Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 28, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

THAT SINKING FEELING....So how is the Republican Party doing since George Bush started his second term? Charles Franklin doesn't merely crunch the numbers to find the answer, he batters them into submission and eventually delivers the goods:

Between January 1, 2005 and March 12, 2006, Republican partisan identification declined by an estimated 3.6%. The percentage of the adult population calling themselves Independent rose by 4.6%, and the percentage of Democrats declined by a statistically insignificant 0.4%.

It turns out that not only has party ID shifted a fair amount in the past year, but also that party ID differs wildly between polls. Fox News, for example, asks "Do you think of yourself as a Democrat or a Republican?" while Pew asks "Do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or Independent?" Just adding the option to the question increases the number of people who respond "Independent" from 17% (Fox) to 31% (Pew).

Both of the linked posts are long and eye glazing, but the bottom line is that party ID is surprisingly hard to measure. Keep that in mind the next time someone swears a poll must be wrong because its party weighting doesn't match the exit polls from a year and a half ago.

Kevin Drum 7:56 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (243)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Given the sorry state of Republican governance, this seems like a relatively moderate decline. Imagine what'd happen if there were a full-blown recession. Or a catastrophic withdrawal in Iraq.

Posted by: jimBOB on March 28, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

poll must be wrong because its party weighting doesn't match the exit polls from a year and a half ago.

but, but don't you realize that's the only explanation for FearlessLeader's drop in popularity? it doesn't have anything to do with actual performance or people paying attention, it's all the mean ol' MEEDEEA, deliberately trying to make Him look bad.

Posted by: e1 on March 28, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Remember, 3.6% and 4% are barely outside statistical insignificance themselves. Granted, it's sure not a bad sign. It could also be nothing at all.

Posted by: Viserys on March 28, 2006 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats keep assuming they don't need to actually take a position on the issues. "Let's just sit on the sidelines and wait til Bush collapses."

Drum's post here is just more wishful thinking by he Timid Party.

Posted by: BigRiver on March 28, 2006 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

honest to goodness, we live under a regime that is all about wishful thinking, and clowns like BigRiver think that Kevin, reporting in on some interesting analysis, is the wishful thinker.

there really is no limit to the power of self-deception, as we learn in the comments section here every day.

Posted by: howard on March 28, 2006 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

"Let's just sit on the sidelines and wait til Bush collapses."

Better yet, let's taunt him woth a bottle of Jim Beam and some cocaine.

Posted by: HeavyJ on March 28, 2006 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

jimBOB: Party ID is usually fairly stable, so this decline is at least modestly interesting. It's not huge, but it's not trivial either, especially over the course of only 14 months.

Viserys: Franklin's numbers are based on a meta-analysis of multiple polls, so the 4% decline is actually quite significant.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on March 28, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Quit deluding yourself, Kevin. (j/k)

Posted by: gq on March 28, 2006 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

One day, Big River and the other hard-core Bush supporters are going to wake up and find themselves all alone on the island. And that's when things will get interesting, since I don't believe that they'll go home without a fight...

Posted by: dr sardonicus on March 28, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

Keep that in mind the next time someone swears a poll must be wrong because its party weighting doesn't match the exit polls from a year and a half ago.

I'll remember to quote you on that when Republicans win by a landslide and win a fillibuster proof Senate majority in the next elections!

Posted by: Al on March 28, 2006 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

Good news for the democrats, GW's poll numbers continue to drop. In fact, we've been told that they have been dropping consistently since 2003, which should put him about -57% by now.

How low do the numbers have to be before the democrats feel like they can win without actually putting together a platform?

Posted by: Simon on March 28, 2006 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

Some people say they're independents when they really aren't. My dad is a staunch old-school conservative republican but he doesn't identify at all with the current crop of so-called republicans controlling the party today.

Posted by: lellis on March 28, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

Did anyone hear Fred Barnes on Fresh Air today? The poor sap seemed kind of broken (I felt sorry for him, kind of), having written a book banking on a successful second Bush term, hoping to catch a wave of some sort, he is now reduced to promoting a book he knows everyone considers totally irrelevant. It had the tired, disappointed, rather bemused feel of a chat with a cast member of bad Broadway show- it had open with such glitz and closed so suddenly...

Posted by: higtaper on March 28, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

I think the dems have to sit on the sidelines. Who will speak out with any authority or worse yet,any support? Let's see,one time there was Mr. Murtha and he certainly garnered a lot of support from the House leadership. Or perhaps it's Sen. Feingold. There was a rash of dem support for his position,why the Congressional Record is full of encomiums for his censure motion. Or.....
never mind

Posted by: TJM on March 28, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

Quite the contrary higtaper, I saw Fred on Fox with Colmes and he was merely stating that after five and half years and some recent mis-steps, the staff needed some new blood and that is what it is. McClellan could likely be out and the administration will have a new spokesperson and new approach going into mid-terms. He was actually quite optimistic.

Posted by: Simon on March 28, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

Remember those articles about a year ago, which claimed to see indicate a demographic swell in Party self-identification towards the GOP and away from Dems? Dems worried and Righties exhulted. But it struck me that a goodly part of the shift was a flocking response to the Party perceived as a "winner." People like to be associated with something that seems to be doing well.

The current study is significant because it comes after the GOP's strategy for the past 10 years has been to create a "permanent majority." They've spent enormous amounts of time, effort and money on "brand" marketing, making the GOP the go-to Party on cultural, economic, and national security issues.

The GOP should be at the crest of its popularity, since it's had total control of the government for the last 4 years, and has been unchallenged in defining and framing the issues.

Meanwhile, the Dems seem hapless. They have no power in the government, they have no advocates in the press, and they can't get their message out. Hell, if you listen to the punditariat, the Dems have no message to get out.

So more people, not fewer, "should" be self-identifying as GOP. The Dems "should" be losing more than 0.4%.

In view of that, the study trends are a lot more interesting, and possibly significant, than the raw numbers indicate. It means the GOP marketing effort hasn't worked - hasn't been able to overcome the liabilities of Iraq, Katrina, corruption, and a general sense that the GOP is coming apart at the seams.

The GOP is starting to get the "loser" taint, and people are shifting away from it.

Posted by: CaseyL on March 28, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

You know, its fun to play at being an amateur political hack on this site, but evey once in a while reality intrudes. Over at bloggingheads, I just sat through listening to this guy James Pinkerton, who apparently was a member of the Reagan and Bush administrations, have at it with Mickey Kaus.

Really, being a professional hack is not as easy as it looks.

I don't, frankly, know how you could possibly put together any sort of "platform" in response to whatever the hell this guy was talking about, its so completely illogical and nonsensical that its almost impossible to know where to begin.

Since the Republican party has controlled the Executive branch, both houses of congress, and a good chunck of the media, its really been like watching a train wreck. Only, for purposes of this discussion, its an intellectual train wreck.

No wonder "independents" are up! It is gettting to be technically impossible to identify with any party, because the two parties (especially the Republican party, as they are currently in power) are so busy catering to a couple/four sub-interest groups that they end up with no ability to actually enact policy.

For example, if anyone like this guy Pinkerton is anywhere near anyone who has anything to do with foreign policy, well, no wonder we're in the situation we are in.

For starters, the guy appears to cite historical events without the slightest, and I mean the slightest, effort at putting the events in context.

As a result you come up with what appears to be a worldview in which 9/11, Waterloo, WWI, WWII and the China/Taiwan situation are all given exactly equal weight.

The frustration in trading jabs with trolls on this board is merely a microcosm of the actual real hack world.

Go to bloggingheads.tv and see for yourself.

Posted by: hank on March 28, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

4% down. Great. Whatever. Welcome to the party. I think a lot of people have had enough of what BushCo has been shoving down our collective throats for the past 5 1/2 years but until the point voters see an opposition that has things it believes in and isn't afraid of fighting for them, they aren't going to consider switching their vote. Right now all we have is more of the same from the Republicans, and I doubt that is going to change much unless they get crushed in 2006 or kind of, sort of the same from the Democrats. A coherent plan for Iraq that is clear & consise would be a nice place to start and sensible plans for universal health care would be even better. Make people care about the abuses the current administration have pushed on our country & our rights and make them understand in clear terms why Bush's way is the wrong way. Take a president weakened and show how truly incompetent & corrupt he and his administration really is. Take the fear & negativity that today's version of the Republican party sells and shove it back down their throat and don't cower in fear over how Karl Rove will try and spin it. Show some spine and fight.

Posted by: Nathan on March 28, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

The Republicans have certainly not gone "unchallenged" on the issues in the last four years. They've been challenged on every issue in the last four years. The main reason the GOP has been the "go to party" on the issues is because the GOP actually defines their positions on each issue. The democrats have no united front on really any issue therefore, the GOP stands to lose the most ground.

The democrats have no advocates in the press? What channels do you watch?

Posted by: Simon on March 28, 2006 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a poll,

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/q1_06_msnbcs_olbermann_beats_cnns_zahn_hlns_grace_in_the_demo_34504.asp

Keith Olbermann up 41%, beats Paula Zahn and Nancy Grace, O'Reilly sinks 24%.

Some loon earlier said the liberal perspective was receding into the sunset. Here it seems more like it's closing in fast.

Posted by: cld on March 28, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan, exactly what rights of yours have been abused under the current administration? And isn't telling everyone how evil and corrupt the current administration is really selling fear, just like you blame the republicans of doing?

Posted by: Simon on March 28, 2006 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

what hank said up above...

Posted by: Tim on March 28, 2006 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

I'm with Nathan. This means nothing, particularly since the Democratic estabilshment seems to believe that cowering in utter fear is the best possible course of action, come what may.

Viserys' comment above, that the changes the polls measure are statistically insignificant may be technically wrong, but he does get at another point. The mere fact that the p-values for the statistics in this study are above .1 or .05 (pick your alpha) means about jack shit. As one rather brilliant and well educated professor of mine once said in a lecture, statistical significance and real world meaning aren't always the same thing, or even in the same ballpark.

Posted by: phleabo on March 28, 2006 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

"Are you a Repugnacan or a demonocrat?"

"Neither, I'm a pedestrian, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk"

The Republicans need to reckon with the perception by a growing number of voters that they represent a government that isn't quite for the people by the people.

Rather, the Repugnacans are becoming equated with a government for the rich and nothing but the rich so help us god.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on March 28, 2006 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

simon, surely you jest. you confuse sloganeering with defined positions.

from "cut taxes" to "9/11 changed everything," the gop has indeed been masterful at sloganeering, but in terms of actual policies, what have they brought us: fiscal irresponsibility of an extreme dimension; a disastrous folly in iraq; a failed approach to the problem of terrorism; a pathetic prescription drug plan; an education plan whose unintended conequences are manifold and all negative; torture; and a new approach to the constitution that says that as commander-in-cheif, the president can do whatever he wants.

nowhere in that morass of misguided foolishness is anything approximating a "defined position" on an "issue," assuming that by "defined position" you mean "meaningful approach" and by "issue" you mean problem facing america.

as to all these advocates for the democrats in the press, do please tell us where you've found them. we've been looking for years....

Posted by: howard on March 28, 2006 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

Simon, if you can point to any TV news reporter or anchor that has a good word to say about the Dems, please let me know what and when it was. If you can point to any news story about national security, abortion, or taxation that wasn't presented within the GOP's definition of those issues, please let me know what and when that was.

And the GOP's "defining itself on issues" is exactly what I was talking about: it's a major marketing campaign that hasn't worked. It hasn't worked because the GOP is still nattering on about issues that appeal to its base and only to its base, while the rest of the country notices things like corruption, incompetence, and reckless disregard for the well-being of American citizens.

The GOP not only hasn't addressed any of those things, it pretends they don't even exist. People notice that. They notice when their concerns about their economic well being, their vulnerability to natural disasters, their kids' education and future job prospects aren't even on the table.

Posted by: CaseyL on March 28, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

Not that any of this matters. Thanks to the Help America Vote (Republican) Act, Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia, Karl Rove's permanent Republican majority is upon us. Don't like it? Vote the bastards out. Oh, wait--we can't? Oh. We're screwed, ain't we?

But then there's Clint Curtis. Clint Curtis is mounting a congressional bid in Florida against Tom Feeney. As many of you know, Curtis was the programmer hired by Feeney to write election-stealing software a few years back. Since then, much has happened, including the suspicious death of the Florida Inspector General Raymond Lemme looking into the matter and the total media clampdown of any serious discussion of electronic election manipulation in Florida and across the nation. Curtis, a former Republican, became so disgusted by what he saw that he became a whistleblower. The whole sordid tale is chronicled on www.bradblog.com.

Here's Curtis in his own words:

My name is Clint Curtis. I am running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Florida's 24th Congressional District. This great district is currently represented by one of the most corrupt politicians in history. Having personally attended closed-door meetings where Tom Feeney spoke candidly about his aspirations of corruption forces me to provide this district with an alternative to this man. I will need your help.

http://www.clintcurtis.com

Now Curtis is now taking on the VERY well-funded Feeney. He promises to fight for fair elections and to expose electronic vote fraud. He is the ONLY candidate who will take it to the NeoCons on this issue.

Curtis needs to raise $5K in the next 2 weeks to get on the ballot. Please visit his web site and offer to help, donate even $5 if you can spare it, and help spread the word. It's time to TAKE BACK AMERICA--and Mr. Curtis may be own only chance of overcoming a rigged election system.

http://www.clintcurtis.com

Posted by: Neoconvict on March 28, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

"And isn't telling everyone how evil and corrupt the current administration is really selling fear, just like you blame the republicans of doing?"

Not in the plane of reality I think most rational people exist in. This administration has two main meal tickets and selling fear to America is one of them.
And evil is your word, not mine and it isn't one I'd use. As for corrupt, I'd think the investigations, indictments & trials would be pretty clear to anyone who cares to look. Try google, I hear it can find some interesting information.
Speaking as someone who voted Republican most of his life, I've rarely been more disgusted.

Posted by: Nathan on March 28, 2006 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

Despite the exhaustion of the Bush Admin's program, I still don't see you guys generating much Joementum. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Repubs pick up seats this November.

Posted by: minion of rove on March 28, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

simon, surely you jest. you confuse sloganeering with defined positions.

So yeah, Simon, how about those GOP positions, eh?
Small government?
whoops
Leadership?
not so much
"war on terror"? (whatever that means)
hmmm, nope
Personal responsibility?
Hahahahaha
States rights?
not any more, apparently

You've got stars in your eyes son. Meanwhile, people seem to be leaving the rudderless ship. Or getting indicted and convicted.

Posted by: craigie on March 28, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

Meta-analysis of statistical data of this type is so flawed that anyone making any strategic prescriptions on the basis of the results does so at his own peril.

Bush hatred is not an election platform, no matter how much analysis you use to justify it.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 28, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

There's some kind of Matrix-style assimilation going on, with fake-tbrosz becoming more tbrosz-like than the real one. Spooky.

Posted by: craigie on March 28, 2006 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

craigie, i swear, i was thinking the same thing: this isn't the real tbrosz, but it sounds realer than the real tbrosz. amazing.

minion of rove, there's a sucker born every minute....

Posted by: howard on March 28, 2006 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe if Bush's poll numbers drop below 20%, the pathetic Dems will finally tell the voters what their party stands for.

Posted by: Paddy Whack on March 28, 2006 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

Paddy Whack, what you're not getting is that voters do know what the GOP stands for - and they despise it. Deservedly so.

"The Party of No" looks pretty damned good when it's the Party of No Illegal Surveillance, No Bankrupting the Treasury, No Letting American Cities Die, No Looting of Social Security, and No Treating the Constitution Like Toilet Paper.

Posted by: CaseyL on March 28, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe if Bush's poll numbers drop below 20%, the pathetic Dem's will finally tell the voters what their party stands for.

We don't stand for losing pointless wars in third world countries.
How about we take responsibility for our mistakes.

Posted by: Neo on March 28, 2006 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

Meta-analysis of statistical data of this type is so flawed that anyone making any strategic prescriptions on the basis of the results does so at his own peril.

tbrosz is partly correct here; meta analysis of this sort is difficult. That said, the data point very strongly in one direction. I think that it can be safely said that party identification as identified by pollsters has shifted, at least for Republicans. Down 4%? I don't know, and I'd bet that Charles Franklin would say the same thing.

(Disclaimer: Charles is a personal friend. Do with that what you will, though his post is better if you imagine him reading it in his Alabama drawl.)

As for the Democrats cowering in terror, I don't think that this is what's going on. Watching the administration right now, I keep remembering Napoleon's dictum, "When your opponent is in the middle of making a blunder, don't interrupt him." While I think that the consensus that the Democrats have been too timid in the past is correct, I'm not at all sure that RIGHT NOW is the time to try to make up for it.

Posted by: J. Michael Neal on March 28, 2006 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

The Media Whores, carrying water for the Republicans, keep saying that the Republicans are in big trouble, but that the American people don't know what the Democrats stand for, so they haven't won them over yet.

They want the Democrats to show their cards NOW, so the RightWing can start sliming them. They need to keep their powder dry until after Labor Day.
.

Posted by: VJ on March 29, 2006 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

I don't believe that the decline in Democrats is statistically insignificant.

Frustration level among Democrats, with their representatives, is very high. Their utter failure to do anything meaningful, especially with the Fiengold censure resolution fiasco. The Democratic party is dead. I'm praying that it's animated corpse will become decapitated, and a real opposition party will take it's place. But I'm not counting on it. Jackasses like Lieberman have grown fat pretending to be on the opposition, and doing jack diddly squat. (though I'm heartened by the strong campaign to oust him by Conn. Dems.)

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on March 29, 2006 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

"Bush hatred is not an election platform, no matter how much analysis you use to justify it."

I think that's what a lot of people around here are saying.

I get the whole "watching your enemy implode" theory and while it does have merit, there has to be a point where you help the destruction along. By the simple virtue of not being Republican today's Democrats have the upper hand on almost every major policy issue. Democrats need to start highlighting the differences and exploiting the weaknesses, not trying to be an elephant with spots. Democrats need to start showing some balls, get their hands bloody and take the fight to Bush & the Congress. Democrats need to start fighting like the opposition party they are but talking like winners and stop acting like the poor losers. Start framing the issues on Democratic terms, stay on-topic and stop letting the RNC/White House talking points direct the next mornings headlines or workplace cooler talk.

Posted by: Nathan on March 29, 2006 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK

I'm so smart, I scare myself. In fact, I know so much that I can pretty much tell you that anything Kevin posts is crap. You should actually click his links, then scan the threads for my posts, and listen to my stunning revelations on how irrelevant and stupid the latest Democratic talking points are, and how they do nothing but imperil my tax cut.

Posted by: tbooz on March 29, 2006 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

there's a few different issues that people are conflating.

the first is that we don't live in a parliamentary system. in parliamentary systems, there is a shadow cabinet ready to take office at the drop of a hat, prepared with a fully fleshed-out program. that's not how things work in the american system, where the executive sets the agenda.

now, admittedly, the Leninist discipline that the bush administration has imposed on the gop congress has been unprecedented in american history and thereby provides the illusion that party discipline and party unity is much more typical than it has been historically (who knows? the gop may have established a new norm).

second, for a variety of reasons, while there is still a conservative wing to the democratic party, there is no moderate wing to the republican party. sure, i'd be happy to read lieberman and nelson out of the democratic party myself, but that's unlikely to happen, and therefore, it is inherently more difficult for the dems to coalesce around a program because they are more ideologically diverse.

third, the dems aren't doing as poorly electorally as some people seem to think: bush won the 13 states of the old confederacy by 5.5M votes in 2004, and lost the other 37 by 2.5M. the sum total of votes for the current 45 democratic senators exceeds that of the 54 republicans, and i'm pretty sure the same is true in the house despite the dems being outnumbered. The system - meaning the electoral system and the requirement that every state get 2 senators and 1 representative - works against the dems.

none of this excuses dem timidity: the failure to coalesce around murtha and around feingold is, indeed, inexcusable. but that's not the same as saying that it's not clear what the dems stand for.

the dem problem is they lack effective sloganeering, as i said above, but we know what they stand for: responsible governance. a prudent approach to the use of military force. progressive taxation and programs that aid middle and lower-income workers, combined with a recognition that a great nation can be judged by how it treats the less fortunate among it. a belief that the levers of government power can be used to effect good in people's lives.

now, how to sell that in ways as simplistic and repetitive and easy to remember as "low taxes," "good vs. evil," and "9/11 changed everything:" that's the question.

Posted by: howard on March 29, 2006 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

p.s. i happen to think that "bush hatred" - more precisely, "bush and gop nausea" - is a perfectly fine platform for 2006 (although not 2008, when even the gop will run away from bush), and i think newt's proposed slogan - "had enough?" - captures that perfectly.

now why did a republican prove able to think of that? as i say, the dems stink at sloganeering.

Posted by: howard on March 29, 2006 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

now, how to sell that in ways as simplistic and repetitive and easy to remember as "low taxes," "good vs. evil," and "9/11 changed everything:" that's the question.

Maybe we change the name from "Democratic Party" to "Constitution and Having a Good Time Party." That should cover the bases.

Posted by: craigie on March 29, 2006 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

By the way, I notice in the poll that Kevin links to that "the percentage of the adult population calling themselves Tbrosz rose by a statistically significant 985%"

At that rate, the tbrosz party will overtake the GOP in August, 2006.

Posted by: craigie on March 29, 2006 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

craigie, that's almost as good as "had enough?"

Posted by: howard on March 29, 2006 at 1:03 AM | PERMALINK

How dare you compare me unfavorably with Newt?!

Posted by: craigie on March 29, 2006 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK

Hey Kevin,

Will Scalia recuse himself following this blunder? I'm going to take the underdog bet on this one and say that he does.

You lost your bet. No post about that?

Remember, I suggested that if you lost your bet, you had to post an entire day's worth of material strongly in favor of censure.

Start posting baby, and mean it this time!

Posted by: jerry on March 29, 2006 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

Gee, 35%. That's like twice the pay rise you get to move to New York for most jobs.

Things must suck twice as much as New York.

Posted by: McA on March 29, 2006 at 2:26 AM | PERMALINK

Gee, 35%. That's like twice the pay rise you get to move to New York for most jobs.

State Dept. diplomats posted to NY do not get a pay raise. This is a silly thing to say.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 29, 2006 at 5:50 AM | PERMALINK

The data provided by the writer of the article might indicate that population is looking for some third alternative( how else it can be explained that the number of independent rose by 4 per cent?!). I guess that as far as foreign policy is concerned Democratic Party has much more strong and credible standing, than Republican.

Posted by: Anthony on March 29, 2006 at 8:17 AM | PERMALINK

State Dept. diplomats posted to NY do not get a pay raise.

IIRC John Bolton received a healthy pay increase moving from his position at State in D.C. to New York ; )

Back on topic, I'm sure Kevin and the rest of you will confidentally ride that sinking feeling all the way to yet another GOP victory come Election Day. But, at least you will get Bruce Springsteen and Jon Bon Jovi to perform for you - too bad Bobby Hatfield's gone or he could have sung "You've Lost That Sinkin' Feeling" as your campaign theme.

Posted by: Don P. on March 29, 2006 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

Keep that in mind the next time someone swears a poll must be wrong because its party weighting doesn't match the exit polls from a year and a half ago.
Naw, polls aren't wrong because of party weighting, polls are wrong because fixing their design problems range from prohibitively expensive to impossible.

But look at them, they always seem to tell Democrats what they want to hear. Generic Dems always outpoll generic Repubs (who controls both houses and the WH?), Gore was going to win, Kerry was going to win. It seems the purpose in polling is to give Democrats a warm, fuzzy feeling.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

P.S. to cld:

What are the actual ratings though? I'm sure Bill is still kicking Keith's ass - when you've got less than 1% share, a 41% increase ain't so impressive.

Posted by: Don P. on March 29, 2006 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut:

Don't give away the secret!!!

Posted by: Don P. on March 29, 2006 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

FBI AS GESTAPO: OPPRESSING THE KURDS OF HARRISONBURG, VIRGINIA
The following is something that has not hit the media at all, other than a story in the Harrisonburg Daily News-Record that simply repeated FBI propaganda about this awful case. Harrisonburg, Virginia happens to have one of the largest enclaves of Iraqi Kurdish population in the US. They all came in the late 1990s to flee from Saddam Hussein's regime after working for pro-US NGOs and having their lives threatened. They applauded at the fall of Saddam.

However, four of them have been arrested for transferring funds to their families and charitable organizations in Iraqi Kurdistan without a license, a felony offense under the Patriot Act and the act to keep Cubans from sending money to their relatives in Cuba. One has been convicted in a trial in which most of the evidence was not allowed and in which the FBI suggested that the defendant was a terrorist. These people were cowed into not talking to the media, and now they are all in deep trouble. Their homes have been raided, their money seized, even things like medical insurance cards (with one wife pregnant), applications for citizenship are off, they are facing deportation, and so on. They were assigned a Croatian translator for the court. There is a serious string of outrages associated with this with no coverage by any serious media. The FBI agent in charge even told them, "I know you are not the bad guys, but too much paperwork has gone forward on this."

From Maxspeaks

Posted by: Neo on March 29, 2006 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

How low do the numbers have to be before the democrats feel like they can win without actually putting together a platform?

The 2004 Democratic Party platform is here, jackass.

HeavyJ: Better yet, let's taunt him woth a bottle of Jim Beam and some cocaine.

ROFL!

Posted by: Gregory on March 29, 2006 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

Neo:

Did any Jews die in the WTC on 9/11?

Posted by: Don P. on March 29, 2006 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

Hi, Gregory ; )

Posted by: Don P. on March 29, 2006 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

Howard
second, for a variety of reasons, while there is still a conservative wing to the democratic party, there is no moderate wing to the republican party
You really need to take a look at the ADA Ratings. Most of the moderates are Repubs, especially in the Senate.

You consider Lieberman conservative, to the rest of the world he rates solid liberal.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

Democratic Party platform is here
Heh, for a third of your House members, the Democratic platform is here.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

Hi, Charlie.

Ah, and c.n.'s ridiculous obsession with socialism surfaces again! Tell us again that even the Republican Party is socialist and every government of the G8 -- including ours, of course -- is Marxist. That's it's always good for a chuckle.

Posted by: Gregory on March 29, 2006 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

gregory, that's the 2004 platform. Remember, the one that lost. Also, the strategy against terrorism reads a lot like what is currently happening.

Do the Democrats plan on running on that platform again?

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

gregory, that's the 2004 platform.

Hey, it was the first Google hit. It's still enough to refute Simon's idiotic claim that the Democrats lack a platform.

Of course, all this yammering from the Bush cultists about the Democratic agenda is a transparent attempt to change the subject from the fact that Americans overwhelmingly reject the Republican agenda. Whatever the Republicans claim to stand for, the American people have seen the incompetence and corruption they actually deliver, and they've had enough.

Posted by: Gregory on March 29, 2006 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

Well, Gregory, seeing as how a third of House Democrats are part of the DSA's attempt to infiltrate the Democratic Party, and Senate Democrats are farther left than House Democrats...

BTW, how do explain that level of House membership in the Progressive Caucus? Do they know they've signed on with the socialists, or are they too stupid to know what they did?

And you, are you aware of your socialist leanings, or are you too stupid to figure it out?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

c.n., again, since you contend socialists are everywhere, including the Democratic and Republican parties as a whole, what are you complaining about? I simply suggest that anyone who identifies every one of the G8 governments as Marxist and complains of the leftish orientation of the Republican Party has little credibility in asserting who has "socialist leanings" or indeed any ideological orientation at all. But by all means continue -- your ridiculous obsession with socialism is vastly amusing. I suppose it's consolation for the fact that your own political views find little overt support even in the Republican Party.

Posted by: Gregory on March 29, 2006 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

Well, I guess that means gregory is admitting his socialist leanings. Typical Democrat posturing; I was for it before I was against it and may be for it again someday depending on what my opponents are for or against and who it may or may not offend. Is that clear?

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

Please take note that one House Democrat, Jim McDermott of Seattle, is going to have to pay Republican House Majority Leader John Boehner $700,000 for violating Boehner's civil rights in the 1996 case of Democrat activists in Florida in collusion with McDermott illegally wire-tapping a cell phone call between Boehner and Newt Gingrich. This was a "no party consent" type of recording. Although it is technically not wiretapping (no wires) it still seems to much more illegal than the NSA listening in on all the phone calls between the USA and Middle East nations.

McDermott's defense of late on this matter has been that he magically knew that Newt and John would be discussing illegal things, so that gave old Jim the right to encourage the snoops, promise them his protection, and publish their ill-gotten gains.

Joining McDermott in this curious interpretation of the law were 16 major news organizations, pretty much a who's who of the MSM.

Incidentally, reporter Matthew Daly whom the AP designated to put as good a leftie-liberal twist on this story as possible, managed to write his whole story without mentioning that the phone call was intercepted in the same way that NSA surveilance is done, which Democrats would otherwise claim is so highly illegal as perhaps to trigger impeachment.

Not illegal enough to impeach Seattle's most arrogant and most left of the left coast leftists, Rep. Jim McDermott (D) of course.

Posted by: Michael L. Cook on March 29, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

Can you imagine the hysteria that would have surrounded this issue had it been say Frist listening in on Pelosi. Their hypocrisy is mind boggling.

Also, pretty funny how this is being swept under the rug and ignored by the MSM.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Well, I guess that means saladmaker is admitting his fascist leanings. Typical Republican posturing; I was for it before I was against it and may be for it again someday depending on what my opponents are for or against and who it may or may not offend. Is that clear?

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Good one Nuts, next time try and think for yourself.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

Can you imagine the hysteria that would have surrounded this issue had it been say Bush conspiring with Blair to invade Iraq. Their hypocrisy is mind boggling.

Also, pretty funny how the memo is being swept under the rug and ignored by the MSM.

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

saladmaker, where's the GOP platform? Remember, the one that won. Also, the strategy against terrorism reads a lot like what was on the 2004 Democratic platform except that it hasn't been effective.

Do the Republicans plan on running on national security ideas from the Democratic platform again?

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory
what are you complaining about?
Pareto analysis, big hitters, 80/20. The socialists that identify as socialists are immediately marginalized (as they should be), the socialist leanings in the Repubs are mostly reactionary. But the Democrats, now there's another story. They're becoming a front organization for socialists. Stealth socialism. And hey, if it's such a good idea, why does it have to be hidden from view?

I noticed you failed to answer my questions. What's wrong?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Well since it worked so well in '00, '02 and '04, yeah sure, they'll run on that platform again.

Let's talk effectiveness shall we? Libya disarmed. Afghanistan now has a democratically elected government as does Iraq. Free elections have been held in Egypt, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. Iraq also boasts of a 200,000+ military/security force and have their previous murderous dictator on trial. Ohlmert is now talking about conceding more land for the palestinians to form their own country (we'll see just how peaceful they are now). India is now an ally as is Pakistan, Jordan, & Turkey.

The Iraqi government is soon to permanently form and the military is securing more ground everyday. US casualties are way down and optimism among Iraqi's is way high (recent zogby poll - 70% of Iraqi's are optimistic about their future). There still remains some battles ahead but nothing like the battle the Dems will have to wage to make themselves look like something other than malcontents and losers.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Considering all of the outrage voiced on the perceived abuses of "domestic" wiretapping by GW, yet when Michael Cook exposes a real abuse of wiretapping by a leading Democratic Senator, all is silent. Ironic isn't it?

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Where's Osama? Why is America's homeland still prone to terrorism? Why are Americans still most vulnerable at our ports where only 5% of containers are inspected? Why have Republicans voted against port security and chemical plant security? Is America's homeland safer?

Are terrorist attacks in the world up or down?

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Libby and Rove disclosed the identity of a CIA agent. All is silent. Ironic isn't it for a party so tough on national security.

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

As long as terrorists attacks are down where I live, that's all I care about.

Posted by: Don P. on March 29, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

all is silent. Ironic isn't it?
Not really. If GW Bush isn't part of the question, the lefties have no answer. Their entire worldview is summed up by: Bush = Bad. The McDermott thing doesn't have Bush's name anywhere in it, so the lefties don't know which side is wrong.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

And you, are you aware of your socialist leanings, or are you too stupid to figure it out?

and are you aware that you're a moronic fuckwit, or is that level of self awareness beyond your grasp?

Posted by: haha on March 29, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

Republicans impeached Clinton but don't impeach Bush. Ironic isn't it.

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

LOL conspiracy nut - I hadn't thought of it that way - to be honest with you, I could care less about the two major parties in this country. We the People need to start shaking things up.

Posted by: Don P. on March 29, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

are you aware that you're a moronic fuckwit
Yes, I am. Any more questions?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

Where's Osama? Why is America's homeland still prone to terrorism? Why are Americans still most vulnerable at our ports where only 5% of containers are inspected? Why have Republicans voted against port security and chemical plant security? Is America's homeland safer?

Are terrorist attacks in the world up or down?

Only an evil lefty commie socialist would dare to ask such questions. Of course we're safer now, despite all your facts and statistics. George Bush is president, therefore everything is better.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

If Bush broke the law, impeach him then.

Posted by: Don P. on March 29, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

The righties have no answer. Their entire worldview is summed up by: liberals = Bad. The DeLay thing has exposed all the Abramoff corruption in congress, so the righties don't know where to get their next kickback.

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

I could care less about the two major parties in this country. We the People need to start shaking things up.

Fool, we need to continue voting for Republicans. Only through the largest deficits and debt in history, unnecessary and costly war, and repeated violation of the Constitution, can we achieve true greatness as a nation.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

"Are terrorist attacks in the world up or down?"
Since 9-11 not one successful terrorist attack on U.S. soldier. There are known to be over 100 attempted, but before you jump on that or any number. Just remember 0. So the question is have we done a good job. 100% is a pretty good number. For those who don't get the war in Iraq it works like this. We are fighting and killing our enemies on a foreign soil. Thanks to our men and women who are fighting our enemies and for those keeping us secure at home.

Posted by: daveyo on March 29, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Your evil twin is back, conspiracy nut.

Posted by: Don P. on March 29, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Only an evil righty fascist wingnut would dare to ignore such questions. Of course we're not safer now, despite all the righty lies and propaganda. George Bush is president, therefore everything is better. Clap harder!

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

"Are terrorist attacks in the world up or down?"
Since 9-11 not one successful terrorist attack on U.S. soldier.

Great job at not answering the question. You must be another home-schooled conservatard.

Posted by: LOL on March 29, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Their entire worldview is summed up by: liberals = Bad.
No, no, no. Liberals are good. You leftists are bad. Liberalism is a fine ideology with a long and glorious history. But socialism has failed everywhere it has been implemented.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

"Libby and Rove disclosed"

Scooter, Is that his given name or a nick name? If it's his nick name, Who the hell gets past 8yrs old with a nick name like Scooter let alone to a high position of governmental prominence? If it's his given name then to his parents I ask, "what the hell were you thinking?". When I hear "Scooter" I think of a dog scootin his ass across a carpet.
'And then there's Tipper...don't get me started on Tipper....*Grins*mood lightener*

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 29, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

"Since 9-11 not one successful terrorist attack on U.S. soldier." This should read "on U.S. soil".

Posted by: daveyo on March 29, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Since 9-11 not one successful terrorist attack on U.S. soldier.

Oh, except for all those IEDs and various other terrorist attacks in Iraq. So you didn't even get the right answer to the question that wasn't asked.
Dumbass.

Posted by: LOL on March 29, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Your evil twin is back, conspiracy nut.
And he's (she?) is welcome for 2 reasons:
1) I realize that moonbats don't have a lot of debating skill, so relying on stuff like that is the best that can be expected.
2) I'm just here to mess up the game, and my evil twin is helping me out towards that end.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

LOL - what part of "most Americans don't care if terrorist attacks are up or down in the rest of world" don't you understand?

Posted by: Don P. on March 29, 2006 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

"Since 9-11 not one successful terrorist attack on U.S. soldier." This should read "on U.S. soil".

LOL! Yeah, could job at correcting your answer to the question that wasn't asked. Care to actually answer the question that was asked?

Bush supporters

Posted by: LOL on March 29, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

I think "she" knows that ; )

Posted by: Don P. on March 29, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

LOL - what part of "most Americans don't care if terrorist attacks are up or down in the rest of world" don't you understand?

Another shithead who can't answer the question. What is your statistical support for "most Americans don't care" btw? Oh that's right, you don't have it, you're just talking out of your fat ass.

Look out, there's a ticking time bomb about to go off--better find somebody to torture before it's too late.

Posted by: LOL on March 29, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

The "answer" is: we don't know, because most Americans don't care if terrorist attacks are up or down in the rest of world. Happy now?

Posted by: Don P. on March 29, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

You really need Gallup to do a poll whether most Americans even KNOW that the State Department publishes number of world-wide terrorist attacks? Come on, get real. BTW: Most Americans (Kevin included on this one) believe torture would be just fine under a ticking time-bomb scenario.

Posted by: Don P. on March 29, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Bush supporters don't care about national security. As long as terrorists attacks are down where they live, that's all they care about. 9/11? No big deal. Wasn't in my backyard.

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Don't forget, Don, the left has redefined torture down to my usual evening activities:
Good AC and loud music.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

I actually live in Manhattan - like I said, terrorist attacks are down BIG TIME where I live.

Posted by: Don P. on March 29, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

The "answer" is: we don't know, because most Americans don't care if terrorist attacks are up or down in the rest of world. Happy now?

You don't know because you don't care. Wow, haven't seen that level of stupidity since I volunteered at the special olympics.

The answer is, they're UP. See Madrid, see London, see Iraq, see the rest of the world. Just because shit-for-brains such as yourself don't care, doesn't mean it isn't happening. By invading Iraq, we actually made it easier for them to kill Americans--they don't have to deal with travelling to the U.S. anymore.

Posted by: LOL on March 29, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

"LOL! Yeah, could job at correcting your answer to the question that wasn't asked. Care to actually answer the question that was asked? "
Did you possibly mean "good job" I am sure that is a term you seldom use.

Just after Collin Powell went before the security council of the U.N. concerning our sending troops to Iraq, an Iraq Reporter said to him "Sir the latest poll shows that only 15% of Americans can even find Iraq on the map". Without hesitation Collin Powell replied "yes, but unfortunately for you that 15% is the U.S. military. So continue to enjoy your polls in your nice safe environment provided by those who you have such disregard for.

Posted by: daveyo on March 29, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut, for the record, collins, stowe, and specter do not a "wing of the party" make.

and socialism remains, as it was the last time this came up, the state ownership of the commanding heights of the economy. you be sure to keep us alerted whenever someone in the democratic party calls for that.

Posted by: howard on March 29, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

9/11 happened in a leftie stronghold. Screw 'em. Wasn't where righties live.

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Port security in New York isn't a rightie problem. That's not where righties live. Righties say give the port terminal to Dubai.

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

CN got any good Ann Coulter advice for us.

Posted by: Right minded on March 29, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Just after Collin Powell went before the security council of the U.N. concerning our sending troops to Iraq...

Another completely irrelevant response. I only have disregard for moronic pussies such as yourself, who can't answer a simple question and who are too cowardly to fight in a war they support. Let me guess, you're another 58 year old overweight loser with a bad back.

Posted by: LOL on March 29, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

You'll notice those gopers didn't become Democrats? --

I've said it here on this board... the DEMS may have the wind at their back - but they have no sails.

Disenfranchised gopers won't vote for gay adoption, marriage, or any of the radical left agenda... gopers are looking for a home, but it won't be brokeback mountain.

Count on it....

and all those new mexicans? -- they are socially CONSERVATIVE... no gay adoptions or pedophilia

So how ever will the gay party find new recruits?

by growing UP

Posted by: tj on March 29, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Disenfranchised gopers stay home on election day.

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

So does Ken Mehlman, gay chairman of the GOP, need to grow up? I can see why Republicans are so confused.

Posted by: LOL on March 29, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Jeffie Gannon must have really been confused.

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

and all those new mexicans? -- they are socially CONSERVATIVE... no gay adoptions or pedophilia

You need to take that last one up with the Catholic Church.

Posted by: LOL on March 29, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

and socialism remains, as it was the last time this came up, the state ownership of the commanding heights of the economy
I notice the DSA has slightly redefined state ownership to "the social ownership characteristic of a socialist society". But the end goal of businesses serving social needs is unchanged. And toward that end, we have the calls for WalMart to pay more, give better benefits; you know, societal control over business.

Now for your example

Pelosi, describing the income of corporate American CEOs as "immoral," used Wal-Mart to make her point:
"I was told that an entry level person at Wal-Mart, who works his or her entire career at Wal-Mart, would make as much as the CEO makes in two weeks. A lifetime of work versus two weeks in the executive suite -- this is not America, this is not fairness, this is not the basis of a strong middle class that is essential for our democracy. We must change that in our country," she said. [source]
"Enforcing fairness" is a pretty good overall description of socialism.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Then there's "confirmed bachelor" Lindsay Graham(R-S. Carolina). Is that why more conservatards are leaving the Republican party?

This is just another positive development if true. Like nuts said, the ones who leave will either not vote or be relegated to third party irrelevant status, along with the GOP. Welcome to the century of Democratic rule.

Posted by: LOL on March 29, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut socialism has worked well here for the last 200+ years. Pilgrims were socialists so were the puritans. The military is a socialist organization. As usual you don't know what you are talking about comrade.

Posted by: Neo the commissar on March 29, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

CN got any good Ann Coulter advice for us.
I got you a link to her site, so you can remain constantly updated.

WARNING: The Following Link is to Ann Coulter.
Lefties clicking this link may experience shortness of breath, cold sweats, tremors, halitosis, blurred vision, recurring nightmares, or any number of other debilitating side effects. Click this link at your own risk.
Coulter's page

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

In conclusion, socialism is whatever bullshit definition I make up. Give me a break, this is all I've got as the Republican implosion and Bush's lame duck status continues.

And in case you're keeping score, in the two most recent elections, New Jersey and Virginia are now socialist states.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Well then, Neo. Why the hell are the moonbats (and Howard, but he doesn't qualify as a moonbat) vehemently denying that the Democrats are socialist?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

CN Is that socialist state as Ann Coulter would define it, or as in the dicionary,Or just wishful thinking on your part.

Posted by: Right minded on March 29, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and evil twin, I use the DSA manifesto as a definition of socialism. Link above.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

WOW I clicked the link and got the same feeling G.W. gets.

Posted by: Right minded on March 29, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

And in case you're keeping score, in the two most recent presidential elections, America is now an aristocracy with Georgie thinking he's king. Scalia wishes he were king so he could take scruffy, bearded, sandal-wearing idiots who go around burning the flag and put them in jail. Jealousy to be the king is on the march!

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

CN I do not speak for Howard or the Democrats.

Posted by: Neo the commissar on March 29, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

Gay latino Izzy Hernandez must be extremely confused and I guess Bush was also for appointing him to dept. of commerce. Does Karl Rove miss his former aide? *snicker* Maybe not with late nights at the west wing. Jeffie got in and out just fine.

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

"Since 9-11 not one successful terrorist attack on U.S. soldier." This should read "on U.S. soil".

Eh, were there any terrorist attacks on US soldier on US soil before 9/11?

Not to mention the fact that, by definition, attacks against military targets aren't really "terrorist," since the military is armed, alert and can defend itself. The traditional definition of terrorism is violence directed against civilian targets.

I'll grant that the attack on the Pentagon can qualifed as terrorism, since the Pentagon is more of an office building than a military base. But in that case you'd have to say that the only successful terrorist attacks on US soldiers on US soil occurred on George Bush's watch.

Posted by: Stefan on March 29, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

CN I do not speak for Howard or the Democrats.
Apparently, maybe you should discuss this quandry with them. Learn why they choose to hide this.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK
But the end goal of businesses serving social needs is unchanged.

Unchanged since the invention of the government-issued corporate charter, which is as old as the corporation itself, and far older than "socialism".

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Those of you trying to engage the idiots in a rational debate would be well advised that their time would be better spent walking on piles of BS.

Posted by: nut on March 29, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

If Virginia is a leftie state, that may explain why Republican Ed "brokeback" Schrock lived there unless he called gay dating lines from D.C. He coulda brokeback from anywhere. California? A confused Dave Dreier is calling.

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

CN Why would I discuss it with them? It's merely a broad definitions of socialism. So a country decides to do something for the common good of it's citizens. The horror. Give us a view of your Utopian objectivism styled paradise.

Posted by: Neo the commissar on March 29, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely
Since you laid down on the last discussion where this was brought up (where I brought up many parallels between all of what lefties want and socialism, you chose to pick on this one), I'm not inclined to pick it up again here.

You do realize that your argument boils down to claiming that socialism sprang forth from the mind of Marx fully developed, and did not build on anything from the past. A fairly silly argument.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe we should let Ann Coulter have her way,Kill all our leaders and convert everyone to Christianity.No taxes for yhe rich,Lots and lots of poor people to do the dirty work and when you are done with the poor you just leave them to die,Just like in New Orleans.

Posted by: Right minded on March 29, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Why the hell are the moonbats (and Howard, but he doesn't qualify as a moonbat) vehemently denying that the Democrats are socialist?

Ummm. Because you're using the word as a club?

Your problem, c-nut, is that you don't understand that any good capitalist is also a good socialist.

Your appreciation for capitalism rudimentary compared with most of the commenters here. We understand capitalism--free markets--quite a bit better than you. We understand how heavily a market economy depends on government rules, structures and institutions in order to thrive.

You understand a little bit about the underside of your scrotum.

Posted by: obscure on March 29, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Your appreciation for capitalism is rudimentary...

Posted by: obscure on March 29, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

The brokeback confusion among gopers in a list from the gay blogger who outs the hypocrites.

http://blogactive.com/

the LIST
Operating since July of 2004, telling you the truth about hypocrisy in the gov't.

US Representatives
Rep. Ed Schrock (VA)
Rep. David Drier (CA)
Rep. James McCrery (LA)
Rep. Mark Foley (FL)

US Senators
Sen Barbara Mikulski (MD)

Senior GOP Staff
Jay Timmons, NRSC
Dan Gurley, RNC
Jay Banning, RNC

Senior Senate Staffers
Robert Traynham, Santorum
Jonathan Tolman, Inhofe
Kirk Fordham, Martinez
Dirk Smith, Lott
John Reid, Allen
Paul Unger, Allen
Linus Catignani, Frist

Senior House Staffers
Jim Conzelman, Oxley
Lee Cohen, Hart
Robert O'Conner, King
Pete Meachum, Brown-Waite

Bush Staff
Israel Hernandez
Jeff Berkowitz

Local Officials
Vincent Gentile, NYC

The rest...
Ed Koch, NYC Mayo
Jennifer Helms-Knox, Judge
Armstrong Williams, Radio host
Matt Drudge, Headline writer
Steve Kreseski, MD Gov.
Chip DiPaula, MD Gov.
Lee LaHaye, CWA
John Schlafley, Eagle Forum

Posted by: Nuts in the salad on March 29, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

obscure
We understand how heavily a market economy depends on government rules, structures and institutions in order to thrive.
You just told me that businesses are too stupid to run on their own, and people are too stupid to make their own choices. In other words, people are unable to make their own decisions and mommy government needs to do it for them. Ya, I see where you have a real good grasp on what makes capitalism and what makes socialism.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

a little learning...

sigh.

Posted by: shortstop on March 29, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

obscure says:

"any good capitalist is also a good socialist."

Oh yeah. That makes sense.

You're very confused, aren't you?

Posted by: jibjab on March 29, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

CN, you're an idiot and a liar. I know people in DSA. There are about 100 70-year old guys who participate in the organization. It hasn't had influence in the Dem party since 1978. It has trouble staying afloat because, like most socialist groups, it doesn't have a program, just idealism. You just believe some bullshit that Drudge told you about the monsters under your bed because it makes you feel good. Way to move the discussion to something you're so knowledgable about!

Posted by: DiscoStu on March 29, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

My God CN look at your own party and you can see why we need goverment rules,If not your whole party would walk off with U.S. in your pockets.

Posted by: Right minded on March 29, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

The rightwing tends to lean towards a Communism rule and the left tends to lean towards Socialism rule.Which is better for our well being.

Posted by: Right minded on March 29, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK
You do realize that your argument boils down to claiming that socialism sprang forth from the mind of Marx fully developed, and did not build on anything from the past.

Er, no. It relies on pointing out that its silly to say that an idea is distinctly socialist that predates not merely socialism, but also capitalism, and is not a distinguishing factor which distinguishes "socialism" from "capitalism".

Of course your whole guilt-by-association attempt with accusations of "socialism" is fundamentally built on equivocation; neither pre-Marxist socialism, the socialism of Marx, or the "socialism" of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al., have all that much to do with modern democratic socialism (indeed, the only of the former that has any substantial non-historical relation to the policies of modern democratic socialism is pre-Marxist socialism, though some of Marx's critiques of the capitalist system remain influential in modern democratic socialism.)

But your entire name-calling effort is predicated on an attempt to tie modern liberalism through modern democratic socialism to the totalitarian Communism of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.

You are clearly more interested in playing stupid name-calling games by associating labels than to debate substantive merits of proposals.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Please provide a specific example of the rightwing wanting communist rule.

UHC is an example of the left wanting socialism. And it's working well in France.......

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Alright then, cmdicely, I'll pick up where I left off last time. And obscure, you can pay attention here, too.

WalMart does meet society's needs. A look at their applications file shows they are providing jobs that people want. A look at their parking lots show they are providing goods that people want. They do so safely, nobody dies of Black Lung in WalMart warehouses. And by providing goods at lower costs they effectively raise the standard of living of everyone that shops there by allowing them to purchase more goods for the same money.

The difference comes in when you desire to force upon WalMart your ideas of how a business should treat their employees. The people working at WalMart were not forced to work there, they made a free decision to do so; you seek to remove WalMart's ability to make free decisions.

That is why it is socialism, you seek to force what you perceive as fairness. And just exactly who gave you the right to determine what is fair? I'd rather leave that decision to the people who freely choose to work and shop there.

Mind, I hate WalMart. I'll gladly drive farther and pay more to not shop at a WalMart. But at the same time, I do not consider myself godlike enough to tell WalMart, their employees, and their customers that I know better than they do. Apparently you do consider yourself godlike enough.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

And BTW, cmdicely, socialism is necessarily totalitarian. Take this tremendously scary line from the DSA maifesto

Social need will outrank narrow profitability as the measure of success for our economic life.
My question is: who determines social need? Stalin did, Mao did, that line is thinly veiled totalitarianism.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Mnnn CN you consider yourself Godlike enough to come here and tell us how to live our lives.

Posted by: Neo the commissar on March 29, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

The lefts desire for socialism is rooted in their lack of faith of ordinary Amercians to make good choices and their zeal for power, fairness has nothing to do with it. They still don't understand how they continue to be out of power, blaming the right for hoodwinking the public into voting for them instead of the intellectually elite. They sincerely believe that they are right and that the voting public in America is just too stupid to realize it.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Poor Neo, don't you like my desire to prevent the lefties from controlling other people's lives? Too bad.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

The lefts desire for socialism is rooted in their lack of faith of ordinary Americans to make good choices and their zeal for power, fairness has nothing to do with it.


What choices does the left keep you from making. IS there a political officer on your block that has to rubber stamp your purchases? Does someone control what you eat or smoke?

Posted by: Neo the commissar on March 29, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Socialism has worked, look at the NFL

... and don't forget the NFL has revenue sharing and a salary cap and is therefore socialist, and on a good economic footing, all franchises are competitive. Major League Baseball does not have revenue sharing and a very weak salary cap and is therefore not socialist, all teams are competitive and is in a shit-storm of trouble.

Posted by: Rick DeMent on March 29, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK
My question is: who determines social need?

If you read the paragraph that sentence was in, and the one preceding it, (the section headed "Vision of a Socialist Economy" in this document), you would realize that the answer is the citizenry at large would determine social need, would realize that determination through "democratic, representative control over fiscal, monetary, and trade policy" deciding "what social investment is needed, who should own or control basic industries, and how they might be governed" and mitigating the inequalities of capitalist markets through "widespread worker and public ownership".

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Neo
The left desires to control how much WalMart workers make and how much WalMart customers pay. They want to control what kind of health care I get. They want to confiscate more of my income because they feel they can control that better, too.

Want me to go on?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

"Disenfranchised gopers [sic] won't vote for gay adoption, marriage, or any of the radical left agenda... gopers [sic] are looking for a home, but it won't be brokeback mountain."

They don't need the vote Dem. The only think that needs to happen, on average, is that 3% of them become so disgusted that they don't vote.

Posted by: Arr-squared on March 29, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

You make me laugh CN as you smite me with your godlike comments.

Posted by: Neo the commissar on March 29, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

nut,

We understand how heavily a market economy depends on government rules, structures and institutions in order to thrive.
You just told me that businesses are too stupid to run on their own, and people are too stupid to make their own choices.

Better extinguish your cigarette because that strawman of yours could go up at any minute.

Or, wait, let me create a companion for your fantasy man:

You just told me the ideal marketplace has zero govnerment rules, structures, and institutions. Afghanistan, for example, is heaven on Earth.

Why, people are so perfect they should never have been evicted from Eden.

Posted by: Tripp on March 29, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy just provided many good examples.......need more?

how about telling parents that they do not have the right to interfere with, or even learn of their pregnant teens abortion?

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK
The lefts desire for socialism is rooted in their lack of faith of ordinary Americans to make good choices and their zeal for power, fairness has nothing to do with it.

Wrong. Insamuch as the left has a zeal for socialism it is based on the idea that ordinary Americans should, in fact, be allowed to make choices of fundamental importance, rather than those choices being left to a wealthy elite.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

heh. When I clicked the link to the story, there was an advert in the environmental section of the LA Times - for 'Teak Furniture'!

Posted by: JeffB on March 29, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

How about telling me that my taxes should go to pay for lawyers for enemy combatants?

Or how about telling me that I have no choice in what school I would like my taxes to be alotted to, to go towards my own childs education?

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely
I read it. I've linked it several times and I got a copy right here in front of me. But your

citizenry at large would determine social need
isn't cutting it, because you are not letting society decide. You are trying to decide for society. The line I quoted is the line you are using.

Society has decided to work at WalMart, society has decided to shop at WalMart. You desire to take that away from them and dictate what will happen.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Tripp
Better extinguish your cigarette because that strawman of yours could go up at any minute.
I probably stated that a little saner at 1:12.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

So saladmaker if the teen was mature enough to get pregnant she's not mature enough make her own decision. Sounds like you guys are the ones that want to control everything.

Posted by: Neo the commissar on March 29, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK
how about telling parents that they do not have the right to interfere with, or even learn of their pregnant teens abortion?

Er, telling people they don't get to treat other people as slaves increases personal freedom.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

"Ordinary Americans should in fact be allowed to make decisions of fundamental importance" - CM

What about the Americans that disagree with the "collective" thought of fundamental importance? Do they get a voice or are they just too stupid to realize that the masses know whats better for them than they do themselves?

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

What about the "teenager" that wants to join the military? Are they mature enough to make a good decision?

Do you have to be mature to be raped or molested?

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

What about the Americans that disagree with the "collective" thought of fundamental importance? Do they get a voice or are they just too stupid to realize that the masses know whats better for them than they do themselves?

What the f++k are you talking about? What the Borg collective?

Posted by: Neo the commissar on March 29, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK
isn't cutting it, because you are not letting society decide.

Statements about what I am trying to do (true or false) have no bearing on the DSA manifesto, since I am not, have never been, and have no plans on becoming, a member of the DSA.

Try to keep its straight.

You are trying to decide for society.

Er, no, the DSA is trying to establish a system wherein the citizenry would decide.

The line I quoted is the line you are using.

The line you quoted (a) is not, in fact, the line I'm using, and (b) doesn't support your claim that the I, or even the DSA, is trying to determine where social need lies. And the rest of the section it is lays out how social need would be determined, and its not by a dictator, or by the DSA, but by democratic process and institutions. Here's the whole section:

Vision of a Socialist Economy
The operation of a democratic socialist economy is the subject of continuing debate within DSA. First it must mirror democratic socialism's commitment to institutional and social pluralism. Democratic, representative control over fiscal, monetary, and trade policy would enable citizens to have a voice in setting the basic framework of economic policy--what social investment is needed, who should own or control basic industries, and how they might be governed.

While broad investment decisions and fiscal and monetary policies are best made by democratic processes, many argue that the market best coordinates supply with demand for goods, services,and labor. Regulated markets can guarantee efficiency, consumer choice and labor mobility. However, democratic socialists recognize that market mechanisms do generate inequalities of wealth and income. But, the social ownership characteristic of a socialist society will greatly limit inequality. In fact, widespread worker and public ownership will greatly lessen the corrosive effect of capitalists markets on people's lives. Social need will outrank narrow profitability as the measure of success for our economic life.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

So being concerned and, I will add financially responsible, for your teenage daughter is "enslaving" them? WOW, that's full blown head-in-your-ass liberalism.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

CaseyL --
Your comment about the hopes and realities of the Republican "emerging permanent majority" is extremely asture. Thanks for the perspective!

I long suspected that Bill Clinton was a lot more interested in his own fortunes than those of his party. The same has been even more true of Bush. I reckon Republicans will start to notice this round about 2015 or so, when they're either 1) still playing a desparate rearguard action to deny the damage Bush has done, or 2) simply averting their eyes and lying, with a mumbled, "Oh, well, I never liked the guy, never voted for him."

Posted by: sglover on March 29, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Neo, follow me here, I will go slow. The "collective" thought of people's fundamental importance is already on display in the form of SS. I have no option but to pay in 6% of my income and will probably never realize a dime of it in that that program is headed for a collapse. Someone else decided for me that that would be a good use of my income and I had no choice but to go along. Fair?

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Cmdicely give it up the unit known as saladmaker just wants to complain and argue.

Posted by: Neo the commissar on March 29, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely
is not, in fact, the line I'm using
In telling WalMart what they can and cannot do regarding the treatment of their employees you are setting yourself up as the authority on social need.

That is what socialists have always done, and that is the flavor of the DSA manifesto. I wasn't lying when I said I have a copy right in front of me.

I find it humorous that you want to tell WalMart how to meet the social needs of it's employees, and at the same time tell me this:
doesn't support your claim that the I ... [am] trying to determine where social need lies

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK
So being concerned and, I will add financially responsible, for your teenage daughter is "enslaving" them?

Nothing the left proposes prevents anyone from being concerned about anything.

"Being concerned" does not imply the right to control the actions of another person.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Neoconvict Bring it on.

That's right Clint wrote the software that gauranteed the district that Tom Feeney (then speaker of the house) would be able to keep for life.

Tom Feeney is viewed by both sides as one of the most formidable congressmen on either side.

Let Clint raise his $5k while Tom Feeney prepares to completely steam roll him.

By the way I have a pair of Toms U.S. Congress cuft links.

Tom a former councilman, state rep, state house speaker and now congressman for the same district which is 80% republican. Good luck.

Posted by: daveyo on March 29, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK
In telling WalMart what they can and cannot do regarding the treatment of their employees you are setting yourself up as the authority on social need.

Where, besides insisting that the federal government should not give Wal*Mart special dispensation from the law applicable to all employers, have I done this?

Again, you are just inventing positions.

That is what socialists have always done, and that is the flavor of the DSA manifesto.

Failing to find a way to defend your argument based on one line taken out of context once more of the text is revealed from the actual words of the document, you are now forced to resort to arguments about its flavor. You got nothin', bub.

I find it humorous that you want to tell WalMart how to meet the social needs of it's employees, and at the same time tell me this:

I find it humorous that you are claiming that I want to tell WalMart how to meet the "social needs of its employees".


Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

What about the Military Bought and paid for by all,That sounds a bit socialistic to me, how about you CN,Should we dismantle our Armed forces.And here is a line a rightwinger will never utter UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL.

Posted by: Right minded on March 29, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely
Where is WalMart getting special dispensations? Lord, the way you lefties are down on WalMart I find that hard to believe. The call from the left (if not you specifically) is for better pay and benefits for WalMart workers.

you are now forced to resort to arguments about its flavor. You got nothin', bub.
Surely, the socialists have learned to reword into a less objectionable form. Like I pointed out to Howard earlier, no more calls for government to take over businesses, now it's "the social ownership characteristic of a socialist society". But we still get this

We are socialists because we reject and international economic order sustained by private profit.
Anything else is government. So I'm not too disappointed that they are sneaky enough in their wording to not provide me a plethora of stuff to use against them.

I find it humorous that you are claiming that I want to tell WalMart how to meet the "social needs of its employees".
Once again, not wanting to search the archives for your quotes, I'll merely point out that you are defending the lefties that want to tell WalMart how to meet social needs. Aiding and abetting. Guilt by association.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

CN your arguments all seem to originate from pure greed.

Posted by: Right minded on March 29, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

CN your arguments all seem to originate from pure greed.
Then your reading comprehension is poor. My argument originate from people being able to make their own choices instead of mommy government dictating to them what they should do.

You know, freedom as opposed to totalitarianism.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't know Bush was running a totalitarianism government. Whoa first your godlike and now this paranoia whew scary.

Posted by: Neo the commissar on March 29, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

CM, so I have no right to control the actions of my teenage daughter, although I am still the legal guardian and fianancially responsible? Is that what you're telling me?

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Salad
You only get control over your daughter at government approved times.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

From a purely market based perspective, capitalism completely over shadows socialism. Every single modern tool of todays socieities was invented and perfected in our capitalist society:

Electricity
The airplane
The automobile
The phone
The computer

Name one essential societal tool invented and perfected in a socialist economy.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

In conclusion, anything other than complete anarchy is socialism.

Geoge Bush is the filthiest commie of them all--trying to tell women what they can do with their bodies, what drugs I can or cannot take, what speed I can drive, what chemicals a company can put in their baby formula.
Let the market sort it out, few hundred thousand or million lives is a small price to pay for such freedom.

Oh, and the prescription drug plan, more socialism. But in case you couldn't tell, I'm not really serious, because I continue to vote for candidates who enact socialist programs. Duh.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

The liberals debate much like they run campaigns. Miserably.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

And in case you couldn't tell, all my lunatic rambling about "socialism" is just a diversion(as I admitted), because my beloved Republicans are coming apart at the seams, and it eats me up inside to know that Democrats are going to win this fall.

Now I won't have my idiotic "Democrats never win elections" argument to fall back on--especially since they just won two big election last year.
Poor me.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

You like to toss salads "saladmaker"? Hehe, yeah, you and me are the only smart ones here.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Name one essential societal tool invented and perfected in a socialist economy.
Well, I don't think you could claim invention, and I don't want to find out if this stuff has been perfected, but
- mass murders
- government caused famine
- holding of political prisoners

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

The socialist Bush government sure has been good at getting innocent people killed. The socialist Nixon government was good at it too, with the help of Henry Kissinger. Just ask the people of Chile who were tortured and/or killed under Pinochet. Or the people of East Timor who were killed after a green light from the socialist Ford administration.

Or is Pinochet's killing and torture okay because he overthrew an elected socialist president? I'm confused.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

"Bush hatred is not an election platform ..."

Funny, Clinton hatred was the Republican'ts' platform for so many years and still seems to be in many places.

Sauce for the gander?

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 29, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

You may have missed the memo but President Bush is not running for re-election, nor is V.P. Cheney. So just keep that polling data coming.

Posted by: daveyo on March 29, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Davey, the Dems are only looking at '06 now.

Since the opposition party almost always picks up seats in mid-term elections, the Dems failure to do so in '02 had to be demoralizing.

But now that it's coming up mid-term elections in Bush's second term, they're hoping to perform average and actually be able to gain seats this time.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK
Where is WalMart getting special dispensations?

I'm not arguing, here and now, that they are. I'm asking you to defend your characterization of my position on Wal*Mart, by showing where I've done what you claim.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut yes i agree. Bill Clinton did more for our party then we could have ever hoped, his legacy is that of loosing the congress after 60 years. Newt recently shared here in florida that the d's will have a tough time writing a "contract with san francisco and New Hampshire".

Posted by: daveyo on March 29, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

"their lack of faith of ordinary Amercians to make good choices..."

Yeah, like the 2004 re-election of the Shrub.

As for CN's ridculous examples of "socialism," he has clearly demonstrated that democracy = socialism, i.e. the majority can make me do things I don't want to do.

His answer? Anarchy.

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 29, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK
Once again, not wanting to search the archives for your quotes, I'll merely point out that you are defending the lefties that want to tell WalMart how to meet social needs.

Er, no, I'm not, even beyond the fact that you have failed to establish that even the DSA is doing that. I'm just calling you a liar about the DSA. I'm not advocating, here and now, for the DSA position, much less any position that demands the privilege for some narrow group ("lefties" or otherwise) to dictate to Wal*Mart about anything.

Guilt by association.

Yeah, that's pretty much the basis of all your argument: guilt by association rather than addressing substance.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

You may have missed the memo but President Bush is not running for re-election, nor is V.P. Cheney. So just keep that polling data coming.

You mean like the polls that show Americans favoring Dems over Repubs for Congress, by a fairly large margin?
Forget it davey, we're screwed. Just keep screaming "socialism" and hope to distract from the corrupt and criminal GOP.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely
much less any position that demands the privilege for some narrow group ("lefties" or otherwise) to dictate to Wal*Mart about anything.
Then you jumped into the wrong discussion. This is what I said that you first replied to

But the end goal of businesses serving social needs is unchanged. And toward that end, we have the calls for WalMart to pay more, give better benefits; you know, societal control over business.
I said this because the left has advocated forcing WalMart to provide better pay and benefits. Sample link, or you can follow the Pelosi quote way up there, or you can pretend it isn't happening.

Since then, I've been trying to argue that having the government force businesses to provide for social needs is socialism. My first argument on that was at 1:12PM, it went unanswered. Since then, nearly as I can tell, you've been trying to muddy the waters. Your main points in muddying the waters seem to be:
1) Pointing out that socialists are now too wary to come out and say what they want in a straightforward manner.
2) Even though all lefties say the same thing they don't mean the same thing.

that's pretty much the basis of all your argument
Yes it is. Socialism has been a failure everywhere it's been done. Everyone advocating socialism gets lumped together because they deserve to be lumped together, and they deserve to be faced with the deaths and misery that socialism has caused. I'd feel a little better about modern socialists if they were capable of addressing the reasons for the abject failure of their ideology.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Just look at Sweden. Who wants to live there. How does that country continue to prosper?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans and the Bush administration are cracking up. Socialism, socialism, socialism! Why won't anybody take me and my moronic OT nonsense seriously? Why won't anybody respond to my mentally ill tirades?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

My evil twin says the dumbest things
Sweden
- Per capita GDP PPP $29,600
- GDP growth 2.4%
United States
- Per capita GDP PPP $41,800
- GDP growth 3.5%
Sweden is behind and getting further behind. Some prosperity.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Per capita income 21,580 USA

Posted by: Neo the commissar on March 29, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

Nice try Neo. Now for comparison purposes, what does the US Census say the Swedish per capita GDP is? The per capita GDP figures I used were the PPP figures to wash out the cost of living differences between countries.

You don't even make a good clown.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

GDP USA vs Sweden we have the bigger economy and larger populations. It's an apple to orange comparison. We have a larger population of billionaires then they do so we seem wealthier. But compare us per capita then what is it. I haven't looked at Sweden.

Posted by: Neo the commissar on March 29, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

I think that the original stupid, ignorant liar who posted as "conspiracy nut" is gone, and someone else has taken over that handle. Someone who is not only stupider, more ignorant and more dishonest than the original, but genuinely insane.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 29, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

You just told me that businesses are too stupid to run on their own, and people are too stupid to make their own choices. In other words, people are unable to make their own decisions and mommy government needs to do it for them. Ya, I see where you have a real good grasp on what makes capitalism and what makes socialism.

No, you're wrong again, so what else is new, ho-hum?

Don't put words in my mouth.

I told you that capitalism cannot thrive without a healthy dose of government.

That's just a fact.

Posted by: obscure on March 29, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

Neo
That's why the PPP figure. It's apples to apples. Study up some.

Secular
Naw, it's me. Brocolli and all. Now I have collected a twin, commenting under someone else's handle is the ultimate moonbat debating technique, you know.

obscure
I told you that capitalism cannot thrive without a healthy dose of government.
And if I ask you why that is, your only answer is that people are too stupid to do capitalism on their own and need mommy government to protect them. So I'm just operating a step ahead of you.

I don't suppose it's occurred to you that the people in government aren't any brighter than the rest of us, so why you think they need to be in charge escapes me.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK
Since then, I've been trying to argue that having the government force businesses to provide for social needs is socialism.

And, your wrong. Its a feature of government that predates both "capitalism" and "socialism", and is found in most real world implementations of each. Its rejected by the particular extreme laissez-faire faith-based capitalist cult that likes to mindless drone on, sans evidence, that the absence of regulation is always more efficient in every case, but, aside from that group, is pretty much accepted as a broad principle (though the ideal degree to which that is useful or practicable varies in different views) by just about every proponent of every model of government and economy on the planet.

Socialism has been a failure everywhere it's been done.

By what you describe as socialism, North American and Western European government (including the US) practices lots of socialism -- and they do a lot better than many countries that, by the same standard, practice a lot less socialism.

So, no, again, you are using a combination of guilt by association and, more importantly, equivocation -- using a broad definition of "socialism" to label those proposals and groups you oppose in the US as socialism, and then using a far narrower definition of socialism to say that everywhere socialism has been used it has been a failure -- instead of actually addressing the substance of actual proposals you oppose and their own merits.

But, of course, dealing with substance is foreign to you, since it would take the ability to think, rather than just croak Socialism!, Socialism!, Socialism! over and over again.


Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

Socialism has been on the decline for decades. "Command" socialism of the kind practised in the USSR and eastern Europe has declined most precipitously, but "democratic" socialism is also on the ropes. The overwhelming global trend has been to adopt more market-oriented economic policies and to reduce the role of the state in economic affairs.

Posted by: jibjab on March 29, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

And, your wrong.
If you will check my 1:12 comment, you'll find the differentiator. WalMart is serving a public good. The next step the left wants to take is socialism.

North American and Western European government (including the US) practices lots of socialism
Damn, don't let Gregory hear you say that, he'll be snapping his stumpy teeth at you forever, too. But you're right. The US is one of the least socialist nations, and consequently has the highest standard of living and best economic growth. The more socialism, the less growth. I'm thinking you're going to have a hard time explaining how economic stagnation is good for the poor, especially given the impact of the industrial revolution.

Socialism is a failure.

using a broad definition of "socialism" to label those proposals and groups you oppose in the US as socialism
I used to use Karl's original Manifesto, I've started using the DSA manifesto because I like to keep current. Same shit, class warfare, kill the successful (figuratively), evil capitalists. They threw in 2 new things: greenie language to show how utterly evil the capitalists are, and added the evil US. The US is the new bourgoise to the rest of the world's proletariat. Rest of the language is the same.

The reason it seems so broad is, as I pointed out a while back, every one of the left's ideas comes straight from Marx. Since socialism covers everything the left wants, it will look broad to you. And it certainly applies to most commenters here. But outside of this blog, I run into very few socialists. You guys are fairly rare, just not rare enough.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK
WalMart is serving a public good.

So says you.

The next step the left wants to take is socialism.

Which next step? What "left"?

Damn, don't let Gregory hear you say that, he'll be snapping his stumpy teeth at you forever, too. But you're right.

Er, no. I said by your definition that was the case. I didn't endorse your definition. In fact, I accused you of equivocation.

The US is one of the least socialist nations

By what measure? Evidence?

and consequently has the highest standard of living and best economic growth. The more socialism, the less growth.

Evidence for this correlation?

I'm thinking you're going to have a hard time explaining how economic stagnation is good for the poor, especially given the impact of the industrial revolution.

I'm thinking that you haven't demonstrated anything that would provide me any reason to need to explain that.


I used to use Karl's original Manifesto, I've started using the DSA manifesto because I like to keep current. Same shit, class warfare, kill the successful (figuratively), evil capitalists.

Clearly, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

They threw in 2 new things: greenie language to show how utterly evil the capitalists are, and added the evil US.

Er, the DSA doesn't say the US is "evil". Keep making things up, there, nutball.

The reason it seems so broad is, as I pointed out a while back, every one of the left's ideas comes straight from Marx.

That is an unsupportable lie you keep spouting, but it really has nothing to do with the equivocation you've been caught in.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Naw, it's me.

Well, you've certainly gotten a lot stupider.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 29, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

jibjab: The overwhelming global trend has been to adopt more market-oriented economic policies and to reduce the role of the state in economic affairs.

The overwhelming global trend has been to turn all aspects of human existence into commercial transactions, designed to enrich the rich, and to replace self-determination, individual liberty and self-government of, by and for the people with the autocratic, authoritarian and unaccountable rule of corporations and the tiny, hereditary, ultra-rich ruling class that owns and runs them.

"Capitalism" as traditionally conceived is irrelevant. We are now in the stage of post-capitalist corporate feudalism.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 29, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

using a broad definition of "socialism" to label those proposals and groups you oppose in the US as socialism, and then using a far narrower definition of socialism to say that everywhere socialism has been used it has been a failure
I have just noticed the importance of this. Sorry for being slow on the uptake.

With a narrow definition of socialism, surely it has universally failed, and failed miserably. But as I pointed out in my previous comment, in places where it has been used in a less than wholesale fashion the results have been depressed economic growth. Your question is why is this important.

The industrial revolution was a great period of purely evil capitalists exploiting workers to make the biggest buck they could. At the same time, they produced goods much cheaper than they had ever been, and ended up raising the standard of living of the downtrodden workers. Hong Kong had one of the purest capitalist systems, they managed sustained GDP growth above ours, and they did this with no natural resources and while adsorbing huge numbers of refugees.

Compare those with pure socialism, or even with the semi-socialist systems with stagnating economies.

Now, as for your apparent confusion between my pounding socialism and semi-socialism. It is true that we will not suddenly implement pure capitalism or pure socialism. But those are the end states, and I see the question as whether to move toward socialism or toward capitalism. And given the end states, I know what I want to work towards.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

So says you.
So says everyone who works there and shops there.

By what measure? Evidence?
By the fact that you socialists keep holding up various countries as models. i.e. Sweden.

Evidence for this correlation?
Sure, I've used it many times, sorry you didn't pay attention. It's all in the CIA Factbook, however. Speaking in round terms, the US has a higher per capita GDP PPP, larger growth, and less debt. The more socialist states perform worse in these areas, the less socialist states perform better.

I'm thinking that you haven't demonstrated anything that would provide me any reason to need to explain that.
I'm thinking you've stuck your fingers in your ears and are saying "La, la, la, I can't hear you" (Or whatever the reading equivalent is).

Clearly, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
I was a long ways into a comparison, but I must admit I didn't finish because I was laughing too hard. The whole idea of socialists seemingly having no clue why socialism has failed miserably is just too funny. But it will help if when you read the DSA manifesto you replace "transnational corporation" with "bourguoise", and "workers, women, and minorities" (and variants) with "proletariat".

Er, the DSA doesn't say the US is "evil".
Of course not; as I've pointed out, they've learned to tone down their wild-eyed rhetoric. But we're engaged in a long-term policy of imperial overreach, we're using poor countries to evade environmental laws, we're the home of the evil transnational corporations, we're sucking the poor countries out of their money, we spend too much on defence. There is a whole litany of things spread all the way through that paper. Even if you can't read between lines, I can.

That is an unsupportable lie you keep spouting, but it really has nothing to do with the equivocation you've been caught in.
Huh, I'd have thought you would have objected the other day when I reeled off about 6 or so items. You objected to one.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

Well, you've certainly gotten a lot stupider.
Well, I've taken to eating more brocolli and other veggies, but I've also noticed a drop in my energy level. I think I'm going back to a primarily beef diet.

What do you think?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

And if I ask you why that is, your only answer is that people are too stupid to do capitalism on their own and need mommy government to protect them. So I'm just operating a step ahead of you.

Why is it that you supply me with my "only answer"? Could it be because you're arguing with yourself? Could it be that you are unable to listen and comprehend what other people are actually saying?

Do you believe that the Founding Fathers were Marxists? No? Why do you suppose they troubled themselves to write a Constitution? Do you think they believed in the principle of representative gov't? Why do you suppose they did?

And do you think the Founding Fathers would have objected in principle to elected legislatures levying taxes to promote "the general welfare?"

Obviously, there is a gray zone where government involvement with the economy can become excessive. But us pragmatic liberals can't seem to get zealots like yourself even to admit that, yes, there are gray areas and yes, people will disagree on the extent of gov't activism and yeah, sure, we'll just have to debate the issues and work it all out.

That's not you, fella. You're a tirebiter on the other side of the pragmatic fence.

I don't suppose it's occurred to you that the people in government aren't any brighter than the rest of us, so why you think they need to be in charge escapes me.

I don't suppose it's occurred to you that virtually every society in history has had governing institutions which limited the actions of individuals.

For a reason.

What a tiresome bore...

Posted by: obscure on March 29, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely
Take Secular's 6:51 and throw in "bourgoise" and "proletariat" where applicable.

You guys are scary.

Democrats: Class warfare all the way, baby!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK
Take Secular's 6:51 and throw in "bourgoise" and "proletariat" where applicable.

You guys are scary.

Democrats: Class warfare all the way, baby!

SecularAnimist is, rather famously, not a Democrat. SecularAnimist and I have little in common, politically, except that we're both not insane right-wing nutballs like you.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

Oh yeah, I forgot.

If it were left to you, c-nut, free markets would be destroyed by pirates and no middle class would thrive to keep consumption vigorous.

Now kindly piss off.

Posted by: obscure on March 29, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

And do you think the Founding Fathers would have objected in principle to elected legislatures levying taxes to promote "the general welfare?"

"We are endeavoring, too, to reduce the government to the practice of a rigorous economy, to avoid burdening the people, and arming the magistrate with a patronage of money, which might be used to corrupt and undermine the principles of our government." - Thomas Jefferson
Any more questions? They wrote that Constitution as a limit on government power, which means they were truly intelligent men.

I don't suppose it's occurred to you that virtually every society in history has had governing institutions which limited the actions of individuals.
Sure, and the less government, the better. And we already have too much.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK
Er, the DSA doesn't say the US is "evil". Of course not;

Wait, in one post you claim that one of their two main additions to the socialist canon was saying the US is evil, and now you agree that "of course" they don't say that.

Make up your mind.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist and I have little in common, politically
That sure doesn't come through on your comments.

Make up your mind.
Read what I write.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

If it were left to you...
Ya, and if it were left to you we'd have the same conditions as Cuba.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

except that we're both not insane right-wing nutballs like you
By the way, are you using guilt by association here?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK
By the way, are you using guilt by association here?

No, I'm not. I'm not associating you with any other alleged right-wing nutballs to suggest that bad impressions of them should rub off on you by association. You are, in your nutballness, fairly special.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

"SecularAnimist is, rather famously, not a Democrat. SecularAnimist and I have little in common, politically, except that we're both not insane right-wing nutballs like you."

Instead, you're insane left-wing nutballs. Six of one...

Posted by: James on March 29, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

James wrote: Instead, you're insane left-wing nutballs. Six of one...

I am not a number. I am a free man.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 29, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

sweden

Posted by: Neo the commissar on March 29, 2006 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

Any more questions? They wrote that Constitution as a limit on government power, which means they were truly intelligent men.

Yeah.

A) Does the Constitution forbid the levying of taxes to promote the general welfare?

B) Does the Constitution forbid elected representatives from proposing any particular policy they wish to propose?

C) Do you have to be mentally retarded to suggest that I've got Cuba on my mind? Wait... don't answer that.

Jackass.

Posted by: obscure on March 29, 2006 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

Conspiracy Nut. What 28 seats will the d's gain and at the same time hold all of theirs in the 2006 election? What 7 Senate seats will they gain, yes 7 as 50 50 tie breaker would go to Cheney and he would "shoot down" any overrides.
I do not hear a single leader or even follower talk about taking back either the house or senate. If the polls are so real why not. Finally, how many seats in either chamber changed hands in 2004. I do remember Daschle.... but please help fill me in.

Posted by: daveyo on March 30, 2006 at 8:32 AM | PERMALINK

You are, in your nutballness, fairly special.
I assume you mean that in a good way.

A) Does the Constitution forbid the levying of taxes to promote the general welfare?
No.
B) Does the Constitution forbid elected representatives from proposing any particular policy they wish to propose?
Propose, no. Enact, yes.
C) Do you have to be mentally retarded to suggest that I've got Cuba on my mind? Wait... don't answer that.
It wasn't any crazier than what you wrote.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 30, 2006 at 8:32 AM | PERMALINK

Davey
The odds are really bad. There are like 15 retiring Repub House members. And there are a handful of weak House Repubs with strong challengers. I think I read where if the Dems swept all these seats they would be in the majority. However, most of the retiring Repubs are from, guess what, Repub districts. Unseating incumbents still ain't easy. And the Dems have a few active challenges themselves. Tradesports has the Repubs holding the House at about 60%. It dropped from around 75% but has been holding just under 60% for a while now.

Senate, virtually no chance. Not enough seats in play. Tradesports has the Repubs holding the Senate at around 80%, and it's been at around 80%.

Now the Dems have some things going for them. People are fed up with Bush, and the Repubs just had the Abramoff thing. Those by themselves will almost certainly allow Dems to pick up seats. But the Dems still have no plan, and without that I don't see them taking the House.

Now if something bad happens between now and the election, all bets are off. And the usual "pick on Bush for every move he makes" is not bad for the Repubs. If something good happens, the Repubs will probably still lose House seats, but they may pick up Senate seats. There are a lot of Dem Senators from red states.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 30, 2006 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

Conspiracty nut thank you for the very usefull facts and figures. As a person involved in many races at this time, we do know the anti-incumbant trend. So if that is true will that be true on both sides. That is to say is Senator Bill Nelson as an incumbant vulnerable? My most recent numbers show between 3 - 6 seat up for d's in the house and a possible 2 seats up in the senate. The interesting part of the senate is that the d's even though in the minority are defending about the same number as the majority r's are. In addition they have additional open seats in play more than the r's. The key from our perspective is how they can fund the fights on every level, as we have the power of incumbancy in fund raising.

Posted by: daveyo on March 30, 2006 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

Davey
On the Senate, those equal number of seats up are the reason it's a real long shot for the Dems to take the Senate.

But there isn't an anti-incumbent trend. Incumbents have tremendous advantages. They get to write the rules, so guess who the rules favor? Gerrymandering tends to make safe seats. The incumbents have name recognition. And last, people tend to stick with what they know. And these apply whether the seat is Dem or Repub.

The 15 (or whatever) retiring House Repubs are the reason the Dems have potential for such large gains in the House.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 30, 2006 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

CN how many retiring dems in the house and how many open seats. I know there is a lot of bolognia out there but I really do work in this industry. We do a lot of phone banks and trend the voters moods. Unlike the press we are not in a 24/7 campaign mode, and most voters are un-interested at this time. However the constant negative beat does push voters to be anti-incumbant. We actually worked with the u.s. congressman from here who did the 2000 redistricting and has been a congressman from that district ever since. So how many retiring d's and how many are in safe districts?

Posted by: daveyo on March 30, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

Davey
Come on bud, try Google. Here's a couple quick hits
linky
linky
I didn't read all through those links, but they look applicable.

You say that the constant negative beat does push voters to be anti-incumbant, but also that most voters are un-interested at this time. When the time comes to get interested, I expect people to vote for the devil they know. We'll know who's right come the election; before that, you and I are just guessing.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 30, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly