Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sunday Open Thread

All, a quick update on the state of the comments section.

First off, I wanted to thank you regulars again for your patience. It is much appreciated. You should know that the problem is being looked at, and you have my word that action will definitely be taken this week that I think you all will find satisfactory.

More details to come. But you should know that we take your complaints very seriously, and as always, I view the quality of the comments section as absolutely essential to the blog's success. I'm asking you for your patience one more time, and I hope you all agree that it's worth sticking it out through the unpleasant patches.

And now, have at it.

By Greg Sargent  | October 17, 2010; 9:43 AM ET
Categories:  Miscellaneous  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Open Thread
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Thank you for the update, Greg. When the dust clears, I expect Liam's house to be properly egged and my first born male child handcuffed and enroute to the French Foreign Legion. Half measures are no longer adequate.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

As Dick Armey told The Economist...

"Politics is about 97 percent fiction and 3 percent imagination."


"Hannity: Well you're having a profound impact. You're right in the heart of everything that's going on with the Tea Party in this country. It looks like we are really witnessing a conservative ascendency, bottom up where people are going to take the country back.

Armey: Yeah and it's really exciting to watch this. These folks have sprung up all over the country. It's the most natural, authentic, grass roots movement I've ever seen.

Hannity: Yeah.

Armey: And they really love this country and the emotion that's brought them out is fear. They're afraid of what these folks in Washington are going to do to their country.

Hannity: It's so organic. I mean it really in many ways is inspiring to see this all around the country and having an impact on a lot of races."
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/sean-hannity-lets-astroturfer-dick-armey-p

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

bernie, if you had been in Searchlight, Nevada, you would have seen authentic grassroots. I have never seen anything like it either.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

There are possibly some Jesse Ventura fans around but that small cadre will have to do without my membership. Everything one might ever need to know about Jesse was well reported in "ME, by Jimmy "Big Boy" Valente, As Told to Garrison Keillor."

Still, he gets something dead on here...

"He's a spineless puke," Ventura said of O'Reilly. "The whole Fox won't have me on. The nighttime guys. I call them the three stooges, and we all know which one's Curly. If Glenn Beck isn't Curly Howard's kid*...I view him and Hannity and them as the Three Stooges, because if they can't intimidate you, they won't have you on."
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/jesse-ventura-calls-bill-oreilly-spin

Aside from the puke/3 stooges stuff, the point about refusing guests who can't be intimidated is perceptive. A singular narrative marked by the constant insistence of certainty and the projection of dominance (Laura Ingraham is an alpha male) is the methodology here.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

I'm sick death of the election (just prior to becoming sick to death over the results) so I'll throw one out there on the open thread to see if it's worthy of any response.

With little fanfare this week, the Obama administration decided not to challenge the judge's ruling overturning "don't ask, don't tell". By my estimates, this makes a legal challenge to the ban on women in combat all but certain in the next two to four years. Since it's also a given that venue shopping will be involved, I think the success of such a challenge, at least at District Court level, is a lead pipe cinch.

I think the Obama administration made a mistake because I don't believe that having the courts make these decisions for the military is the best way to go about it, regardless whether the result was desireable.

Am I alone on this?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 17, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

@Clarence - That presents several immediate questions.

1) how would you differentiate between authentic and inauthentic "grassroots" gatherings?

2) would an anti-war gathering be an example? Or the Stewart/Colbert rally?

3) if not, why not?

4) so far as you know, is the pro-gay marriage movement (that is, the equality for gays in marriage movement) funded in the millions each month by large corporate entities, or organized by large professional marketing agencies being paid millions each month, or being promoted every day via a TV cable network and by numerous talk radio hosts? And if you see differences between these two examples, which would you consider more properly labelled as "grassroots"?

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

@54etc - As regards the legal aspects here, I simply don't know enough to speak. As regards the political aspects, my reading suggests that there are landmines in plenty both domestically and within the military as regards this change (as with females and african americans earlier). As regards the moral aspect, Obama can't let this one play out in favor of bigots.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Aside from the puke/3 stooges stuff, the point about refusing guests who can't be intimidated is perceptive."

So I suppose you think that Jon Stewart can be intimidated, since he has appeared on O'Reilly's show (more than once, I believe.) Also, Obama was on O'Reilly...I gues you think he is easily intimidated as well. And Barney Frank, who is a regular guest...easily intimidated, obviously.

Perhaps it hasn't occurred to Ventura - or you, apparently - that there might be other reasons for ignoring him.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Another local C of C leaves the national Chamber of Commerce.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/17/local-chamber-vs-national-chamber/

Seems a pity in that I don't know how we are ever going to get proper workplace safety legislation in place and policed without the compassionate vision of the national body under Donahue. Who, I ask, has fought harder for workers' safety and workers' rights than the Chamber of Commerce?

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I haven't been able to get here very much lately, though I do try to check the roundups when I can and have also noticed the way certain commenters make the normal Plum Line conversation difficult if not unrecognizable. Here are a few random things that I've thought about but not gotten into the comments until now.

1. I vote the chutzpah award to Michele Bachmann for putting up a new ad with some "truth" organization I've never heard of saying Taryl Clark lies.
2. Was it the biggest failure of investigative journalism and maybe the legal system during the Bush years that Karl Rove didn't end up in jail so that he's out there during the mid-terms wreaking mayhem like that guy in the insurance ads?
3. I really appreciated the recent article in Rolling Stone that Greg linked to on Obama's successes. The obligatory part on faulting the Obama administration messaging left out the need to give at least equal fault to media messengers and the Republican disinformation campaign.
4. I wish there were a place that kept a running, highly visible tab of the top ten Republican lies that usually appear in the mainstream media as facts--for starters that HCR has made a big hit on Medicare and that not keeping the Bush tax cuts will hurt businesses that are actually small.
5. Bernie's prescience about Republican plans to court women by putting forward women candidates who act like martyrs still impresses, though I doubt even he could have predicted the cynicism of offering this particular crop of candidates.
6. Bernie's continuing focus on the intersection of propaganda and politics is equally impressive. That juncture may give us one of our biggest clues about the current toxic, public environment.
7.That was an important Slate piece by Dahlia Lithwick and her colleague on the dangerous smoke and mirrors of the Roberts Court.
8. There's a good Dexter Filkins article in today's Times on the uncertain hopes for an Afghan exit.
9. I miss the camraderie of Plum Line after Dark.
10. Time for my morning nap.

Posted by: AllButCertain | October 17, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

claw:

"bernie, if you had been in Searchlight, Nevada, you would have seen authentic grassroots."

You presume that Bernie's mind is open to "seeing" evidence contrary to his already existing prejudices. That seems to me a decidedly dubious premise.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3, I was just going to mention Obama's appearance.

bernie, I would indeed differentiate between authentic and inauthentic "grassroots" gatherings whether people paid their own way in rather than being paid / brought in via 100 buses (a la Huffington Post for the Stewart/Colbert rallies. Regardless of whether professional marketing agencies and Fox News also promote it. I would consider those homosexuals in the pro-gay marriage movement to be semi-grassroots (they do seem to have much more disposable income than the average American couple though). is, the equality for gays in marriage movement). The Tea Party, to me, is more grassroots. But, I would also agree with Michael Steele that there is no rift between the GOP and Tea Party. Maybe there will be on November 3rd.

Sean, I agree that it was mistake.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Who, I ask, has fought harder for workers' safety and workers' rights than the Chamber of Commerce?"

I know. And it hasn't done anything about gays in the military, either. How dare the CoC establish its own agenda and not advocate on behalf of Bernie's favored causes? What scum, eh?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Hannity: It's so organic. I mean it really in many ways is inspiring to see this all around the country and having an impact on a lot of races."
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/sean-hannity-lets-astroturfer-dick-armey-p

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 10:16 AM |
....................

Bernie,

How did Hannity sound, talking out of Christine O'Donnell's back pocket?

How does the women reconcile her claims of sexual abstinence, with her statement to the National Republicans that she frequently has Sean Hannity in her pants?

"In your pants Christine!!!" Jeff Peterson Robot Skeleton TV Sidekick.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

bernie:

I agree with the idea of ending DADT in the military, I just think that the way it was done is inviting the courts to enter every controversy that involves the military.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 17, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

@Scott - "other reasons for ignoring him"

I really want to hear from you an explication of FOX's standards and how this fellow doesn't meet them. Intelligence? Education? Meeting some level of social/sexual propriety?

I won't bother with your rhetorical move of "here's an exception, so...".

Why not honestly take up the matter of desiring to appear dominant? Obviously, Ventura presents a different sort of challenge here than the others you mention. Or would you presume that such a presentation of dominance doesn't mark what FOX or the modern movement (Cheney is a good example, either one of them) is up to (corollary, presenting opponents as feminine). That's interesting. Your rhetorical move isn't.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

When is Palin going back up her words, and sacrifice her life,and fortune for the country?

Hell! she will not even perform her palm reading act, without first having that palm crossed with a 100K appearance fee, and a couple of bendy straws!

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

AllButCertain, after your nap, maybe you can answer (because bernie won't) is what Greg Sargent posts "propaganda"?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

@54 - As I said, I can't really speak to that end of things. I'm not sure there's another path and not sure there isn't.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Sunday, October 17, 2010
Hudson breaking from U.S. Chamber of Commerce

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/882587-196/hudson-breaking-from-u.s.-chamber-of-commerce.html

"lready under fire for controversial fundraising practices, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is now losing some of its local support.

On Friday, the Greater Hudson Chamber of Commerce released a statement saying its board of directors has voted not to renew its membership with the national chamber because it felt recent political advertisements by the national chamber in support of specific parties and candidates were in “direct conflict” with the foundation of the Hudson chamber.

Jerry Mayotte, executive vice president of the Greater Hudson Chamber of Commerce, said the Hudson group is a nonpartisan organization. He said he can’t remember the last time they chose not to renew their membership.

The decision wasn’t made lightly.

“We didn’t like the fact that the U.S. Chamber was supporting particular candidates,” Mayotte said. “We don’t think it’s good business practice to do so.

“We take stands on particular issues considering business, but not particular candidates.”'

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Liam, she didn't charge the RNC for yesterday's speech or the way coming up in Florida. Obama also made money on his books, but that's OK, right? If she runs for President, then maybe you will finally have to admit she sacrificed.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne, be sure to boycott the Greater Hudson Chamber now too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

In order to "Sacrifice" her "life, money, and honor for America" Sarah Palin Quit her job as Governor of Alaska.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Meghan McCain: Christine O'Donnell 'Seen as Nutjob'

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/meghan-mccain-christine-odonnell-nutjob/story?id=11901199

"Meghan McCain, author of the book "Dirty Sexy Politics," said Christine O'Donnell, the Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware, was real trouble.

"Well, I speak as a 26-year-old woman and my problem is that, no matter what, Christine O'Donnell is making a mockery of running for public office," McCain told anchor Christiane Amanpour. "She has no real history, no real success in any kind of business."

McCain, daughter of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said that the message, "that sends to my generation is: one day you can just wake and run for Senate, no matter how [much of] a lack of experience you have. And it scares for me for a lot of reasons."

"I just know, in my group of friends, it turns people off because she's seen as a nutjob," she said. "

.....................

On the other hand; Sarah Palin fully backs O'Donnell, and believes she is just what Delaware and America needs as a US Senator.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"bernie, I would indeed differentiate between authentic and inauthentic "grassroots" gatherings whether people paid their own way in rather than being paid / brought in via 100 buses..."

You must have missed all those busses that carried the bufords to Searchlight, NV.

You know, the ones Breitbart claimed were attacked by liberals.

I guess this proves that the whole gathering was illegitimate.

Thanks for playing.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

@ABC - Nice to see you! We miss ya.

Re Obama and Rove etc...

The apparent weakness of this administration to be more aggressive re political realities of the present is a subject that everyone has weighed in on. My personal wonderment is that they didn't have (or looks like they didn't have) a proper fix on the virulence of what would be coming down the road at them. There's a lot of history here and a lot of people who were familiar with it. It's certainly possible that Obama and team had notions which were well-intended and understandable but romantic (I posted a discussion a few months ago between Alterman and Harris-Lacewell where this divide was played out between the two)... http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01222010/profile.html

But the nature of the modern right and the dynamics of this present situation have made bipartisan efforts and bipartisan identification EXACTLY what the right decided it had to resist full bore in order to regain power and maintain a very lucrative status quo.

Re Rove... he should be in jail and it's a damned pity that Fitzgerald didn't get him there. Of course, he had the best lawyers money can buy and a coterie of people around to protect him.

And tah on the complimentary stuff. Smooch.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

"wbgonne, be sure to boycott the Greater Hudson Chamber now too."

Why would I? They did exactly the right thing. I hope the other local Chambers of Commerce realize that they are being used by the U.S. Chamber to propgandize for the Radical Right.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 17, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Liam, I note that Sarah Oalin is doing more for America than you are (admittedly, that sets the bar way too low) and that Meghan McCain has no real success in any kind of business either.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

"Bernie's prescience about Republican plans to court women by putting forward women candidates who act like martyrs still impresses, though I doubt even he could have predicted the cynicism of offering this particular crop of candidates."

I didn't know the first and I totally agree with the second.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 17, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

The Tea Party; A genuine grassroots populist uprising, or just a bunch of gullible Koch-Suckers?

We report, you decide!

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Question: Is Tom Tancredo's (surging-ish) campaign going to do long-term damage to the conservative brand in Colorado?

Maybe it's just me, but aside from being an appalling misdirection and profoundly immoral, the whole immigrant-bashing thing seems like really bad politics in the Cactus Corner.

Tancredo obviously doesn't care. He ran for president in 2008 on a mainly "ZOMG!! Look at these scary immigrants in my ads!" platform. But shouldn't conservatives in the South West care? Or is Sharron Angle evidence that they don't "do" foresight?

Posted by: michael_conrad | October 17, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

"Hannity: It's so organic."

You said it. Pure horsesh*t.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 17, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Clawrence,

Meghan is not running for the US Senate, and of course Palin could not stand the heat in one of the coldest states in the Union.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

@Liam - "How did Hannity sound, talking out of Christine O'Donnell's back pocket?"

I expect he didn't bring this up on TV or radio or if he did it would be jocular.

But wouldn't ya love to have heard his off-air comments on hearing that one?

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Greg

Just a few days ago, you stated that "things were getting better"

Now we have this comment above


So what is the guidance??


What are the rules, so everyone can follow them???


I have attempted to write to you several times, however I have gotten no response. No response to the posts here - and no response to the emails.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Jenn, people paying to ride the bus themself is different than Arianna paying for them. Thanks for playing.

wbgonne, you are boycotting the Greater Boston Chamber even though they aren't members of the U.S. Chamber. From the ThinkProgress link above:

"As conservatives like Glenn Beck and Rand Paul try to elide the differences between the U.S. Chamber and local chambers, these local acts of defiance should serve to remind people that not all local chambers support the activities of the national group."

You may want to re-think your strategy.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Clawrence,

Once more, just for you. The chapter withdrew from the National Chamber Of Commerce, something Wbgonne would want them to do. I can see why you are so easily taken in by that High Stakes, Job Quitting Grifter.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

ABC

"9. I miss the camraderie of Plum Line after Dark."

Me too. We'll see what Greg has up his sleeve, but change is inevitable.

11. I miss all the girls, although it's nice to see Jenn here this morning and 12Bar has been a nice addition as a frequent commenter.

12. We miss ABC.

Have a great day all, off to politic.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 17, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

@Liam - "How did Hannity sound, talking out of Christine O'Donnell's back pocket?"

I expect he didn't bring this up on TV or radio or if he did it would be jocular.

But wouldn't ya love to have heard his off-air comments on hearing that one?

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 11:45 AM
................

Serves him and Fox right for being so eager to put that loose cannon in the US Senate.

I would love to see some college kids in Delaware, follow Christine around with signs; showing a picture of Craig Ferguson's Robot Skeleton, and a caption that said;

Sean Hannity In Your Pants, Christine!

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Liam, once more just for you:

wbgonne is boycotting the Greater Boston Chamber even though it is not a member of the U.S. Chamber. From the ThinkProgress link above:

"As conservatives like Glenn Beck and Rand Paul try to elide the differences between the U.S. Chamber and local chambers, these local acts of defiance should serve to remind people that not all local chambers support the activities of the national group."

On second thought, you libs should not re-think your strategy.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent wrote,
"First off, I wanted to thank you regulars again for your patience. It is much appreciated. You should know that the problem is being looked at, and you have my word that action will definitely be taken this week that I think you all will find satisfactory."
-------

Surreal. I read most, if not all, of the complaints and responses. It appears that most of the "regulars" came to the conclusion that there was really no problem to address---at least nothing a little scrolling wouldn't take care of.

So now that they have decided they like things the way they are, they are thanked for their patience and assured that "the problem is being looked at" and "action will definitely be taken this week."

Sound like politics. Do what you want, no matter what anyone thinks, no matter what polls show, and then claim you are part of some populist uprising.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Bernie "Who, I ask, has fought harder for workers' safety and workers' rights than the Chamber of Commerce?"

Scott: "I know. And it hasn't done anything about gays in the military, either. How dare the CoC establish its own agenda and not advocate on behalf of Bernie's favored causes? What scum, eh?"

Scum? OK. I fully expect the national body has sent no money to gay rights factions but has sent lots and lots to anti-gay groups (not withstanding that their membership will represent the same heterosexual/homosexual ratios as any human group) in order to further their coalition with the religious right and the Republicans (closely intersecting sets, as we know). Profit is everything, of course.

The worker safety allusion was to the Chamber's earlier claim that they didn't wish to see marijuana legalized (such libertarians) because of concerns re "worker safety". Right. On booze they've said what? On miners they've said...well, we know what they've funded for decades and it is decreased regulation of mine safety. Auto passenger safety? They've been big on that too.

Scum? OK. Lying scum. OK there too.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

clawrence - first, provide proof that anyone paid to ride those busses to Searchlight. My recollection is that they were provided by one of the teabagger astroturf organizations, but perhaps I'm wrong. Prove it.

Then, we can discuss your twisted notion that only people who have money to pay for transportation count. If someone gets a ride to a polling place, their vote doesn't count, just as if they get a free ride to a rally their show of support doesn't count? You think Citizens United should be extended to all aspects of "democracy?" Maybe we should bring back the poll tax.

In your America, money counts and people don't? I'm sure that's exactly what the Founders had in mind.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I mean November 2nd is looking so good for you, please keep up the good work!

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Here you go Clawrence. Have this campaign button made up, and distributed.

Quitter Palin For President 2013-2015

She is rested and ready to serve again, for half a term.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

bernie, if you had been in Searchlight, Nevada, you would have seen authentic grassroots. I have never seen anything like it either.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 10:23 AM
-------

Bernie only does political rallies if his expenses are paid with labor union money or by Oprah.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Greg - do you have an email address we can discuss things directly with you???


The Washington Post used to have the emails everywhere.

I think that if we had a set of rules which everyone had to follow - and which were easy to comply with, we wouldn't be having this problem.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Jenn, first go jump in the lake. Google "Glenn Beck rally" and buses if you really don't think that Americans are paying their own way.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"On second thought, you libs should not re-think your strategy."

Why? Because it's working?

"In fact, in New Hampshire, at least four other local chambers have distanced themselves from the national Chamber due to its participation in politics."

http://www.thinkprogress.org/

As for Boston, I have still received no response to my e-mail and -- unless you speak for them -- that's where things stand.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 17, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Aside from the puke/3 stooges stuff, the point about refusing guests who can't be intimidated is perceptive. A singular narrative marked by the constant insistence of certainty and the projection of dominance (Laura Ingraham is an alpha male) is the methodology here.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 10:30 AM
------

I would guess the reason they don't have Jesse Ventura appear on Fox is because he is a complete fool. I'm sure they could muster enough security to disable his lard arse and have him forcibly removed from the set if the occasion demanded. He's another of the nincompoop squad who thinks 9/ll was an inside job. I've talked to some who went to school with him in Minnesota when his name was Janos. He's evidently always been a moron.

Doesn't say much for Minnesota that they elected a genuine bozo governor. Doesn't say much for Bernie that Jesse is someone whose opinion he would cite. If you think Ventura is smarter than O'Reilly, you've told us more about yourself than about O'Reilly. I eagerly await Hulk Hogan's opinion.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

clawrence - no, I think we should explore this theory of yours in greater depth.

If someone who lives in Washington DC attends the Stewart rally, and they get there by walking, do they count? Since, you know, they didn't PAY for transportation? How about when I walk to my local polling place, which is only a block away - should my vote not count since no one profited from my transportation? How about if someone rides Amtrak from Boston or NY to DC for the rally? Since Amtrak is subsidized, does this mean they don't count?

We really want to know.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin was just following the advise of Harry Truman, when he said;

If You Can't Stand The Heat Of The Frozen Tundra, You Must Quit!

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Liam, JFK didn't serve a full term either.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I think the Obama administration made a mistake because I don't believe that having the courts make these decisions for the military is the best way to go about it, regardless whether the result was desireable.

Am I alone on this?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 17, 2010 10:40 AM
-------

You are not alone. Unfortunately, almost everything the Obama administration has done has been a mistake. He was right when he told voters, prior to his run, that he was not qualified to be President.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Now we see the real Clawrence exposed.

He compares Palin having just flat out quit on the people who elected her, to a President having been assassinated.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

"Liam, JFK didn't serve a full term either."

You're sick.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

clawrence, first I want to rebut your comment about the Chamber and their agenda. Who serves in the military is not in their mission. Their mission is business. And workers work for business, so their record on workplace safety is relevant.

Your last comment on JFK is beneath contempt, and you should be banned for that alone.

Posted by: KathleenHusseininMaine | October 17, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham wrote,
"1) how would you differentiate between authentic and inauthentic "grassroots" gatherings?"
-----

If the organizers of the gathering have to provide financial incentives to get people to come, it is hardly grassroots.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Liam, JFK didn't serve a full term either.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

If you apologize for that people would probably forgive you.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 17, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"If the organizers of the gathering have to provide financial incentives to get people to come, it is hardly grassroots."

A RIDE is not a "financial incentive", you moron. PAYMENT for attendance would be - so please enlighten us as to who is PAYING anyone for showing up to the Stewart rally.

You ARE aware, aren't you, that many of those who have attended the numerous (and steadily shrinking) teabagger gatherings in DC used the Metro while in Washington - which is subsidized. So since taxpayers paid for them to attend, they don't count, correct? I mean, they were given a FINANCIAL INCENTIVE in the form of subsidized transportation to attend the rally so we shouldn't count them, right?

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

On the day of the Beck Rally, Clawrence wrote on Plumline that it looked like BET was taking over the proceedings.

He is typical of the Hate Mongers that have found a home in The Tea Party.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"irst, provide proof that anyone paid to ride those busses to Searchlight. My recollection is that they were provided by one of the teabagger astroturf organizations, but perhaps I'm wrong"

Those are same Magic Buses that appeared in Louisiana to fill the CajunDome with gen-u-ine grassroots folk who DEMANDED that the oil companies IMMEDIATELY resume destroying the State of Louisiana.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 17, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Allbutcertain,
I . . . noticed the way certain commenters make the normal Plum Line conversation difficult if not unrecognizable."

Translation: not enough of a liberal echo chamber.

"Here are a few random things that I've thought about but not gotten into the comments until now.

10. Time for my morning nap."

Shortened it up a bit for you. The rest can be summed up as "liberals good; conservatives bad." Make your nap a long one.


Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

"Make your nap a long one."

You Cons are nasty today.

Later, All.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 17, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

How did Hannity sound, talking out of Christine O'Donnell's back pocket?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 11:15 AM
-----

How do you type with your nose so far up Obama's butt?

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

What do you mean, "today?" They're like this EVERY day. Hatefulness is the force that gives their lives meaning.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"I agree with the idea of ending DADT in the military, I just think that the way it was done is inviting the courts to enter every controversy that involves the military."

Posted by: 54465446 | October 17, 2010 11:18 AM
------

LOL. Now cross out the words "that involves the military." We lost that battle a long time ago.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Sharron Angle is running ads. showing pictures of brown skinned people, and a map of Mexico;

But she tells the Hispanic groups that have complained about it, that she is also very concerned about the Canadian border.

Sure she is. But just not concerned enough to stop racially profiling the Mexican people.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence: "bernie, if you had been in Searchlight, Nevada, you would have seen authentic grassroots. I have never seen anything like it either."

No, he would not have. I'm pretty sure almost all liberals (and many conservatives) are constitutionally incapable of believing that there could ever be a grass roots groundswell of people that don't agree with them. Thus, why conservatives are always charlatans, dupes, Svengalis, Machiavellis, or members of a vast conspiracy. They cannot see a large movement of genuine conservatives coalescing around a few common goals as anything but the product of propaganda, brainwashing, and lots of anonymous cash. ;)

And direct evidence of anything contrary will not penetrate the certainty of falsehood and conspiracy.

@JennOfArk: "Hatefulness is the force that gives their lives meaning."

For example. That's a sort of point of view that's not going to be easily swayed, irrespective of any evidence one might present.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham wrote,
"Re Rove... he should be in jail and it's a damned pity that Fitzgerald didn't get him there. Of course, he had the best lawyers money can buy and a coterie of people around to protect him."
-----

You forgot to mention that he was innocent.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

brigade:

Do you agree with me, that we're just a few years away from a successful court challenge to the ban on women in combat?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 17, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Kevin - heal thyself. You've thrown in with a group that characterizes a ride as a "financial incentive." You routinely defend lies and liars so long as they support what you'd like to believe, regardless of how counterintuitive, illogical, unreasonable, or wrong it is.

And yes, when large groups of people are completely convinced that the answer to a near-depression is to stop all spending, because they've been told so by media and political manipulators, they are stupid and they are brainwashed, because as anyone who has two brain cells to rub together knows, less spending simply equals higher unemployment and a worsening of the economic situation. And if you believe that was the answer, you're either stupid or brainwashed too.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

The Tea Party; A genuine grassroots populist uprising, or just a bunch of gullible Koch-Suckers?

We report, you decide!

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 11:42 AM
-------

Liam's got the blues.
He's got the D-bagger blues.
He's got the lowdown, laydown and lick em, D-bagger blues.

Don't get too depressed. There'll be other elections.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade: "You forgot to mention that he was innocent."

I think a more accurate description would be (just call me Mr. False Equivalency) that Rove was no more guilty than the rest of them (re: the cumulative obstruction-type charges that they nailed Scooter Libby with, not via the fictional outing of Valerie Plame.

However, if every politician who fiddled at the edges of propriety was sent to jail, they'd all be in it. If Rove was truly guilty of anything, it was of letting a bunch of folks with political axes to grind railroad Scooter Libby, for which he (and the rest of them that sat back and let that happen) perhaps should have done a few nights in the pokey.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Point of fact: this year's deficit is lower than the deficit in Bush's last year in office. In fact, the reduction in deficit spending from last year to this year is the largest reduction in US history.

Wonder why the teabaggers weren't up in arms about "spending" then?

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I guess Brigade is never going to get around to explaining how use of transportation subsidized by public taxes isn't a "financial incentive" while a bus ride paid for by Arianna Huffington is.

Hypocrisy and dishonesty: it's the default setting for rightwingers.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

clawrence12 wrote,
"Jenn, people paying to ride the bus themself is different than Arianna paying for them. Thanks for playing."
------

Facts. Facts. Don't mess with Jenn's world.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Point of fact: this year's deficit is lower than the deficit in Bush's last year in office. In fact, the reduction in deficit spending from last year to this year is the largest reduction in US history.

Wonder why the teabaggers weren't up in arms about "spending" then?

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 12:45 PM |

................

How did the budget balance situation, for President Clinton's last year in office, compare to each of President George W. Bush's eight years in office?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"I can see why you are so easily taken in by that High Stakes, Job Quitting Grifter."

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 11:49 AM
--------

I recall working in a foundry one summer while I was in college. Hot, hard and miserable. I quit that damned job to strive for bigger and better things. I guess that makes me a Quitter.

Liam, on the other hand, stuck with the Honey Bucket business until it was outsourced to China. No quit in that guy. And no dog in him like there is in Jesse Ventura.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, so you are admitting that you are also posting under the name Clawrence?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

@JennofArk: "You routinely defend lies and liars so long as they support what you'd like to believe, regardless of how counterintuitive, illogical, unreasonable, or wrong it is."

I understand that you really do believe this. As I noted before, I suspect it would be difficult or impossible to convince you otherwise, no matter what evidence or argument was presented.

However, despite this, I like you very much (as much as one can like someone, based upon witty banter in the comments section of a blog). Hate and anger, frankly, don't animate me (and, in fact, would be fairly low on the list of cliches that I've actually observed in real life conservatives). Your mileage may vary, but I think your observations that allow you to confidently reach your conclusions may be selective.

As Buddha observed, you are not punished for your anger, but by it. I think the same could easily be said of hate. And while it may comforting to view everyone who disagrees with you ideologically as being animated by hate, sociopathy, or neurosis, it's been my experience that such simplification are not only inaccurate, but not even useful generalizations.

And, frankly, I find even persistent dislike and irritation to be practically exhausting. I definitely would recommend making hate of anything or anybody your raison d'être.

"they are stupid and they are brainwashed"

Well, Jenn, there's no arguing with the objective accuracy of that statement.

"And if you believe that was the answer, you're either stupid or brainwashed too."

You know, actually, that would explain a lot. When I stop and think about it.

Thanks!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Did the First Lady say something recently about Sarah Palin?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

A book, "On Final Approach" by Byrd Granger came outy maybe ten years ago, a somewhat day by day chronicle of the WASPs. Read it, note that we STILL don't have women flying up to what they could do if we let then, and tell me who EXCEPT the Courts is likely to change anything.

Good Southern Gentlemen, especially one Congressman from Maryland overruled hap Arnold and defaulted on a solemn promise to the WASPs that they WOULD be Army Air Corps Officers. It was thirty years before the Air Force changed the rules to even let women fly.

Congress should be the body to make the change, but as long as a few stubborn old "Gentlemen" won't change their minds, attitudes, or opposition the only way it will get done is through the Courts.

But I'm prejudiced. My mother was one of those WASPs who got cheated out of their chance to serve.

Were My thoughts to prevail, military service would be the inalienable right of ANY resident of the United States not disqualified by criminal conviction.

Blind, Lame, or Crazy, if you wish to serve the Military finds you a job where you can really contribute. Male or female, gay or straight, Citizen or resident, if you want to follow the eagles you get to raise your hand and take the oath. NO exceptions.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 17, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I guess Brigade is going to continue to pretend that teabaggers riding Amtrak, the Metro, flying in to a local airport (also taxpayer subsidized) or driving to a rally on taxpayer-subsidized roads, all got there completely under their own steam on their own dime.

Like I said, dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

jennofark wrote,
"clawrence - first, provide proof that anyone paid to ride those busses to Searchlight. My recollection is that they were provided by one of the teabagger astroturf organizations, but perhaps I'm wrong. Prove it."
-------

Now you've done it, clawrence. You've got jenn in a snit. Surely you can round up some receipts for all those bus tickets. She wants proof!

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"Bernie, How did Hannity sound, talking out of Christine O'Donnell's back pocket? How does the women reconcile her claims of sexual abstinence, with her statement to the National Republicans that she frequently has Sean Hannity in her pants? "In your pants Christine!!!" Jeff Peterson Robot Skeleton TV Sidekick. Posted by: Liam-still"

It is probably purely Platonic: Remembering his Ideal Republic and just who HIS favorite physical inspiration was.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 17, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

David, why do I have to "apologize" for stating a historical fact?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Brigade at 11:58 AM


I agree with you 100% - those who wish to scroll through can scroll through.

I did see several complaints from those who claimed they were ignoring people - and then commenting on those posts...


____________________


However, Greg DID make the comment earlier in the week that he thought things "were getting better"


All we need is a CLEAR set of rules - which everyone can follow. Both the rules and the enforcement are so vague that it is impossible.


The liberals have increased their harassment of those on the right. And the number of ad hominem attacks - and nasty uncivil comments has also increased. It is a matter of concern that NONE of that appears to be anything that Greg is concerned about.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Jenn,

Did you know that Brigade was elected to that hot foundry job, and quit during his term, just like Palin did? He let down the voters who elected him to a hot foundry job, just like Sarah quit, because she could not stand the heat in Frozen Alaska?

High Stakes Grifters love gullible imbeciles like Clawrence and Brigade.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

We really want to know.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 12:10 PM
-----

Who's we? Something in your pocket?

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

@Jenn: "Point of fact: this year's deficit is lower than the deficit in Bush's last year in office. In fact, the reduction in deficit spending from last year to this year is the largest reduction in US history."

Really? That is good news. Do you have any links? Although, given that the increase from 2008 to 2009 was one of the largest increases in deficit spending in U.S. history, I'm not sure how impressive the largest reduction is, given that they both occurred under the same administration.

But a reduction in deficit spending is good. I know it's projected to drop precipitously by 2013. I hope that's the case.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: "You have my word that action will definitely be taken this week that I think you all will find satisfactory"

Is it going to be a solution like (I don't mean format wise, but behind-the-scenes-technology-wise) like The Fix? Cuz if it is, then I'll see you folks now and again on the weekend. ;)

Not that many wouldn't prefer that, as I am stupid and brainwashed. :P

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

What do you mean, "today?" They're like this EVERY day. Hatefulness is the force that gives their lives meaning.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 12:29 PM
-----

Oh, but it's a wonderful life, and people like you make it all worthwhile.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I am tired of the liberals complaining about other points of view.

If the same posters where FAWNING over Obama, they would not be making an issue out of anything.

Many people on this blog can see that - but others are BLINDED BY THEIR PARTISANSHIP.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

It's not that difficult to get Jenn in a snit.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

liam-still wrote,
"Sharron Angle is running ads. showing pictures of brown skinned people, and a map of Mexico;

But she tells the Hispanic groups that have complained about it, that she is also very concerned about the Canadian border.

Sure she is."
-----

What are you implying? That there are no people with brown skin in Canada? Bernie!

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Bernie and lnsinca.

@Claw--Softball. No. Greg doesn't do propaganda.

@Brigade. The short nap is one of my ongoing attempts to ward off the Big Sleep, and so far it's working. Sorry to disappoint.

Posted by: AllButCertain | October 17, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

It is football time for me. I will check back tomorrow.

Great baseball game, and also a pretty good NASCAR race last night. That's right folks; NASCAR, because that is how this Liberal Elitist rocks.

Have a good day all. Da Bears!

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence: "Liam, JFK didn't serve a full term either."

What's that supposed to mean, exactly? Because--as Jenn and others have pointed out--I'm stupid. And I don't quite get what that would be apropos of.

That being said, it's unfortunate that JFK didn't serve out his term, and another besides. Not only was he the most charismatic Kennedy, he was undoubtedly the most conservative. He was far more conservative than either LBJ or Nixon, and I don't doubt for a minute we'd have a more conservative country, and governance, now if JFK had been a two-term, full-term president. That would have probably meant no LBJ. No Great Society--at least, nothing like what we got. Without Nixon, we may not have gotten--or might have gotten much later--the EPA, OSHA, etc. We may never have experience the economic destruction of gas rationing and wage-and-price controls (thanks, Nixon).

Plus, JFK was the last great Democratic president. Sort of the way that Reagan was the last great Republican president. His death signaled the end of an era. Truly, it was a tragedy.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Grumpy, very old, and very bitter partisan John McCain, campaigning for Republican senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina in CA yesterday, may have actually helped her opponent when he referred to Senator Barbara Boxer as "the 'most bitterly partisan, most anti-defense senator in the United States Senate today' -- an assessment he said he’d made while having 'the unpleasant experience' of serving with her." Real nice guy, isn't he? (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/10/at-carly-fiorina-campaign-event-john-mccain-calls-barbara-boxer-bittery-partisian-and-anti-defense.html)

Posted by: dozas | October 17, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

brigade:

Do you agree with me, that we're just a few years away from a successful court challenge to the ban on women in combat?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 17, 2010 12:38 PM
-------

It wouldn't surprise me. I don't look for a groundswell as with DADT, but it only takes one person to file a lawsuit.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

"...because as anyone who has two brain cells to rub together knows, less spending simply equals higher unemployment and a worsening of the economic situation. And if you believe that was the answer, you're either stupid or brainwashed too."

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 12:44 PM
------

Hate to hit you with any facts, but we had a stimulus. Remember? It didn't work. The unemployment rate is 10%. And your answer is to let the same pack of incompetent boobs throw a few billion more of borrowed money at their favored political cronies. You must be two brain cells short.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

AllButCertain, I wonder why Bernie refused to answer that "softball" question?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Kevin, of course it was a tragedy. So was Palin having to resign because the libs were preventing her from doing her job as Governor.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

High Stakes Grifters love gullible imbeciles like Clawrence and Brigade.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 1:06 PM |
------

What's not to love?

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"Although, given that the increase from 2008 to 2009 was one of the largest increases in deficit spending in U.S. history, I'm not sure how impressive the largest reduction is, given that they both occurred under the same administration."

If you could read, you'd realize that THIS year's deficit (2010) being lower than the deficit in Bush's LAST YEAR in office (2008) means that the deficit is not only lower than it was LAST year (2009) but also lower than it was in 2008. As for sources, check the CBO, the Treasury Dept, or even this find publication or the WSJ. Reported all around, though I'm sure people who'd rather pretend it's not true didn't notice.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

jennofart wrote,
"I guess Brigade is never going to get around to explaining how use of transportation subsidized by public taxes isn't a "financial incentive" while a bus ride paid for by Arianna Huffington is."
-------

Uh, if someone actually has to explain the difference to you, I think we should probably start somewhere else---like See Spot run.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"Hate to hit you with any facts, but we had a stimulus. Remember? It didn't work. The unemployment rate is 10%."

Yes, only a moron like you would think a $3 trillion hole could be filled with $800 billion. Try again, Mary. Your transparent dishonesty isn't working.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

@JennofArk: "As for sources, check the CBO, the Treasury Dept, or even this find publication or the WSJ. Reported all around, though I'm sure people who'd rather pretend it's not true didn't notice."

I just thought you might have a link. I did look around, but 5 or so minutes is all I can devote to it this morning. If you already had the information at your fingertips, that would have been quite the time saver.

And wasn't the last year of the Bush administrations deficit (the one after two years of a Democratic house) also the highest of his administration. And wasn't most of that the bi-partisan TARP?

Or is my willful ignorance and hate-fueled rage blinding me to the objective truth of conservatives being 100% evil on everything? ;)

I don't think I said anything about it being not true. You seem awfully hostile this morning. Are you not feeling well?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Brigade - according to you, a "financial incentive" is a "financial incentive" is a "financial incentive." You either pay your own way or you don't. Anyone who used Amtrak, an airplane, public roads, or the Metro to attend a rally indisputably did not pay all the costs of attending and according to YOUR definition, i.e., "free or reduced cost transportation = incentive", they received a "financial incentive" for attending. Therefore according to your own stupid "logic", only people who walked to the rally "count."

If you don't like people pointing out stupid assertions you've made, stop making them.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Lee Harvey Oswald "prevented" Kennedy from doing his job as President. I mean, that's just a historical fact. Jenn will now get in a snit.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence: "Kevin, of course it was a tragedy. So was Palin having to resign because the libs were preventing her from doing her job as Governor."

I think there's a pretty clear distinction between an assassination and a voluntary resignation, and of a governorship and the presidency, even if you accept the justifications Palin gave, which, even if honestly the reason, I don't think makes for a valid justification. Your ideological opponents always try to make it impossible for you to govern--that's what they do (see the Republicans and Obama). If you're going to just give up in the face of intractable opposition as a governor, what would you do in any other elected office?

Anyhoo, if you see any comparison, then I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. I just don't see it. Palin quitting the governorship was a questionable, and perhaps even poor, decision, not a tragedy. And that's all there is to it.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Plus, JFK was the last great Democratic president. Sort of the way that Reagan was the last great Republican president. His death signaled the end of an era. Truly, it was a tragedy.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 1:22 PM
-----

Hear, hear!

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

@JennOfArk: Brigade - according to you, a "financial incentive" is a "financial incentive" is a "financial incentive." You either pay your own way or you don't. Anyone who used Amtrak, an airplane, public roads, or the Metro to attend a rally indisputably did not pay all the costs of attending and according to YOUR definition, i.e., "free or reduced cost transportation = incentive", they received a "financial incentive" for attending. Therefore according to your own stupid "logic", only people who walked to the rally "count."

---

Wow. And you have the chutzpah to call other people morons, stupid, or brainwashed. That's impressive.

Seriously, you don't really think that's what Brigade has suggested, at any point, do you? Or that that's the position of the tea party? Really?

And you're smarter than all us brainwashed conservatives? Really?

Okee-dokee, then.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

If you don't like people pointing out stupid assertions you've made, stop making them.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 1:53 PM
-----

The irony, the irony.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Been fun. See you guys later. Gonna go put up the laundry and mow the yard. While listening to Friday's Rush Limbaugh show.

Cuz there's no Air America anymore. :(

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Greg

Again - Never got a response to any of the questions or comments posted on this blog and sent to you.


The enforcement of the rules has been vague - if someone sees a certain type of behavior on this blog, then those kinds of posts are seen as within the rules.


Brigade has a great point - last week you yourself said "things were getting better" - so NOW there is a problem???


AND the comments posted really have NOT indicated such a grave situation that demands extreme action.


IF there is going to be new rules - TELL everyone what they are FIRST, and give everyone a chance to comply. It sure seems like the rules are being enforced on A PARTISAN BASIS ONLY. The nasty and hostile comments by liberals are routinely overlooked.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

2010: (-)$1.29T
2009: (-)$1.42T
2008: (-)$0.47T

Posted by: tao9 | October 17, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Funny how - after FAWNING over Obama for years - the liberals really don't want to talk about his policies anymore.

This election is a national referendum on Obama - and the democrats are not even defending him anymore.


Obama is a one-man DRAG on HIRING in the nation - it is amazing how he has affected EVERY JOB AND EVERY HIRING in this nation - but creating uncertainty about what health care costs will be.


Obama seems to be unconcerned about this.


What is worse - Obama could be CLUELESS about this - refusing to LISTEN - instead Obama just pretends.


It is a mess.


AND this is the central issue with the Chamber of Commerce - the Chamber OPPOSED health care.

In addition, the Chamber was NOT invited to some economic summit at the White House last year. It is important to point out that there are IMPORTANT POLICY DIFFERENCES between Obama and the Chamber.

AND this dispute has been going on for a long time. Obama has NOT reached out to the Chamber - or tried to compromise with them.

NOW Obama is trying to make the case that the FREE SPEECH from the Chamber is somehow not legitimate - but this little squabble has been going for some some time and there is MUCH MORE to this story.


Such is the DECEPTIVE NATURE of Obama.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Greg

the conservatives on this blog have been subjected to a constant stream of harassment from the liberals

Ad hominem attacks have not been enforced either.

The liberals are constantly attempting to AVOID discussion of the issues by sparking fights about little issues. I'm sorry but you have done NOTHING about any of that.


Last week, you said "things were getting better"


AND now you have changed your tune - and that is a valid complaint - haven't seen any responses from you.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Lee Harvey Oswald made it impossible for Kennedy to govern.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

“I won't bother with your rhetorical move of "here's an exception, so...".”

Oh, well there’s a surprise. You aren’t “interested” in addressing evidence contrary to your claims. A real shocker, that.

And BTW, "rhetorical move"? Little bit of projection there, Bernie. The most obvious way of countering the claim that "only X is allowed" is to point out instances in which non-X was allowed. I guess we could get a list of O'Reilly's guests for the last 15 years to see just how many "exceptions" there have been to your claim, but both time and space is limited.

The only "rhetorical" move going on here is your own effort to evade the obvious by labeling the presentation of contrary evidence a "rhetorical move" not worthy of your attention. Again...a real shocker.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Greg

You really should take a look at the comments sections of the Washington Post - particulary the news articles which have two interest groups going at it.

Talk about nasty -


What the Washington Post is tolerating in other comments sections is WAY beyond anything on this blog.


NO one knows what the rules are - and ultimately the enforcement is what is important with the rules - there has been little enforcement.


These are ALL valid points -

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

“You Cons are nasty today.”

Reading this, I imagined Stalin sitting in a room accusing someone else of killing an awful lot of people? Is there a word for such a lack of self-awareness?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

Please no semi-functional, irritating format/comment changes (All due to one, and only one commenter).

E-mail the guy.

Tell him to cut the BS.

If non-compliant, ban him.

BTW:
In Your Pants!!! (tm/Liam)
Free Bilgey!
OneLove (hi!! Tena, whereverU>R)

Posted by: tao9 | October 17, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Here's STRF, going through his litany of excuses. This one is called "I Don't Know What the Rules Are" followed closely by "The Liberals are Worse than I Am".

Why is it always STRF? Could it be his formatting, double-triple spacing, AllCaps, duplication and repetition? Nah, it can't be that? It must be something else...like his brilliant writing and outstanding and informed points. That's the real reason that one blog after another wants to dump him.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 17, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Please no semi-functional, irritating format/comment changes (All due to one, and only one commenter).

E-mail the guy.

Tell him to cut the BS.

If non-compliant, ban him.
----------------------------
hear-hear.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 17, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest are you on this site the whole day? Do you have a life?

Yesterday, I left a little after 10am and I looked back at the comments and saw you were STILL there till 3 in the morning. Are you serious?

TO GREG SARGENT: I really believe these trolls are just one miserable person with multiple id's. With the new system will we be able to hide these people's mindless non-contribution to the conversation? I say this because I believe most of the people who visit your site are just lurkers and/or people like me who have accounts, but rarely comment who visit your site everyday(like at work :). So will people like me who do read the comments and might comment on some occasions be able to hide the trolls in the thread? Because people like Savetherainforest, Brigade and Clarence are trolls who might or might not be one person and having to scroll through their looooooong, tedious, constant postings to read something substantive is ridiculous.

Also why doesn't the WashingtonPost comments section have a direct reply button to show what comment you are responding to? Everything is just one long thread, can we get a comment section where you can directly see the comment and the response like the HuffingtonPost?

Finally, I don't comment a lot but I want to let it be known that yes, SaveTheRainforest, you are tedious. And if you have multiple id's, which is very plausible to me, considering you stay on this site till 3 in the morning then I just feel sorry for you.

Greg you should take it as a compliment that these trolls love you so much that they'll stay on your site the whole day!

Posted by: magnus_terra | October 17, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"2010: (-)$1.29T 2009: (-)$1.42T 2008: (-)$0.47T Posted by: tao9"

There is a real problem with the 2008 figure. It doesn't contain the Defense supplemental the 470 Billion was the acknowledged deficit when the budget was signed. it left out Iraq and Afghanistan, which were supplementals and ran as large as the basic deficit. 2008 Was done under better rules and 2009 was done with NO supplementals. 2009's budget was still a Bush Budget, so the only Budget there that is Obama's is 2010. Since 2010 reflects the draw down from Iraq, which will show up even more in 2011, the ending of Bush's unjustified, unnecessary, immoral and illegal war will reflect positively in the final line of the 2011 budget, if the Republicans ever let it get to a vote.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 17, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

Notice that suggestions of cleaning up the comments section are drawing the same bleat as that CC got before the Fix got some much needed discipline.

STRF also spent months complaining about not knowing the rules there, too.

It should be possible for posters to follow the rules as in the Fix, because people ARE following them.

Look forward to see how your adjustments compare to CC's.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 17, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, you and I are just one miserable person with multiple id's! Our (my) secret is out.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"Bernie only does political rallies if his expenses are paid with labor union money or by Oprah.

Posted by: Brigade"

Tip - cliches aren't funny. Put some unpredictable twist in there and you make it worthwhile for your reader.

My first political rally was before I could vote. I was a union member once for two years while in high school (I'm 62). Otherwise, I've been self-employed almost constantly since then. Never taken a penny or transport from anyone for political activities.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I look forward to see how your adjustments compare to CC's.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Just my opinion--

Having spent months on the Fix with STRF (known there as 37th&OStreet) and Brigade, I do not think they are the same person. I also don't believe that clawrence is an alias for either Brigage or STRF.

STRF does create aliases, but those are obvious. For example, he's been using Classic777 recently on this blog.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 17, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Cfly

I believe 2008 military spending and supplementals) is in that final CBO number.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=184

I thought of that & I could be wrong, but couldn't find a link that had numbers broken out (actually Heritage says they're in there but I wanted to double check them too).
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

I've noticed you're pretty conversant on Defense et.al. so it'd be great to hear your take/link.

Posted by: tao9 | October 17, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Brigade said...
"Make your nap a long one."
and
"How do you type with your nose so far up Obama's butt?"

I hadn't read your posts previously. I won't be reading them in the future.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

As Dick Armey told The Economist...

"Politics is about 97 percent fiction and 3 percent imagination."

It is amazing how the Republicans really know how to "play politics." Why, they did absolutely noting the last two years but obstruct the Democrats at every turn (legislation) and they are coming up smelling roses in the 2010 races?

When they take over the House and Senate, they will "do" to Obama what they did to Clinton: investigation after investigation after investigation ad infinitum. Then, they will win the Presidency in 2012.

Then they will start the deregulating process and find some new wars for us to get into....

Posted by: dozas | October 17, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

They are complete trolls who need to get lives.

How can someone spend their whole day writing messages on a blog? Don't they have lives? It's just pathetic.

I say they're alias' one person creates, 12BarBlues, because they have the same streak of monotonous tedious writing.

Posted by: magnus_terra | October 17, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

bernie, be sure to not read any of my future posts too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I say they're alias' one person creates, 12BarBlues, because they have the same streak of monotonous tedious writing.
---------------------------------
Well, it's just my opinion.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 17, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Dozas, I agree with you.

Unfortunately President Obama and the Democrats spent two years naively/self-destructively trying to deal with these people when he/they had the power to pass substantive policies that would've gotten us out of this ditch. Instead we've gotten inadequate policies with middling results.

I'm frustrated and disgusted, but still voting. No better choice unfortunately. And I'm disgusted that we have no better choice than Harry Reid versus a nut like Angle.

Posted by: magnus_terra | October 17, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Re Rove... he should be in jail..."

For what, exactly?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

12Barblues


YOU should be banned for constant harassment of other posters.

Everyday - you come on here and discuss little - but you are quick to harass people.


YOU have even admitted to harassment - and that is your primary motivation.


Why don't you just COMMENT ON THE TOPICS - INSTEAD OF COMMENTING ON THE POSTERS.


Can't really help you with your personality disorders - you say you go to therapy to help you deal with the blogs - so I really can not help you there.


But THAT is what we are dealing with here.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

magnus, what are you going to do when Sharron Angle wins?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Good luck hiding behind me, STRF.

Tick.

Tock.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 17, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

The central issue is the ECONOMY and what Obama has done with the economy.

Where are we going with Obama forward with the economy? Does Obama even have a PLAN? Saying that he wants to waste more stimulus money by funding democratic pet-projects is far from an adequate plan.


Clearly, Obama's health care plan has placed so much uncertainty into the economy that Obama is a ONE-MAN DRAG ON HIRING THROUGHOUT THE ECONOMY.


That is the central issue.

I can understand that the liberals would rather turn this blog into some CHAT-ROOM ECHO CHAMBER - in which a bunch of regulars chit-chat and spend the whole day agreeing with each other. That seems to be the basic complaint - the EXISTENCE of opposing ideas. The liberals still have far more comments than the Conservatives - and they outnumber the conservatives on this blog - DESPITE their minority status across the nation.


So yea, the liberals are looking for some Liberal Protection Agency to save them -

And to destroy Conservative ideas - they want to boycott Fox News (they do that already) - or boycott advertisers -


The thing the liberals don't realize - the truth is ALWAYS there - if you block it out, it is still there, and you WILL realize it later, rather than sooner.


Obama is a ONE-MAN DRAG ON HIRING - the WORST President for the economy in the history of the nation.


If you don't like it, why don't you go outside and scream RACIST at someone ???

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

@kevin_the_ignorant: "given that the increase from 2008 to 2009 was one of the largest increases in deficit spending in U.S. history, I'm not sure how impressive the largest reduction is, given that they both occurred under the same administration."

Such PROFOUND ignorance on display by Kevin the fool.

The budget for Fiscal Year 2009 was Bush's last budget and took us through September 2009.

This is the kind of blatant talk-out-of-your arse ignorance that the Republican idiots exhibit on a daily basis.

Now I'm sure idiot Kevin or one of his idiot neoconfederate friends will cast aspersions on me for "blaming Bush" for the budget that HE signed into law.

How bout admitting you're ignorant on this one, eh Kevin?

Kevin, let's see if you can manage that without some snide obnoxious comment. I won't hold me breath because obnoxious comments with no basis in fact are your forte.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 17, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

The thing the liberals don't realize - the truth is ALWAYS there - if you block it out, it is still there, and you WILL realize it later, rather than sooner.
-----------------------------
Oooooooooooooh, just chant that into your pillow.

One thing we ALL know, it won't be you.

Tick. Tock.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 17, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

What to do if Sharron Angle wins?

Just watch and see how ineffectual she as an individual will be? For, she will just learn to be happy with her new Federal Senatorial retirement program and health benefits, as Republicans are a disciplined lot and she will just fall in lock step with her Majority Leader and will do what he says.

As for the people of Nevada, the foreclosures will continue and jobs will be scarce. She can only hope that the economy recovers while she is in office, so that she can claim credit, and get re-elected when the time comes. Then, her retirement benefits will increase...

Posted by: dozas | October 17, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"Amend. Or ban yourself."
"In your Pants!!!" (tm/Liam)
"Free Bilgey!!"
"OneLove" (4tena whereverU>R)

and NOW viral/anthemlike...

"Tick. Tock."

Well done 12Bar, Real PL Poster of Genius, well done.

Posted by: tao9 | October 17, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Kevin wrote:
"No, [Bernie] would not have. I'm pretty sure almost all liberals (and many conservatives) are constitutionally incapable of believing that there could ever be a grass roots groundswell of people that don't agree with them. Thus, why conservatives are always charlatans, dupes, Svengalis, Machiavellis, or members of a vast conspiracy. They cannot see a large movement of genuine conservatives coalescing around a few common goals as anything but the product of propaganda, brainwashing, and lots of anonymous cash. ;)

And direct evidence of anything contrary will not penetrate the certainty of falsehood and conspiracy."

Not a good post, Kevin. You will not find, from me, absolutist claims re "conservativism" that you suggest. I'm quite careful to stipulate that the modern movement in the US is a divergence from what preceded it (and quite different from the conservativism of Britain). Probably nothing makes this so clear as Eisenhower's famous letter to his brother...

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

What was fringe, "negligible" and "stupid" is now mainstream US conservativism. Or you could turn to the later period when William F Buckley (further right by any measure than the conservativism of Eisenhower's period) rejected the extremisms of the John Birchers. And once again, these ideas are resurgent in the movement and party and have moved into the theories and planned policies of many Republican candidates and politicians.

You, or anyone arguing the implicit case you try to make above, has to account for these changes which are both real and significant. And then, you have to account for how they came about.

As a separate point, if you’ve wondered why the US is so deeply involved in the middle east in Iraq and Afghanistan and, earlier, in Iran this last paragraph from Eisenhower’s letter explains why the US is there. Humanitarian motives are not the reason...

“A year ago last January we were in imminent danger of losing Iran, and sixty percent of the known oil reserves of the world.7 You may have forgotten this. Lots of people have. But there has been no greater threat that has in recent years overhung the free world. That threat has been largely, if not totally, removed. I could name at least a half dozen other spots of the same character. “

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


YOU should be banned - if ANYONE is harassing anyone else, it is you. That much is clear to everyone.

YOU have been purposely trying to start fights on the blog.

YOU have been recruiting other people to come onto this blog and start fights.

What is wrong with you???


YOU can tick tock yourself.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Ethan at 4:26 writes


Such PROFOUND ignorance on display by Kevin the fool.

____________________________

This is not an "ad hominem" attack???


Ethan is on this blog everyday - and he meets ALL the definitions of "troll" and "thread bombing"


So - Ethan is a liberal - IS THAT WHY HE IS NOT AN ISSUE ?? The complaints don't come in about him - WHY ? because he is a liberal.


AND yet, the complaints - who could EASILY complain EQUALLY about all - they seem to come ONLY TOWARDS CONSERVATIVES.


Sorry - once Greg has allowed Ethan to do what he does, the MESSAGE IS THAT EVERYTHING ETHAN DOES IS OK.


It is that simple - the PRACTICE OF ALLOWING ETHAN to exist - sends a message to everyone of WHAT THE RULES ARE.

The Washington Post - with its lack of enforcement is equally to blame - it has not told people what is OK and what is NOT -

AND then the CONSERVATIVES GET SINGLED OUT.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

AND then the CONSERVATIVES GET SINGLED OUT.
----------------------------
No, it's just you. Don't you ever wonder why it is always you?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 17, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Just to address one misconception from the comments:

@clawrence12: "Kevin, of course it was a tragedy. So was Palin having to resign because the libs were preventing her from doing her job as Governor."

As an Alaskan, I'd like to say this is absolutely untrue. You're making the mistake of believing anything that comes out of her mouth.

The only person preventing her from doing her job as governor was Sarah Palin. After her long absence on the campaign trail, she returned in a sulky snit to discover that Alaskans were no longer enamored of her. We'd learned many things about her aside from her nastiness on the election trail. Hence, the ethics complaints about things like charging per diem to stay in her own home.

She started making trips outside for political purposes instead of doing her job. She picked stupid fights with the Legislature. We learned, shortly before she quit, that 2/3 of all costs of investigating ethics complaints came from the complaint she filed against herself to evade the real Troopergate inquiry.

She began her ridiculous habit of communicating solely by Facebook and Twitter with her own constituents. She fought publicly with Levi Johnston from her office, for Pete's sake.

She tried to turn down stimulus money for reasons that were easily shown to be untrue, outraging Republicans and Democrats alike because it was obvious she was trying to prop up her conservative cred for her national ambitions. Then she surrendered, taking everything except funds for making homes and buildings energy-efficient, an incredibly important issue up here with the cost of fuel.

When she quit, it put most Alaskans in the curious position of being angry that she had reneged on her oath of office for patently false reasons while being hugely relieved that she was gone. Her claim that she quit for our sake was greeted with scorn and mockery. And, in fact, she has done nothing for this state except exploit it for her ridiculous television show. She just picks up her mail here.

A recent poll of Alaskan likely voters showed she's less popular than Obama here. Almost none of the donors to her PAC are Alaskans. If only America would pay attention to our painful lesson: to know her is to dislike her and her phony and calculating act.

Posted by: BlueDog1 | October 17, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

If we had the social security, UI, labor laws and farm programs of 1959, you'd not hear much in the way of abolishing them today.

I'm surprised B, are conservatives not allowed to progress? ;>)

BTW: You're a bit doubled minded in citing Ike aren'tcha?

Posted by: tao9 | October 17, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

A recent poll of Alaskan likely voters showed she's less popular than Obama here.
-------------------------
Have a link?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 17, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

YOU are harassing other people again.

How many times do you have to be told?

YOU are told - and you don't then stick to the issues - you just keep on harassing other people.

YOU are causing the trouble on the blog.


ARE YOU also astroturfing Greg - asking people to complain - people who wouldn't otherwise? THAT IS ASTROTURFING.


You have stated that you have psychological problems - that you so infuriated your father that he beat you still when he was older.


Why do YOU have that affect on people?

YOU have stated that you go to therapy to deal with the blogs - is that normal? Why is it that you need PROFESSIONAL HELP to help you deal with blogging ???

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

Notice that suggestions of cleaning up the comments section are drawing the same bleat as that CC got before the Fix got some much needed discipline.

STRF also spent months complaining about not knowing the rules there, too.

It should be possible for posters to follow the rules as in the Fix, because people ARE following them.

Look forward to see how your adjustments compare to CC's.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 17, 2010 3:21 PM
------

I suppose that's why ceflynline is one of the few people who bother with the Fix anymore. That's why he's over here whining instead of at the new and improved site participating.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"You will not find, from me, absolutist claims re "conservativism" that you suggest."

But we have repeatedly found (including today!) is what he was actually suggesting...instances in which direct evidence of things contrary to your preconceptions have failed to penetrate the certainty of falsehood and conspiracy that is the backbone of pretty much everything you post here.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Bernie, the following is a propagandistic question. How different is your understanding of TeaBagger philosophy versus your understanding of Goldwater/Buckley philosophy that seemed to so animate Ike?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 17, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, you and I are just one miserable person with multiple id's! Our (my) secret is out.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 3:26 PM
------

Should have known better than to try to pull the wool over the eyes of a fox like magnus_terra. I figured at least I could slip my 12BarBlues moniker by him.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

C'mon Rainforest, I'm doing my best to harass you too.

Give a dog some kibbles willya.

Posted by: tao9 | October 17, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Kevin writes:

"No, [Bernie] would not have. I'm pretty sure almost all liberals (and many conservatives) are constitutionally incapable of believing that there could ever be a grass roots groundswell of people that don't agree with them. Thus, why conservatives are always charlatans, dupes, Svengalis, Machiavellis, or members of a vast conspiracy. They cannot see a large movement of genuine conservatives coalescing around a few common goals as anything but the product of propaganda, brainwashing, and lots of anonymous cash.


__________________________________

The democrats largely "manufactured" the opposition to the Iraq War - there was never a "groundswell" from the general population.


Instead the Iraq War protests were mainly partisan affairs - FUNDED BY THE UNIONS - and AIMED AT BUSH AND PUSHING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FORWARD.


The Iraq War protests were more about attacking Bush - for domestic political gain.


Sure, the democrats FOOLED people into actually believing the War was wrong and the War was making things worse in the Middle East - and some protesters actually were against the WAR - but the really push behind it was for DOMESTIC PARTISAN ADVANTAGE

_________________________


So, for the liberals to watch the Tea Party - and see REAL ENTHUSIASM THAT THE DEMOCRATS COULD NEVER GET IN THEIR PROTESTS, the democrats are dismayed -

The democrats do not want to see energy on the other side -

The democrats do NOT want to believe that they were WRONG - and that a MAJORITY OF AMERICA disagrees with their far-left agenda.


Yes, the far-left has hyjacked the democratic party - and they TRIED to hyjack the country.


But the truth is - all they can do right now is try to ban CONSERVATIVE IDEAS WHICH HAVE THE BACKING OF A MAJORITY OF THE NATION.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Ethan said: "Kevin, let's see if you can manage that without some snide obnoxious comment. I won't hold me breath because obnoxious comments with no basis in fact are your forte."

I thought they were my forte? What gives? Should I be jealous? I thought you held me in the most contempt?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 17, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

I hadn't read your posts previously. I won't be reading them in the future.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 3:38 PM
----

Good. Most of them are a bit over your head. I, on the other hand, will continue to read your blather and comment on its general idiocy. It's better you merely acquiesce in silence like a good boob.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 wrote,
"Such PROFOUND ignorance on display by Kevin the fool."
-------

Well that does it! The Canadians won't be reading any more of your posts either.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Look at the obnoxious ignorant "blame Obama" idiots attacking me for being factually correct about the Bush FY09 budget.

You people are just plain stupid.

You fools are a disease on society. Really, it's just common sense that you have a clue before you open your mouths, but then again you celebrate ignorance, lies and racism, so that's what we've all come to expect. Base ignorance papered over with lies. As I said, you ignorants are a disease on America.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 17, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Look at the obnoxious ignorant "blame Obama" idiots attacking me for being factually correct about the Bush FY09 budget.

You people are just plain stupid.

You fools are a disease on society. Really, it's just common sense that you have a clue before you open your mouths, but then again you celebrate ignorance, lies and racism, so that's what we've all come to expect. Base ignorance papered over with lies. As I said, you ignorants are a disease on America.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 17, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Since the 450 Billion was the number reported for the projected deficit in the 2008 budget, without adding in the cost of the two wars, that is, it contained all the basic Defense budget EXCEPT the additionals for the War, including veterans care and many increases in wounded care, unless the actual budget came in very nearly balanced, those numbers can't include the costs of 160,000 troops in Iraq and 20K troops in Afghanistan. A fair guess at costs of troops is 100K in wages and associated taxes, (SS and Medicare) and as much in quarters, rations, and other operational expenses. Ammunition and capital support, (Like MRAPS) depends on the type of unit, and is really skewed by the fact that we ran Iraq on confiscated National Guard equipment. (For instance, the LA NG took all its trucks and equipment TO Iraq, but brought none of it home, but left it for the Reserve and active Army troops that relieved them. That is why they were totally unable to respond to the aftermath of two hurricanes.)

100,000 times 160,000 is 16 BILLION. That is just the payroll for Iraq in 2008. guessing five times that in logistics and quartermaster expenses, and an unguessable multiple for the costs of contracting out many jobs that used to be military MOS's, like the contractors who run the DFAC's, and the contractors who drive materials around in convoy, and contractors doing security for the troops, and lots of other jobs that don't get counted in the military side but get budgeted in off the books special accounts, and you may guess, with some justification, that there is a .5T a year hidden deficit to the Iraq war through 2009.

The inability for anyone not working in a pentagon accounting section to guess what the war would ordinarily be costing, and therefore for those not in the accounting sections to discover costs much higher than they should be are some of the benefits Rumsfield built into his new fangled Army, Navy, Air Force and marines. All those of us on the outside ever get to see is the numbers that Congress coughs up, and we have no way to scale them to see if they are reasonable.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 17, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Ethan writes at 5:54

Look at the obnoxious ignorant "blame Obama" idiots attacking me for being factually correct about the Bush FY09 budget.

You people are just plain stupid.

You fools are a disease on society. Really, it's just common sense that you have a clue before you open your mouths, but then again you celebrate ignorance, lies and racism, so that's what we've all come to expect. Base ignorance papered over with lies. As I said, you ignorants are a disease on America.


_______________________________________


These are NOT "ad hominem" attacks?

Ethan meets all the definitions of "troll" and of "thread bombing"

Are those who complain complaining about Ethan too ??? Or ARE THEY JUST COMPLAINING ABOUT CONSERVATIVES ???


This is a serious equal protection issue.

If the complaints are based on partisan motivations, they should be dismissed immediately.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Add another STRF excuse: "it's my constitutional right to equal protection. Let me hide behind Ethan."

Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tick. Tock.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 17, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

There are serious questions of MATURITY AND HONESTY here. It is the mature thing to do to treat everyone equally. And honesty requires that the liberals should not get off based on partisan differences.

It is clear that at least some of this is going on here.

When someone sees Ethan's posts, and there is no enforcement, one must conclude that such conduct is OK with the Washington Post and crew.

I realize that many of the liberals prefer to act like children when they are dealing with other people - the insistence in not reading some people, not engaging them, is pretty much the same as putting one's hands over one's ears and singing LA LA LAAA LAAA LAAA LAAA LAAA.


Anyway - it is all a reflection on you , not a reflection on me.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues at 6:06

Another post aimed solely at harassing someone else - and devoid of any substance.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

is pretty much the same as putting one's hands over one's ears and singing LA LA LAAA LAAA LAAA LAAA LAAA.
----------------------------------
Why do you care? You are doing the same thing--only you're singing HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE. Read one of your posts, and you have read them all.

Then, you add insult to injury by triple spacing, ALLCAPS, repeat and repost.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 17, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

The economy is still the major issue for the nation - and Obama is still a ONE-MAN ECONOMIC DRAG ON HIRING.

It is really horrible.

The democrats are more upset about that - they would prefer if the whole country was FOOLED INTO FAWNING OVER OBAMA AGAIN.


The democrats would be happier if every blog was filled with deceptive pro-Obama comments.

However - that is NOT REALITY.


The American People can not wait to cast their votes AGAINST OBAMA


The American People want to send a message to Obama - send a message to the democrats that their far-left agenda should be thrown onto the ASHHEAP OF HISTORY WHERE IT BELONGS.

The American People are sick of the deceptions of Obama, the lies of Obama and the only responses being ARROGANCE AND FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM...


When will Obama give us the Nixon "you won't have Obama to kick around anymore" speech. That one should be good - with a few racist charges thrown in would work too.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

12Barblues

Go to another bar - and leave other posters alone.


YOU have little to say about the issues, little to say about the topics - and yet you have ALOT to say about other people.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I'll bet that STRF will be gone from this blog before the President will resign.

Anyone want to take that bet?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 17, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

@Scott - you might want to go back and read that post again, noting who said exactly what.

@tao
"You're a bit doubled minded in citing Ike aren'tcha?"

As I think the Ike quote ought to make very clear indeed (even to a close adherent of the tao-jones worldview) that any doubleness is not a consequence of my noggin but of conservativism then in sharp contrast with the conservatism of now in America.

Or, of course, one could contrast Goldwater's comments on what we now know as the religious right with it's place in the present movement and party.

Or we could pretend that the present complexion represents traditional conservativism.

But why would we wish to make ourselves that stupid?

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

For those interested, a good piece on David Barton, the insane doofus who Glenn Beck pushes as "the most important man in America right now", who is one of Beck's 'professors' and who helped write the new Texas curriculum.
http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/47077/history-lesson/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=history-lesson

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Bernie said: "Or, of course, one could contrast Goldwater's comments on what we now know as the religious right with it's place in the present movement and party."

What's the difference, in your mind, between the two?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 17, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

12 Bar, I'll take that bet.

President Obama isn't going anywhere but continuing his exceptional work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Only a fool would suggest that he resign considering what an incredible job he is doing, especially considering the circumstances that were left for him by the Republican Party's ship of fools.

Fiscal Year 2009, Bush's last and worst budget, being the prime example. The Republican Tea Party still stubbornly, obnoxiously, BLAMES OBAMA for that budget despite the fact that the FY09 budget, a horrific train wreck for the American economy, was a product of GEORGE W. BUSH and his idiot Republican cronies.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 17, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

12 Bar, I'll take that bet.

President Obama isn't going anywhere but continuing his exceptional work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Only a fool would suggest that he resign considering what an incredible job he is doing, especially considering the circumstances that were left for him by the Republican Party's ship of fools.

Fiscal Year 2009, Bush's last and worst budget, being the prime example. The Republican Tea Party still stubbornly, obnoxiously, BLAMES OBAMA for that budget despite the fact that the FY09 budget, a horrific train wreck for the American economy, was a product of GEORGE W. BUSH and his idiot Republican cronies.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 17, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

I shouldve been more clear. What is the philosophical difference between Goldwater/Buckley conservatism and today's TeaBaggerism? My apologies.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 17, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

"Fiscal Year 2009, Bush's last and worst budget, being the prime example. The Republican Tea Party still stubbornly, obnoxiously, BLAMES OBAMA for that budget despite the fact that the FY09 budget, a horrific train wreck for the American economy, was a product of GEORGE W. BUSH and his idiot Republican cronies."

And passed by a Democratic Congress. As Obi-Wan asked, "Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool that follows him?"

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 17, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

And another very good piece from Zakaria on Blair's memoir. One bit (but lot's more here)...

"Blair never really identified with Labour’s long and romantic past. There is not a single Labourite prime minister he seems to admire. The British political figures he speaks well of are David Lloyd George, the last Liberal Party prime minister; the economist John Maynard Keynes, who was in his time a centrist figure; and Roy Jenkins, a Labour politician who left the party because it had moved too far left. He mentions Margaret Thatcher with care, knowing that she is an object of loathing for many on the British left, but he clearly believes that her market-based reforms were necessary and productive.

The political figure he most closely identifies with in the book, and for whom he has undiluted praise, is Bill Clinton. “He was the most formidable politician I had ever encountered,” Blair writes. “And yet his very expertise and extraordinary capacity at the business of politics obscured the fact that he was also a brilliant thinker.” He sees Clinton’s approach as “a genuine, coherent and actually successful attempt to redefine progressive politics: to liberate it from outdated ideology; to apply its values anew in a new world.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/books/review/Zakaria-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

@Troll re Goldwater and the religious right...

"By the 1980s, with Ronald Reagan as president and the growing involvement of the religious right in conservative politics, Goldwater's libertarian views on personal issues were revealed; he believed that they were an integral part of true conservatism. Goldwater viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice, not intended for government intervention.[37]
As a passionate defender of personal liberty, he saw the religious right's views as an encroachment on personal privacy and individual liberties.[38] In his 1980 Senate reelection campaign, Goldwater won support from religious conservatives but in his final term voted consistently to uphold legalized abortion and, in 1981, gave a speech on how he was angry about the bullying of American politicians by religious organizations, and would "fight them every step of the way".[39] Goldwater also disagreed with the Reagan administration on certain aspects of foreign policy (e.g. he opposed the decision to mine Nicaraguan harbors). Notwithstanding his prior differences with Dwight D. Eisenhower, Goldwater in a 1986 interview rated him the best of the seven Presidents with whom he had worked."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#Later_life

Thus Goldwater (even Goldwater!) would get nowhere in the modern Republican party. That of course is because of the rise in power of the religious right component in the party but that is just one change to the party. Eisenhower's letter speaks to something quite different.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

I'll grant you that Goldwater's social viewpoints liberalized after he remarried, but how different is today's TeaBaggerism (or TeaBaggerism! As you propagandistically put it) from Goldwater /Buckley's '64 conservatism?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 17, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

We should toss is LBJ's portrayal of their conservatism for additional giggles. Of course, the left of '64 thought Goldwater was insane.

http://www.dailylocal.com/articles/2010/09/30/opinion/srv0000009511588.txt

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 17, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

Could you please list, say, the top 5 policy aims of the Tea Party (in your view).

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

the left of '64 thought Goldwater was insane.
---------------------------------
This seems like a spin on what actually happened. Isn't this the election where Goldwater took a total of 5 states? And Johnson took all the rest?

Unless the entire country was "left", wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the vast majority of the voters, right, left and center, soundly rejected Goldwater's policies?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 17, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

"I'll grant you that Goldwater's social viewpoints liberalized after he remarried"

Can you find statements from Goldwater from an earlier period where he supported those policies he rails against above? Your apparent suggestion that it was Goldwater who changed rather than the party itself has no evidence to support it that I know of. The evidence goes the other direction.

"but how different is today's TeaBaggerism (or TeaBaggerism! As you propagandistically put it) from Goldwater /Buckley's '64 conservatism?"

Here you are implicitly suggesting that the Tea Party membership is marked by libertarian ideology rather than modern conservative movement ideology. That's false. I posted a graph here about two weeks ago that showed the intersection of these two sets and there's but a tiny portion where the sets do not intersect. Which Tea Party candidates can you name who hold, as Goldwater did, that abortion ought to remain an individual's choice? Which can you name who have spoken out against the religious right "bullying" the party or who has said he/she will "fight them every step of the way"?

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

President Barack Obama's housing secretary said on Sunday "it's shameful" that financial institutions may have made the housing crisis worse by improperly processing foreclosures.

Shaun Donovan, secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, said in a column on the Huffington Post website that a comprehensive review of the foreclosure crisis was under way and that the administration would respond with "the full force of the law where problems are found."

There have been allegations that banks failed to review foreclosure documents properly or submitted false statements when they foreclosed on properties.

In addition to inquiries by attorneys general in all 50 U.S. states, the Justice Department and banking regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission has begun a preliminary investigation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69G10J20101017

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 17, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Goldwater was roundly thrashed, no question (pith). I'm just trying to find out how different Goldwater/Buckley conservatism is from TeaBaggersim (TeaBaggerism!).

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 17, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Re Rove... he should be in jail..."

For what, exactly?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 4:08 PM
....................

Life?

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"The evidence goes the other direction."

What is the earliest evidence you have of Goldwater's support for abortion?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Damn; The Simpsons have been preempted by the Baseball playoffs.

Smithers; release the hounds on Bud and Rupert.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

Or, for that matter, at what point in the history of the Republican Party was abortion ever supported by the party? Did your standard bearer of "traditional conservatism", Ike, favor abortion rights?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Goldwater was roundly thrashed, no question (pith). I'm just trying to find out how different Goldwater/Buckley conservatism is from TeaBaggersim (TeaBaggerism!).
-------------------------------------
Excuse me for inserting myself in someone else's argument.

Wasn't Goldwater a libertarian? That is clearly the biggest difference, isn't it? That's not to say there aren't some libertarians within the Tea Party movement. There aren't that many libertarians, nationwide, for them to have power in any election. At least, they haven't so far. Perhaps that's why libertarians have latched onto the TP movement, hoping for some halo effect.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 17, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

"the left of '64 thought Goldwater was insane. This seems like a spin on what actually happened. Isn't this the election where Goldwater took a total of 5 states? And Johnson took all the rest? Unless the entire country was "left", wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the vast majority of the voters, right, left and center, soundly rejected Goldwater's policies? Posted by: 12BarBlues"

Well, yes, that was the election where AUH2O set an all time record for losing an election, because not only did he get thoroughly drubbed, but he dragged down an awful lot of Republicans down ticket. By the mid 70's the ability to vote straight ticket went away and Nixon mostly tromped George McGovern, but had no coattails at all.

Of course only some on the left thought Goldwater was insane. Many of us thought he was insanely funny, and we read Art Buchwald and bought Chad Mitchell albums, but we also knew that he was far to willing to assume that people agreed with him, or saw the incredible wisdom of his cause. He went to Florida and addressed a large gathering of retirees, and told them Social Security was socialism and ought to be immediately repealed. Florida retirees went en-blok for LBJ. He Told people who thought we didn't need nukes at all that theater commanders, or even Corps commanders ought to have full control over their assigned nukes. (At the time we had field deployable rockets like Sergeant and Honest John ready to be nuclear tipped and assigned as low as Corps level under certain circumstances. We even had a really neat, if suicidal, battle field nuke that was man portable, Davy Crocket, which was so short range that the troops in the vicinity if where it was fired from would be in its blast zone.

Now Goldwater would scare the far right far more than he ever scared the left. He did, after all, eventually decide that keeping gays out of the military was a very bad idea.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 17, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Bernie, vis a vis Goldwater's social views, I have no evidence other than personal anecdotes from growing up is AZ and conversing with those that knew him. So I will grant you that.

I also know that within Libertarianism there's a faiy strong branch that is pro-life (see Ron Paul). My perception from Teabaggers (TeaBaggers!) like myself is that TeaBaggerism (TeaBaggerism!) has maintained a fairly Libertarian streak and that the TeaBagger (TeaBagger!) candidates have flaunted their pro-life credentials as a way to attract Republican conservative support.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 17, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

"Wasn't Goldwater a libertarian? Posted by: 12BarBlues"

No, Goldwater was a hard right conservative, but in those days the Conservatives still believed in taxes. Goldwater was a dedicated anti-communist, and wanted more than enough Army, Navy, and Air Force to go whup dem commies good, and believed in paying cash for government, not putting it on a credit card where it wasn't absolutely necessary.

He was a true, and quite thoughtful, conservative, and a man given to telling people what he thought. The mainstream Republican party thought he was funny and good for using against the Democrats until he got a hold of the nominating apparatus and stacked the deck for his own nomination. By the time the Rockefellers and the Cabot Lodges and their country buying rich friends realized it, Goldwater had an Iron grip on the party mechanisms, and the Conservatives have been in charge there ever since.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 17, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

Let's play a game....Teabagger or Barry Goldwater?

""Our tendency to concentrate power in the hands of a few men deeply concerns me. We can be conquered by bombs or by subversion; but we can also be conquered by neglect - by ignoring the Constitution and disregarding the principles of limited government. I am convinced that most Americans now want to reverse the trend. I think that concern for our vanishing freedoms is genuine. I think that the people"s uneasiness in the stifling omnipresence of government has turned into something approaching alarm. But bemoaning the evil will not drive it back, and accusing fingers will not shrink government."

Teabagger or Barry Goldwater?

""The people have long since seen through the spurious suggestion that federal aid comes free. They know that the money comes out of their own pockets, and that it is returned to them minus a broker’s fee taken by the federal bureaucracy. They know, too, that the power to decide how that money shall be spent is withdrawn from them and exercised by some planning board deep in the caverns of one of the federal agencies. They understand this represents a great and perhaps irreparable loss-not only in their wealth, but in their priceless liberty."

Teabagger or Barry Goldwater?

"We can meet our obligations and not postpone the debt payment and place that burden on the next generation. We can do all of these things, for the people of America are strong, capable and courageous. To do these things, to restore the flaming beacon of freedom and opportunity which for so many generations enjoyed the admiration and affection of all the peoples of this earth, we must make our voices heard in the election of those who are to represent us in the governing bodies of this republic."

Teabagger or Barry Goldwater?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't Goldwater a libertarian? That is clearly the biggest difference, isn't it? That's not to say there aren't some libertarians within the Tea Party movement. There aren't that many libertarians, nationwide, for them to have power in any election. At least, they haven't so far. Perhaps that's why libertarians have latched onto the TP movement, hoping for some halo effect.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 17, 2010 7:59 PM

...................

I am not sure about him being a Libertarian. I do not recall ever having heard him claim that he was. Both he and Bill Buckley were States Rights, conservatives. Both of them were against the federal government ending desegregation. Since Ronald Reagan was a disciple of Goldwater, I think that you can get the best approximation of how a President Goldwater would have tried to govern, by looking at how Reagan did.

I recall that Goldwater was against most changes that the feminist movement was calling for.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "Reading this, I imagined Stalin sitting in a room accusing someone else of killing an awful lot of people? Is there a word for such a lack of self-awareness?"

Well, chutzpah is a word that often occurs to me. Orwellian? There is certainly a phrase from Orwell that seems to apply, to me. To whit: All Animals are Equal. But some are more equal than others.

:)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

"He went to Florida and addressed a large gathering of retirees, and told them Social Security was socialism and ought to be immediately repealed."

Is that awesome or what! Course, it's no comparison to "if you like your current plan/doctor, you can keep it." for honesty;-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 17, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

JFK And Goldwater were very close friends. They had agreed that if Goldwater won the nomination, they would campaign across the country together, holding many debates.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Correction:

Both of them were against the federal government ending segregation.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 17, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

@dozas: "When they take over the House and Senate, they will 'do' to Obama what they did to Clinton: investigation after investigation after investigation ad infinitum."

This is an entirely credible scenario. In which case, I think they lose the independents and anti-government folks who helped put them in office. Those folks want taxes cut and "waste" cut and yada yada yada. Frankly, if they go the Clinton route again and investigate a 20 year old land deal of some kind, I'll vote against the Republicans in 2012. And I almost always vote against the Democrats.

"Then, they will win the Presidency in 2012."

Actually, historically, they will have a hard uphill battle to take the presidency in 2012. Unless Obama faces a primary challenger, or declines to run, or there is a 3rd party challenge of some substance, Obama stands a very good chance of winning in 2012. Historically, incumbency is very powerful. And 1st term incumbent presidents of the opposite party of the previous party rarely (almost never) get kicked out with a primary challenge. Carter faced a primary challenge in 1980, and a 3rd party candidate (in the form of John Anderson running as part of the libertarian party). Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, but also faced a primary challenge from Ronald Reagan. Just to give two recent examples. And there's a lot more where that came from. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Given that "Buckley conservatism" was the bulwark against "John Birch Society conservatism" and the teabaggers are analogues to the Birchers, I'd have to say the difference is quite large.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Ethan writes:

President Barack Obama's housing secretary said on Sunday "it's shameful" that financial institutions may have made the housing crisis worse by improperly processing foreclosures.

Shaun Donovan, secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, said in a column on the Huffington Post website that a comprehensive review of the foreclosure crisis was under way and that the administration would respond with "the full force of the law where problems are found."

There have been allegations that banks failed to review foreclosure documents properly or submitted false statements when they foreclosed on properties


____________________________


That's a LAUGH


What about Andrew Cuomo - who was HUD Secretary when they put in place mortgage programs aimed AT PUSHING SUBPRIME MORTGAGES LIKE DRUG DEALERS.


AND you forget that Kristen Gillibrand was at HUD at the same time - WORKING FOR CUOMO !!!

It is a job - it is time the democrats MAN UP and ADMIT their role in the mortgage crisis.


Blame the banks........

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 17, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

McWing:

I have to say that it is highly ironic that Bernie has chosen to use Goldwater in his attempt to paint the Tea Partiers as being far so removed from "traditional" conservatism. In 1964 Goldwater was speaking about "our vanishing freedoms" and "the stifling omnipresence of government." (Just think about how much more omnipresent it is today!) Yet Bernie would have you believe that the Tea Partiers represent a departure from even Goldwater's "conservatism". Any objective and honest reading of Goldwater would lead one to conclude precisely the opposite - that Goldwater, especially the Goldwater of 1964, is probably more representative of the Tea Party movement than any other high profile politician of the 20th century.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar: "Good luck hiding behind me, STRF. Tick. Tock."

Indeed. I'll miss regular participation on the blog, should the new system end up getting caught in the filters/IPS as work (although it might, now and again, improve my productivity).

But it would be worth being de facto "banned" in order to see certain trolls/comment-section-performance-artists have their work placed in the dump bin. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

With an exception or two, I'll bet that no one is going to get banned. Threaded comments have their pluses, but they also have their negatives. I like the chronological posting that occurs here.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 17, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: @kevin_the_ignorant: 'given that the increase from 2008 to 2009 was one of the largest increases in deficit spending in U.S. history, I'm not sure how impressive the largest reduction is, given that they both occurred under the same administration.' -- Such PROFOUND ignorance on display by Kevin the fool."

Then, by all means, please enlighten me, Ethan the Wise.

"The budget for Fiscal Year 2009 was Bush's last budget and took us through September 2009. This is the kind of blatant talk-out-of-your arse ignorance that the Republican idiots exhibit on a daily basis."

That's us! Though it's looking like your side is still going to take quite the drubbing in November. It's got to be frustrating to be so smart and so good that you lose. Dramatically. And a lot. ;)

"Now I'm sure idiot Kevin or one of his idiot neoconfederate friends will cast aspersions on me for 'blaming Bush' for the budget that HE signed into law."

If you had tried harder, you could have fit the word "idiot" into that sentence at least 3 more times. Seriously, is your self-concept as a person, or the size of your manhood, someone connected to how many times you can call a person an idiot? Because, if so, then that would explain the frequency with which you pronounce your judgement on the fools, frauds, charlatans, and idiots (and morons) of the world.

"How bout admitting you're ignorant on this one, eh Kevin?"

Actually, an admission of ignorance on my part was implicit in what I said. I believe I indicated that I thought I might have it wrong. You may not recognize that in the words of others, because you are physically incapable of entertaining the notion that you are wrong about anything, or exhibiting any sign of self-doubt, on any issue, ever (at least, by all indications in this admittedly limited environment). Although it's odd how often I say. "I am x" and then you come back and accuse of being "x". And then I say, "Well, yes, I just said that," and then you call me a fraud and a liar and a racist and an idiot.

I hope you're a better conversationalist in day-to-day life. As it is, I have a vision of everybody and the water cooler quickly scattering when they see you coming. ;)

"Kevin, let's see if you can manage that without some snide obnoxious comment. I won't hold me breath because obnoxious comments with no basis in fact are your forte."

He says with no apparent sense of irony, or enough self-awareness to recognize the inherent pot-calling-the-kettle hypocrisy . . .

Dude--and I say this with all affection--you are truly a work of art.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "Not a good post, Kevin. You will not find, from me, absolutist claims re 'conservativism' that you suggest."

Apologies, Bernie. I was pressed for time. There was a tall tree that required slaying--I mean, trimming. Also, an outdoor shower to dismantle. Among many other workaday chores. But I wanted to make the point (although somewhat tongue-and-cheek). In my opinion, you often share things that are an awfully superficial (and conspiracy-laden) view of conservatism. If you regard the Tea Parties as something more as dupes and dolts being manipulated by the Koch brothers, it hasn't been--well, it hasn't been obvious, but I may have misread something. ;)

"And then, you have to account for how they came about."

And you (in very simplified terms) account for them with manipulation, conspiracy, and propaganda. Or am I mistaken? I ask that seriously, as it's certainly possible. I know less than I think I do about almost everything, and I don't think I know all that much. ;)

"As a separate point, if you’ve wondered why the US is so deeply involved in the middle east in Iraq and Afghanistan and, earlier, in Iran this last paragraph from Eisenhower’s letter explains why the US is there. Humanitarian motives are not the reason..."

Fair enough, and certainly a credible possibility. I would argue that even humanitarian motives (also a possibility) don't excuse poor strategies that squander blood and treasure.

Again, your criticism of the quality of my post is well-taken. I did rush through it, although I think, in terms of it's general thrust, my point was valid.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Hey all, I haven't been around for a while, but I just spent the last week traveling around the Lake Superior region for a workshop in Duluth, Mn, and I've got a few electoral observations I made out there:

1) If yard signs are anything to go by, the Dems will hold MI-1 (Stupak's open seat), as all the way across the UP, I saw about a thousand McDowell (D) signs, and only 1 sign for the R candidate. What makes this potentially relevant is that I saw McDowell signs in yards that also had Rick Snyder (R) signs for governor. These observations held all the way from Sault Ste. Marie to Ironwood.

2) David Obey's seat in Northern Wisconsin might be lost- Sean Duffy had a 2 to 1 sign advantage over Lassa. Interestingly enough, however, I actually saw a sign that said "When was the last time David Obey voted Not to raise taxes", which I found odd given that Obey is retiring.

3) I saw about even numbers of Feingold and Johnson signs in the area, which is to say not very many of either. Not really sure what to make of that.

4) Walker was the only WI-Gov candidate who even had signs up there

5) In Duluth, the North Shore, and the Iron Ranges, the DFL seems to have things locked down in Minnesota. Tons of Oberstar and Dayton signs, often set up with regional themes- especially in the Iron Ranges.

Thats just a few things I noticed anyway.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | October 17, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

It's touching how sentimental the left is for Goldwater and the wholesome Republicanism of that narrow period after WWII and the 60s.

But the argument is fradulent propoganda. Bernie blames the "religious right" for dragging the GOP rightward, but it is the Democratic party that has moved radically to the left since the 1960s. In 1960, someone who advocated unrestricted abortion as a "constitutional right," same sex "marriage" (or even homosexual "civil unions" or open military service), banning the Ten Commandments from courts and pre-game prayers from high schools, would have been beyond the radical fringe, yet they are mainstream Democrat policy posiions today.

Where is the liberalism, on the other hand, of JFK, who cut taxes and pursued vigorous anti-communist and pro-freedom foreign policy? Did the great liberal icons LBJ, JFK, Truman, or FDR ever advocate same-sex marriage, or gays in the military? No, today's Democratic Party is a radical party beyond the fringes of the 1950s and the Eisenhower era.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 17, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

@Troll: "I thought they were my forte? What gives? Should I be jealous? I thought you held me in the most contempt?"

Not only is he the most perpetually angry young man I've ever encountered, he's a fair-weather enemy, too. Fickle, as they say.

@Ethan2010: "You people are just plain stupid. You fools are a disease on society. Really, it's just common sense that you have a clue before you open your mouths, but then again you celebrate ignorance, lies and racism, so that's what we've all come to expect. Base ignorance papered over with lies."

Not a hint of irony. Not even a whisper of self-awareness. It's a near perfection project, the pinnacle of narcism. It's is beauty to behold, but not just in and of itself, but because you know it isn't over. There is still more to come. The coup de grace!

"As I said, you ignorants are a disease on America."

Bam! Now, *that's* how it's done.

:)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3,

Agreed, I also notice that today's Libertarianism was yesterday's conservatism.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 17, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "Thus Goldwater (even Goldwater!) would get nowhere in the modern Republican party"

He also wouldn't get anywhere in the modern Democratic party, either. Indeed, he'd probably get further with the Republicans (and certainly would have, until this year's purge, as he was to the right of Arlen Specter and Arnold Schwarzenegger, just to name two non-teabagger types previously welcomed under the GOPs larger tent--as of 4-6 years ago.

In any case, it's not like the Democrats are offering a credible alternative for alienated Goldwater conservatives (and you can trust me on that ). Once they do, no doubt, they'll win over the votes of all 10 of us.

As it is, there's no home for Goldwater conservatives in either then Democratic or Republican parties, and apparently, the electorate has spoken, and has decided they prefer it thusly.

Re: the Republican party of the last decade?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Scott asks: "What is the earliest evidence you have of Goldwater's support for abortion?"

The question at hand is whether and how much the modern conservative movement and hence the Republican party has moved to an extremist edge. And not merely an extremist edge, but one which is in many ways in direct contradiction to libertarian ideas. Rand Paul's recent statements on abortion are exemplary. And I put to you the question I asked earlier...what Tea Party candidates take a libertarian position on the issue of choice?

Leaving out lesser (though electorally successful and party-supported) Republican figures like Specter, Gerald Ford was pro-choice as was the early Ronald Reagan, as was GW Bush as was David Souter (nominated by Rudman and supported by an overwhelming number of Republicans). Ronald Reagan famously rejected the anti-gay Prop 6 initiative.

Today, rather obviously, not a single one of those people would, maintaining those positions, get anywhere in your party. Nor, as I said, would Goldwater.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

@qb: "It's touching how sentimental the left is for Goldwater and the wholesome Republicanism of that narrow period after WWII and the 60s."

Isn't it, though? The American left (a lot of them) believe that they can somehow leverage conservatives that can no longer actively be elected or advance policy, like Reagan and Buckley and Goldwater, as a tool to paint current conservatives who might win elected office as fringe, crazy, extreme, stupid, etc.

I contrast them with much of the British left (at least, as to what I've heard) that are as hostile (and hateful) towards Margaret Thatcher as they day she became Prime Minister. Now, there's some consistency.

I wonder, will we see liberal paens to the moderation and vision of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, 30 years from now?

"RoboReagan is a racist and a bigot, and wants to take away your Perpetual Employment Security! Whatever happened to reasonable Republicans, like President Palin and Rush Limbaugh? Say what you will about Glenn Beck, at least he had a much better haircut than either President McFly or Vice-President Tannen."

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

"Indeed. I'll miss regular participation on the blog, should the new system end up getting caught in the filters/IPS as work (although it might, now and again, improve my productivity). But it would be worth being de facto "banned" in order to see certain trolls/comment-section-performance-artists have their work placed in the dump bin. ;) Posted by: Kevin_Willis"

If they install the system at the fix, we will lose a few posters who got run off the fix and came here. after a couple days you won't much notice, except that a running thread is all together. The Fix does run bottom to top, chronologically, and as threads run long it is the middle threads that disappear under a more button. Works quite well actually.

Stay reasonably within propriety and you have nothing to fear unless the total zombie of posts digestion accidentally gets you.

I look forward to seeing what Greg gets handed by the Mumbo Jumbo Gods of IT.

(I have a bit of a problem with IT types. Microsoft glitched my registrations when I bought this computer. When I figured out that it was their removing IE8 by mistake, and used Firefox to message them, because I used my Outlook license to get to free help, they wasted three days repeating lots of non sense tests, before they finally decided to go ahead and look at IE8, like the non IT goombah wanted. Three hours of correcting IE8 on their end before reloading it correctly on mine fixed their problem. )

Posted by: ceflynline | October 17, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Holyhandgrenade

Interesting trip - were you in any big towns, or mostly driving through the back roads up there?

The reason I ask - the signs would targeted toward suburb and urban areas - as opposed to more rural areas where the back roads are.


.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 17, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

holy, great to hear from you and thanks for the interesting post. Hope the PhD program is going well.

Really worried about Feingold. It's too bad such a quality Dem has to go down (if he does).

As for congressional races, I still think that in general where the GOP has run nutty (Tea Party, mostly) candidates, the Dems will get the seat (excepting completely red districts).

Dems are going to come out to vote, no matter how much the stupid MSM fetishizes the blowhard Teabaggers and despite the disgusting GOP corporate spending binge.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 17, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

BlueDog, If it is a crime for a governor to wear a jacket with a logo, to advocate for or against a proposition, to engage in politics, or to travel out of state for political purposes, then all of our governors are guilty and should be locked up immediately. Let me guess that you wouldn't complain if a LIBERAL governor was doing the exact same things. If Palin was doing such a poor job, then you should be GLAD that she resigned.

Every on of these frivolous complaints were dismissed. Any objective person realizes they were not going to stop and were paralyzingly distractive and costly to Palin and they impaired her entire staff's ability to do her job. The motive behind the attacks was to silence a conservative voice which threatened the liberal agenda. I'm glad she resign so that she could do that more important work for America.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

@bernie: "Today, rather obviously, not a single one of those people would, maintaining those positions, get anywhere in your party. Nor, as I said, would Goldwater."

I'm not sure that that's true. At least in regards to Reagan. If there was a conservative leader with the charisma and oratory of a Reagan, he could get somewhere. It's not all politics and purity--while Angle and O'Donnell and Miller might not have more oratorical skills or natural charm than a Murkowski or a Mike Castle, but those folks weren't exactly Ronald Reagans, and not even Barry Goldwaters.

You give me a William F. Buckley, I give you somebody conservatives will listen to, across a broad range. And who liberals will equally accuse of propaganda and manipulation. It's not like George Will gets a free pass from the left because he's not Glenn Beck.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

@SCott - did Eisenhower support a right to choose? Of course not. Such an option was not open to women via the medical profession (unless one came from a wealthy family).

But the change here is a broad cultural change across the Western world (facilitated by medical services and increasing affluence). Republicans changed in this regard as they have done re miscegenation laws.

That evolution, however, has been rejected by modern conservatives from the religious right sector of the party who are now so powerful in your coalition that Republican candidates can no longer support choice or express support for gay issues without coming acropper immediately.

And as I said above, this is but one aspect of the growing extremism. Ike's letter to his brother (not remarked upon by any of you) details another.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

clawrence, what do you mix with that moose-flavored kool-aid?

Just water or is there a sedative too?

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 17, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Much fun in the comments section. StRF is, of course, the primary troll around here. Banning or emails are entirely ineffective for this individual. Adjusting blog rules would handle it.

@Kevin - I've much enjoyed your contributions to the blog. I think the Fix comments section is an experiment. Works in some ways, not in others. I hope that changes here don't shut you off.

@Brigade- Did you leave the FIx as the opportunity to hurl insults had been eliminated? Or was it simply that the usual targets left stage left?

Incidentally, I listened to a chunk of the Kentucky Senate debate. Best moment was Paul lecturing about constitutional issues and getting a brushback from Conway about opthamology.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 17, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

@ceflyline: "Stay reasonably within propriety and you have nothing to fear unless the total zombie of posts digestion accidentally gets you."

The Fix comments just do not work, period, behind our IPS/content filter. Not sure why, but I can guarantee you I won't be able to use it. I've tested IE, FireFox, Google Chrome and, of course, Safari, and it just doesn't work. I don't know if it's the reference to JavaScript libraries in other domains, but, whatever it is, our content-filter/IPS system does not like it. But, on days like today, I'd be able to participate, as I'm at home and there's no homework to worry about for the kids, etc.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Goldwater was actually born in the Arizona Territory before Arizona became a State.

The Republican party has gone through some transformation since then.

First I would like to point out that Eisenhower practically caused a government crisis when it was proposed that there be a one billion dollar deficit - one.

The cabinet was split and it was serious crisis over one billion dollars.

Nixon - when he became President actually extended many of the Great Society programs, so Nixon expanded the role of the Federal Government, not exactly a Tea Party candidate.

Ford was in for too short a time to be remembered for much more than Chevy Chase falling down.

Reagan is an interesting one. All everyone wants to say about him. The whole time the democrats were in control the House, so there was check on what Reagan could do. However, at the time I suppose Reagan was happy to be able to take more extreme positions than he could ever get through Congress which that gave him the best of both worlds.

The point is that Reagan never really had the responsibility to put in his extreme agenda and it was understood that Reagan could not get the votes in Congress. That worked.

It is really not a progressive question of allowing the Federal government to expand indefinitely. It is a question of whether the Great Society is enough.

Enough in the sense of how much more should the nation go?

The point is before the Great Society the question was to expand it to that level and now the question is whether to expand the Federal governmeny beyond that.

One would suppose that if there was sentiment in that direction, the Johnson, Nixon and Carter administrations would have expanded the Federal government even more.

Both parties are now off on entirely different issues than during the 1980s - the analogy really does not hold well.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 17, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

@CapitolOrCapital:

Tick.

Tock.

I hear a clock.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Kevin said: "I'm not sure that that's true. At least in regards to Reagan. If there was a conservative leader with the charisma and oratory of a Reagan, he could get somewhere"

You might not be sure but I see no possibility of it occurring presently. These are black/white litmus issues for the religious right and they are now powerful enough in the coalition to override other more rational voices. The evidence is the slate of candidates now offered up by the party and those who have been expelled.

Barbour, last year, made some mild sounds re pro-choice and big tent and electoral reality but if he runs we both know (I trust) that he will have to go black/white or he will not survive regardless of what the corporate end of the party might hope.

This was a devil's bargain the party made for all the obvious historical reasons it made the bargain.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "Republicans changed in this regard as they [and the Democrats] have done re miscegenation laws."

There. I corrected it for you. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

@ CapOrCap- Most of the ground I covered was in the countryside, but I passed through petty much every town of 'consequence' in the immediate region except Menominee MI, (e.g. Sault Ste Marie, Marquette, Ashland, Superior, Duluth, Virginia, Ely) and these observations were pretty across the board. Especially in rural areas actually. Make of it what you will.

@BG- Thanks for the well-wishes, things are going pretty good for me, I got to meet a lot of the big names in my research field at that workshop, learned a lot, and have promises for help/advice from some of them.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | October 17, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Bernie

I don't believe your Goldwater analogy to today is fair. Goldwater if he wanted to run for President would have found a way to work with the religious organizations.

Also, in the late 70s and 80s, the religious organizations were much more militant than they are today.

Think of it this way. In the late 70s, the 50s were only 20 years before. The people in the religious organizations of that day grew up in the 40s and 50s and they were still reacting to the 60s.

Today is far, far different.


Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 17, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,

Johan Goldberg (Propagandist![double !!]) calls it using the dead to cudgel the living. I just disagree with Bernie that us TeaBaggers (TeaBaggers!) are the incarnation of Zombie Falwell and not Zombie Goldwater (Goldwater!) notwithstanding his late (very late) in life social conservative liberalization.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 17, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Last post then home for dinner.

Kevin said: "The American left (a lot of them) believe that they can somehow leverage conservatives that can no longer actively be elected or advance policy, like Reagan and Buckley and Goldwater, as a tool to paint current conservatives who might win elected office as fringe, crazy, extreme, stupid, etc."

Oh for goodness sakes. If/when you compare the present with the past in order to identify change, you obviously have to take some things from the past in order to compare.

And when we do that, the modern movement comes out often looking "stupid" to use Eisenhower's term.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 17, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

“The question at hand is…”

…not what you are claiming. I know, because I asked it.

Recall, that McWing asserted that Goldwater’s social views changed after his re-marriage. You challenged him to produce statements from an earlier period that showed a change in his views. I am simply turning the challenge around on you, and asking you to produce statements from an earlier period that suggest he supported the things that he later came out for, such as abortion. Can you?

(I think it is at this point that you traditionally declare your "disinterest" and refuse to answer. I wait with bated breath.)

Now, as for your attempt to change the topic:

“The question at hand is whether and how much the modern conservative movement and hence the Republican party has moved to an extremist edge. And not merely an extremist edge, but one which is in many ways in direct contradiction to libertarian ideas.”

This is rather amusing. There was a time when libertarian ideas themselves represented the “extremist edge” of conservatism. Now you declare modern conservatism to be “extreme” relative to libertarianism! Really, Bernie.

BTW, in what way is modern conservatism in direct contradiction to libertarian ideas but “traditional” conservatism was not?

Also…if I come up with a list of liberals who were at one time pro-life, and declare (truthfully) that none of them would get anywhere in the Democratic party today, will you then declare that the Democratic party has also moved away from its traditions to an “extreme”?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

@TrollMcWingnut: "I just disagree with Bernie that us TeaBaggers (TeaBaggers!) are the incarnation of Zombie Falwell and not Zombie Goldwater "

Fair enough. I just don't see the point in arguing (as some are) that Goldwater would find no place in the modern GOP, or the modern conservative movement. I don't believe that's entirely true, but even if it was, so what? He wouldn't find any home with the Democrats, or the modern progressive movement, who would despise him nearly as much as they do Glenn Beck.

And the same argument could be made vis-à-vis JFK, Truman, Hubert Humphrey, none of whom would be anymore beloved in the modern Democratic party (based on politics) than Zell Miller. Or Joe Leiberman on alternate Thursdays.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI, I'm not drinking.

Kevin, I'm going to miss you most of all.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

One can not look at the world in the 1960s and look at the world today and have the same political opinions. In addition, what is required to get elected today in terms of working with which interest groups, is much different today.

One might argue that pols in those days had more latitude on many issues.

The Republicans had a thriving liberal wing with Nelson Rockefeller and they elected many pols in the Northeast. Not anymore.

How many Congressional districts do the Republicans hold from New Jersey to Maine? Not many.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 17, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,

I think we agree. I feel that the Republican establishment would not be so welcoming to Zombie Goldwater versus the rank and file which (I propagandistically believe) would welcome him (and his trademarked hornrims) enthusiastically. I bet we could ask the 'Cuda for some input on this one.

BTW, you mention Ace of Spades periodically, any other fellow morons here?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 17, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

@bernie: "Oh for goodness sakes. If/when you compare the present with the past in order to identify change, you obviously have to take some things from the past in order to compare."

Fair enough. But I make this observation, after seeing not just the same sorts of people (in terms of politics) but sometimes the exact same people who had nothing except criticism for a Thatcher or a Reagan 20 or 30 years ago now compare a Dubya or a Palin against them in the most negative terms, and if somehow their previous vitriolic criticism of those now grudgingly respected conservatives never occurred.

Given that those comparisons can be accurately made about almost any set of politicians, of any party, at one point in time versus the present, the point does seem to be (to me) to be, as Jonah Goldberg aptly expressing it (thanks, Wingnut) as using the dead to cudgel the living.

If Reagan or Thatcher or Goldwater were in their prime and posed to run against Obama, there would be no respect--they would be far-right, radical, fringe extremists. Anything remotely moderating in their tone, re: Goldwater, would be dismissed as deception or used as a wedge against him with more conservative (i.e., tea party types) by progressives and Democrats. His moderation would not be praised and respected; it would either be used as a wedge issue against him, or treated as an outright lie (as was Bush's "compassionate conservatism").

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Here's a piece taking on the liberal pining for Goldwater -- and their ahistorical conflation of the aged Goldwater with the one who ran in 1964.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1237/article_detail.asp

It notes, as I previously have, the curious elision of the 1960s and the entire counterculural movement in the tale told by the Bernies of the world.

"Leaving out lesser (though electorally successful and party-supported) Republican figures like Specter, Gerald Ford was pro-choice as was the early Ronald Reagan, as was GW Bush as was David Souter (nominated by Rudman and supported by an overwhelming number of Republicans). Ronald Reagan famously rejected the anti-gay Prop 6 initiative."

Specter? Really?

To say early Reagan was pro-choice is oversimplification at the least. He wrote a brilliant and forceful article condemning abortion on demand in 1983; are we to believe that Reagan just wrote that while in office because Pat Robertson told him to?

As for his opposition to Prop 6, that was an initiative to ban homosexcuals from teaching in public schools. It was in the late 1970s, and of course Reagan was nominated by the GOP just a couple of years later, so Bernie's thesis could hardly be more wrong. Nor would such a position likely hinder a candidate's progress in the GOP today.

David Souter's abortion views were unknown when he was nominated. Because Bush I famously nominated him as an unknown, and he turned out to be a flaming liberal.

This is from the Preface to Conscience of A Conservative:

"Conservatism, we are told, is out-of-date. The charge is preposterous and we ought boldly to say so. The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline. The principles on which the Conservative political position is based have been established by a process that has nothing to do with the social, economic and political landscape that changes from decade to decade and from century to century. These principles are derived from the nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about His creation. Circumstances do change. So do the problems that are shaped by circumstances. But the principles that govern the solution of the problems do not. To suggest that the Conservative philosophy is out of date is akin to saying that the Golden Rule, or the Ten Commandments or Aristotle's Politics are out of date. The Conservative approach is noth ing more or less than an attempt to apply the wisdom and experience and the revealed truths of the past to the problems of today."

What a radical, Bible-thumping nutjob, huh?

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 17, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

@Troll: "BTW, you mention Ace of Spades periodically, any other fellow morons here?"

I love Ace. A great mixture of profanity, innuendo, and politics. "Let's not start shucking each other's cobs just yet." Genius!

An example of a place I almost never comment (in this case, because the IP of the content-filtering machine is blocked (by Ace of Spades), at work, where In ever read Ace of Spades anyway, because I'm working, see, so I don't even know that).

Ace seems pretty confident that the Republicans are going to ride in a wave. I'm not so sure. But he was also skeptical about O'Donnell--as was, and am, I--so he's clearly got a solid, right-wing head on his shoulders. As they say, "Your resemblance to me makes you quite intelligent."

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

@qb: "Nor would such a position likely hinder a candidate's progress in the GOP today."

They might lose one Republican primary in 2010 because of it. Unlike Bernie, I don't think that represents the whole of the GOP, or the overall historical thrust of the party, myself.

"Because Bush I famously nominated him as an unknown, and he turned out to be a flaming liberal."

Yes. Yes, he did. Again, Bush I was our most recent Goldwater conservative, and he was not exactly beloved of the left. And he lost his reelection bid.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

"If Reagan or Thatcher or Goldwater were in their prime and posed to run against Obama, there would be no respect--they would be far-right, radical, fringe extremists."

Kind of like first Clinton, then Gore, then Kerry, and now Obama were each in their turn "the most liberal, socialist menace ever to face the nation."

Basically, you're really good at accusing the other side of what you routinely do yourself.

As for Bush's "compassionate conservatism," that pretty much went right out the window once the election had been stolen.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Holyhandgrenade

The Wisconsin 7 - I'm not sure how much the Republicans are looking to pick up that district because it went with Kerry in Gore in 2004 and 2000.

Stupak's district went with Bush in 2004 and 2000 so I would imagine the Republicans are looking at it as a pick-up.

This year I keep on asking myself what would the House look like if Obama did not have such a money advantage in 2008 and I am sort of trying to create that idea as a "base."

Anyway this year will bring a good many districts back towards their natural equilibrium.

Having Obama in the race last time, and Obama spending all that money really did not change the political system. People were responding to being able to vote for Obama and Obama had a huge money advantage. Take those two things out of the equation and you have the base for this year. Add the anger over health care. Next election, the anger over health care will be less, but the unusual qualities of the 2008 election will not be present either.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 17, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,

Not a big commenter over at Ace though I think many of them are as funny as the glorious Ewok. I happen to love the "free-for-all" aspects over there, in the comments, and the fact that Ace, hilarioulsy i think, gets into fairly petty yet nasty exchanges in them. I guess they get so vicious because the stakes are so low.

One final point on Ace. The night of Brown's win, and the photo's of him at Brown HQ (with pudding in, er, hand) were/are priceless. Almost as good as "Humpbot"!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 17, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

@JennOfArk: "Kind of like first Clinton, then Gore, then Kerry, and now Obama were each in their turn 'the most liberal, socialist menace ever to face the nation.'"

I agree with that observation. Although Jimmy Carter doesn't get much in the way of phony-baloney "grudging respect".

But, yes, you're exactly correct, that many on the right characterize each sequential prominent liberal as the most liberal, most socialist, worst one evah!

As I have noted, I do not think this is true. Bill Clinton was not a communist, and I thought he was a pretty good president. I thought John Kerry was an atrocious candidate then, and still do. I also didn't think much of Al Gore, and thought he would be a bad president (and still do). I was iffy on Obama, and he's proved to be, in my opinion, a pretty competent president who governs from the left-of-center, not the "far left" as many conservatives and Republicans constantly accuse him of. As I've also noted, I think he'll win in 2012.

"Basically, you're really good at accusing the other side of what you routinely do yourself."

And when have I done what I am "accusing" others of doing? I'm not saying that I've never done that--as I, of course, have--but just curious which particular incident you have in mind.

"As for Bush's 'compassionate conservatism,' that pretty much went right out the window once the election had been stolen."

Oh, if only that were true. Alas, compassionate conservatism was always a code for "big government is okay when we're doing it", and we got Medicare part XYZ and No Child Left Behind and then, after 9/11, pre-emptive wars and the Department of Homeland Security and the nationalization of the TSA. And Bush signed CFR. And there are a few other example of "compassionate conservative" (i.e., big government is good when we do it, or "we can do entitlements, too" from the Bush years).

Regarding stealing the election, the fact is, yes, Bush did steal the election from Gore. In the manner in which a responsible citizen might "steal" a weapon from a recently jilted lover with a wall-size map of his ex-girlfriend's workplace.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

"Again, Bush I was our most recent Goldwater conservative, and he was not exactly beloved of the left. And he lost his reelection bid."

It could be argued that he lost because of that broken pledge to not raise taxes and Ross Perot's campaign. Seems like every time a conservative tries to govern responsibly there's some nut who pops up to argue that everyone should be mad as heck. Seems also that conservative candidacies frequently crash and burn on the shoals of advocacy for debt/deficit reduction - most likely because they've removed the only tool in the kit for addressing the issue other than massive cuts in popular programs. You'd think they would learn, but they haven't.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

BTW,

Not only did the Phillie's pitcher, Oswalt, make a base hit, he just beat the throw at home to score!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 17, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

One other note. I have been looking at the maps from 2008 and the money advantage of Obama really had two effects.

One is an increase in voter turn-out in urban areas. One can see that pronounced in Ohio and Indiana, two states in which the entire State appears to be red, but the Obama votes in the urban areas gave the States to Obama.

The other effect which is unusual is the effect of Obama's money advantage on ads. It appears there is an unusual number of districts which went for McCain but elected a democrat for Congress. So in those districts somehow Obama lost the district, but Obama's coattails were enough to get the democrat in. Perhaps this is a result of the money advantage and ad advantage that Obama had.

To be honest I haven't studied it enough.

But to look at the maps, there certainly is something going on with the 2008 maps. The Obama voters came out in a different way in 2008. All the pundits believe that those effects will not be present this year, that normal voting patterns will return. Add to that the anger over health care.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 17, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Responsible citizens don't steal. Or rationalize theft.

That is all.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

@Troll: "One final point on Ace. The night of Brown's win, and the photo's of him at Brown HQ (with pudding in, er, hand) were/are priceless. Almost as good as 'Humpbot' "

While I'm not over-confident--there are lies, damned lies, statistics, projections, and then polls--and am dubious of talks of a bloodbath, I still have my pudding cup prepared and chilled for election night. I'm expecting I might have to take a few tasty bites.

And Ace's coverage of Will Folks is priceless. Brilliance squared.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Jenn:

"Kind of like first Clinton, then Gore, then Kerry, and now Obama were each in their turn "the most liberal, socialist menace ever to face the nation.""

Actually, if you bothered to read Kevin's posts for comprehension, you'd know that he is pretty consistent about generalizing these sorts of tendencies across people of all political stripes.

As for me, I said even at the time that, if we had to have a Dem president, we could have done a lot worse than Clinton. I never thought that Kerry was anything other than a standard issue northeastern liberal elitist (which is bad enough, to be sure), although I did (and do) think Gore would have been pretty radical in his liberalism, and any such thoughts about Obama have certainly been substantiated.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Bernie's fun, if you're into tautology table-tennis.

Party reflects the rank and file, particularly this cycle and especially for the GOP.

Then there are those identified so eloquently in 2008 as the "clingers." A most inconvenient remark...folks remember stuff like that.

(And FWIW something that Reagan would never let slip even in private...imagine Reagan v. Obama in 2008, uh, excuse me {{{convulsive laughter}}}, sigh).

Now, you can call them all misguided, or religious right (a lovely epithet), or racists, or ignorants (sic), or extremists, or stupid.

But if the seeming prevailing swing of the electorate shows the Dem Congressional majorities the door then the above unfortunates (in the collective lefty POV) will be by definition "the mainstream."

That's how it works, kidzes, till she swings again.

Posted by: tao9 | October 17, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

@JennOfArk: "Responsible citizens don't steal. Or rationalize theft."

Fair enough. Let us raise a fist and shake it skyward, and curse the name of Sandra Day O'Connor.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

BTW, did anybody see the Sean Bielat debate against Barney Frank and a moderator (hat tip, Ace of Spades, on that wording). While conservatives have generally suggested Republicans have won every debate, I think this is a case where, objectively, Bielat really came off a lot better than Frank (who is actually pretty good at such things, in my opinion). I don't know if he has any chance of winning, really, but I'd love to see Bielat clean Barney Frank's clock in November.

But, as Ace might say, let's not start cleaning each other's clocks just yet, gentlemen. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Just saw Jesse Ventura on nighttime Fox---Geraldo Rivera's show. I guess he's just sick he doesn't get to invite himself on whatever show he wants. One of Bernie's heroes and a true imbecile.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Many of you are forgetting that Reagan was portrayed by the left as radical, fringe, and a threat to everything.

Clinton ran towards the center, but immediately dropped the "middle class tax cut" and immediately tried to put in health care.

There has to be moderate health care reform, one that concentrates on regulating the abuses of the health insurance companies. The problem is the democrats do not want that, they prefer to use the health insurance abuse as a trojan horse to get a massive government program enacted.

That is a false choice for the American people.

It is precisely that refusal by Obama and the democrats to put forth a moderate health insurance program which is sinking Obama. The public option is seen as the left wing proposal when the truth is Obama's plan is far left.

What makes the situation worse is the single-payer model.

The public option is seen as an opportunity to create a single payer system, single payer is the real left wing program.

Obama failed to consider other options and Obama failed to explain his positions adequately to the public.

The democrats do not even know what is in Obama's plan. And that is just not referring to benefits. It is referring to how the program works and how the Federal government works with the State programs.

Obama just does not seem to understand that the public is involved in these decisions. Obama just is not supposed to dump a 2,000 page bill on the nation and expect everyone to support it. It does not work that way.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 17, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

@Jenn: "It could be argued that he lost because of that broken pledge to not raise taxes and Ross Perot's campaign."

Mostly Ross Perot's campaign, as 3rd party challengers (and primary challengers) tend to lead to the defeat of incumbents. Even after walking back his no-new-taxes pledge, Bush did pretty well in the polls, especially after the first Gulf War started, up until Perot threw his hat in the ring.

3rd party and primary challengers really, really hurt incumbents. Without that, it actually takes a lot to unseat them. One of the reasons I argue that Obama will win in 2012. And I think he will unless, of course, Ross Perot decided to challenge him. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Unless the entire country was "left", wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the vast majority of the voters, right, left and center, soundly rejected Goldwater's policies?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 17, 2010 7:38 PM
------

Not exactly. Johnson's mushroom cloud ad, among other things, convinced voters Goldwater was a war monger. As it turned out, Johnson's bungled and inept Viet Nam policy cost many American lives, the country great embarrassment, and Johnson himself a chance at another term. Little doubt that the country made the wrong choice on who they wanted making decisions on war and peace.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade: "One of Bernie's heroes and a true imbecile."

He's not an imbecile, he's a competent paranoid schizophrenic. He can manage his own life and stop shorts of believing that there are little men from an alternative universe that steal his socks and hide his keys, but only just. For Jesse, everything--and I do mean everything--is a conspiracy. Classic paranoid delusion.

He's actually a smart guy.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

CapitolOrCapital, if Palin is nominated on 2012, it will be another historical election.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Brigade:

"Just saw Jesse Ventura on nighttime Fox---Geraldo Rivera's show."

Another of Bernie's imaginings blown up by reality. I'm guessing he will now be finding discussions of FOX's guest list a lot less worthy of his interest.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Given that "Buckley conservatism" was the bulwark against "John Birch Society conservatism" and the teabaggers are analogues to the Birchers, I'd have to say the difference is quite large.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 8:26 PM
-----

Gee, it only took one sentence for you to once again demonstrate your ignorance.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

"Johnson's mushroom cloud ad, among other things, convinced voters Goldwater was a war monger."

Not really likely. It only ran once.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"For Jesse..."

Thanks for clarifying. For a while I thought you were talking about Bernie.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 17, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Dems are going to come out to vote, no matter how much the stupid MSM fetishizes the blowhard Teabaggers and despite the disgusting GOP corporate spending binge.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 17, 2010 9:26 PM
----

Greg will have to purge all the conservatives before the election. After the Dems get their clocks cleaned, you won't want anyone around here to question the usual liberal chorus of "we wuz robbed."

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Cap/Cap

You forgot the "Cap"'s.

Tick Tock Tick Tock

Posted by: lmsinca | October 17, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

"Gee, it only took one sentence for you to once again demonstrate your ignorance."

And it only took one for you to again show yourself as an arrogant arse.

But do tell us all how Bircherism prevailed over Buckleyism in the 50s, 60s, 70s, given that the latter was born in the wake of McCarthyism, in an attempt to make conservatism respectable again.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

clawrence

I believe that Obama's money advantage did more than anything for Obama. Without that, the election would have been far different. That was McCain's major mistake.

McCain also had a message problem.

Obama got a good number of votes because people were voting to end racial divisions in the nation. That is clear. The democrats hate to admit it, but they know it's true.

I don't know if Sarah Palin is going to have either of those advantages in the way Obama did.

Will you see a massive increase in turn-out among women if Palin is in the nominee? I don't think so.

Who knows.

Obama has two years to try to turn this around. The economy is going to play a massive role. My sense is that Obama is clueless and tone-deaf on economic matters and he will never survive.

The Republicans need an exciting candidate who will appear competent. After Obama, the nation will want competence more than anything.

Remember the Senate will go to the Republicans in 2012 if it doesn't in 2010, so if someone Obama does win, the Congress will simply not work with him and Obama will have little power at all.

The democrats have really hurt themselves by trying to put a far left agenda in place without the full support of the nation. The democratic interest groups who have their own agendas are not helping either.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 17, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade wrote,
"@Brigade- Did you leave the FIx as the opportunity to hurl insults had been eliminated? Or was it simply that the usual targets left stage left?"
-----

If the opportunity to hurl insults had been eliminated, I hadn't noticed. The new format sucks, and most of the more interesting participants quit participating. As I recall, a good part of the vitriol and insults came from the liberals. I did notice some complaints about posts being deleted, but they seem to have been deleted because of political content, not because of insults or name-calling. I don't much care for echo chambers.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Brigade writes


As I recall, a good part of the vitriol and insults came from the liberals.

_____________________________________


That is 100% correct. The extent of what the Washington Post tolerate in its comments sections is astonishing.

However, the conservatives seem to be under fire for their views.

It truly is Orwellian.


.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 17, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis wrote,
"The Fix comments just do not work, period, behind our IPS/content filter. Not sure why, but I can guarantee you I won't be able to use it."
-----

The whole purpose of the new format was to control content. The same will be true if a new format is implemented here. You've read the litany of insults directed your way by many of the posters here. Now ask yourself: do you really think there's any chance that Liam-still, Ethan2010, JennofArk, Bernielatham, et al. need worry about being banned? Of course not. That's how you know trolling and insults have nothing to do with it. If you're a liberal, there will be no line you cannot cross. If you're a conservative (and you aren't banned), you'll find some of your more insightful posts never make it to the board. So you'll have eventual boredom and a loss of participation.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

CapitolOrCapital, Palin would raise more than $1 billion if she ran. That would more than even the playing field.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Holyhandgrenade

There is a story out that is saying that Oberstar from Minnesota has only one contributor from his district in the most recent quarter.

I think that is the district you were driving through. Interesting.


.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 17, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

As for Bush's "compassionate conservatism," that pretty much went right out the window once the election had been stolen.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 10:22 PM
----

LOL. Those rotten voters really know how to steal elections.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade: "Now ask yourself: do you really think there's any chance that Liam-still, Ethan2010, JennofArk, Bernielatham, et al. need worry about being banned?"

No, although I'd only think one of them maybe ought to be. ;)

Mine is just a technical objection (i.e., our proxy filter system doesn't work with The Fix comments). But moderation would also keep me from participating, just because it's an hour or two or five before my post makes it up and anybody replies to it, and that just gets old. It's the immediacy of comments sections like this that I like. Although threaded system that allow for email notification, so that if somebody comments on the comment I made two days ago that took 12 hours to post, and I get an email--those are all right.

I think immediacy, and the ability to ignore (if I understood Grease Monkey better, I'd write a Grease Monkey script that did it, then any Firefox user could just ignore anybody they wanted to).

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 17, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

That's idiotic, Brigade. You're well aware that ChrisFox8 was subject of multiple bans at the Fix prior to the new comments section. The presence of mibrooks, mwhoke, and others puts the lie to the claim that there is political scapegoating. Several of the regular lefties (drindl, broadwayjoe) also quit posting following the format change.

When you posted during the day, you tended to engage. At night, you tended to hurl insults.

The Fix interests me for political discussion. I miss a few of the regulars, notably DDAWD, but there's an interesting discussion nowadays. Which is probably what drove you off in the first place.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 17, 2010 11:30 PM | Report abuse

But do tell us all how Bircherism prevailed over Buckleyism in the 50s, 60s, 70s, given that the latter was born in the wake of McCarthyism, in an attempt to make conservatism respectable again.


Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 11:06 PM
----

The Tea-Party, the Tea-Party. You forgot the Tea-Party in your follow-up. You're an expert on the Tea-Party and today's conservatives, as if the terms were synonymous. You know all about who would and who would not be accepted in today's conservative ranks. I'm a conservative; maybe I should find out from you what I actually believe.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Brigade

You are correct about the Fix - the liberals were allowed to get away with all sorts of uncivil behavior and name-calling.

Yes, the censorship is the aim of the liberals because they really can not convince people of their ideas, except to distract and fool the electorate.


___________________________


clawrence

People do not realize that if McCain had an equal amount of money in 2008 like had been the agreement for decades, McCain would have won the election.

Obama own lie about the campaign finance system was more important than his platform.

If Sarah Palin can raise a billion dollars, fine. However I think that America will turn back to white males for their leaders for at least a generation.


The country realizes that Obama is a mistake.

Qualifications and Experience matter. Obama proved that he was the wrong choice.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 17, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Let's see: the Birchers were convinced that foreign agents (up to and including Eisenhower) inside the government were subverting the constitution; the teabaggers think that Obama is a secret Marxist-Muslim bent on destroying America as we know it.

I could go on, but there are more interesting things on television, quite frankly.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 17, 2010 11:42 PM | Report abuse

CapitolOrCapital, other groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will spend even more than that.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 17, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

The Fix interests me for political discussion. I miss a few of the regulars, notably DDAWD, but there's an interesting discussion nowadays. Which is probably what drove you off in the first place.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 17, 2010 11:30 PM
----

Of course. It was the interesting discussion that drove me off. How could it have been anything else? You see, it's remarks exactly like that which call for satire and disparagement. Excuse me if I have a hard time controlling myself.

I never denied that ChrisFox was banned. But that was a mistake. For all his temper tantrums, he was an interesting poster. He was liberal, I'm conservative, and I had no interest whatsoever in seeing him banned. And my guess is that his occasional digs at the moderator had more to do with his banishment than anything he said to me or anyone else.

I don't recall mwhoke. I do remember Mibrooks. I never said it was anyone in particular who had their posts removed, but some were in fact removed, and the speculation was that they were removed because of content. I can't speak to that with certainty because none of mine were ever removed.

As Kevin mentioned, one of the drawbacks is posts going into a kind of limbo until someone releases them. I post tonight at 7:00 PM and maybe it goes up at 8:00 AM. What a way to keep a conversation going.

Posted by: Brigade | October 17, 2010 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Fairlingtonblade - not exactly sure what you think passes for "interesting discussion," however a bunch of liberals agreeing with each other and telling each other how intelligent they are, hardly qualifies.

Liberals are a strange, strange group.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 17, 2010 11:54 PM | Report abuse

The Chamber of Commerce has been fighting with Obama over health care for over a year.

This dispute has to do with the costs Obama placed on businesses in the health care bill.

Obama leaves that part out. Obama also forgets to mention that he made deals with the pharmaceutical companies and health care equipment manufacturers for support for his health care bill.

Obama forgets to mention all the interest groups which are supporting him and the deals there.

AND Obama has forgetten to say anything about the foreclosure crisis and that Obama has been protecting the big banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the past year.

Well.

Reasonable people have ceased to take Obama seriously. The only way Obama can give a speech right now is to try to fool people with half-truths. The partisan democrats just don't seem to care.

However Obama is doing damage to the democratic party which will last a generation. Obama is so inexperienced he has nothing to fall back on. But the democrats have a similar problem, what are they supposed to say, they want to go back to the Bill Clinton ideas? Bill Clinton didn't have many ideas which captured the imagination of the nation.

Obama has dragged down the democratic party to a place that will be extremely difficult to recover.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 18, 2010 12:09 AM | Report abuse

News about letters from Republican Tea Partiers asking for stimulus funds.

@wapo:

"Sessions was hardly alone. Scores of Republicans and conservative Democrats who voted against the stimulus law subsequently wrote letters seeking funds. They include tea party favorites such as freshman Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), as well as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), former presidential candidates."

Shame on the GOP. Shame on the hypocrisy. Shame on these phony "conservative" ideologues who call Obama a Socialist while standing in line for stimulus funds.

Republican Tea Partiers = PATHETIC frauds.


Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 18, 2010 12:13 AM | Report abuse

News about letters from Republican Tea Partiers asking for stimulus funds.

@wapo:

"Sessions was hardly alone. Scores of Republicans and conservative Democrats who voted against the stimulus law subsequently wrote letters seeking funds. They include tea party favorites such as freshman Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), as well as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), former presidential candidates."

Shame on the GOP. Shame on the hypocrisy. Shame on these phony "conservative" ideologues who call Obama a Socialist while standing in line for stimulus funds.

Republican Tea Partiers = PATHETIC frauds.


Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 18, 2010 12:13 AM | Report abuse

It is telling that two weeks out from a major midterm election, all the liberals really want to talk about is Goldwater.

No evaluation of Obama, no discussion of what the democrats have to offer the nation,

NO DEFENSE OF OBAMA'S POLICIES.

What they have is a discussion about something completely unrelated to the election.

The democrats just want to change the subject away from the election. Any evaluation of Obama is deemed off-topic, off-discussion, a horrible topic to bring up. A topic that never should be discussed in polite company.


Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 18, 2010 12:14 AM | Report abuse

@CapitolOrRainforest: "It is telling that two weeks out from a major midterm election, all the liberals really want to talk about is Goldwater."

Really? Are all the liberals talking about Goldwater, outside of this open Sunday thread on the Plumline?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 18, 2010 12:18 AM | Report abuse

The question still remains as to whether Obama and the democrats will try to manufacture some RACIAL CONTROVERSY in order to rally the base in the coming weeks.

Desperation has set in. Obama's major advisors have already left. Usually that happens after the election.

Perhaps the Shirley Sherrod incident will give Obama caution, because the Republicans may be prepared this time with a response which will take over the media.

The whole thing is intriguing.

The False Charges of Racism have damaged Obama more than anything. Obama's problem is that democrats all over the nation have done it, and people are angry. Obama is not going to be given a second chance. Obama is not going to get over 100 electoral votes next time.


Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 18, 2010 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Kevin

Correct, I was referring to only the liberals posting on this thread here today.

Most of the liberals around the nation are in hiding.

The country as a whole can't wait to send a message to Obama by voting against the democrats. Obama has been so arrogant and tone-deaf, so unwilling to listen to the American People. One has to wonder if an election will mean anything to Obama. Certainly the Massachusetts election meant little to Obama. And that brings us to this election.

Had Obama listened to the voters of Massachusetts, and dropped his 2,000 page bill - perhaps the upcoming election would be different.

If you are upset, blame Obama. Blame Obama. Blame Obama.

Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 18, 2010 12:25 AM | Report abuse

@Capitol: "If you are upset, blame Obama. Blame Obama. Blame Obama."

You know what? I don't. I actually don't think Obama is a bad president. You know what? We could do a lot worse. I'm not a big fan of his picks for the Supreme Court, but, ya know what? Elections have consequences. I didn't vote for him, but I don't think his presidency is actually much different than we'd get from a president McCain, only the folks attacking him as the "worst evah!" would be on different sides of the aisle.

That being said, the government is much bigger than Obama. It's Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Raul Grivalja, and others I'd actually be a lot more excited about seeing get the boot than Obama.

I may be in the minority on my side, but I've find the ceaseless criticism from our side, of Obama, not at all compelling. Most of it involves using process to accomplish a policy goal as some sort of terrible evil (in fact, healthcare, like it or loathe it, was passed as legislation is often passed, with negotiations and deals and legislative "tricks"). I'm not Obama's biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination, but he's not our worst president, he's not worse than Nixon, not worse than Carter, not "extreme left" (in terms of how, as president, he's governing) and so on.

That doesn't mean that I don't hope the Democrats get a shellacking in November (I surely do), but I consider that more of a reflection of a bad economy + high unemployment + the increasing political cluelessness of Democrats. Just for example, there was such a golden opportunity re: the Bush Tax Cuts to reframe the debate, and offer big old tax cuts for the middle class (twice as big as the Bush tax cuts! we are awesome!) as a separate bill, bring it up for a vote, make the Republicans vote on that . . . Then there's that whole characterizing anyone who is intrigued or interested by the Tea Parties as gullible dupes or greedy self-centered morons. Or the word "teabagger". The whole "you're so stupid, if people spend a lot of money on ads, they'll convince you to vote for anything, you idiots, so vote for us and we'll stop that. Idiots". There's that, too.

But Obama's busy blowing up terrorists with drones. I'm kind of liking that guy.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 18, 2010 12:47 AM | Report abuse

Little doubt that the country made the wrong choice on who they wanted making decisions on war and peace.
============================
@brigade,

When 61% of the voters voted for Johnson, that is a clear statement. I'm not defending Johnson. I'm defending our form of democracy. We either believe in the wisdom of the voters, or we don't, and want to impose another system. If we go around believing "the voters are stupid and make mistakes", it won't be long before we'll support a system to avoid elections, and just install dictators.

I think protecting elections is one of the most important things we can do to protect our democracy.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 18, 2010 1:22 AM | Report abuse

Obama is releasing hundreds of illegal aliens - refusing to do his job to enforce the nation's laws


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7249505.html


Posted by: CapitolOrCapital | October 18, 2010 2:17 AM | Report abuse

"No, today's Democratic Party is a radical party beyond the fringes of the 1950s and the Eisenhower era."

Translation: The world has changed in 50 years and we Conservatives hate it. But why stop at 50 years? Why not complain about Social Security or Workers Compensation or the Minimum Wage or Environmental Laws or Interracial Military or Emancipation for that matter? Liberalism moves inexorably in the direction of enhancing civil liberties for individual Americans. Every step in the direction is anathema to you because empowering individual American citizens challenges the power of Big Money.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 18, 2010 7:34 AM | Report abuse

@12Bar: " I'm defending our form of democracy. We either believe in the wisdom of the voters, or we don't"

I don't think you have to want to impose another system, even if you don't think the voters, in general, are especially wise.

Indeed, even if no voters actually had any understanding of any of the issues, I think making even a random choice between two options ends up with the the best possible governance--while no choice (under the theoretical, and very hopeful, but not usually accurate) "benevolent dictator" model produces the worst. Systems that end up with 3-way splits and power sharing and constant votes of no confidence that dissolve the parliament or what have you--better than "benevolent" dictators, but not as good (it seems to me) as having a stark two-candidate, two-party choice, irrespective of what that choice is.

Of course, I also think it's probably better that they compete, rather than cooperate. The best way to ensure that is, of course, our defacto two-party system, and regular elections. Yet, at the same time, you do need a unitary leader to attempt to herd the cats, or nothing would get done.

I think we've got an awfully good system.

@wbgonne: "Liberalism moves inexorably in the direction of enhancing civil liberties for individual Americans."

Until it doesn't. Eventually, liberalism must curtail freedoms and limit individual liberty for the general welfare.

Just as conservatism might limit civil liberties for reasons of national security.

And there are good reasons, in both cases. But moving endlessly towards maximum civil liberties, or maximum individual freedom, in both cases advanced on anarchy. Again, the two philosophies, locked in endless competition, seems to result in the best possible (if still exceedingly messy) governance.


Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 18, 2010 7:56 AM | Report abuse

Democrats moved radically left on abortion and homosexual rights after the 1970s. That is a fact. Al Gore, Dick Gephart, McGovern, Muskie, even Ted Kennedy are among the Dems whose views on "social issues" in the 1970s would be condemned by today's Dems as radical, rightwing extremist, blah blah.

Why did this happen? Well obviously the Dems were taken over and dragged to the far left by the leftist radicalsm of the 1960s.

Here's a piece with which liberals could start reaquainting themselves with reality:

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/hayward/00/extreme.html

. . . if that were something in which they were interested, as opposed to repeating radical left talking points and propaganda.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 18, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "Liberalism moves inexorably in the direction of enhancing civil liberties for individual Americans." Until it doesn't. Eventually, liberalism must curtail freedoms and limit individual liberty for the general welfare. Just as conservatism might limit civil liberties for reasons of national security. And there are good reasons, in both cases. But moving endlessly towards maximum civil liberties, or maximum individual freedom, in both cases advanced on anarchy. Again, the two philosophies, locked in endless competition, seems to result in the best possible (if still exceedingly messy) governance."

Kevin, purchasing health insurance isn't the same as being spied on or tortured. The root of the problem is that you think pure capitalism is pure freedom. You equate money with freedom and waste and gluttony with liberty. But that model -- suitable perhaps for undeveloped capitalist economies -- is entirely unworkable in a modern developed capitalist state like 2010 America. Recognizing and addressing common problems is the reason for government and civil society; every time we collectively make decisions for our general welfare there is some restrain upon the license of the whole. That is simply how it works. And that is especially so in the modern world where issues of scarcity are becoming inevitably more pronounced. I think it is liberation because it gives the American people freedom and power -- to live without fear, to change jobs, to move to another state -- and it addresses major structural problems in our economy. You think national health care is oppression simply because it is contrary to the Pure and Glorious Free Market.

Enhancing individual liberty and providing economic security so that people are free to follow their dreams and passions: that is freedom in the modern world. Doing it while recognizing that we live in a crowded world of increasing scarcity is responsible governance.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 18, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Well it seems to be a sure thing that Democrats will lose the House by a landslide of historic proportion and the Senate by a lesser amount. This will make a virtual lame duck out of Obama for the remainder of his time in office.

I, for one, am facinated as to how Obama will handle it. Will he huff and puff with self-righteousness and defy the rising tide before him? Or, will Obama deftly do a Clinton to avoid becoming a Carter??

If Obama does a Clinton, will he be able to out Clinton Clinton or will he be a poor imitation of Clinton??? After all, Clinton is an original and sequals are usually not very good, like "Jaws III" etc.

It's too bad for Obama that his AMNESTY scheme hasn't worked out. He was counting on creating a whole, new populace of aggrieved, minority Democrats that would overwhelm the polls in November and send his Obamacrats back to Washington.

Now his 'crats will get the bum's rush.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 18, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Hey QB: It's 2010 not 1960. Time to move on.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 18, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

This is the week that Kevin_Willis is banned, let us be glad and rejoice.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 18, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

qb

Okay, I read it. First of all they completely de-legitimized themselves by taking a pro-choice view and turning into pro-abortion, all the time, any time. And then, the feminists being the yahoos of the 70's?

If you have a point, you're going to have to come up with something that actually has a less partisan, angry at strong women and gays, agenda that might get someone like me thinking. If the point is that politicians from both sides evolve and change their positions either from campaign to campaign, campaign to governing or over time, ok. I could have agreed with that without the cr@p.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 18, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne - I would add to that with this: any "solution" which prefers a system that costs more while being less efficient (i.e., delivering less) based solely on its ideological "purity" is not a good solution.

And yet this is where we find ourselves in most questions where there is a difference of opinion between liberals/moderates and conservatives. The conservatives will always go for the "solution" which fits their rigid ideology over the one that works best and/or costs less. They'd rather pay more, for less, than to see a penny go to help anyone else, because everyone else is by definition undeserving.

I'll also note that you touched on one of the main differences between "conservatism" of 50 years ago and what passes for it today: "conservatism" used to describe people who weren't wasteful and gluttonous; these days, it stands for "your right to be as wasteful as you want" as if that's a basic freedom. Which is how we get these notions that every American should have the "right" to drive a vehicle that gets 5 mpg, regardless of the fact that it wastes a dwindling resource and leads to all of us - even those who don't equate wastefulness with freedom and act more responsibly - to paying more as the dwindling resource is burned through faster and becomes more scarce.

Posted by: JennOfArk | October 18, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

The problem with the Democrat party is that it is not the party of the mainstream of America anymore. It panders to so many aggrieved, fringe minorities that the vast majority of Americans is abandoning it for lack of interest. Obama has accelerated this process and now it may be irreversable. Most polling, today, indicates that moderates, who are really mild conservatives, are fast becoming more conservative and they don't seem to mind who knows it.

Obama has done more for conservatives than anyone since the great, Ronald Reagan. Obama has out-Clintoned Clinton, pre-1994 and seems to be ushering in a Republican wave of tsunami proportion.

All hail Obama, the carrier of the flame of the Reagan revolution!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 18, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

qb:

"Democrats moved radically left on abortion and homosexual rights after the 1970s."

That doesn't matter. Wherever progressivism is at the moment is always considered to be normative (by progressives, of course.) To the extent that anyone finds themselves outside of the liberal "mainstream" where once they were not, they must have "moved" away from it. Hence Bernie's bizarre claim that current views on abortion within the Republican party, which are pretty much the same as (if not more liberal than) they have always been, represent evidence of a departure from "traditional" conservatism. Abortion used to not be such a polarizing issue between the parties. Now it is. Hence Republicans must have been radicalized. QED

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 18, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

@clawrence12: "This is the week that Kevin_Willis is banned, let us be glad and rejoice."

Weekdays only. Although, many weekend, due to scheduling, I read the comments, but don't actually comment, since I'm reading on my 1st gen iPhone, and it's slow and awkward, especially in these 200+ comment threads.

@wbgonne: "Kevin, purchasing health insurance isn't the same as being spied on or tortured."

No, legally mandating the purchase of specific types of health insurance is not the same as warrantless wire tapped (a more rational comparison; I thought I'd help you out, there), and I didn't say they were.

"The root of the problem is that you think pure capitalism is pure freedom."

Not pure freedom. Pure freedom is anarchy, and how can you own property or even have shared value for money in anarchy?

"Recognizing and addressing common problems is the reason for government and civil society; every time we collectively make decisions for our general welfare there is some restrain upon the license of the whole."

I'm pretty sure that's what I said. Not those words, exactly, but . . .

"Doing it while recognizing that we live in a crowded world of increasing scarcity is responsible governance."

Indeed. I think it is often, in truth, despite all the name calling and accusations of theocrat or socialist, that it is simply method we disagree upon.

"You think national health care is oppression simply because it is contrary to the Pure and Glorious Free Market."

Again, your mind reading powers fail you. Either you need more practice, or . . . you can't actually read minds. I'm thinking it's probably the latter.

:)


Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 18, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/the_morning_plum_113.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 18, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

I wrote:

"The root of the problem is that you think pure capitalism is pure freedom."

You replied:

"Not pure freedom. Pure freedom is anarchy, and how can you own property or even have shared value for money in anarchy?"

Am I correct then that you think "pure capitalism" is the closest we can come to freedom?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 18, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

To put it another way, under what conditions are "violations" of pure capitalism justified?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 18, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

"Translation: The world has changed in 50 years and we Conservatives hate it."

If you'd read the comments with any care, you'd realize that I was merely refuting Bernie's claim that the GOP has moved to the radical fringe since the 1960s, along with is implicit premise that the Dems have not.

Do conservatives regret and oppose much of the radical "change" since the 1960s? Um, yes, obviously we do. Like, you know, that is sort of at the heart of conservatism. Unlike the mindless worshippers of "change" for change's sake (hint: consult your mirror), conservatives know that radical rejection and destruction of culture and mores is generally destructive of human freedom and welfare.

You'll note that the liberals here are again lionizing Bill Buckley as representative of authentic and wholesome conservatism. I can only gather that they know very little about him, since his launch of NR was declared in a famous editorial statement that its purpose was to "stan[d] athwart history, yelling Stop." WFB declared at the time that NR was necessary because there were no conservative ideas in general circulation at the time -- liberalism was the dominant, default ideology and unopposed in the realm of debate and ideas.

That was the mid-1950s. What does that tell you about WFB's attitude toward the "conservatism" of the GOP President at that time, whom Bernie is holding up as a paradigm of authentic conservatism along with . . . WFB?

"Liberalism moves inexorably in the direction of enhancing civil liberties for individual Americans. Every step in the direction is anathema to you because empowering individual American citizens challenges the power of Big Money."

Liberalism leads inexorably toward human bondage. Indeed, it is a form of human bondage and dehumanizing ideology. Free speech, self defense, economic freedom and property rights, these are a few simple examples of basic human liberties that liberalism hates and seeks to destroy. It is organized theft, it is censorship, it is intellectual tyranny, it is mindless homage to the destruction of tradition, heritage, and culture, and of the wisdom of past generations. Liberalism gradually transforms citizens into infantilized wards of the state. It hates human freedom in all its forms. It is a prison built from false promises to free the individual by subjagating his fellows.

Enjoy your day of nostalgizing about the "true" conservatism of bigger government and gay rights.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 18, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

"Liberalism leads inexorably toward human bondage. Indeed, it is a form of human bondage and dehumanizing ideology. Free speech, self defense, economic freedom and property rights, these are a few simple examples of basic human liberties that liberalism hates and seeks to destroy. It is organized theft, it is censorship, it is intellectual tyranny, it is mindless homage to the destruction of tradition, heritage, and culture, and of the wisdom of past generations. Liberalism gradually transforms citizens into infantilized wards of the state. It hates human freedom in all its forms. It is a prison built from false promises to free the individual by subjagating his fellows."

So sayeth the John Birch Society. The Radical Right sure seems irritable these days. Is it because the American People are beginning to recognize that the Radical Right doesn't give a d*man about ordinary citizens. All the the Radical Right wants from American citizens if for them to remain obedient workers, to consume Big Business' products, and then to die cheaply and quietly when their economic utility has ended.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 18, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

lms,

The point was simple: to refute the argument that the GOP has moved radically right on social issues (while the Dems have not changed). The objective facts show exactly the opposite. Indeed, both parties were, as recently as the 1970s, very close to where the GOP still is today.

I don't know where you are seeing all this "angry at women" and "partisan" rhetoric. Your reaction strikes me reflecting some impairment of your capacity for objective comprehension.

I am not going to bother responding further to wb and jenn on this. There is no point, given their dogmatism and lack of intellectual grounding to discuss conservatism.

Scott, Troll, and Kevin, I agree with your assessments of Bernie's illogical and ahistorical thesis. Scott, you got it right: boiled down, Bernie just claims that wherever the far left currently is defines the mainstream, and the right, by not changing its position, thus "moves" to the right. Clearly, Bernie is the Einstein of political theory.

I have a busy week so probably won't be around much. So carry on with the good fight! (Tao as well!)

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 18, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "Am I correct then that you think "pure capitalism" is the closest we can come to freedom?"

Me? No. Although I do like having a modestly regulated free market economy with fiat money.

But what does "pure" capitalism really mean? Is there a role for contract law and enforcement in pure capitalism? What about liability? What about protection of private property? Does it mean that every road is a toll road, that there are no police departments or fire departments or armies? And if you believe in the national defense, how you, as an individual, hire a soldier to defend your little slice of Western freedom?

In some cases, I do agree that over-regulation may be counter productive, and that certain progressive innovations, such as the minimum wage, at best do as much harm as good (but also don't represent the end of Western democracy for existing, either).

But I think a reasonable balance between standards and regulation and oversight on the one hand and autonomous business management and entrepreneurship on the other can and should exist, and, by and large, I think it does.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 18, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

@qb: "Bernie just claims that wherever the far left currently is defines the mainstream"

Well, this is hardly unique to Bernie (or liberals). There is a human tendency to experience our viewpoints and opinions on almost everything, from politics to relationships to entertainment, as not only best for us, but self-evidently the "best" and "most rational" choices and viewpoints in general. Thus, wherever we are in whatever spectrum, is at or near the center, or relatively close to the mainstream, for most people.

There are also people who consider themselves far from the mainstream, but uniquely gifted, so they are clearly and tragically right while the great mass of people are, sadly, wrong about everything because they aren't as smart or special as this unique person who sees the real objective truth, while everyone else is deceived by manipulators, Sevgalis, and lots of anonymous money going to the Chamber of Commerce.

And, in the case of liberals, you'll often find both viewpoints embodied by the same person! /snark

@wbgonne: "The Radical Right sure seems irritable these days. Is it because the American People are beginning to recognize that the Radical Right doesn't give a d*man about ordinary citizens. "

Well, the polls don't seem to indicate that. At all. But, as I've said before, there are lies, damn lies, statistics, projections, then polling. And that is the ladder of malfeasance, descending ever downward.

But if the generic, conglomerate "American People" are all universally beginning to recognize the obvious deficiencies of the radical right, they aren't demonstrating it when talking to pollsters, and haven't in most of the recent special elections. Even where noble liberals have won the day, it hasn't exactly been an 80/20 victory.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 18, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

"But what does "pure" capitalism really mean? Is there a role for contract law and enforcement in pure capitalism? What about liability? What about protection of private property? Does it mean that every road is a toll road, that there are no police departments or fire departments or armies? And if you believe in the national defense, how you, as an individual, hire a soldier to defend your little slice of Western freedom?"

We are considering capitalism in the context of a political state so, by definition, there will be laws protecting private property and a court system to enforce those property rights. In fact, free market purists on the Radical Right suggest that the state exists ONLY to guarantee private property rights. Presumably, that includes security against internal threats like crime and external threats like foreign invaders. But the state has little utility beyond assuring private property. Is that how you see things?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 18, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "To put it another way, under what conditions are 'violations' of pure capitalism justified?"

Basic consumer protections, contract law, protection of private property, funding for national infrastructure and the national defense, funding for police and fire protection, and for innumerable public services funded and distributed at the local level (police, fire, education, etc).

And there would be justifications for public good and general welfare services at the federal level, I just think it's best deployed at a local level. Although I think there arguments for federal fuel standards (for one example), and thus not allowing California to have separate requirements for refined gasoline from Montana from New York from Texas. Common standards are often not just a benefit to the general public, but help to provide national and economic security. Separate state standards for fuel mixtures can, and will, lead to regional fuel shortages. Especially if we ever suffer a significant reduction in refinery capacity.

There aren't easy answers. But theoretical "pure" standards of capitalism vs. socialism or Marxism are theoretical for a reason. They do not exist and will not work in the real world.

Thus, why I am not a libertarian. Or a Marxist.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 18, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, I would argue that there is a difference between a natural tendency to believe we represent the mainstream and what Bernie does here, because his argument is not just tendentiousness but directly contrary to the objective facts of which party has "moved." And the best explanation is what he always accuses his foes of doing: deliberately misleading propaganda.


Really, boiled down, he is claiming that in 1964 the GOP and Americans generally were pro-abortion and pro gay rights. How is it possible to view anyone who makes such claims as possessing adequate amounts of both honesty and intelligence? And if it isn't, which is lacking?

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 18, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "But the state has little utility beyond assuring private property. Is that how you see things?"

No, but there should be a high bar to be passed for each further step towards less economic freedom and more regulation. How much economic benefit is there to regulations which make it difficult to start a business, versus the long-term damage to the public welfare of making it extraordinarily easy to start a business?

But, again, protection of property (as you say that's the one given in a pure capitalist system) doesn't really touch on things like public roads. Arguably, those are also important to the national defense, but are we including them? What about individual autonomy? Child labor and indentured servitude and slavery all involve using people, against their will, to create an economic product or service. You could argue that, again, such things would be prevented by protection of private property, but they would be important enough that one should make sure.

However, should the government tell me I can't buy (or manufacture) incandescent light bulbs, that you can't smoke a naturally occurring and easily grown plant, completely unprocessed, in the privacy of your own home, and should the government be responsible for buying me things I need (or could really use) but perhaps cannot currently afford? Maybe, but the bar should be pretty high, I would think.

I'm a big believer in the general welfare and public good--and many, if not most, conservatives are. There is some debate about how we get there, and what trade-offs we make, and I think sometimes that gets lost in the passions and the vitriol. And, of course, there are purists out there, and they have their place. All should be welcome in the debate!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 18, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"I'm a big believer in the general welfare and public good--and many, if not most, conservatives are. There is some debate about how we get there..."

Actually, I think the biggest debate is where "there" actually is. The "general welfare" is a fairly nebulous concept which can be (and often is) understood to be so all-encompassing that it becomes a meaningless term.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 18, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

But I think a reasonable balance between standards and regulation and oversight on the one hand and autonomous business management and entrepreneurship on the other can and should exist, and, by and large, I think it does.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 18, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

---

Heretic!

I see 37th has his third identity up in as many weeks. It is a demonstration that simply banning someone is ineffective. If the forum rules can be tweaked a bit, it would seem that a wholesale overhaul isn't needed. There is a more free-flowing commentary here than on the "new" Fix. I do like the threading feature of that format, though.

Right now, there's a 3000 character limit. Make carriage returns (and similar line enders) count as 100 characters, caps count 10, lower case counts 1 (limits shouting), and you've probably got it. That may be difficult to implement, though.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 18, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

"I'm a big believer in the general welfare and public good--and many, if not most, conservatives are."

Not today's Conservatives. Today's Conservatives have jumped the shark and gone Free Market doctrinaire all the way. The Radical Right makes no concession to the Greater Good or the General Welfare. The Radical Right despises collective action by citizens acting through government. The Radical Right believes that a total free market is as close to a perfect world as we can get and that private property is "freedom." It sounds like you aren't part of the Radical Right. Yet you want Sarah Palin to be our president. Kevin, I think you are confused.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 18, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

"should the government tell me I can't buy (or manufacture) incandescent light bulbs"

Not necessarily. If products accurately bore all their costs -- including those of disposal -- the free market would do it automatically. But since our capitalist system is skewed and does NOT incorporate externalities the government must step in to correct the system.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 18, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

The left has tried to hijack the term "general welfare" and imbue it with their collectivist vision. Of course, those ideas would have been viewed by the founders as not just outlandish but wicked.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 18, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

"A General Welfare clause is a section that appears in many constitutions, and in some cases in charters and statutes, which provides that the body empowered by the document may enact laws as it sees fit to promote the well-being of the people governed thereunder. Such clauses are generally interpreted as granting the state a power to regulate for the general welfare that is independent of other powers specified in the governing document."

http://www.reference.com/browse/general+welfare?fromAsk=true&o=100074

How's that War On Reality going?

Posted by: wbgonne | October 18, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

"How's that War On Reality going?"

The quotation you pasted of course doesn't even speak to the point I made about "general welfare" as being twisted by the left to mean collectivism, which you can't with any good faith deny.

On top of that, we of course aren't here concerned with "general welfare" as a term used in "many constitutions" but in the U.S. Constitution. And on that point, even the random authority you quoted goes on to say:

"The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. However, it is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. Unlike most General Welfare clauses, however, the clause in the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as a limitation on the power of the United States Congress to use its powers of taxing and spending."

You really have to apply yourself harder to your efforts to mislead people if you are ever going to get anywhere.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 18, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

The quotation you pasted of course doesn't even speak to the point I made about "general welfare" as being twisted by the left to mean collectivism, which you can't with any good faith deny.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 18, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

---

Why not? You asserted it without good faith.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 18, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Government is a collectivist enterprise. So is society. Get over it. This pretense of being a rugged individualist living on the Western frontier in 1880 is DOA.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 18, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

"Fair enough. But I make this observation, after seeing not just the same sorts of people (in terms of politics) but sometimes the exact same people who had nothing except criticism for a Thatcher or a Reagan 20 or 30 years ago now compare a Dubya or a Palin against them in the most negative terms, and if somehow their previous vitriolic criticism of those now grudgingly respected conservatives never occurred. "

Way too late in the thread so I may have to recycle this, but...

The fact that Liberals like me compare Goldwater, whom they thought hilarious and dead wrong, to the Current T's to demonstrate just how radical the T-s are doesn't mean we deify Goldwater.

It is like comparing Vlad Tepes and his predilection for impaling lots of people, his own if he couldn't catch enough Turks, and Hitler, and saying that over the centuries the ability for Conservative megalomaniacs to do death in large doses is certainly more visible in Hitler than in Dracula.

And I really thing that the T-s, if they are zombie anything, are zombie sixties deep South Governors, like Lester Maddox and George Wallace. Both rose in politics by espousing some rather crazy political theories. Each had the bad luck to win and have to be the Governors of deep South states that were having to deal with the inescapable results of Brown V Board of Education and ALL its ramifications. Both ended up having to compromise over and over to get their states to run. Both lost the adulation of their original core followers because they had to compromise.

Put a few zombie Maddoxes in Congress and watch them evolve or flame out in one term.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 18, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

So collectivism/socialism or anarchy are the two choices. You're a real scholar, wb.

Fair,

The term "general welfare" did not mean anything like the collectivist concepts with which the left tried to invest it in recent decades. It's true, and I'm not going to debate it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 18, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Hello,

Send Christmas Gifts. Buy more to send. On this site==== http://www.1shopping.us/ ,

good place for shopping, fashion, sexy, personality, maturity, from here to begin. Are you ready?

===== http://www.1shopping.us/ ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15

New era cap $12

accept paypal or credit card and free shipping

====== http://www.1shopping.us/ ====

Posted by: oneshopping35 | October 18, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company