicans to calm their own and look like they are taking the high road than calling out the left with the high school argument of "they started it."
September 11, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still disagree. It is the party in charge's responsibility to set the tone.
If the tone is one of retribution and recrimination, the response will be obstruction and increased divisions.
It still baffles me why this is such a controversial opinion.
September 11, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a controversial opinion. However you don't think Obama has tried to set the tone? And don't think Obama has tried to reach out. And who has said screw you so far? It was Obama to the great consternation of his base who did not want retribution. You would the think Republican leadership would be kissing his hand for that alone. Next how are we responsible for the tea parties and birthers etc etc. who spread the mis-information that go the tea parties cranked in the first place?
September 11, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that the president has set the example and many on the far left have failed to deliver. They thought we elected a liberal and what we really elected was our first true progressive in a generation.
September 11, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It still baffles you why this is such a controversial opinion? It's controversial, because it is being completely and utterly hammered into the dust before us all, on national TV, Jason.
Not sure if you've noticed, but the party in charge (Democrats) are led by a guy named Barack Obama (funny name, eh?) Anyway, his tone has been very clear, and he's pretty much stuck to it these past months. Sweet reason. Bipartisan. Nation-building. No looking back or carrying grudges.
Result? Best you probably go research this yourself. But the argument that the tone of the party in charge will in any way determine the tone of the party not in charge has taken a pretty savage beating, I'd say.
Unless you think that somehow Obama has led with "retribution and recrimination," and therefore has produced the response from Republicans of obstruction and increased divisions.
Obama and the Republicans have destroyed your theory, Jason. Not us. so why not go tear Obama a new one, since apparently he must be leading with the wrong kind of rhetoric.
September 11, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The result? The result was 54% to 46% in favor of Barack Obama for president. That was when the hard party began. Healing a nation.
Too bad the democratic party (and its far left band of political naifs) didn't continue to follow his example post election and instead offered us more of the same failed ideas.
Nice try.
September 11, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you really be that stupid after living through the Bush years? Even for you this is an extraordinarily idiotic thing to say.
September 11, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your measuring stick is the Bush years? How about raising the bar a bit?
September 11, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the GOP bar to raise, is it not?
They're the Party of Dubya, dontcha know.
September 12, 2009 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Last time I checked, the democratic party was in charge, but perhaps I am missing something.
September 12, 2009 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
No surprise here . . .
Mister Bluster missing the boat for example?
Maybe Mister Bluster can catch the next one.
~OGD~
September 13, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's absurd. The GOp is not inclined to accept any kleadership. It has been offered and rejected. What the Far out Left does is irrelevant to the GOP's behavior. They are rresponsible for themselves.
Here's their problem in a nutshell [ohmigod, THAT was punny!] They have nothing left but their whack jobs, so they are working hard to appeal to them, because if they left then they would have nothing. But their whackiness has gone so far from reality they cannot retain any loyalty from their moderates. It doesn't make a bit of difference where those people go, so long as they are not reconciled with the GOP, and the GOP is too attached to their sure-thing whackjobs to dare to smack down the punditry of putrid picture-making. [Sorry, it's way ucking early and I enjoy alliteration.]
September 13, 2009 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Miller is a Republican who wishes to engage the left in debate. He is open about his loyalty. For one, I am not willing to call him a troll for this post.
That being said, there is a proverb about glass houses and stones which springs to mind.
The main difference between the right and the left so far as civility goes is its leadership.
Mr. Miller has gathered bits of prose from the blogs and compared them. Fair enough. You made your point.
I dare him to compare the rhetoric of the Democratic Leadership with that of of the Republican Leadership.
Furthermore, I dare him to to compare the rhetoric and tone of Keith Olberman with that of Glen Beck.
Lastly, I dare him to compare the stories on the top half of TPM and TNR, with National Review Online and Free Republic.
September 11, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Republican leadership? The ones that should be in the spotlight are silent and instead you get the whack jobs taking up the reins. Now, I'm not aching to hear more from McConnell or Cantor or Boehner, but hearing them would be a slight improvement for what makes the news: Rush, Wilson, and other loons.
So is it the media? Are the Republican leaders not speaking loud enough? Or are the true Republican leaders, in truth, impotent compared to the ones who can rattle off the most newsworthy outlandish claim?
OT: LOL, "Beck vs. Olberman" kind of cracks me up. My imagination is going to a Pinky vs. The Brain kind of match up.
September 11, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking a cage match for the Back vs. Olberman.
Or maybe the pie fight, a la Blazing Saddles mentioned above.
September 12, 2009 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am talking about the grassroots. The only ones left to persuade.
The actual paying audience of lurking readers who keep the lights on here at our favorite political blogging site. The silent majority is looking for inclusion and vision, not condemnation. There is a vast reservoir of fiscal conservatism in this country and it isn't being reflected in the inflammatory rhetoric at the highest aeries.
It is at the kitchen table and the corner bar.
I don't disagree with your main point that to compare the two representatives of each "side" as far as the media and politics goes, there really is no comparison. The "right's" mouthpieces are clearly more insane.
That wasn't my point.
I am saying that assuming those most vocal and visible rabid dogs represent the silent majority is a fatal tactical error and will lead to massive lapses in judgment when it comes to talking about your political rivals. Most republicans want the democratic party to come with good innovative solutions and in the absence of those solutions will go ahead and stay with what they got.
It's even worse for independents, because they get nothing in the deal but the standard liberal agenda that is barely better than the current set-up or a recalcitrant "opposition" party with no real ideas.
September 11, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't characterizing whole swaths of the population by their most insane supposed rhetoric (I'm guessing these are comments, not blogs, submitted by anons who may well be trying to do EXACTLY what this blog is trying to do...) be PRECISELY the kind of partisan hackery you are railing against here?
Not to mention the sheer lack of balls it takes to no accredit any of these.
A better measure of "having partisan blinders" would be the support these wackos seem to get from their respective parties and pundits, who speak without the advantage of anonymous blogs or bullshit comparisons like this.
That would be the Republican party of 2009. How many denounce claims that Dems are Nazis or people packing AR15s at presidential appearances?
Very, very few.
Balless, no reccs.
September 11, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crickets...
September 11, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was trying to protect the individuals being quoted as their actual words were beside the point. No balls were required in the crafting of this blog.
September 11, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said, no balls required. At last we AGREE!
September 11, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we agree that you equate political dialogue to a cage match. Hence the needing of "balls" to make a simple point. You continue to simply prove my point, so thank you.
September 12, 2009 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Balls = courage.
The fact that you need 300 comments to "clarify" your position shows the simple fact that YOU would rather drop this burning bag of dog shit on our porches and run away snickering when we become confused by it than have a serious debate.
If your point is supposed to be that people on the left are being "as bad" as folks on the right you have been easily and completely debunked here, although you may not think so.
If your point is that mainstream Republican voices have been marginalized (mostly by the fact that the right does WAY MORE of this than the left does), you are a little late to the party.
The radicalization of the McCain campaign is a great example. Known as a moderate, he chose to embrace the craziest elements of the right, calling his opponent a terrorist sympathizer, embracing flimsy hoaxes, and trying to coax the far right into support by nominating an un-vetted and ultimately STUPID choice for VP, probably for the rough identity politics logic that people wanted to vote for a woman.
You claim the left's rhetoric is dooming us to failure but it is the RIGHT who continue to marginalize themselves, alienate a growing number of Hispanic voters (not to mention other minorities), and throw people like Meghan McCain under the bus.
Our "failures" include a majority in both houses, a president who has gotten EVERY major piece of legislation and executive order he wanted DONE (and healthcare reform isn't looking that bad, either).
To imply that the fringe undercurrents of both parties are even remotely the same in terms of real influence on the supposed mainstream is just nonsense.
If there's so many alienated "mainstream" Republicans maybe you do need the BALLS to STEP UP.
Because right now your party is being held hostage by the fringe, and the Democratic party is NOT.
September 12, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I ran away snickering? Seems I have been here all along defending my point of view with nary a giggle or snort.
This comment is just another example of my main point. The liberal left is incapable of civil discussion with republicans, even if they mostly agree with where the country needs to go.
This continuing intransigence is way more harmful to our shared project than any right-wing fool shouting at the president during his speech.
September 12, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again if you HAD a clear point of view, clearly stated (instead of this sideways stuff) you wouldn't need so many words to "defend" it.
Does every post by someone who disagrees with you "prove your point"?
You wanna be a self-appointed hall monitor for your opposition's rhetoric feel free, but don't expect a thank you.
As you said yourself, without context, your quotes are essenstially meaningless, your "argument" a vague scolding of how YOU think progressives should be talking. It's obnoxious, no matter what sort of pretty package you wrap it up in.
Stop pretending this isn't exactly the reaction you thought you'd get. Did you think we'd be all "gee, thanks, that's SO INTERESTING?"
If so you are dumber than we thought.
September 12, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is more than one person who disagreed with my main thesis without being the asshole you decided to become as an appropriate first response.
September 13, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS. precisely what is uncivil about my last post?
September 12, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You entire performance on this blog has been uncivil.
September 13, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS, I'd say 1, 3 and 6 come from TPM.
Only one even remotely approaches the insanity of the rest (Christian post).
Feel free to provide links etc and prove me wrong.
This is a joke.
September 11, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
They were fifty-fifty, evenly divided between the two sites. I started with a TPM quote, so you should be able to figure it out from there.
Pretty good guess. Thanks for playing!
September 11, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Possibly 5 too.
September 11, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
How successful has the effort to tone down the rhetoric on RedState been?
If Jason wants to build a group of Republican moderates to takeover the GOP, none of us can stop him. If he succeeds, those of us who doubted his plan will be proven wrong. We are powerless to intervene.
My personal view may be that Republican "moderates" like Tim Pawlenty are saying that the Democratic Health care plan includes death panels, and threaten to use the 10th amendment to block health care reform, an indication that GOP moderates are like Elvis Presley sightings. My personal view cannot stop Republican moderates from taking over the GOP.
September 11, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a single republican in office is truly moderate. Pawlenty is certainly a part of the problem and not part of the solution. I suspect Minnesota will take care of that problem at some point.
September 11, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is time for self-reflection, Jason Everett Miller, because you have a problem.
Go clean your own fucking house. We will be just fine. You are in a long, sad downward spiral; perhaps you used to be better, a contributing peer, but those days have long gone, like watching someone disintegrating as they succumb to the bottle.
You are intellectually dishonest and utterly incapable of taking responsibility for your own actions, unable to conceive - let alone admit - that you are wrong, unable to accept new information. A classic "self-reliant" reactionary hypocrite, never learning from your mistakes.
You and your small-minded magical thinking. The "middle" that solves everything. It has become your mantra to such a degree that you no longer bother to think about anything, not to truly consider anything nor to think of anything of your own. No solutions, no questions, nothing but a chant. An article of faith, unjustifiable by logic or reality, contemporary or historical.
Hopefully others will be able to better restrict themselves, or this post will be yet more of your oxygen thievery. Fully one-third or more of all updates I get are caused by your sniveling, writhing disingenuousness - describing your recent work as pseudo-intellectual would be entirely too generous.
Time to grow up, man up, take responsibility.
September 11, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I thought you would be just fine, I wouldn't bother saying anything. Forgive me if I think it is a mistake to leave it up to liberals to get anything truly progressive accomplished for America alone.
September 11, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first quote I'm happy to say is mine. Happy, happy.
Jason is without doubt a great guy.
And if you're saying you "want your country back" because the other side won a democratic election, that's sedition. And you can slice it and yuck it up anyway you like and bellyache absurdly about what poor Bush had to go through with his my-way-or-the-highway riff, but saying "I want my country back!" because you rightly lost your ass at the polling booth when you failed on a grand scale? You don't accept the voters' outcome and so you claim your country has been taken away?
That's sedition. Period. It's better to own up to it and be proud. "I am a seditionist!"
September 11, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, OT, thanks for manning up and claiming your words! I understand where the sentiment comes from based on the not-so-recent past, but I don't believe Bill meant it in the way you intimated.
September 11, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason.
I did a post today on right and left equivalency. When you calm down (maybe a week or so) I invite you to check it out. Or not, that is your call.
I am not going to engage in anymore petty battles with you or comment on TPM meta posts. I am sure you are a good man.
Peace be with you.
September 11, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will certainly check it out and respond accordingly.
I have no doubt you are a good man as well. A few short years ago, I may have been storming the Bastille at your side.
Namaste.
September 11, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heavily recommended.
Kudos to Jason for standing up to the real trolls in the house, in the name of meaningful debate.
September 11, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
He wrote another blog somewhere? Cool...
September 11, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! :)
September 11, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Viva la Evolución!
September 11, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The exercise seems sort of irrelevant. The important thing to remember is that on TPM you can post this ... doing something similar on RedState would get you banned.
As an occasional visitor to Redstate, it also seems to me that you cherry-picked some of the least aggressive red state comments and contrasted them against some of the most aggressive TPM comments. Might work on someone who never sees what they really say over there, but to me looks a method of questionable honesty to make a point that isn't very accurate (IMO).
September 11, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
GREAT POINTS!
Recently on BTR (in a conservative show room) I heard this:
"Obama sure isn't the organ grinder"
And other completely-off-the-rails rhetoric about the president, liberals etc.
This ham-fisted attempt to prove something unproveable is a joke.
September 11, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was simply trying to say any comment here that could even circumstantially resemble a comment from there will impinge upon the democratic party's ability to actually change the direction of this country.
It isn't about them. It is about us and the type of site we want to have. Even a little Red State at Talking Point Memo is too fucking much if our goal is to create a more progressive America.
We have too big of a stage to be purposefully irrelevant like the other site.
September 11, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. That's stupid and untrue.
But now if we start acting like Republicans, having our people spread lies, hate the government, etc... politicize 9/11... THEN that would be true.
But it isn't if it's just talk on a dumb blog, and the right wing is far worse anyway.
September 11, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ten points for predictability.
September 11, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
But this non-answer goes to 11!!
Thanks for performing as specified.
September 11, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are listening anyway, so why bother?
You clearly have a partisan axe to grind that has zero to do with me and everything to do with the past you can't let go even after having won the presidency, the senate and the house.
Seems to be a simple case of being sore winners.
September 12, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. If I don't agree that the right and the left fringes are somehow the same in rhetorical stupidity, I'm too partisan.
Try that bait on someone stupider, please.
September 12, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That wasn't my contention, so you continue to provide commentary disputing a point I never made.
September 12, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mirror = are the same, no?
You did write this, didn't you?
It's also a baseless accusation.
I DON'T act in these ways or mirror the right.
I DON'T carry guns to presidential events (or remain silent about it).
I DON'T make comparisons of ANY president to Hitler (or stay silent about it when people on my side do).
I DON'T traffic in outright lies (Death Panels, etc) because teh facts are on my side.
I DON'T traffic in silly conspiracy theories about how the president isn't really the president, or is a Muslim, or had gay sex with Larry Sinclair, and I shame those who do; not turn my back or say nothing, like the Republicans.
I DON'T use disruption as a stated strategy to "derail" real debate.
I DON'T engage in race-baiting, call my president a "racist", or a Marxist or andy other of many unsubstantiated claims.
I'm the "base" and I DO NOT act in the ways you seem to believe I DO.
So don't tell me to take a punch better, it's stupid and I'm a New Yawker. Get bent.
September 12, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a suggestion: scientific method.
Post this same blog on Red State, and see you they treat it.
September 12, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Red State devotees aren't pretending to be the grown-ups in American politics. Liberals need to start drinking their own kool-aid.
September 13, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was talking tactics and tone, not specific isolated incidents of crazy behavior.
The exceptions don't disprove the rule, which is that divisive LANGUAGE creates more enemies than friends just at a time when the democratic party needs all the friends it can get.
Myself included.
September 13, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you and I will have to disagree on that. I think a part of what makes TPM interesting is that even when there is a bit of bomb throwing, participants ultimately seem to substantively engage and occasionally bomb throwers turn into caustic debaters and finally into (former?) republicans making posts about how we should all just be civil and get along so as not to reflect poorly on the progressive movement. There seems to be an ebb and flow.
It's pretty easy just to ignore the comments that bug you. Seriously ... who's worse, the angry progressive expressing their sense of frustration and feeling let down or the guy/gal who doesn't even bother to answer the source of let-down and just hollers "troll" at anyone who doesn't toe their view of the party line? We've got both and most shades in between, and I wouldn't change any of 'em - except perhaps by the fortuitous use of a persuasive comment. Besides, on the blog-o-tubez(and BBSs that came before), it's important to observe the inherent reality of the power to vent flame (and suffer the attendant backlash) ... it's in the DNA of the routing architecture.
Personally, I'm not trying to be "better" than the Redstaters ... it just sort of keeps happening by default (to pretty much everyone who isn't a redstater/ilk).
BTW: pushing 200 comments! Nothing like Friday afternoon meta-discussions to bring in the crowds. :-)
September 11, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for taking the time to dig into this and to not assume I think the problem is worse than it actually is. I am simply point to a trend I have noticed. Any site without real moderation and user-generated content must be self-policing or it will die a slow and painful death.
I don't disagree that the site is mostly agreeable most of the time, but one's state of mind dramatically affects the perceptions of those discussions you mention. It is mostly skewed that way among political compatriots who disagree about this or that policy.
For any republican or conservative that happens to stumble in here, though, they better watch the fuck out. The ratio of troll to reasonable comment tilts far to the raging left at the drop of the barest hint of competing idea. From word one, they are hounded and harassed and belittled and caricatured until most simply leave.
Look at my blog. The ratio of meta to issue is pretty plain. I would much rather be writing about health care reform and why I think the current public option is a distraction from one that would make this a done deal.
TPM is becoming an echo chamber because every bit of nuance is under attack by a small group of posters who have decided to keep the place "pure left" in the only way they know how - tactical partisan warfare.
Never mind that it makes zero strategic sense.
September 12, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not going to play "pick RS or TPM" because even I got them 100% right, it'd be luck. It's true that language transcends the political divide. I don't see why this is surprising. Language is one of those things that makes us human. It's in our biology, just like a certain amount of tribalism is. So, yeah, we're going to share language and sentiment and the same logical structure, applied with different levels of skill depending, of course, on the point of view of the listener.
I do take some good things from this -- it means there is some common ground somewhere. A liberal who opposed the Wall St. bailouts, to take an easy example, can have a very interesting discussion with a conservative opponent of the same. It seems at first that they're opposing the same idea for different reasons but when you really peel back the onion on that you find substantive agreement not just in the conclusion but in the method that led to the conclusion.
So what does this mean for TPM? I don't know, I think we've all already gotten past the "wow, I agree with that libertarian about pot" phase. We know that the lines aren't uncrossable.
Is the lesson that we at TPM have become what we despise? I don't think so. First, I don't think we despise people on the other side, though they do frustrate us at times.
Is the lesson that we're uncivil? We can be heated but this is not what I'd call a rough neighborhood in that regard.
I loves ya, TPMers. And McCainPal loves you all too.
September 11, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
destor: with or without cobra I think you are one of the most awesome posters here. I try to learn from your use of language to be intense and forceful without being overwhelming. A rare delight here. Thank you.
September 11, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate it. Have to admit I've written some pretty dumb things here though and sometimes there are consequences for it. I remember really lacing into Taplin, Avishai and Etzioni, sometimes to the extent that if they saw they shrugged, said "Crank" and moved on. Which is too bad because as time went on I had more substantive things to say to them and of course, was too late to really get their consideration.
Even the last time I had an exchange with Avishai I noticed he didn't respond to the comment I'd have wanted him to respond to and instead responded to a throw-away comment that maybe I wouldn't have made if I'd known I was distracting from my main point. Live and learn.
As you say below, people will of course say things here they wouldn't say in real life. And I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that. No bones get broken here so if you're going to use some fighting words, do it where there's not a fight to be had.
My take it that we all screw up here from time to time so forgive and move on whenever possible.
September 11, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome reply. You live up to the avatar! Thanks for getting it exactly.
September 11, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what exactly is the lesson for us so unaware?
September 11, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto on that. I read Destor's comment and thought: 'Awesome!'. I'm failing to see the connection between what Destor wrote, and what JEm is alluding to when he proclaims: "Thanks for getting it exactly". Dysfunction at the JEMjunction.
September 12, 2009 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I do take some good things from this -- it means there is some common ground somewhere."
September 12, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I mean, do some treat this site as mere entertain? yes. do some go overboard, and smack of ideologues? why sure. Are some rude, crude and not so smooth? you bet. tell me something I don't know.
And telling the wise cracking, overboard rude fanatic that he is just that is last way you're going to get him or her to reflect on their paradigm and approach to the world.
September 11, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've worked with all kinds of groups -- from concerned, wealthy philanthropists (the so called "filthy rich" that has been referred to here), to bright newly minted college grads, to factory workers, to activists so poor that their view of environmentalism was being able to bath in the water coming into their homes.
And I will say this: much of the "bravado" I see here would never be done in public. It's the type of personality transformation that some meek people have once they get behind the steering wheel of a car. They get in touch with their inner monster.
I love a good exchange, full of taunts and humor, and Oscar Wildish wit. Most of the heated exchanges here, however, come off like spastic Donald Ducks: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG!
It's literally at the level of name calling -- and not even clever at that. It serves no purpose and mostly because the poster is so muddled in their own thinking that they simply can't figure out why they hold their belief -- they just hold it. And they get angry for being challenged by it.
This is not a "left" or "right" issue. It's the Internet, pure and simple. In fact, style and tone typically reign as a constant across all blog sites - political or not.
Trust me when I say: I don't care how many Political Science degrees you have, or how many A's you received in your high school Civics class. Most people here do not understand how real politics works. That's okay -- most people don't know how to build a car either, or can do heart surgery.
As a simple example: Most members of House won't be reading the healthcare bill before they vote on it. Guaranteed. Why? Because by the time it's printed up and distributed, the vote is over. Yes, they will have their summaries to look at -- but a detailed read and digest? Forget it.
And this isn't atypical.
Next time you are at a town hall meeting, try asking the question: how much of this bill will you read before voting? Sure, some yahoos will think you are wasting time, but if you really want to see a politician thrown off base -- and find out who is really representing you -- that question will do quite nicely.
Most politicians aren't evil. Yes, they have a point of view. And yes, some are as sleazy as your boss or next door neighbor. But you know what? You imagine taking 250,000 opinions (or more) and representing all of them! In states with stressed water issues you will find GOP representatives very sensitive to the environment. (PS Richard Nixon set up the EPA -- because he was of his times. Harry Truman set up the NSA and CIA -- because he was of his times.) In states where the population is poorer, you will find Dems pretty sensitive to religious issues.
You want wacko birthers? How about wacko "George Bush knew about 9/11"? You know these people are still around?
False equivalence? Puh-leeze. Ignorance is ignorance.
Gun nuts? Tree huggers? All warped characterizations because humans are tribal animals and want to feel a belonging.
TPM was more interesting in the primaries because there was a bit more self-restraint (in general) between those backing Hillary / Obama / Edwards. They debates almost could'nt constantly degenerate into endless name calling because there really were opposition forces. And there was less mud to sling because everyone knew that someone would step up and make call them on it.
Once Obama secured the nomination, TPM has come closer and closer to an echo chamber where "tone", and "nuance", and "friendship" are often closely scrutinized as a means of establishing micro-differences of opinion. It's like a Muslim trying to figure out the different between Anabaptist and Church of Christ.
I don't agree with many people on this site, but I find that those that I disagree with the most are the ones I have the most interesting conversations with. It's often the ones that I tend to agree with the most that I find the most disagreeable.
And I'm sure they feel the same.
But the fact is that most of the discussion here stays at a certain level because it must play to the lowest common denominator -- which, being the Internet, is not as high as one would like.
What comes across to many here as "arrogance" is typical of academic debate. Elitist? Perhaps. But then, at least you have a lot in common with Bill OReilly. He despises the "elites" as well. There has always been a tremendous distrust of academic excellence in the United States -- particularly if not presented with so much "aw shucking" as to let you know that the educated just have "book learnin'" and deep down we really all are just as bright as each other. For those of you who look to Europe for healthcare, may I suggest you also look to see how academic excellence is revered there as well -- and any whiff of "condescension" (assuming it's even real in an objective sense) tends to be excused. It's quite different in this country.
Therefore it's hardly surprising that in an open forum you kind craziness that transcends the supposed politics and reflects the actual humanism and cultural background of the participants.
September 11, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. Is that how you rationalize people's dislike of your approach - that we hate elitists? Really? How telling though you see yourself in some "academic debate" with unwashed, and of course your superiority will come across as "arrogance." Poor poor simpletons we are sir. The truth is it is you, sir, who is has the most in common with Bill OReilly - the smug knowitall who comes to give the spin and call it spin free. Humility is a true sign of wisdom.
September 11, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, acamus.... "I love a good exchange, full of taunts and humor, and Oscar Wildish wit."
Don't you? ;-)
September 11, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why yes, and as a gentleman on these these threads I am one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally. And expect no less in return from others, just that my friends stab me from the front.
September 11, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stab stab... What was that you're sayin' acamus? Oh yeah, verrrrry insightful, that... stab stab, le stab.
September 11, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I as an excellent man have no enemies; and none of my friends like me.
so le stab away
September 11, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not surprised that you understood the underlying point of this blog.
I suspect many here won't understand the gist of this comment and will instead focus on whatever keyword spins them up. How many times do liberals have to shoot each other in the foot to learn that is no way to deliver a progressive agenda?
Seems common sense to me that transforming a country is impossible using the same tactics as those that broke it in the first place. It still baffles me how a 54% to 46% victory in the general election with ten percent of republicans voting for Obama somehow became a mandate for a far left agenda.
Seems we heard something similar after another close win in 2004.
September 11, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what. I don't see much single-payer or else. We pushed because we believed in it, and then compromised down. After Obama's speech, people are stepping off the public option or else peddle. More freakin compromise. Yet our basic principles of freedom with justice still hold strong.
And I can go to any academic journal and pull quotes to show just how out of touch with reality those in the ivory towers are and so we should be listening to those "intellectuals" because they don't have a clue how to get us from here to there.
September 11, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Single payer was never a realistic option so how is giving it up a compromise? Do liberals always need a brand new system to go along with the old fucked up one that is bare breathing? Is more government always the answer? Why not smarter government?
I truly don't understand what it is you are trying to say.
We already have a public option. It is called Medicare. How is using reform of an existing system as a way of providing needed benefits giving anything up? "Progressives" could have everything they wanted by way of two distinct legislative processes, but they wanted it ALL and they wanted it NOW!
Any sense of strategic thinking left the democratic party as soon as Barack Obama was elected president.
September 12, 2009 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way the single payer proposal currently proposed is called "MEDICARE for all"... so you can't even be honest here... which is unsurprising really.
Progressives were in fact calling for "reforming" the single payer system we already have by enrolling everyone in it and enhancing it. Exactly the opposite of your claim.
September 12, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Medicare-for-All, as articulated in HR 676, would completely transform the current system by turning into one that is purely non-profit and government run.
HR 676 has nothing whatsoever to do with the strategy I outlined above, which be better called Medicare-for-More, but that certainly explains why this particular effort failed to connect with the country as a whole.
The current Medicare program isn't a single payer system and is unsustainable in even its current "limited" form, so I am not sure why democrats thought turning it into one was a good idea.
September 13, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all fairness, isn't 10% of republicans (about 28% of the total) only 2.8% of the vote? What I don't understand (as an independent who DID vote for the left to aggressively fix what's wrong) is how everyone keeps pretending that the 40(ish)% of Americans who are independent somehow get lumped in as supporting the "center right" (which is simply the re-branded conservative movement we've always had).
We didn't compromise and vote for Obama because our party imploded - as the crossover republicans did, we made the selection to vote democratic/Obama with intent. For chrissake ... did you know Idaho dems use a fucking caucus?!?! I set out planning to vote and ended up in hell (like the horrible discovery of what "going into heat" actually meant as a young dog owner) ... don't fucking tell me I didn't really want a democrat! After that shit I expect some serious fucking results out of them - not warmed over bullshit. [/r]
If you actually look at the numbers, independents and democrats make up around 70% of the nation. Somehow, amazingly (when presented as a choice) that very closely coincides with the percentage that favors a public option. If you get past the spin that only compares democratic and republican percentages and look deeper, pro-change numbers seem to consistently mirror the formula: [progressives + independents ~ 5%]. Every indicator is that the population overwhelmingly supports an agenda far further left than the current compromises accomplish. It certainly isn't representing the will of the majority of voters to split the difference between the change we voted for and a minority who's ideas were categorically and specifically rejected in the last election. In 2004 we broke far less decisively the other way and kept in Bush. And for the record Obama got 68% of the electoral votes (how we pick the winner in these here United States), Bush got 53%. That's not even in the same ballpark (+3% vs. +18% .... puh-leez).
Everyone keeps making assumptions about independents, but nobody seems to be listening to what we are actually saying. In fact, it seems they are studiously scrubbing our opinions from the national discussion. "Centrist" republicans pretty much steal our voice and pretend they speak for us.
September 11, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo for succiently making this point. I heard this morning on morning joe spoken as truth and nodded to with total ascent that this is a center-right country, with implication that that there are liberals (with far-left extremists), the centerists which are moderate conservatives, and the far right. This is so wrong it is not funny, at all.
September 12, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
HAHHAHHAAH
Now kgb, I am not saying you are a communism
But this sure sounds like a communism.
JUST SAYIN
September 12, 2009 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The independents are divided between the far left and the center right who have left each party for lack of representation. Obama is certainly much closer to the center based on his campaign platform than the far left.
If you think we elected Dennis Kucinich, I would suggest you weren't really listening to Obama when he spoke. Pretending that the country is liberal paradise because 70% support significant medical reform that includes a public option is really stretching what those numbers tell us.
My main point was that regardless of how the numbers break down, Barack Obama doesn't get out of the primaries without significant republican support in open primary states. The electoral college doesn't measure the pulse of the nation nearly as well as the popular vote.
This country is still massively divided and the only way to bring it together is to remember that you won. There is no reason to grind the republicans faces in it. It is OK to be liberal again. You don't have to pick up the same tactics that were set aside by way of Obama's election.
A governing majority that will be truly transformation must include half of the independents as well as half the republican party. At least based on the history of how things have been done in this country previously. Maybe the modern democratic party has figured out how to deliver a progressive agenda by way of neocon tactics.
I am not betting on it.
September 12, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I was listening very closely during the campaigns. I didn't go through a screwed up caucus - surrounded by many city council members I've been fighting with - on behalf of nor elect Dennis Kucinich (ended up in the Obama group by the end ... what a wacky system). If Americans had, we would be discussing single payer. The House plan on the table is NOTHING like the plan promoted by Kucinich, so throwing him out really is a dishonest debating device to use. If we are promoting civil discourse, that's the sort of thing that gets you a well-earned snarky reply.
But back to the point, there was (as far as health care goes) a single element of Obama's plan that made me support it over the others: he promised no mandates. As long as you don't enslave me, experiment away ... but that's not how it's shaking out. If you want me to be conscripted, there's no pussyfooting about it - I MUST have the ability to directly control service delivery through my elected government. With mandates, it really should be single payer and paid for through a legitimite tax.
Now with the use of "you won" and other various devices, I'm getting the impression you are trying to lump me in with your false frame of a far-left ideologue. Honestly you don't know shit about me. You are calling a pro-militia supporter of Bo Greitz who actually feels a bit of sympathy for the Christian push-back against atheists using the classroom to preach their religion through extension of the laws of Darwin a member of the far left because I don't pick up the obstructionist line of the discredited republicans when they jump ship and suddenly try and pretend they are "middle America" by slapping an (I) next to their names? That's not how independent voters work. As with the 10% of republicans who voted for Obama, the 7-10% who shifted independent since 2004 by no means make up the definitive percentage of independent voters ... that took us from 30% to 33% or something (yeah ... pulled those numbers out of my ass - but they're close).
The biggest problem we have in this discussion is that I'm an actual independent who lives in an open primary state. You are not. What you describe isn't really very accurate. I don't know if you are native to D.C. - I grew up there for two decades. It is simply not possible from that perch to speak with the authority you present about what "America" thinks. That's one of the biggest problems with the industry of journalism - they don't cover D.C. they live in D.C. and try to cover the rest of America.
I don't know if you noticed, but there's a power struggle going on in the GOP. There is no way in hell in an open primary state that people are going to sit out of the battles shaping the face of the republican party to cast a token vote against Obama. That's why the state party in Idaho is trying to close the primaries - most independents and libertarians primary on that side because it has far more impact on the state (which should never be confused with support for the republican party) and they've fractured their establishment coalition, putting independents and libertarians in a position to literally take control of their entire slate. Over in Washington, similar problems (although to a lesser degree). Generally we're fencing with the GOP, not supporting them. Say what you will about them, but the Paulite "libertarians" have been AWESOME in r.e. giving the GOP fits.
Ask yourself this: if you, a self described moderate conservative republican, have come to support the ideas behind the progressive agenda for health reform - why would you ever think that those who actually ditched the party didn't come to this conclusion well before yourself? It's like Wile E Coyote suspended in mid air - the only thing supporting the fallacy that the country is evenly divided between the centrist proposal provided by the democrats and the obstructionist foot dragging of the republicans is a collective refusal to look down.
And this "gotta be transformative" meme is bullshit. Democrats were elected to enact their articulated policy, and promised to include republicans in the discussion. They have done the latter in spades. Neocon tactics would be to have Biden make a secret shadow health department and start a national health plan without telling congress. What you are advocating is that the democrats not employ all legitimate legislative tools at their disposal and defacto agree to fail at delivering what was promised in the campaign - so they don't make the republicans look as weak as they actually are. We've had almost a decade of government being less effective so as to boost republican electoral prospects - enough is enough.
September 12, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is excellent commentary, hoping Jason will see it.
Given time to consider, this and a few other blogs, it seems to me Jason is politically naive (not an insult). He admits to only taking an interest in politics a few years ago. Many of us should remember our "crusader years", when we knew it all and could save the world. Then, we learned about politics and it's ugly side.
There are writers here who would have to look to the 40's and early 50's for there "crusader years". A lot of political understanding is accrued over the decades. The intricacies, the eddies and flows, the demographic changes and the attitudes of the nation, as well as,regional/sub-regional attitude shifts and more. It's one thing to study any activity, it is quite another to play the game. Talent and knowledge lose out to experience on a daily basis in many of our lives
I envy Jason for his "crusader years", they were fun for me.
September 12, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well . . .
Those crusaders you reference, as you are aware, are constantly poo-pooed as "old warriors" who somehow haven't a clue to today's current political climate and intricacies, are accused of doing nothing over their lifetimes, and are labeled as the "Looking Glass Left" by such a neophyte right-winger who tries to sell himself as some new flavor-of-the-month self professed progressive conservative Bull Moose 2.0 Republican.
It's all labels to broad brush those who do not suck up and agree to being told how to run their own house.
It's all a big crock of divisive crap.
So ... for the one who labels deserves the label, Mister Bluster.
~OGD~
September 13, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those old school crusaders you speak of have done nothing for more than forty years except help steer this country straight into the ditch by way of constant battle with their political rivals.
The Band of Boomers are still fighting the last war while Generation X & Y are trying to create a world without such All-or-Nothing "compromises" as the default position.
Sorry you think such ideas are naive. I suspect the ideas you "crusaded" for where labeled the same exact way.
September 13, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
FUCK OFF!
September 13, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This blog gets more bizarre by the moment.
September 13, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Impossible . . .
This blog can't get any more bizarre.
Just by the fact that it's Mister Bluster's blog in the first place, places it in The Land of Bizarre as it Can Get.
It can't get more bizarre than that.
~OGD~
September 14, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
September 15, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are again confusing the grassroots for Washington, despite having grown up here.
I have lived all over the country and around the world. I have friends and family scattered hither and yon who I discuss these things with on a regular basis.
We have had forty years of government not being affective. That is the problem here. You blame it all on republicans.
September 13, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter CT:
I am an academic elite. Rich people have feelings too. And slumming it with the plebs at TPM is great fun. It's like an art farm that talks!
Just sosyaknow, most of us are well aware of how politica works. In fact, if you pay close attention, you will discover that most of the discussioms here and elsewhere is about how politics SHOULD work. Some of us point it out and others offer solutuons, and others just vent into a sympathetic forum.
Look at it this way: I can't discuss my politics in the workplace. This is where I go. A refuge. Not to slum, but to enjoy peers and superiors and contribute what I can to the soup of mass consciousness.
But what I don't do is fart in a public domain and tell everyone it's eau de cologne. That is disingenuous. You are disingenuous. And right now, Jason is disingenuous.
I'm sick of it. The two of you need to break away and regroup. This most recent attempt to socialze has failed.
And what the hell is with the recent stabs against truthers? Talk about red-baiting. I think I will blog about it.
September 11, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
bravo, sir, and since CT enjoys Wilde wit: It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious.
September 11, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
*Big Smile*
September 12, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zip what the fuck is the matter with you?
There shall be no model left but the Wallmart model
If the state says that a full time worker is 38 hours, then we shall employ 90% of all our workers on a 36 hour schedule. We then escape wc, unemployment, health benefits.
If that worker cannot make it, then we shall simply let that person 'go'. I mean what else is a mother to do?
If the state says that a full time worker is 34 hours, then we shall make it that 90% of all workers work 32 hours a week. No wc, no unemployment, no health benefits, nothing.
If you work it right this shall work even if there is a union in place in those socialist places like Minnesota.
Then you put this model in place in fifty states and the management screws the stockholders by paying management 50% of all profits during good times and 200% during the bad times.
See, THIS IS WHAT AMERICA IS ALL ABOUT.
You see we must cut down on government jobs because they all give benefits and such. So you outsource. Outsource 90% to corporations who keep the Wallmart model.
See and those corporations receiving all of the tax dollars, they employ 90% in part time positions.
AND NOW WE HAVE DISCOVERED AMERICA.
Because of withholding. we get 30% of the wages of the poor and 5% of the 'earnings' of the fascists.
ITS A SYSTEM AND IT WORKS.
See, I learned that from Franz Boaz.
It is a system and it works.
I leave you with this Zip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JAXKIKehbc
September 11, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And for progressives using some kind of over the line language describing what we're dealing with, lets let Woody say it loud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwcKwGS7OSQ&feature=related
September 11, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
acamus.....woody. What happened with his message?
You know they gave it up when the unions made a worker something worthwhile.
Now the Unions are gone, thanks to Reagan.
I have given up acamus. There is no hope anymore.
Just the capitalist bastards.
I may give up on the f word, sooooooooon.
But we need a new Woody. A new Dylan.
We need some fresh blood. No more reconciliation.
for now. FUCK EM
September 12, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Feeling ya
I getting to the point where I was back in high school
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPcjkgYS-cU
September 12, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
or better yet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICXdQR1VVhw&feature=related
September 12, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
but this is what i strive for
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdO1vZJgUu0
September 12, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your compromising excites the miller.
September 12, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are perhaps the biggest disappointment of them all because you have made similar calls for a return to rational and reasonable debate.
Stoking the mob might feel good, but a party's morals are only as good as they withstand direct challenges to their ideas. If you have to use the same tactics as the neocons to prove your point, is it a point worth proving?
This thread proves that liberal no longer has any meaning in the democratic party.
September 12, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will miss you most of all, Scarecrow.
I think you have lost your mojo. I remember when I read every comment you made because you made the valiant attempt to contribute salience to the discussion.
Now you have a hobby horse. This hobby horse has disengaged you from your best awpect. It has shadowed your countenance. And because you waltz into damn near every discussion riding this hobby horse, you are beginning to be treated like Quixote.
So, Quixote (Jason) and Sancho (Clearthinker), allow me to point out that thise windmills are NOT giants. Quixote thinks they are, and Sancho's silence is assent, but both of you step away. You are committing a gross inflation of ego. You are both being infantile.
TPM Cafe is not directly representative of the base. So transferring the base onto a small group and accusing that group is stupid. Stupid.
Let me put it this way. If you think all bars are biker bars and come in asking for a fight, you will get a fight. Is it tue fault of the bar's patrons that a fight broke out, or your presumption?
I note that in at least two of your pasted comments they were replies to you... And you were looking for a fight.
Anyhow, I have had enough. Go back to your better nature. Quit tilting at windmills. And choose better friends. For now, I wash my hands of you.
September 12, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am simply defending myself from a fight that was brought to my door.
I didn't start the fire. I am simply hoping to help put it out. It certainly isn't a hobby of mine as that would imply I get some sort of pleasure out of all this pointless distraction.
That is not the case.
September 12, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason. Call it a night.
It makes no sense to fight with this many people at the same time. We may disagree, and I'm irritated as hell with how I perceive you acting these past few weeks, but at this point, this blog is just a kamikaze mission.
Go and have a really good weekend, dude. Seriously. Spend some time with people you love, enjoy the Fall comin' in, listen to some music, whatever. Shake this crap off. Me included. Cheers.
quinn
September 11, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Party pooper.
No, but seriously - excellent sentiment for all. Isn't this blog really a broken bottle itchin for a fight wrapped in can't we all get along paper?
September 11, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is. Which is why - in real life - I look like the other side of Jason's face.
The bad side. ;-)
P.S. Still... IDO love "a good exchange, full of taunts and humor, and Oscar Wildish wit."
(That's just too good.)
September 11, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
A man's face is his autobiography I hear.
September 11, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
agreed, hence my comment below. Laters peoples.
September 11, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate the sentiment, but I think it slips the critique. Cheers!
September 11, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now when does this EVER happen on Red State and how is it that you so vehemently denied it would ever happen here, when it has, and, look, it just did again!
September 13, 2009 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care about Red State. It is a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. I have long considered TPM, with a few cantankerous exceptions, to be part of the solution.
September 13, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had to tell ya Q. I cannot take this any longer.
Ya know I am going to get rid of the obscenities, I think anyway tomorrow, but fuck em.
Fuck the Wallmart model. Fuck Wall Street. And hell, throw in murdochs journal also.
THERE IS WAR GOIN ON.
WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON.
WHICH SIDE AM I ON.
I mean that is the end of it for me.
Which side am I on?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k34COolbdmY
September 12, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It does have that feeling, eh? That things are being pushed past their breaking point.
Increasingly it's a question of which way are you gonna break.
September 12, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tried to find a link to this one, but failed: The Feelies, 'Decide'. Brilliant tune from one of my favorite bands.
The Feelies prove how much can be achieved with a few guitars and a healthy Velvet Underground fixation. Since their spectacular 1980 debut, Crazy Rhythms, they have continuously extended the limits of avant-rock – creating darkly hypnotic records without ever succumbing to pretension.
September 12, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Miguel, I must really ask myself, which side am I on?
I cannot send out there the cultural absolute, the moral absolute.
The issue is always, WHICH SIDE AM I ON.
In other threads I have described the cashier at the local grocery who must sleep in her car. I see her doing so every day...I never cross examine her.
This is in the MOST LIBERAL COUNTY IN THE COUNTRY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k34COolbdmY
I am sometimes lost, and naked, and wasted, and I cannot find my way home.
I shall not be long of this earth through my own sins, but GODDAMN IT I SHALL NOT GO FROM THIS EARTH QUIETLY.
I refuse to do that.
September 12, 2009 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are a righteous dude IMO DD. I sometimes can't find my way home either.
September 12, 2009 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Time for another late-night anthem for your collection, Dick. One.
Works for me.
September 12, 2009 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
And in other, less heated but no less controversial (I'm sure), news we can now make mice float in mid-air.
I'm not even kidding.
September 11, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Free the mice!
September 11, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you, as amike pointed out to me in chat, notice that when the mice were drugged up, they accepted floating willy-nilly much better? Bizarro-news...
September 11, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
i saw they were used to holding on to things so then like they were like whoa man i grab and there is nothing there! so needing a little help to relax makes sense.
September 11, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Won't be much longer before they get pigs flying.
September 12, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's cool. Starting to see some William Gibson stuff on the horizon.
September 12, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the necromicer
September 12, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice. :O)
September 13, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you forgotten that to focus on the forest is to lose sight of the beauty of the single tree, and of the greeen moss that clings to its bark.
September 11, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Miller:
I haven't weighed in on any matter here for some time, but please let me say this: I enjoy your blog posts and comments. I believe your contributions at TPM are most valuable and your integrity as it relates to your desire for the betterment of Americans as a whole, beyond admirable. Many of your contributions I agree with. Very few I don't. I became exceptionally impressed with you in connection with your joining other members here to stand for Health Care Reform in D.C.
With that being said, I have some questions: Here, you compare the conduct and reactions of TPM Cafe members with those of Red State. I'm not entirely sure of the context in which you offer your comparisons. Perhaps I simply missed it in your initial post. But going on what I know now, I see that you've taken umbrage with the tenor of the conversation at the Cafe as of late and have expressed as much. I'm not clear as to whether any of the TPM member comments you have reposted are excerpts from dialogue you were involved with personally.
I guess I'm just wondering if you genuinely have concerns with the tone of dialogue here, as compared to RedState, why limit the expression of those concerns to TPM? If you're not "checking" those over at Red State as well, then how does this claim--"Not when his [Obama's] "base" acts in ways that are completely counter to their stated beliefs and ironically mirror the "base" of the clowns just voted out of office."--hold up to scrutiny as being some impartial, non-partisan observation?
September 11, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, CrazyAte, thanks for stopping by to add to the discussion. Those are great questions.
I have always stayed away from sites like Red State because of the ratio of reasonable compared to crazy. Talking Points Memo was the site I found that had the most dynamic discussion happening with a decided lack of idiocy found at most political sites.
I have seen a trend of hyper-partisan thuggery that is becoming more pervasive at TPM of late. I would much rather write about dismantling the military industrial complex or how true health care reform is quite within reach, but I spend most of my time these days defending ideas I don't even particularly agree with. I also spend a lot of time responding to comments that are little more than caricatures of whatever point I was actually trying to make.
I don't think the base of the democratic party is that way at all, which is why I put the word in quotes. Just as I don't think the true base of the republican party is represented by the loudest fringe voices as seen on Red State or just about any interview with a Congressional republican.
Not sure what can be done about it or whether I should even bother anymore, but I am just stubborn enough to protect something that I think is valuable to the on-going dialogue this nation must conduct if we are going to heal the wounds that continue to keep us divided.
September 12, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come now . . .
Only a thug in his own right would ever use "hyper-partisan thuggery" ...
Mister Bluster blusters on and on and on . . .
~OGD~
September 13, 2009 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll let TPM be the judge given your continued thuggish behavior to anything you don't agree with or can't understand.
September 13, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mister Bluster continues his . . .
. . . blustery bombast of bovine bullcrap . . .
Bluster on bluster on bluster on . . .
~OGD~
September 14, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word. (NOTE: Rated-R clip. Turn down the speakers if the kids are in the room.)
September 15, 2009 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wowie . . .
That sounds like that is right up ol' Mister Bluster's alley . . . Vicarious thrills through videos.
Maybe that's what Mister Bluster does in his spare time, use sophomoric-level videos thinking he's depicting someone who's got his goat, when not spreading his divisive spew here at the Cafe while Mrs. Bluster is ignoring his rumbles and mumbles coming from the computer room.
I still note the lack of denial.
~OGD~
September 16, 2009 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Divisive? You are the only divisive force at TPM. I am sure Josh keeps you around for entertainment value only, otherwise he would enforce his own rules. I don't mind. It helps prove my point, so rage away, Howard!
September 16, 2009 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
To those who express consternation about the "pie fight" that occurs on these pages, especially as regards jason everett miller, I offer the following:
I respect your way of maintaining your cool in observation, and the manner in which you choose to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I apologize for what is certainly my intemperate treatment of jason in these pages, but assure you it will soon subside to a position of simply avoiding and ignoring him should he persist in playing the disruptive games he forces upon these otherwise helpful discussions in the TPM Cafe.
jason has consistently staked out what I see as an indefensible position as one who would pretend to sit upon the throne of reason; as a Republican advising the Democratic Left how they might be most effective in accomplishing their political agenda. He is highly dismissive of those of us who are actually invested in a Leftist political agenda, insisting that he knows better while producing volumes of unsubstantiated arguments to support his case.
Sounds like the basis for a grand discussion, and it is one that I have tried to encourage for some time. But I grow exceedingly tired of these discussions being short-circuited by intellectual dishonesty of the kind that will discredit a 58 "yes" - 34% "no" response to a legitimate poll as a "non- majority opinion" for the simple reason that he would otherwise have to concede a point in the discussion. It has been an exercise - not in legitimate discussion - but rather in a childish game of what I call "intellectual whack-a-mole."
There is a lot of discussion I value here on TPM, and much of the most valuable is that which allows me to gain perspective from those considerably less liberal than myself.
But it is frustrating and I grow angry that these discussions are too often preempted or outright hijacked by this troll who will submit a well-versed argument that sounds perhaps plausible, but will not grant the courtesy of making himself available to defend the actual argument as presented. Instead, he cries "foul" (as with this pathetic whine of a blog post), complains that he is "misunderstood," and then scrambles to divert attention to some other (usually equally as indefensible) argument.
It is extremely disruptive to the process of engaging anything like a reasoned exchange within this marketplace of ideas called TPM Cafe. I greatly resent it, and it is this anger over an unnecessary, irresponsible, and juvenile intrusion into an otherwise marvelous discussion venue that causes me to call jason out in dismissive terms and with a level of contempt that is unfortunate but, alas, entirely warranted. After all, the manner in which he chooses to engage these discussions shows little but contempt for those who would otherwise welcome the opportunity to legitimately explore the many political issues that confront us all.
September 12, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you. Maybe in the scheme of things I have spent to much mental energy trying to figure him out, but I think he sums up those well-meaning souls in the fifties who would say to Martin Luther King, Jr.: "hold on, you have a point, but the silent majority is not ready, so don't stir things up and make them feel bad about themselves."
September 12, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Intellectual Whack-a-Mole is an apt description of his debating style Hey Zeus.
September 12, 2009 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with debating jem is the discussions get far too multidimension, whack-a-mole is apt. You must understand your argument, you must understand jem's argument and you must understand what jem believes your argument to be.
This example is perfect,
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/spiegelman/2009/08/message-fail-quantified.php#comments
September 12, 2009 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
By all means, folks. If you are still slogging through this dog fight, go check out yet another example of what I am talking about. Thanks for the reminder, jonnie.
September 14, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not link to the actual poll? It should that 58% were in favor of a public option and 42% either weren't or didn't know. Further, the vast majority - 70 percent plus - said the lack of a public option wouldn't effect their vote one way or the other.
You use cherry-picked data to prove your point and discount all objections to the current plans as being fringe ideas.
Intellectually dishonest doesn't begin to cover the vendetta you have been conducting these last few months. If I were a petty man, I would simply start flagging your crap as abusive. As it is, I suppose I will simply let you expose your self as the rabid, hyper-partisan troll that you are.
September 12, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cherry picked data?
In the case in point, you asked upon what I base an opinion that the public option is favored by the majority. I "cherry picked" the most recent reputable poll that I could find that shows 58% in favor; 34% opposed; and 8% "not sure." I even included the specific question that was asked to provide context.
This data was "cherry picked" in response to your assertion that "If the majority of the country (which doesn't mean fifty-plu-one percent) wanted the legislation currently being discussed, there wouldn't be any debate. It would already be a done deal."
Any reasonable reading of my response (including the data from the poll) would show that I had effectively refuted your implied lack of public support for the public option. But rather than offer a further defense of your point or a ceding of the point, you instead choose to reinvent the definition of the term "majority" and complain that "I was misunderstood, boo hoo!" in what has become an all-too-common attempt to avoid taking responsibility for the nonsense you hope to pass off as legitimate discourse. As always, such tactics accomplish nothing other than totally blow up any attempt at a legitimate discussion of issues.
If I were truly cherry-picking the data, I suppose I might have provided the results of an outdated poll that shows even greater support (76%) for the public option.
I didn't do that. I was more interested in engaging an honest discussion on the merits of the point being made.
But it becomes increasingly apparent - even in your present diversionary defense that the data in question was "cherry picked" - that any attempt to engage you in an honest debate is nigh impossible because you refuse to honor any opponent with anything like a legitimate defense of the ridiculous "facts" and statements you make. Instead, you respond with asinine charges of "cherry picked data," or non sequiters, or other diversions in an effort to avoid responsibility for the argument you have made that is being challenged.
For reasons outlined above, I react very strongly to such intellectual dishonesty on your part for the way in which it derails and hijacks legitimate efforts by the grown-ups on this site to engage in productive debate and discourse. And to the point of your blog here, I point out that it is really no less disruptive to the democratic sharing of ideas and the civility of discussion than any of the wild-eyed claptrap that is posted by the Red States blog or the wildest of posts on TPM. The only difference is that your interference in legitimate discourse is more insidious in that it directly affects these discussions as they occur, and for this you receive the appropriate measure of contempt for which you whine about.
September 12, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I responded to your supplying of the poll with a reasonable counterpoint that even if there was support approaching sixty percent for the public option that it wasn't all that important to their actual voting decisions.
If lack of a public option won't change most people's minds about reform then how is support for a public option even relavent? At this point, we don't even know what that public option looks like, so any poll about American's supposed attitudes on the public option is subterfuge at best.
At the end of the day, you consider any disagreement with your rather partisan take on things as a distraction. Forgive me if I continue to disagree.
September 12, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You now make a reasoned defense of your point offered in the example provided (One which, by the way, begs a response that would still effectively counter your argument if we were still engaged in that discussion instead of having it hijacked by your original tactical "defense."). It is a few days too late, and bears NO resemblance to your original "Defense."
That's my point jason. You are capable of legitimate debate (albeit you choose to take up an indefensible cause of "moderation in all things politics," IMHO), but you choose to engage in slash-and-burn tactics rather than defend your arguments - in real time, not days later after being called out for it.
September 12, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are really quite blinded by your rage at all things republican. So much so that it is actually affecting your perception of reality.
I don't defend my arguments in real time? I only respond to something days later in an effort to employ slash-and-burn tactics? That is so far from the reality of the effort I have made to explain myself when you try to destroy every last bit of nuance and thought from what I have actually said.
If the link you had provided actually worked, the readers would have seen an immediate response to your caricature of my point. Then they could judge for themselves as to whether or not they agree with your caricature.
September 12, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is precisely why the link to the poll was provided.
And I'm happy to let the record speak for itself, confident that it highlights your standing as a poseur and a disingenuous debater.
September 12, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
How weird . . . JS . . .
The link in the following is no longer active.
Was that link to the following blog post?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/jasoneverettmiller/2009/09/resumepage.html
Just wondering . . .
~OGD~
September 13, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can argue both ways issues of political ideology but the greatest issue that is overshadowing Washington is the pervasive influence of unelected persons over congress. This is of most consequence along the lines of finance and social equality. Both have become assertive to a degree which has diluted our lawmakers ability to legislate in even handed ways that best serve the nation. The verdict is still out on this stuff but we face an uphill battle as a nation when our lawmakers display the bias that has become all too common both in and out of government. I don't know what it is going to take to move this country so we are more generally on the same page but it is very certain we are far away from that right now.
September 12, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely. It is the power centers we don't see and can't affect via the voting booth that we should be most concerned with. I think that sort of message appeals to both liberals and conservatives, but for vastly different reasons.
That is why positioning is so important.
I hadn't even considered this particular issue as perhaps underlying the sense of powerlessness that average Americans of both party feel and how that may color their interactions with their political rivals.
Thanks for a great comment.
September 12, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Jason. And it is with a distorted expression of freedom that this is occurring. Freedom imparts a great deal of responsibility. We observed for eight years of Bush a complete abrogation of responsibility. At some point the country needs to acknowledge this and take a step back from the precipice in this regard. Where our government makes decisions that are clearly corrupt and produces harmful outcomes there must be a challenge to that corruption.
September 13, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awwwwww...I think Jason is upset with us. Nice scowl on the AV Jason. So you think we're crazy here just because we are tired of 'playing nice' with the other side while we continue our endless wait for reciprocation? And it is our fault that we refuse to continually compromise when the other side refuses to move an inch? By the way, our side agreeing to that kind of 'compromise' is actually called capitulation...and it ain't happening.
Jason, I really do think you are a decent person. It is a shame 99% of the people on your side have nothing but utter contempt for us. Socialists? Treason? Traitors? Work on the rhetoric coming from you side rather then lecturing us about decorum...
September 12, 2009 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Real compromise comes by way of understanding all objections to the current ideas and then crafting a new solution to meet the needs of all parties involved. Offering the same old shit in a shiny new box isn't the same thing as compromising.
Both sides of a "compromise" should leave the engagement feeling as if they have won, rather than one side or the other feeling taken advantage of.
It required strategic thinking instead of lashing out indiscriminately at everything we don't agree with or don't understand. It's called being the grown-ups when the other party is clearly not interested in being part of the solution.
I am not sure how becoming that which you have fought so long to beat is the best way to truly transform a nation dying from its heated divisions, but perhaps I missing some underlying genius in the tactic.
September 12, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I fully agree with you on the nature of compromises Jason...and I think you help make my point by pointing that out.
The resolution of the health care reform which the R's want so see is basically their position be taken. That resolution will make me feel like I lost. I am willing to put everything on the table. I am all for, for example, having tort reform and limit suits that can be filed to help keep costs down...BUT...not wothout a public option.
Please tell me what the R's have comrpomised on in this debate? What positions are the willing to move off of? I can't think of any major issues they have budged on. We on the left are looking, in good faith, to move forward the republicans aren't...they are arguing that the status quo remain intact. Again they are not looking for compromise but for capitulation. I can sit here at my computer safe in the knowledge that the left has bent over backwards in accomodation and have tried to negotiate in good faith. And the right's take on all of this?
SOCIALISTS!!!! TREASON!!! WE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH YOU TRAITORS, AND YOUR SOCIALIST PRESIDENT, WITH YOUR AGENDA TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY!!!
So again...which side is the problem? What are we supposed to do now? Say, yeah you're right. Sorry about being a enemy of the state? I don't think so...
September 12, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is up to the part in charge to design compromises that appeal to the average American or to explain why compromise is unnecessary.
The idiots in Congress are simply a proxy for the masses at home who still haven't been convinced because of the continuing partisan nature of the discussion.
Compromise isn't "Let's do it 90% my way." It means understanding the end goal as well as the existing objections to the current solutions and then designing new solutions that address those objections or explaining why the objections are wrong.
Shouting down every objection, no matter how accurate or sensible, as if it were the second coming of the Third Reich is a dangerous precedent for democrats to get into this early in the game.
September 12, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sweet Jeezus!
You just don't get it, do you?
I hate to speak for Libertine, but he has made a few points that certainly deserve better than this for a response.
You often offer sage platitudes such as this as some kind of declaration from God Himself, but they are too often less than profound and/or actually ill-considered and wrong-headed in their own right. They are simply unsubstantiated statements of fact that are intended to derail the discussion and avoid responding directly to the criticism offered.
In this instance, for example, it is instructive to note that the aforementioned poll shows that the American people are in fact in favor of a public option - and that an overwhelming majority of Democrats are most certainly advocating for it. If the Dem Congress deems it necessary to "compromise" this away, it would be incumbent upon them to tell their constituents "We are trading away the public option you desire for... What?"
Libertine makes a good point that it is impossible to declare anything that the GOP (and the Health Insurance Industry that owns them) has surrendered in exchange for the "compromises" (capitulations) made thus far - including the surrender on single payer even before negotiations began. Libertine is not arguing in favor of a hard-headed approach to negotiations that makes it necessary to "explain why compromise is unnecessary." As Libertine so plainly said, it's more about explaining what you are getting in exchange for the compromise. THAT'S a much tougher question to respond to, and I can understand your reluctance to make the attempt. But your side-tracking platitudes offer nothing of substance to the discussion but instead provide you with a convenient way to duck the issue altogether. That is incredibly disrespectful to Libertine, and is a cowardly way in which to promote "your side" of the argument.
I suppose there might be a relevant point within all this fancy-talk someplace, but it's far from apparent. I believe, however, that a good case has been made elsewhere in this thread about the reaching out that has been engaged by Obama and the Dems and the intractable response they have received. Your comment would therefore seem to recognize the GOP intransigence as an effective strategy to be admired for its ability to torpedo any effective public discussion of the issue and ensure there will be no change from the status quo.
Obama campaigned on "change we can believe in." He also campaigned on health care reform that would provide universal heath care coverage. Obama won the election. That has to count for something.
The GOP has taken a position that change is demonic. The only change they have allowed is anything that enhances Health Insurance Industry profits. In fact, in providing access to 60 million new customers without seeking anything of substance in return, the present recommendations come awfully close to being little more than a "Health Insurance Enhanced Profit Reform Act" than any kind of legitimate health care reform. This is decidedly NOT the change that was envisioned in the campaign. And Libertine's point remains unanswered regarding what compromises the GOP has made. Bi-partisanship? Not even close, and it is the winners of the election that are losing in the negotiations, precisely BECAUSE they are working for the end goal as established by the GOP and the Health Insurance Industry at the expense of the goals established in their campaign.
This is silly hyperbole. I saw nothing in Libertine's comments that justify such an insinuation that he is intransigent; that he is opposed to compromise. He aptly points out that compromise - by definition - is a two-way endeavour, and rightly asks what the health care reform advocates are receiving in exchange for giving up so much of what they consider to be critical to achieve their objectives. Your partisan assault is demeaning to Libertine and is a convenient way once again to dodge the issue.
Ultimately, Libertine makes the observation that the Democrats have negotiated in good faith in the face of nothing more than partisan obstructionism from the GOP, and that the Dems objective of achieving significant and legitimate health care reform has suffered mightily as a result. He therefore rightly takes exception to your admonition that the liberals simply must offer more of the same "bi-partisanship" to succeed, with a promise that it will all work out in the end.
It may well provide the health care reform program that is satisfactory to you and to other Republicans, but it is difficult to see that it leads us to any "Change We Can Believe In" as the Democrats who won this last election.
And that is the point, jason. Clean up YOUR Republican house if you wish. Fight all you want to promote your centrist political agenda. But don't pretend to be the uber-liberal who has the key to the throne in directing liberals how best to achieve THEIR agenda. After all, if we would all fall in line with your expectations we would all be centrist Republicans, would we not? Don't insult us by pretending to be our champion, because your willingness to settle for way less than that to which us liberals aspire compromises way too much of substance before we even get into the game.
Sweet Jeezus! Do you get it now?
September 12, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am still waiting to see an example where I advocate for anything like the status quo "bipartisan" caricature you present in this comment.
A link to a single blog post will do.
September 13, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And just for the record Jason we do engage in civil discourse with the oter side around here. And you know this first hand...you have shown you respect and had thoughtful, and mainly respectful, debates on the issues. But it seems lately you are frustrated with us when we draw a line in the sand when we say "enough is enough, we aren't compromising anymore". We have moved off of single payer to the public option. That isn't good enough. We are lectured we have to compromise more or we are being overly partisan. Bull!!! How much has your side moved on health care? Not one damn inch. Their idea of compromise is the left accepting their position. But we're the bad guys in this thing? C'mon Jason gimme a break.
September 12, 2009 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
* s/b "We have shown you respect..."
September 12, 2009 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I draw a line in the sand when I have to respond to more "Fuck you, asshole republican!" comments than your increasingly absent thoughtful debates.
I have been here for a year and half now and am still treated like the most rabid Limbot by a distinct group of self-appointed purists. That isn't even getting into the vitriol that ensues when someone like MiddleClassBill or TheCleverBulldog post a blog.
I am not bringing this up because I enjoy getting into fights. I would much rather discuss the issues minus all the personal crap that inevitably pursues me around here no matter how reasonable or rational my comments or blog.
September 12, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again...the tone and tenor of this debate is what has been set by your side. Maybe not CB and MCB per se but when they take, and defend, the positions of people who call us traitors the rhetoric will assuredly become inflamed. You look around here and see MCB, CB, yourself, Lalo and Gettysburg and say "we are pretty reasonable people"...which you are. But the positions you take are the same ones of the vast majority of the right whose idea of discourse is to shout our side down as disloyal to our country. I beg you...work on the right, we're not the problem here.
September 12, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please point to a single position I have taken that defends or can even be construed as support for anything coming out of the republican party as it is currently being run.
In fact, my last blog on the subject takes the complete opposite stance.
It is comments like this that continue to highlight the fact that many around here read what they want to read colored by their perceptions of republicans whom they have never taken the time to meet in the real world but are happy to condemn based on the most fringe among them.
This is why I wrote this blog.
September 12, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The last I checked this post wasn't about specific people but an "in general" post jason. Or is it?
Now I gotta go, to be continued...keep it real, later.
September 12, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you decide to come back, I hope you will clarify the sentence:
That sort of statement is going to force me to continue beating this dead horse until there is nothing left but bones and teeth.Have a great round!
September 12, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Little does Mister Bluster realize . . .
The horse has long been turned to dust by Mister Bluster's bleatings and beatings. . .
~OGD~
September 13, 2009 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, your continued attacks proves the old nag has simply become a zombie horse.
September 13, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, the red state:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JAXKIKehbc
Okay, maybe this red state:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k34COolbdmY
Oh goooooooooooood. Now I have this straight I get soooooooooooo confused.
ha!!!!!!!
September 12, 2009 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, you're great when you engage in first-order policy arguments, you're annoying when you do your liberals-are-hurting-America schtick. More of the former please.
Frankly tired of this crap. Here's a video I liked (no subtext intended) h/t to Tyler Cowen.
Have a good weekend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM-KQxgtOao&feature=player_embedded
September 12, 2009 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you read this as liberals are hurting America, I suggest you need to read it again. Liberals are actually hurting the democratic party. America is collateral damage at worst.
September 12, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I don't let the mob dictate who I am or what I believe or my impression of what I am seeing. "So many" here saying the same thing? The same ten people saying the same thing you mean with perhaps a couple of Little Helps who pile on when there is a good fight.
You are a Kucinich supporter in the same way that I was a Kucinich support I would imagine - innovation and fire. That I went to Obama and you went to Hillary tell me that you are a fan of the status quo partisan warfare while I was looking for a new, more strategic politics.
You are quite quick to contradict yourself now that it is convenient, though. I have seen you call for nuanced understanding of many subject around here. Now you are in here piling on because of some perceived threat.
Don't you see that is the entire point of my blog? Whether you are part of the crazy or not, any attack on the group is met with overwhelming force. The same is true with your political rivals. If only moderates conservatives and independents remain to be convinced, how is opening up on the idiots on TV helpful to that cause?
How is treating a republican such as myself - meaning one who essentially supports most of what the president outlined during the campaign - as the "enemy" at every turn set the sort of tone that will be successful for all of us as a country to move forward?
September 12, 2009 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck you. You're an asshole and I won't be wasting any more time with you. Unlike you I'm capable of ignoring those I don't want to talk to. Go find someone else to insult.
September 12, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a reply that is completely out of line with the quoted remark.
Hillary was the "status quo" candidate who talked about fighting the republicans. Obama was the change candidate who talked about a new kind of politics.
I am an asshole for pointing out the obvious?
September 12, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, that's not why.
September 12, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! LOL
September 13, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus Fucking Christ on a dolphin-shaped rubber crutch balanced on a wrecking ball!
You. Are. Not. A. Threat.
In my opinion, you need an intervention. Your post is a prickly cry for help. Go back to what makes you sparkle. Who cares if your valuable defense of incremental healty care reform gets shouted down by single-payer partisans. I am on your side.
That's what is so sad about this. I actually with most policy and ideas you present. Why are you setting fire to your reputation in an attempt to save the Democratic parrty from its base?
The party needs Oleeb's fire and Sleepin's passion. It keeps moderates like me honest. Their energy keeps politics from spinning out of orbit. Where would Lincoln be without Seward? Where would consumers be without Nader? Where would civil rights be without Malcolm X?
Why must everything be homogenous for our country to progress?
George Bernard Shaw said that all human progress rests on the shoulders of unreasonable men. Don't fight them, Jason, use their resolve to refine your perspective and bring progress in line with common values.
September 12, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the firebrands turn potential enemies into friends, they are more trouble than they are worth.
Not sure what being a threat has to do with anything as I am trying to provide the intervention you call for - so far none of the partisan junkies think they need one. Not a big surprise there. We see similar reluctance to change on the far right as well.
Don't shoot the messenger if you don't like the message.
September 12, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude:
Not the message. The messenger. Physician, heal thyself.
September 12, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The messenger is immaterial in this case.
I became a republican in the interest of seeing how receptive liberals would be to progressive thought coming from a conservative mind.
So far, the answer has been: "Not so much."
Guess the only place left to go is among the much maligned center to see if they can listen to a little common sense.
September 12, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duderino:
Square yourself away, devil dolphin.
The messenger is the problem. I like your message when you are not being passive aggressive and sanctimonious.
I don't like this post because it is verbal stigmata. You fight tue good fight and we hate you for it.
No.
You are waxing quixotic. You are confusing puppets for knights and swinging blindly. I could find metaphor between you and Quixote for hours. Because that is what you are doing.
I believe you mean well, but it is hard to take your pasteboard helmet seriously.
Go back to what makes you excel. Dispel the demons. I say this with love: square yourself away.
September 12, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sanctimonious is the charge? I would point the mote in your own eye, but what would be the point?
September 12, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I have no problem with you disagreeing with my tactics or even my thesis, but to pretend that this is some sort of psychological meltdown and you need to make an intervention is insulting to say the least.
September 12, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Et tu, Brute?"
September 13, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Zipper, for your defense of reasonable opposition in political debates. As I wrote elsewhere:
As an example, let's say I have significant differences with Grover Norquist. We could have some pretty interesting and even fiery discussions, to be sure, and I would be all about trying to convince him or our audience that my ideas are better than his.
But I am not about to pretend to tell Norquist how he must learn to moderate his message and hew closer to my ideals to better achieve his political policies. That would be damned insulting. And, yes, I resent taking lectures from a moderate Republican about how I am ineffective as a liberal activist because I won't conform to his politics; won't give up my "looking glass left" ideology. Arrogance mixed with naivete' is hardly a good base from which to launch a productive discussion. And seeking homogeneity in politics, as you point out, is a fool's errand.
September 13, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You refuse to listen to someone who is fairly representative of the only persuadable voters left in the country?
The very people who got Obama through the primaries and were ready to be convinced?
Odd tactical response, but shine on, you crazy diamond.
September 13, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are truly not listening, oh guru of the left wing Democrats. But please forgive me if we find your credentials as a leading proponent as a strategist for the left to be suspect given that you are a self-described moderate Republican. (There, I am expressing my contempt for your arrogance in as nice a manner as I can muster at the moment.)
Maybe work at cleaning up your own house, and leave the detailing of the Democratic Party to us Democrats. And don't be otherwise surprised if you continue to get thrown out the door every time you propose to come aboard and tell us how we are getting it all wrong.
September 13, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are the who refuses to listen all self-proclaimed Pied Piper of the TPM Puissants.
Perhaps you should crank up the volume on your hearing aid a bit so you could actually hear what I am saying.
The battle right now is over persuadable voters which your kind drive away in droves.
September 14, 2009 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
While reading through all the comments, I couldn't help but wonder.......
Blogs have become the most popular avenue for the public to discuss the political issues of the day. In fact, the borders that once defined the domain of people's experience has not only become national, but global. With this new flood of information and discussion, complete with documents, essays and other resources, the public has literally jumped head-long into it. And in doing so, the divisions that use to subtlety separate differing political factions have come into full focus. Instead for discussing political differences with your local neighbors, one now discussed the differences at the regional and national levels with people you've never met and never will.
But what's interesting is all this public political activity using blogs to discuss the agenda of both Partys is ripe for Master and Doctorial thesis on the political make-up of the individual participants that frequent blogs on a regular basis. In fact, the vitriol one finds on many a blog today would be an interesting thesis study on how to infiltrate the core, understand their point-of-view, and subtlety introduce predetermined concepts to measure reactions. Perhaps there may even be concepts to steer the core towards a goal they otherwise would never have considered.
Damn! It's time to break out the Hennessy XO, a cuban cigar and get back to reality.
September 12, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice aside. I am feeling what your bringing with this concept.
I think what is missing in online political discussions is the same civility we would give a neighbor if this was a discussion over the backyard fence.
I think that lack of civility is mostly a consequence of anonymity.
September 12, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm . . .
Someone doesn't get out much now do they.
~OGD~
September 13, 2009 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every day. I still have knees young enough to get me around.
September 13, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding this comment.
Here is the part of the TPM comment policy that applies to you, jason:
Your post is meant to insult the active TPMCafe contributors, nothing more. (It's certainly not meant to insult RedState.) You deny it, and that makes you a liar as well as a provocateur.
Your comments in the thread are nothing but additional taunts, even with people (like oceankat) who are being completely reasonable with you.
Because of your taunts and insults and lies, exchange with you is impossible. Exactly like the TPM rules outline.
Therefore, please follow the TPM rules and go somewhere else. Yes, we are self-policing first, so police yourself and go away now, jason. You have thoroughly revealed yourself to be a troublemaker. Hope you had fun. But it's over now. No really, it's over now.
September 12, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was waiting to see if anyone else caught the hypocrisy too. And using his own reply to my question even. What a class act!
September 12, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go ahead and report me if you think I am violating the Terms of Service. That is your right.
If you have somehow taken a critique of SOME bloggers here as a condemnation of them all, I would suggest that says much more about you than it does about me. I have never called any one a liar or told them to fuck off or any one of dozens of nasty, hateful rhetoric that you and your ilk seem to require as the cost of being a blogger at TPM.
Oceankat wasn't being reasonable. He/she was circling the wagons and conveniently rewriting history to suit his/her needs, forgetting all the times very similar sentiments offered in various threads.
September 12, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, jason, I did report you.
September 12, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent. I should be getting banned any second now. Unless, of course, I am actually not the crazy one here and the site's owners understand how a site with this much user-generated content is supposed to self-manage.
Guess we will find out one way or the other.
On a side note, I am surprised to find such push-back on a call for more civilized discussion an odd position for you to take. Further, that you would turn a specific critique of a specific type of blogger as a condemnation of the whole site is just as odd.
Namaste.
September 12, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
No you won't, settle down Jason. If you are I will really get upset...
I got to go play in a golf tournament, in the rain with a cold, and then go to a rock concert tonight being put on by the band Clutch. When I get back here afterwards I am sure I will see many more posts from JEM...
Namaste...
September 12, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I surely won't back down until I am kicked out or asked to tone it down by the site's owners, so you don't have to worry about that! :O)
I just wish I could get back to ridiculing the idiots in Congress who claim to represent the republican party rather than trying to get a handful of blogger here to stop acting like them.
Who will be the grown-ups if everyone joins the food fight?
Have a great game. I'll be heading out to Atlantic City in a couple hours when the wife gets home from school, so I afraid I will have to abandon this blog shortly as well. No loss. It has pretty much run its course.
September 12, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't ask to have you banned, jason. I asked to have this post and your recent comment history reviewed. I sincerely believe this post was written in bad faith and that your recent comments, including throughout this thread, are also in bad faith.
Whether TPM agrees or disagrees with me is completely out of my hands, as it should be. It's not my job to police you, jason. It's your job to police yourself. If you consistently refuse to make contributions in good faith, you should be reported. The majority opinion in this thread is that you meant to provoke, and some have referenced your recent provocations that have nothing to do with politics and all to do with personality.
As I have said several times, I like you, jason. I have complimented you whenever I thought you made a salient contribution, which is more than I can say for how you've responded to me. Be that as it may, I feel no need whatsoever to strike out at you vindictively. I told TPM that I like you just fine when you exhibit some self-control. Lately, however, you seem unable to refrain from taking on the entire Cafe. Jason vs. the Volcano.
Everyone has self-control issues on occasion, myself included. Sometimes even a brief break helps. I think you are overdue.
September 12, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take each and every comment at face value and respond accordingly. Someone punches me in the jaw, I am not going to respond, "Ouch! Thanks. I needed that."
I have yet to ever accuse you of ever posting anything in bad faith. If you consider what I have posted here as such, no matter how much you may disagree, none of your further qualifications of your opinions mean all that much to me. "Everyone" agreeing with your take in this particular case really encompasses the usual Band of Bruisers who see every challenge to the group think as an excuse to finally get in a little retribution for all the slings and arrows they have suffered lo these many years.
As Mike pointed out above, the majority of the comments on this blog prove my point rather than disprove it. All of these calls for me to shut the fuck up and practice what I preach, yours included, are exactly why I wrote this blog. I would much rather spend my time engaged in banter rather than brawls but will have to make do with whatever the TPM community decides to offer.
September 12, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, Jason vs. the Volcano. The Volcano being within, of course. When you get like this, I often think about how the navy must have dealt with you when you first arrived.
Well, we aren't the navy here, jason. We are mere civilians.
Anyway, as miguel pointed out quite extensively, you have made no honorable contribution to the Cafe discussions lately.
I don't expect you to take a hit to the jaw. But I do expect you to summon your better angels now, as you have done in the past after an episode like this. If you are for real, jason (and I'd really prefer to think you are for real), I know you know what I'm talking about. It's time for an intervention.
If you want better posts at the Cafe, then write them.
If you want better interactions in the Cafe comment threads, then write better comments yourself.
Get to work.
September 12, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Miguel went to a lot of trouble to strip every bit of meaning from my many comments across multiple threads. He also took the most pointed replies - such as they were - from the tail-end of long exchanges, thus continuing the precedent of removing all context and crying foul when the tactic is pointed out. There is simply no winning in that environment and I refuse to participate any longer without "fighting" back against what I feel is a terrible trend.
If that means Jason Everett Miller versus the Volcano then so be it.
I decided to change the republican party from the inside out last year and have been diligently engaged in that effort ever since. Perhaps I change the democratic party from the outside in at the same time. More than a few liberals around this site seem to appreciate the unique perspective I bring by way of my unique experiences. That I get a chance to moderate my own views based on their unique perspectives is what makes the Digital Tavern so powerful and reminds me of days past when political rivals shared their ideas over couple of beers instead of shouting at each other in frenzied confusion.
That's why I stay here despite the concerted (and determined) personal assault I encounter every time I sign in.
September 12, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll give you this, at least you're fouling your own nest this time instead of someone elses.
September 12, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just saw Clutch a few weeks ago ... great show as always. Too bad you've got a cold ... Enjoy.
September 12, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding tone and nuance, perhaps one should consider how one phrases one's arguments, and the tone and nuance might be reciprocated. Some don'ts might include prefacing comments in response to other posters with phrases such as:
1. The looking glass left
2. It is clear from your remarks that you either do not read or cannot understand what I have written
3. As usual, you frame the discussion way too narrowly to be of any possible use, but please carry on with whatever it is you feel you have to do when confronted with opinions that you either don't agree with or don't really understand without the proper context.
4. You are setting up plenty of straw men to slay with your righteous fireballs. TPM needs an enema.
5. Maybe if you read what I actually wrote and saw that I was trying to help liberals come up with new framing and solutions for ideas I mostly agree with you would understand where I am coming from at this site.
6. No one can offer an opinion contrary to the liberal left agenda without attracting the fire of all the usualy suspects.
7. No one is safe from the irrational tantrums of the TPM Goon Squad.
All of these were from your comments within the past day or so. Before you go off on your "taken out of context" lecture, take a deep breath and ask yourself if perhaps you don't at a minimum contribute to the flaming with such aggressive language, though admittedly devoid of outright ad hominem attacks. I've seen you come in swinging your big dick like this too many times from right out of the box to think that you don't 'give as good as you get' as Oceankat said above in reply to amike. Just a thought.
Try owning your own shit for a change.
September 12, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
See this comment. Your tactics have been well documented on this thread. I will leave it up to the readers to decide which interpretation is closer to objective reality.
September 12, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No trouble at all my friend. You make me happy. I began copying and pasting remarks of yours two days ago which I thought represented the general tone and/or content of your multiple flame wars. I was trying to distill the essence of JEM into one block of words. It was really a work in progress, although I'm just as pleased I was afforded an opportunity to draw from it sooner rather than later. I entered the thread to see if there was an ounce of self examination inside you when I posted my original comment. As usual you refuse to own your own role in precipitating the flame wars you're so good at creating. This blog in and of itself is a perfect example of your tendency to inflame 'discussion'. If you are incapable of recognizing how impugning someone's intelligence might be as inflammatory or as I believe, more inflammatory, than calling someone a troll or an asshole, well I guess there's not much hope for you in the "nuance" department. This time I'm signing off for good. Sentience, my friend. Think about it.
And as for all the other inevitable 'last words' you insist on getting in, consider this my reply:
"Oh Shariputra! Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. I thrice-recommend this comment for its radiant outpouring of Buddha-nature!" (Hat tip to Dan K).
September 12, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You admit to copying and pasting multiple comments absent of all context and then call me the one who is failing to live up to some sort of mythical standard?
I called out no one. Used no names. Made no personal attacks. From word one, that is all you offered to this discussion as well as the other discussions you failed to link to in an effort to provide context to your continued errors of perception.
Sentience indeed.
September 13, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Oh Shariputra! Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. I thrice-recommend this comment for its radiant outpouring of Buddha-nature!"
September 13, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
September 14, 2009 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an almost perfect description of why Jason gets (and deserves) the vitriol he receives here.
He thinks because he calls people stupid in polite terms, that he is elevating the debate. Yet he includes such insults in almost everything he posts here, all the while completely ignoring the point his opponents are making, and generally being guilty of everything he accuses his detractors of except rude language.
He must be loving the number of comments in his last two blog posts, though. He probably thinks he's struck a nerve. As tempting as it to flame someone as smug and as obtuse as he is, I think I'm pernanently setting Jason on "Ignore."
September 12, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ignore away. It will be a relief.
September 13, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drop the stones and back away from your house.
September 14, 2009 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
whats your point?
that there are nuts around?
we know that.
but i said it a million times and will say it again, if your argument is, or if anyones argument is, that liberal/progressives equate to the far right you are talking nonsense.
September 12, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, Jade, thanks for the reasoned comment. My point is that regardless of intent or what is actually being said, if it is done in a tone of voice that does little but generate an equal but opposite reaction in rank-and-file conservatives then it does the democratic party harm.
Of course I don't think liberals and progressives are as bad as the far right. Their plans are clearly more intelligent and reality-based and seek to be inclusive. The majority of progressives are also willing to disagree without being disagreeable. They are well represented by Obama in most regards. Where my main problem comes from is the fact that many far left activists can't seem to step down from the barricades now that the battle has been won.
Of course, the larger war to actually transform the country remains, but I still suggest that the best way to win that war is by turning old enemies into new allies and not by turning current allies into new enemies.
September 12, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moderate FORMER Republicans, I would guess.
As to the trenchant criticisms from the left, they caught on early to what was going wrong with Bush who ignored them. Obama, they are in his base, may pay more attention.
Your cause in life, making either party a haven for what used to be called moderate Republicans is doomed to failure.
September 12, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not really sure what your point is or what it has to do with the original post, but thanks for taking an effort to at least be civil. Cheers!
September 13, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You referred to moderate Republicans who voted for Obama -- my suggestion was that these people have become former Republicans and will not return to that party in part because it continues to be run by the people you gently referred to as "the clowns just voted out of office."
Obama is threatening to make some of the same mistakes as those clowns and, of course, he is hearing from the left about that.
If all you ever hear is an echo chamber which says that only traitors object to having their phones tapped you may never think about it in any other way. If you are confronted with a shrill objection -- It's totally unAmerican to have the government able to pry into my life that way and unConstitutional to boot -- you at least have to think about it.
September 13, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The vast majority of his republican voters didn't leave the party.
Conservatives simply waited to see how the democratic faithful would respond to Obama's call for civility and remain unsurprised by the fact that many failed miserably by confusing the High Aeries of the GOP with the mostly silent grassroots.
Obama allowed the democratic Congress to offer new versions of the same dusty shit and called it Innovation. He made those mistakes months ago.He allowed proven incompetents to manage the strategic direction of the most important debate of our generation, not to mention blowing the opportunity presented by the nature of his victory.
The democratic party started to lose their creative and innovative spirit the moment Barack was elected.
TPM is becoming the type of echo chamber that calls everyone traitors who think electronic surveillance is warranted given the proper controls.This is usually followed by broad brush accusations that take the craziest of the crazies and applies their beliefs to 50 million voters who call themselves republicans and as many as half of the independent voters.
I believe the far left spent too much time staring into the abyss and missed the essential nature of the man they elected, not to mention his actual political vision for this country as articulated in Audacity of Hope and during the campaign.
September 14, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stop living in your imaginary world and check the facts. The statistics are that fewer people are identifying with either political party and more are identifying themselves as independents as cited in this mornings NPR.
My memory is that the drop-off was greater for the Republicans than for the Democrats but I haven't checked recently.
What proper safe guards are you imagining were in place when Bush started wholesale eavesdropping?
September 14, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The facts are here. Your understanding of those facts seems a bit skewed by a liberal bias.
The linked table clearly shows a country pretty evenly divided between Republicans & Leaners (43%) and Democrats & Leaners (49%) along with the apparently obligatory 8% of Americans who tell pollsters to fuck off completely.
How my theory incorrect based on the actual numbers rather than your memory of those stats?
As to wiretapping, I suspect you missed my point on purpose to turn this into a debate on Bush's idiocracy. Same thing the far right does when confronted with uncomfortable by trotting out a Bill Clinton non sequiter that nonetheless sounds reasonable to the already converted.
My point was that accusing all republicans of being racists is damaging to the democratic party's need to win over a portion of the 43% of the country that doesn't already agree with them.
It is the difference between a repeat of Clinton's presidency where he had to fight massively for every compromised solution or an LBJ presidency that had the competing party voting for just about every measure the initially apposed.
It is the difference between tactics and strategy.
September 14, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those who lean Republican are apparently pretty embarrassed about having Republican sympathies: Pollster comes out this way for all adults currently: Independents 35, Republicans 24.4 and Democrats 33.2.
www.pollster.com/polls/us/party-id.php
Individuals who are not racist should be pretty embarrassed about supporting either the Republican Party in its current incarnation or current Republican politicians.
Sure, some Republican politicians have behaved better in the past but if you are a Republican now you are supporting current Republicans.
One friend who left the Republican Party explained it in two words: George Bush.
The leading candidates for the Republican 2012 Presidential Primary are no more inspiring.
September 14, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Half the independents are moderate conservatives and half are far left idealists. They are embarrassed to be associated with either party.
You continue to skew your perception of reality to fit your desired outcomes. Not a very intellectually honest method of debate, but I have come to expect it.
Namaste.
September 15, 2009 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Source for half conservative and have far left? Didn't think there were that many far left.
I've not been arguing as to what the distribution of voters may be, I've been citing facts to counter your notion that the former moderate Republicans are going to wish to have anything to do with the current Republican Party.
September 16, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gallup is the source for those numbers.
My main point is that just because the current republican party is anathema to many moderates, to think they are a slam dunk for the democratic agenda is far from a certainty.
They are just as likely to punish liberals for orthodoxy as they are to punish republicans for idiocy.
September 16, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those figures don't say anything about "moderate conservatives" or "far left idealists".
January 7, 2010 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You point to the current shrieking minority of the party, simply because they happen to still be in office, as being an indication that the republican grassroots will never change.
Fact is that the current crop of republicans can only be phased out over a number of years. Who is elected to take their place is almost wholly dependent upon how the majority party acts in the meantime.
The party in charge sets the tone for the debate. If that tone is one of retribution and recrimination, then the response will be defensiveness and a circling of the wagons to protect their own. This entire blog is a perfect example of how tribes rise to protect themselves, even if they don't agree with most of the crap they are protecting.
September 12, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how your post would have been received if it was written by one of the more well liked Liberals on here with a few tweaks and a compliment or two?
September 12, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably about as well as this one. Or even stilli's very first blog at TPM.
That sort of behavior seems more pronounced these days as all sorts of conservatives or former-conservative wander into the TPM Cafe in search of information or inspiration.
Thanks for the nuanced reply. Just goes to show I appreciate brevity as well as eloquence.
September 13, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do Republicans have to do for your plan to work? Where are you recruiting said Republicans?
September 12, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
For every republican you see on this site, there are hundred lurking who never say a word. Most of the conservative bloggers at TPM are making an effort to engage in dialogue.
As to the rest of the party, that is a long-term, multi-year project. I am supporting a a very progressive republican in next year's election here in DC, which is pretty much the only kind that could get elected. I also remain engaged in inspiring like-minded conservatives to start speaking up in greater numbers to counteract the fringe in our own party.
I would say the rise in republicans coming around over the last few months hints at a trend that could be encouraged. They are by many magnitudes the minority around here and many say they are "independents" but if you look close enough they are around. They can be engaged with a minimum of effort and manners, especially as they try and work the kinks out of their own presentation.
The republican party is going to take decades to fix and the democratic party can't afford to wait that long to bring as many moderates as possible into the fold.
September 12, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL WE set the tone for this debate? Really?
Death panels? How exactly did we start that?
Where's Obama's tone of recrimination? He's been COURTING the right while we on the left have been screaming THEY WONT EVEN VOTE ON IT STOP.
Finally, this blog isn't a "perfect example" of ANYTHING. The fact that you got some people pissed off with this drivel should not be a shock to anyone here.
First you try to establish a moral equivalence between rhetoric when there really is NOTHING like the racism and acrimony coming from the right, the here you BLAME the Democrats for the tone of THIER (the right's) rhetoric.
We should take a punch better? Get real.
September 12, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS. I think I'm all done here.
You have an unyielding point of view that you insist is being "proven" by people who disagree with it (very convienent!!)
I'd refer you back to your opening remarks where you urge folks to have an open mind.
If you honestly believe the left's fringe is as bad as the right's and more importantly, as EMBRACED, have at it.
You obviously don't really want to hear otherwise. So I'm not wasting any more valuable electrons on Mr. "Right."
September 12, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, Michael Moore is exactly the same as Glenn Beck.
Wow, this dreck has to be the worst thing I've read here. Which is saying something. Congrats on reaching a new low!!
September 12, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Insofar as the reaction Moore generates in his political rivals, they could be fraternal twins.
I am sorry I couldn't make you see the main point of my blog which was that such tactics are unnecessary in the grand scheme of things and may actually be counterproductive.
When the winning team starts to adopt the style and tactics of the loser, at any level, what have we really won?
September 12, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
We?
Who the hell is "we"???
Mister Bluster seriously needs to get a frickin tight grip on that multiple-personality disorder of his.
And just because Mister Bluster assumes he knows what's best for the entire universe in general doesn't mean crap.
~OGD~
September 13, 2009 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is "We The People" not a familiar quotation, Howard? Here's a link to get you started.
September 13, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Selective read . . .
Mister Bluster conveniently overlooked this:
hahahaha
~OGD~
September 14, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Old duck, same shit.
September 14, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read though all of this and I'm left to wonder: you do realize that being here is a choice, right? It's not like you are being tied to this website with no means of escape.
If you are looking for change, there's got to be better ways of creating it than this post and your subsequent comments. You just come across as that kid in high school who can't find where he fits so chooses instead to alienate himself everyone. No one will pay attention anymore if that's the road you choose to take.
September 12, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The dozen or so voices represented by the Band of Brawlers at this blog hardly constitutes a quorum of opinion at TPM. Painting a caricature of my comments and blogs as a way of suggesting such wide-spread support for divisive rhetoric is simply another example of the very behavior I am talking about.
As for being free to leave anytime I so choose, I am going to decline the offer. This is my chosen Digital Tavern. If a bunch of soccer hooligans come on all the time to disrupt what is normally boisterous and civil debate, my responsibility is to speak up, not slink out the door.
To use your metaphor, I am actually the kid in high school who sticks up to the bullies.
September 14, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I'm the guy who taped the "kick me" sign to the seat of his pants.
Come down off the cross, jason. We need the wood.
September 14, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you could drop the hammer and spikes you used to put me up here and help me down if that is closer to your true intentions.
This is not a "kick me" sign. Neither is this one. They are a stoke-up the bonfire and get ready to roast us some witches signs.
That's what the wood is really once the crucifixion is over.
September 14, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now there's a brilliant observation: Michael Moore is the fraternal twin of Glen Beck because of the hysterical reactions of... Glen Beck! Yeah, that am logical.
Keep talking, you're setting the bar lower and lower.
September 12, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The average republican feels the same way about Moore as the average democrat feels about Beck, making them ideological twins on the scale of idiocy.
Moore has a history of stretching the truth to make a point. Same as Beck. From a pure documentary point-of-view, his films have enough hype and hyperbole to make a hash of the common sense for the average conservative viewer.
Moore, like Beck, preaches to the choir rather than trying to inspire the voters still in the pews.
September 12, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Moore ever said he "felt" the president was a racist he'd be run outta town on a rail, by the left AND right.
You guys embrace Beck while he mock-poisons Nancy Pelosi on his show.
You really can't tell a difference? I'd say your moral relativism and "hey we all have wackos" stuff are YOUR blinders.
If you can't rate the degree of sin, what good are you?
September 12, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You dismiss the reaction each causes in the opposing party because one is clearly insane and the other simply biased.
September 13, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the way we judge things, how you think the average Republican feels about things or the average Democrat. A new scale for evaluating truthiness. You should be on Colbert! Your stuff is funny! Well, to a point. That point has been reached.
September 12, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because using the fringes as the measure make much more sense.
As to whether or not anyone was convinced by my arugments, I will leave that up to the individual to decide while you seem comfortable making that judgment for them.
Namaste.
September 12, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. Your post convinced nobody of anything... which makes you the ideological twin of Glen Beck. We'll leave "Joe Average Republican" to judge. LMAO.
September 12, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an interesting assortment of quotes, and just serves to illustrate that the down-in-the-mud part of partisan politics is firmly driven by emotions. That's how any faction grabs the hearts and minds of its adherents but unfortunately that primal dynamic runs counter to what constitutes good policy wise decision-making.
Call me naive, but in my ideal world rational thought and reasoned argument carries the day over emotion-driven dogfights when it comes to decisions that affect the lives of people in an entire nation.
So if I go off raving emotionally about being rational, that would be why...
September 12, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your ideal world and my ideal world are largely similar, with the same inherent contradictions.
September 13, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I'd like to point a few things out. In the first place, you are posting board comments - not public statements made by actual politicians or even the bloggers whose blogs you chose the quotes from. Anyone suffering from blog board delusions of grandeur needs to get over it - comments don't count.
Unfortunately, what we have seen since Obama was elected, is the mainstream opposition party, the GOP, using the same inflammatory and virulent and often violent rhetoric that winger blogs have used for years - online. Now it's gone mainstream.
There's a huge difference here. Blog comments are not really part of the public dialogue. But mainstream Republicans who are calling for secession, States Rights and Calhoun Conservatism are very publicly making those arguments.
And so are the rightwing radio hate jocks - and how many does the right have? They also have an entire media outlet to themselves - Fox.
We have blog boards. Whoop-ti-do!
September 12, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason is incapable of understanding your point. The leadership and the fringe control the GOP. Both the leadership and the fringe cannot be changed, but there are hundreds of silent GOP moderates waiting to eventually take control of the GOP. GW Bush and Sarah Palin have 70% approval ratings among Republicans, but the there are hundreds of silent moderate Republicans for each fringer and leader? Nonsense.
One has to ask, if the moderates outnumber the fringe and leadership, why do 70% approve of Bush and Palin? The truth is Democrats need to develop a lumbar spine and be more confrontational with Republicans.
Wingunts cry about death panels and end of life counseling is removed. Wingnuts call Obama a liar and argue that illegal immigrants will receive health care, they are rewarded with strengthened anti-immigrant wording in the health care bill.
Moderate Republicans and Independence will either fall into lockstep with the racists in the GOP or they will side with the Democratic Party. What the Democratic Party has to show these voters is that the Democrats will stand up to opposition.
Jason may have some supporters of his policy, but the reason that his method is being rejected by most at TPM is that his solution means that the Democrats simply should be passing Republican legislation.
September 12, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad as it is, I think you're absolutely right that he won't understand me.
Apparently we are now speaking different languages. Words do not have the same meanings to the minority party that they mean to the majority of Americans.
September 12, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
A quorum that only exists in your mind given the actual discussion I have with most bloggers at TPM.
Just because the usual Band of Brawlers showed up doesn't mean the community at large agrees with their tactics.
Yet I am the one being accused of hubris?
September 13, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most virulent and crazy commentary from those with the biggest microphones equals the grassroots?
This explanation falls flat on my ears given the many conversations I have had with voters who would never comment on a board like this but spend plenty of time reading this and other sites as a means of measuring the liberal pulse.
Sorry to be the canary in the coalmine, but this stubborn refusal by the democratic faithful to acknowledge the difference between the people currently in charge of the GOP and those voters at the grassroots who must be inspired to force a change is precisely the reason why liberals have failed to deliver anything resembling progress since the 1960s.
As to the notion that these sites have no effect on the political dialogue in this country, I already addressed that here and here. I stand by those statements.
September 13, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can we have an American political arena without demonizing the opposition? Without puffing out our chests in illusory self-righteousness and nurturing our precious, simple-minded li'l dogmas?
No transactional hyperbole? Where's the fun, dammit?
Nazi.
September 12, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
:O)
September 13, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Mister Bluster notes . . .
I just took this worthless pile of crap he calls a blog over the magical 400 comments mark.
This one is 401 . . .
hahahahahaha . . .
~OGD~
September 13, 2009 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Almost 450 now!
September 13, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am talking perception, not reality. It is the nature in which the new "public option" was rolled-out.
First as Medicare-for-All, HR 676, which would totally replace the existing system with a non-profit or government only one in 15 years. Then as a new public option that would only address parts of the problem and ignore others completely.
I always thought a smarter strategy would have been to avoid the discussion altogether by way of positioning reforming the many public plans we already have and are increasingly unaffordable into something that was more streamlined and sustainable.
See the difference?
One approach shoves "progress" down the throat fiscal conservatives, almost begging them to fight against it. The other uses their own innate nature as a means of gaining more widespread support.
Ditto with the language that many on the left choose to point out the crazy. Disagreement or criticism quickly becomes "all republicans" are this and that or a "majority of conservatives" are racists.
Such language is almost certain to hurt your party's efforts in the long run by forcing moderates to choose between their crazies who are under attack or the ones doing the attacking by way of broad generalizations.
If they are going to do the time, they are going to do the crime so to speak.
Absent any sort of perceptions on behalf of conservatives, the reality you paint is true. The missing piece, in my view, is understanding the all-too-human tendency to do things that are completely contrary to reality given the right set of circumstances.
It think Obama making it victorious through the primary election was largely a product of his understanding of the essential duality of the American electorate at this moment in time vice where he thought he could take us with enough time and patience and subtle strategic misdirection when needed.
Sometimes the most direct route is around or over rather than through.
September 13, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am talking perception, not reality. It is the nature in which the new "public option" was rolled-out.
First as Medicare-for-All, HR 676, which would totally replace the existing system with a non-profit or government only one in 15 years. Then as a new public option that would only address parts of the problem and ignore others completely.
This is nonsense. HR 676 is the pet project of Kucinich who never met a windmill he wouldn't tilt at and Dingell who had the Energy and Commerce Committee chairmanship yanked away from him last November by Waxman with Pelosi's approval for two reasons. He couldn't be counted on pass a cap and trade bill (no MI politician can) and because he couldn't be trusted to pass a health care bill out of that committee based on the President's principles either. HR 676 may have a lot of co-sponsors but it does not have enough support to pass the house. It is nothing like HR 3200. Your perception is twisted. Just because your party indulges in bait and switch, legislative chicanery and all manner of bullshit to con the American people doesn't mean HR 3200 is or ever was some back door to single payer.
I always thought a smarter strategy would have been to avoid the discussion altogether by way of positioning reforming the many public plans we already have and are increasingly unaffordable into something that was more streamlined and sustainable.
See the difference?
Yeah I see the difference, it sounds like you're calling for HR 676. Never mind that your party is calling for much more scale downed ineffective reform.
One approach shoves "progress" down the throat fiscal conservatives, almost begging them to fight against it. The other uses their own innate nature as a means of gaining more widespread support.
Once again you seem to have missed the reality of the situation. Your party has fought any Dem proposals from the beginning of this process. Virtually none will vote for any bill Dems try to pass because they believe it's more important to hand Democrats a defeat than reform health care. They believe that because their campaign contributors and their wingnut base tell them so.
Ditto with the language that many on the left choose to point out the crazy. Disagreement or criticism quickly becomes "all republicans" are this and that or a "majority of conservatives" are racists.
Reality shows virtually all Republicans have gone off the deep end Jason. Your tank and file love Joe Wilson who is a member of the Sons of the Confederacy, a group that apparently still can't get over the fact they lost the Civil War let alone that Barack Obama was elected president. Grassley has spouted death panel nonsense. My milquetoast, do nothing congresswoman who bills herself as a moderate emailed her supporters about her "concerns" over Obama addressing schoolkids about the need to do well in school. At the little town fest I'm working this weekend some fool came by to tell us he thinks Obama is a communist. He seemed truly surprised when I told him we don't appreciate that kind of offensive talk and suggested he move on. One of our guys (72 years old) went over to the Republican booth to chat with them as he usually does at these events. A woman asked if he wanted to sign some of their petitions to get their candidates on the ballot and he told her "I don't think you want me signing your petitions, I'm a Democrat." They had a friendly chat for a bit until another one of their morons came around from behind the table and began pushing him away from the booth saying "she doesn't want to talk to you." Jim pushed him back and the guy threatened him, a 72 year old man.
Such language is almost certain to hurt your party's efforts in the long run by forcing moderates to choose between their crazies who are under attack or the ones doing the attacking by way of broad generalizations.
You poor little victims. You fucked up the country 12 ways from Sunday and left us $11 trillion dollars in debt with trillions more in unfunded liabilities not to mention two losing wars. Your party stalwarts egg on the crazies and then try to convince everybody that they are the majority when a glance at recent elections and poll numbers clearly show they're not. And all we have to do to get indie votes is bend over backward to please conservatives, continue the country that almost broke the country's back and break every campaign promise we won on.
Absent any sort of perceptions on behalf of conservatives, the reality you paint is true. The missing piece, in my view, is understanding the all-too-human tendency to do things that are completely contrary to reality given the right set of circumstances.
It think Obama making it victorious through the primary election was largely a product of his understanding of the essential duality of the American electorate at this moment in time vice where he thought he could take us with enough time and patience and subtle strategic misdirection when needed.
He made it through the primaries because he ran a brilliant campaign and Hillary ran an awful one.
Sometimes the most direct route is around or over rather than through.
You're right on that. We're going to have bypass Republicans because they have no interest in changing course from their disastrous polices of the past.
September 13, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
For most fiscal conservatives, HR 3200 has morphed into a Trojan Horse to deliver the spirit of HR 676 as the end goal.
I am not saying that is correct. I am saying that is the perception. The only way to change that perception is to change the argument. Drop the current polluted debate and offer Medicare reform in its place as the best place for an unassailable public option.
The democrats are continuing to lose a battle of perceptions by offering arguments based on a reality only they can see.
September 13, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're wrong on all counts Jason. First there are no fiscal conservatives in the Republcian party. They proved it by supporting over $11 trillion in nat'l. debt and huge expansions of government under Reagan and GW Bush. It's only now that there's a Democrat in office that they've suddenly found "religion" and have decided that government spending is bad. Never mind the fact that the economy would have utterly collapsed and still might without the stimulus bill.
The fact that the GOP blathers about a Trojan Horse "government takeover of health care" with HR 3200 just highlights the moral bankruptcy of the right. They know Bush, DeLay and the rest lied about just everything they did or tried to do so they naturally assume Democrats are doing the same. Wrong and stupid.
So in response to wrong and stupid assumptions by the minority party that can do little to nothing to stop the sensible proposals for health care reform from the majority party you suggest we "drop the current polluted debate and offer Medicare reform in its place as the best place for an unassailable public option" whatever the fuck that means.
I'm gonna assume by "drop the current debate" you mean shitcan HR 3200, start over and do nothing that benefits working age Americans in favor of just cutting waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare for seniors. Sorry but that's utterly crazy. If you're talking about "Medicare for All" i.e. HR 676 I have to ask you what planet you're living on. As I said there isn't enough support for it in the house, even less in the senate and the President doesn't support starting from scratch either. Needless to say such a bait and switch would send the right into ever larger convulsions of outrage. I don't see how either of those ideas is in the least productive.
And finally you're wrong again about democrats losing a battle of perceptions on health care. Polls consistently show a majority of Americans support a public option to compete with private insurance. Just because there's a loud noisy minority that the oh so "liberal" media loves to cover doesn't make your contention true.
September 13, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't read what I actually write, so I am going to stop.
I said exactly what I thought. We should have insurance reform followed by Medicare reform and killing the "public option" as currently articulate would lead to both very important victories.
As usual, you read only what you wanted to read and leave the rest to die from lack of contextual understanding.
September 14, 2009 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your arguments are incredibly cogent and on point. jason's response?
September 14, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well actually . . .
The simple out for Mister Bluster's response was the old tired line of...
Of course with as many 12 fold pretzel sentences and trap-doors in Mister Bluster's missives one truly needs a Cray computer to make any sense out
of the insensible.
~OGD~
September 14, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read what you wrote Jason but you seem more interested in what you evidently perceive as clever phrasing than clearly expressing your views. It left me no choice but to try to flesh out what you're talking about.
Piecemeal reforms might have worked 20 years ago but we don't have time for that now. Time is of the essence, not just because of the political necessity of getting this done in the president's first year of his first term when he has the most political capital to spend but because health care costs are crippling the nation while thousands needlessly die and millions are bankrupted annually under the current system.
Reining in health insurance costs is only part of the problem. If you actually read HR 3200 you'll see that none of these reforms kick in immediately anyway. Those "53 new government bureaucracies" the GOP complains about are actually study groups and demonstrator projects on the provider side that'll prove how we can save money by changing the way we pay doctors and
hospitals. Personally I think they just ought to go ahead and legislate the changes now. These methods have been proven around the world and places like the Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, and Kaiser out in CA.
So thanks but no thanks. Your solution of handing the crazy minority a major political victory and the majority a major defeat with a proposal that doesn't do enough to steer us toward lower costs and an overall solution isn't gonna fly.
We have to do it now. Your party has no intention of giving up the money that the thieves in the health care sector are funneling to them now for saying no to reform and lying through their teeth about it. Rewarding that bad behavior by watering down reform even further wouldn't encourage the GOP to act sanely and bargain in good faith. It'd just prove to them acting crazy is viable strategy to win back power.
September 14, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oooo . . .How true... How true . . .
And that is why my wife and I have paid only 55% of the average that others throughout the country pay for their health care insurance. We've been with the same not-for-profit health provider system for over 27 years.
See my comment in Fred's blog here.
~OGD~
September 14, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
More equating any objection that doesn't agree with your rather limited view of this legislative effort as a crazy fringe minority.
Contrary to your opinions on the subject, the country is still pretty evenly divided between right and left. You are trying to take an 8-point win and turn it into a sweeping mandate such as FDR or LBJ enjoyed.
Sorry to be the one to tell you that isn't the case.
This battle is being lost in the living rooms and kitchens and back-porches all around the country and the conversations have little to do with specifics of any one bill. Again, perception equals reality for most people. Perhaps you should a few of Fred's thoughts on the subject if hearing the same thing from me continue to fall flat.
Total non sequiter that has nothing to do with what I wrote in three, two, on....
September 15, 2009 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Getting a little crabby aren't you? I entertain plenty of objections to the plan Jason, I have a few myself. But overall it's good legislation. I think suggestions we scrap it, whether they come from folks on the left like Kucinich or the right like the entire Republican party are nuts.
While the country may appear to be pretty evenly divided to you I think you're misreading the polls. Dems haven't had a chance to deliver on our campaign promises yet. Obama spent two years campaigning on fixing health care and cap and trade and his signature policy to date is passing a $787 stimulus bill to kickstart an economy that succumbed to years of conservative mismanagement and locked up in the last months of 2008. A lot of indies and disaffected Republicans want that HC and Energy legislation we campaigned on.
From Steve Benen yesterday:
The latest Washington Post poll, asked Americans who they trust more to handle health care reform. A 48% plurality sided with President Obama, 36% prefer congressional Republicans.
A CBS News poll taken two weeks ago asked, "Regardless of how you usually vote, who do you think has better ideas about reforming the health care system: Barack Obama, or the Republicans in Congress?" Half (50%) of respondents backed the president, only 23% sided with Republicans.
And for that matter, an NBC News poll taken in mid-August asked, "Do you generally approve or disapprove of the way that Republicans in Congress are handling the issue of health care reform?" A 62% majority said they disapprove of the GOP's handling of the matter.
And a poll of doctors:
A large majority of doctors say there should be a public option.
When polled, "nearly three-quarters of physicians supported some form of a public option, either alone or in combination with private insurance options," says Dr. Salomeh Keyhani. She and Dr. Alex Federman, both internists and researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, conducted a random survey, by mail and by phone, of 2,130 doctors. They surveyed them from June right up to early September.
Most doctors -- 63 percent -- say they favor giving patients a choice that would include both public and private insurance. That's the position of President Obama and of many congressional Democrats. In addition, another 10 percent of doctors say they favor a public option only; they'd like to see a single-payer health care system. Together, the two groups add up to 73 percent.
You can live up to your bipartisan ideals and join us or you can keep insisting we drop HR 3200 just like every Republican politician. Your contention that we'd garner much more public support by starting over isn't borne out in the polling.
September 15, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Some form of...." doesn't mean the form that is currently being proposed. "Some form of...." could just as easily mean reforming Medicare to suit that need, which not a single bill has proposed. The country is basically divided between republicans/leaning (43%) and democrats/leaning at 49%, despite various levels of support for the current effort.
Not sure how those numbers could read any other way, though there are many ways to parse the data you provided and you also failed to provide the overview of how far that support has slipped since the debate began.
I have not said we should drop HR 3200. I said we should sacrifice the public plan as it is currently laid out and focus on Medicare reform instead. This is a tactic that gets all the other REALLY GREAT SHIT that the bill has to offer passed with at least a handful of republican votes.
I have laid this position out numerous times in numerous ways, at least three times on this blog alone responding to your comments, so I continue to be baffled why you caricature what I am saying in order to make the charge that I am "just like every republican politician."
This only proves the point the democrats find it impossible to truly hear anyone who says they are a republican.
September 16, 2009 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please make your proposals clearer Jason. It's tough to parse what you mean by "reforming Medicare to suit that need". Are you talking about extending Medicare to 50 year olds? 45? 20? Or just reforming the way we pay providers in Medicare (which is part of HR 3200) for those over 65?
I don't know where you get the idea that there will be Republican grassroots or congressional support for either one. The grassroots has made it clear they want government to keep it's hands off everything. Even if it means letting the elderly fend for their own health care costs, letting the US auto industry die, and the destruction of the world's financial system.
On health care Congressional Republicans have already tried to put Medicare on the road to privatization with Medicare Advantage and Part D. Instead of reining in waste, fraud and abuse costs on the provider side they funneled hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars to the bloated insurance and drug companies to subsidize them unnecessarily. It gave seniors a minor benefit at a wildly expensive and faster accelerating pricetag to tax payers hastening the day Medicare goes broke.
If you're just talking about sacrificing the public option Republicans again have said that's not going to get their votes. Neither will including tort reform. They have in fact made it clear that they will not vote for any of the current Democratic bills including Baucus's disaster. They're not just in thrall to the teabaggers they depend on their votes just as they need the money bad doctors, and insurance, drug, equipment and hospital companies are throwing at them.
If you were a Republican House Rep Jason we might have a shot at your vote. But public pronouncements looking for a bipartisan solution would earn you death threats from your own party faithful and likely be enough to cost you your job next year. Don't believe me, call a local Republican House rep or attend one of his/her townhalls and propose your stuff. See what kind of answers you get. See what your fellow Republicans are say about them.
Your perceptions are off base here as the polls above show. The majority of the American people haven't changed their position. We want health care reform and prefer it include a public option anyone can chose which isn't even available to most folks in any of the bills. So if any changes are made it should open the option up to more businesses and individuals than it currently does in HR 3200.
September 16, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you miss the signs telling the government to keep its hands off Medicare? You cast wide generalities with no proof of truth. Medicare is widely supported by the grassroots of both parties and has been for decades notwithstanding lots of misinformation on the program.
As to my larger point, I have been as clear as I can be.
The populations meant to be covered under a brand new public option as described in HR 3200 should be folded into our existing public option instead as a way of making it solvent and sustainable for future generations. Medicare should be reformed rather than dumping more money into a new program that relies on Medicare for guidance anyway.
Shouldn't require a lot of nuance or further explanation.
September 16, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink