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

June 25, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

THE NEW LIBERAL CW....After a lull following the 2004 election, liberal blogs are suddenly front page news again. Steve Benen comments:

On Thursday, the Washington Post's David Broder rejected "liberal bloggers," claiming that "the blogs I have scanned are heavier on vituperation of President Bush and other targets than on creative thought." Today, the New York Times' David Brooks, while specifically lashing out at Kos, characterized liberal bloggers as "small-minded," and described sites as "squadrons of rabid lambs [who] unleash their venom on those who stand in the way."

And then, of course, there's the ugly fight The New Republic picked with Kos....What on earth is going on here? What's fueling all this anti-blog rage? Jealousy? Elitism? And if blogs are written and read by fringe ideologues that don't matter, why are all these major media personalities so worked up?

I don't know. Maybe it's just a perfect storm of YearlyKos, Ned Lamont, and the TNR-Kos feud. But whatever the cause, it's not doing us any good. Mainstream reporters, despite their generally liberal temperaments, have an odd sort of contempt for actual liberal politicians, who they widely view as being wimpy, pandering, fence-sitting, poll-driven wonks who are hesitant to really speak their minds and insist on giving lots of boring policy-oriented speeches that don't make good copy.

Well, the blogosphere is anything but that, but it turns out the mainstream press doesn't like that much either. I'm not sure how that's going to play out in the long term, but in the short term I have a feeling it's nothing but bad news. "Spittle-flecked loons" seems likely to become the new media CW. Karl Rove must be pleased.

Kevin Drum 12:48 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (358)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

No, it is because you LIEberals are all spittle-flecked radical insane commies!

It certainly has nothing to do with The Establishment protecting themselves at all costs. Well, maybe you LIEberals are all CYA, but we Manly Men are only concerned about Truth and Freedom! And making sure anyone who says Global Warming doesn't exist is given equal airtime to the hundreds of sell-out pinko scientists!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on June 25, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Rabid, venemous lambs?

Jesus. I need another cup of coffee.

Posted by: jcricket on June 25, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

The uprising among MSM pundits is, I think, a kind of controlled panic that they are being gradually found wanting and replaced. See, for example, Richard Morin's strange reading of Jon Stewart's Daily Show (and Morin's misreporting of the study). What drives some of it is that the blogs (and Stewart) are pointing out lies and contradictions, something the MSM has, for the most part, assiduously avoided. Now they're being upstaged in that area, and they catch a whiff of obsolescence arising from their reportage.

Posted by: LeisureGuy on June 25, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

I have to believe the old guard pundits are feeling like little naked emperors on parade. It's no wonder they're lashing out. Best thing to do is just to keep pointing and laughing; all of this vituperation toward blogs simply proves that they have become marginal to the point of no longer having three dimensions. If we get mad, we just give credence to their arguments.

So I say: Ha ha and ho hum.

Posted by: CaliforniaDrySherry on June 25, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure how that's going to play out in the long term, but in the short term I have a feeling it's nothing but bad news.

Kevin, you couldn't be more right. Kos is right now the kingpin of the blogsphere. Through his control of the Advertising Liberally BlogAds network and his massive fundraising network, he (and his ally at MyDD Jerome Armstrong) sits at his keyboard doling out money to bloggers who support his extremist views and crushes those who don't. This allows him unparalled control of the blogosphere. Kos wants to do to the Democratic Party what he has done to liberal bloggers. He wants to control the purse strings of the Democratic Party so that he can force his extremist views on all Democrats, even moderate/conservative Democrats like Joe Lieberman. He'll send his loyal band of rabble rousers to attack anyone who doesn't agree with him. If moderate/conservative Democrats like Joe Lieberman don't agree with him, he'll kick them out of the party. Reporters are wising up to his fascistic ways and his desire for despotic control of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Al on June 25, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

The SCLM and the politicians are losing control of the "debate" and they know it.


.

Posted by: spork_incident on June 25, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: ... it turns out the mainstream press doesn't like that much either.

The members of the mainstream press are well-payed to "not like" liberals. The "mainstream press" is a wholly-owned subsidiary of America's ultra-rich hereditary corporate ruling class, just like the Republican Party and the Bush administration.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 25, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

The commentariat is terrified at being held accountable for its sins. The response of the blog community should be an even more heaping helping of contempt on their heads. It isn't Kos that's losing circulation and money hand over fist. That'd be the Washington Post. THEY are the ones losing right now. Don't forget it.

Posted by: JMG on June 25, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

My reaction is... so what? It's not like the blogosphere is running for anything. It's not like it needs the approval of the mainstream media. A lot of people think right-wing religious fanatics are cooky but that doesn't make them any less effective politically.

Posted by: wagster on June 25, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

I think I feel most sorry for you in all this (not so much Matt whathisname, who I view as an unequivocal striver). As a true blogger for a true magazine you are caught between two worlds, and it looks like you are going to have to choose sides in this (I can't imagine that not happening the way this thing is going). If you side with the reporters at Washington Monthly, who let's face it have based their entire career on following the rules of the old guard then you will be widely heckled in the blogosphere and lose the credibility you have built up (even as a moderate), to the point where what you have accomplished and the audience you have accomplished it for actually becomes your enemy. If you side with the blogosphere then you are going to catch hell from the people at Washington Monthly and honestly, probably won't last that long (this is getting very ugly very quickly). My advice, go have a cup of coffee and figure out your next career move.

Posted by: Wilbur on June 25, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

David Brooks characterizes LIBERAL bloggers as "small-minded" "lambs [who unleash their venom on those who stand in the way." ???? And the conservative blogosphere??? Sure, THAT is full of reasonable, calm, respectful voices of bigotry and Bushworship.

I think leisureguy has got it right: "... blogs (and Stewart) are pointing out lies and contradictions, something the MSM has, for the most part, assiduously avoided."

The comfy, smug corporatism of the MSM is being challenged, and they don't like it. Like all threatened entities, they lash out at the threat rather than considering how their behavior has made this inevitable.

Posted by: PTate in MN on June 25, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK


KEVIN DRUM: Mainstream reporters, despite their generally liberal temperaments,

Huh? There's nothing generally liberal about the temperaments of mainstream reporters. Libertarian, perhaps, but not liberal. There's nothing liberal about the interests they serve. There's nothing liberal about you perpetuating the myth of a liberal press. By the standard you're using, Giuliani and McCain and Specter have generally liberal temperaments--when, in fact, they are lapdogs for the conservative establishment.


Posted by: jayarbee on June 25, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

It's all about discreditting MoveOn.org.

Posted by: cld on June 25, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

If you guys were willing to step back and objectively read Kos and other lefty sites, you would see the obvious. The content is mostly juvenile and mostly devoid of any serious thinking.

The liberal MSM sees this and reaches the obvious conclusion that the left being captured by Kos and company is not a good thing for liberal politics. So they are trying to marginalize them. The problem is that Kos and company are probably still going to gain enough power to screw things up for the democrats.

I don't think Kos is a fascist or even seeking any great power or wealth. He is just still a kid at heart who is now having fun with politics and the internet. You can't read what he has to say, or listen to him speak, and conclude that he ultimately will be a person of significant power, only enough of a gadfly to hurt the democrats.

Posted by: brian on June 25, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

One thing that strikes me about all this anti-blog stuff is that the pundits who are articulating it don't seem to think there's a legitimate reason to be "vituperative" toward Bush and his policies. Or if they do think there is, they aren't mentioning it, not even in passing.

Posted by: Lindy on June 25, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

AS I wrote elsewhere, the paper media especially are losing their subscriber base, which is predominantly older (read baby boomer) well educated middle class people who at one in time used to read the papers and the news mags. Baby boomers are turning in increasing numbers to online editions and the blogs in combination to find out what the paper media aren't telling us. The punditocracy is increasingly made up of the shallower, more well heeled journalists of the baby boomer generation, those who sat at their desks while the rest of us protested the war. These soft-handed nincompoops are those baby boomers who became dinks and yuppies, in other words people whose belief systems are as shallow as their brainpans. Who needs a pundit who can't reason his/her way out of a paper bag? Leave that sort of nincompoopery to the right wing, the rest of us want the real scoop.

Posted by: Carol on June 25, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Poor little blacksmiths (the MSM), worried about the arrival of cars (blogs).

Posted by: TCinLA on June 25, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

If I were to step back and objectively read columns by these so-called liberal honchos, you would see the obvisou. They are all under trance of Republican crack. Devouring press releases and reasons provided by this Republican crack and spew it forward.


Posted by: eo on June 25, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Kos's sometime silliness may not help, but this stuff seems mostly like the symptoms of fear of competition.

Posted by: Brian on June 25, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

They're reacting like the RIAA did in 1999 or so, when Napster showed up on the scene*, which was the beginning of the end for old-school content gatekeepers like the cozy record company/radio station symbiosis. It's the "panic/smear/pass new laws to keep our outdated business model in place" phase.

The entrenched powers-that-be and their mouthpieces in the pundit class are beginning to realize that what they think about affairs of the day (and their ability to shape the narrative) will, in the very near term, dramatically wane. But, as in the filesharing wars, the model is broken, the masses are starting to figure out how broken it is, and they don't want to go back.

*Not advocating filesharing, it's just a metaphor.

Posted by: JB on June 25, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Hear, hear. Agree with JB.

If the entrenched powers-that-be would have already done its job, i.e. talking about issues that matters to the public, rather than talking about issues that are printed on the Republican talking points, KOS wouldn't even have existed.

Posted by: eo on June 25, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Those horrid spittle-flecked loons, eating all those poor vermicious knids!

I don't think it's a bad thing for liberal blogs to get noticed. Many people hearing about them for the first time via the MSM will check them out, thinking they can't possibly be as outrageous as they're painted to be (or hoping they are), and they'll find that we aren't, and they'll stick around and be informed and entertained and such. In the short term this might look bad for us; in the long term it'll more likely serve as a gateway drug toward more online citizen democracy.

Posted by: Elayne Riggs on June 25, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Remember, a lot of these journalists started their own "blogs", either as their own idea or their editor's.

Basically, their blogs ended up as public suggestion boxes as to how to fix their publications and become real journalists (e.g., WaPo).

I think WaMo did it right - you don't need to find another career - you have a model that works (not the only model, but I bet it's been very successful for WaMo).

It's these other guys floundering around that have tried and failed, so I guess it must be the blogs fault.

Posted by: pebird on June 25, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

I love how frightened conservatives like Al, Brian, etc. are of the progressive blogosphere. They realize we're getting rid of their planted moles like Joe Lieberman, and turning the Democratic party back to it's socially progressive roots.

Ahhh....nothing tastes better in the morning than conservative fear and hatred.

Brian, your anger fuels me...

Posted by: Dys Cent on June 25, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

The main stream press and conservatives will never recognize the legitimacy of liberal or Democratic blogs because it is not in their self interest to do so.

The only way you win power in business and politics is to take power. When you have power,then you have influence.

So, if you want influence, first get power.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on June 25, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Upstart media channels can either be bought up or beaten down.

Too bad we let those peasants learn to read in the first place.

Posted by: gar on June 25, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Brooksie needs to figure out who Kos is. Is he a Quaker who bowls or Sherri Lewis? Or is he Dr. Moroeu(sp?) combining lambs with king cobras so the lambs can spit venom?

These questions, and others, must be answered.

Posted by: Mike S on June 25, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Elayne Riggs, I love it...

"...a gateway drug toward more online citizen democracy."

My only hope is that it is addictive.

Posted by: stumpy on June 25, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps it's just the msm treating the internet the way it covers presidential election races -- as horse races and celebrity profiles -- so they have to pick out a frontrunner (Kos) and tear him down. The amorphous, fluid nature of internet posting and reading is something that doesn't make for such focussed stories. The fact that Dailykos decided to have its own version of a Kevin Drum lunch gathering provided the msm with that focus. The fact that they have annointed Kos as the spokesman for all things bloggy and largely ignore Firedoglake, for example, is to miss the point.

There is something that the blog world does better than the daily newspapers, namely to take the hard facts and connect them in coherent stories complete with logical conclusions and editorial comments. The dailies have this century-long fetish about separating reporting from editorializing; it is a defensible position, but results in incomplete coverage. The blogs are equivalent to having a thousand-page letters-to-the-editor section every day (and lacking the usual editing out of profanity, illogic, and slander).

The other issue for the msm is that blogs provide content free of charge, and it is generally more entertaining than newspapers' editorial sections. Meanwhile, the hard news is already available to people on the radio and the internet half a day before we see it in the papers. No wonder newspapers feel the squeeze.

Posted by: Bob G on June 25, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Kos (in his physical space) is surrounded by the activist culture of the San Francisco Bay Area -- as much as loved it and loved living there -- it certainly doesn't trust much, even itself. Kos seems positively centrist compared to some of the people that I engaged with on a regular basis in San Francisco's East Bay. But frankly, he's also this is the voice that left who are under 40 (even nationally) seem to agree with most. There is a feeling, among young liberals, that the democratic party does not speak for them. That the media is all controlled by right wing hacks -- despite evidence to controrary. And that anything that isn't communist-lite is not liberal. Like their far right religious cousins, they have hijacked the debate and turned off their peers to politics in general. Kos is a system of a larger problem.

Posted by: DC1974 on June 25, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Whores do not like to be reminded of the ugly truth. That's why those in the mainstream press responsible for crafting the CW act like they do.

Posted by: nova silverpill on June 25, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Kos is the most visible figure in a movement that threatens the livelihoods of the power players. I'm suprised that it took this long for the swiftboating to begin.

It would be a good idea for everyone who is publicly challenging the standing order to look into their own backgrounds for handles that might be used to pull them down and take pre-emptive steps to mitigate that.

The success of the blog movement would mean jail time for some very powerful people, and they don't fuck around.

Posted by: Slideguy on June 25, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

What is it with these people? Did they all get together and decide to converge on Kos this week? The Newsweek story isn't pretty. It's actually quite vile:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13531726/site/newsweek/

Posted by: pol on June 25, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Brian, your anger fuels me...
Posted by: Dys Cent

Glad I can help, DC. I must admit I don't feel much anger toward liberal blogs, however. Bemusement at some, like Kos, would be more accurate.

By the way, let me recommend a liberal blog that most of you probably haven't visited. I'm being a bit of a homer, but I really like Commonwealth Commonsense.

Posted by: Brian on June 25, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

"What on earth is going on here? What's fueling all this anti-blog rage?"

This is half true. There is no anti-blog rage. There is anti-liberal-blog rage.

The reason is pretty clear. Liberal bloggers are populists and the Media Elite does not approve of liberal populism.

Once upon a time progressives used to be populists. That changed in the 60s and 70s. The Democratic establishment and its mouthpieces like TNR became overtly hostile to populism. Around the same time the GOP started building a broad based populist movement. The GOP embraced talk radio. And then cable scream shows all of which lean right.

David Broders and David Brooks of the mdia don't have a problem with Rush, O'Reilly, NY Post and dozens of right wing blogs. They have a problem with liberal blogs. They are not used to populist voices from the left. They like it that way.

What they don't understand is that liberal blogs exist because liberal populists exists, not the other way round. If Markos closed shop tomorrow the traffic would move to other liberal blogs. It would not move to David Broders columns.

Posted by: Nan on June 25, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

JEEZZZZZUS DON'T YOU PEOPLE RECOGNIZE F E A R WHEN YOU SEE IT?


First they ignore you CHECK
Then they laugh at you CHECK
then they fight you IN PROGRESS (SEE ABOVE)
then you win (SOON)


they are AFRAID. A well informed independent minded electorate is the LAST thing on EARTH they want to see

Posted by: marblex on June 25, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

I wouldn't underestimate the ability of the entrenched corporate media to fight back. How's the napster doing these days, anyways?

I doubt they can kill the internet, but it is not far-fetched to see a corporate-government alliance to radically restrict what (and who) gets on it.

A little regulation, a little monopoly power, a few exclusive distribution deals and the internet could end up looking radically different to those of us that care, but still not different enough for joe sixpack AOL subscriber to care enough to make the politicians pay a price for trying to tame it.

Posted by: spiny on June 25, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure how that's going to play out in the long term, but in the short term I have a feeling it's nothing but bad news.

I really dont understand why this is short term/bad news for the lefty blogosphere. Could you expand on this Kevin?

The pushback from traditional media seems to be coming because of several reasons. 1) Pundits are losing their relevancy because blogs are holding them to account and just anyone can give their opinion on the internet. Brooks, Broder, TNR, etc. are no longer alone on their soapbox. 2) Liberal Blogs are holding news reporters to account for their mischaracterizations, inaccuracies, and toeing the conservative story lines. Only thing they can do is marginalize the liburul noise machine. 3) YearlyKos showed most of the traditional media that the blog readers are not the rabid young whippersnappers they thought and they have to change public perception because it strikes to the heart of the narrative they have been pushing with the Democrats. Disengaged, lack of ideas, etc. They have to turn the blogosphere back into something that fits their previous narratives.

Ultimately you have to look at who Broder, Brooks, TNR, and others are actually talking to. It is not readers of this blog, DK, or any of the lefty blogosphere, nor any of the public at large. They are addressing directly those within the Wash DC establishment and so called Dem Consultants trying to marginalize any type of influence the lefty blogosphere can muster. Readers of the lefty sites will not be swayed, because they can see through the attempts to vilify the lefty blogs. The right will never change their opinion of the lefty blogosphere either. I'm on the side where that any type of publicity for the lefty blogosphere is good since it brings more eyes, and the public will realize through reading that the traditional media narrative does not hold.

Posted by: zAmboni on June 25, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Dys Cent,

I love how frightened conservatives like Al, Brian, etc. are of the progressive blogosphere. They realize we're getting rid of their planted moles like Joe Lieberman, and turning the Democratic party back to it's socially progressive roots.

Mm-hmm. Have you actually tried tracing the Democratic Party to "it's" roots? They are perhaps not what you think they are.

I'm a registered Dem and haven't ever been anything else, but, really, there's polite selective forgetfulness, and then there's flat-out convenient amnesia. The latter isn't helpful. To anyone.

Posted by: waterfowl on June 25, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Twenty years ago, on Sunday morning, you read David Broder or you read the back of your cereal box.

This morning, I wanted to check something about the Greenland glaciers, so I went to a blog run by climateologists and read what they had to say about some recent scientific papers.

Goodbye, David Broder, and good riddance. Nothing but a pompous rightwing gasbag for my entire life.

The mainstream press doesn't have very much time left to like or dislike anything. They're dead already, they just ain't lied down yet. Their distribution systems that use thousands of trucks to deliver tons of newsprint to widely scattered homes, newsprint that becomes just another chore for the homeowner on the day after it's printed- just a big ball and chain around the paper's ankles.

Naturally, in their death throes, they want to bite someone. They never had any higher value than that to cling to.

Posted by: serial catowner on June 25, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Brooks and Broder are obviously not reading blogs with any depth or care.

They're not reading tpm, they're not reading political animal, they're not reading brad delong, they're not reading tyler cowen, they're not reading tapped.

They're reading daily kos and not with a very open-minded view point.

I wish they would. The opinion journalism at these sights are far superior to their columns, especially with the respect to the frequency with which they reference hard data in a non-chauvinistic manner. David Brooks cherry picks. Kevin Drum does not.

I think the heart of the issue is that a lot of blogs make a lot of politicians look bad and the politicians they make look bad are part of the social network to which Brooks and Broder belong.

Posted by: Timothy Francis Sullivan on June 25, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't know rabid lambs had venom. I guess you learn something new every day.

Posted by: Unstable Isotope on June 25, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Thank goodness for the internet and the blogs. I fear where we would be now and where Bush, the republicans and the MSM would lead us. Their track record is beyond sad. Let the people filter the facts and decide for themselves.

Posted by: worldserious on June 25, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, a word of advice: don't get involved in any of this mess. Generally, you provide thoughtful, interesting analysis that is lacking on many other blogs. I'm with TNR on blog-loathing generally, though they went a little over the top, but blogs like yours break the mold. Learn from Kos' mistake: ignore detractors and continue to hammer away with policy, rational argument, and oodles of charts and graphs.

Posted by: Jeremy on June 25, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Blogs don't make politicians "look bad".


They make themselves look bad because they ARE bad.

Blogs, unlike the mainstream corporate advertising and marketing media, DO NOT REPORT THE TRUTH so that people can easily see for themselves that politicians (at least in this congress) are dumber than dog shit and twice and useless. Seriously, if there has EVER been a more useless donothing congress since the Roman Imperial Senate, i would like to know where.

Posted by: marblex on June 25, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Don't you find Al's concern for Lieberman touching?

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on June 25, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

It's all about discreditting MoveOn.org.

Why would the GOP want to discredit Moveon.org. They've been a total disaster for the Democratic party. Their candidates are near 0-22 in elections and they created the Dean debacle.

Moveon.org is the best friend Karl Rove ever had.

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

And that anything that isn't communist-lite is not liberal. Like their far right religious cousins, they have hijacked the debate and turned off their peers to politics in general.

"Truthiness" -- what you wished were true -- is not "truth." Actual facts here:

An analysis of raw data by the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) at the University of Maryland indicates that young people voted in bigger numbers in the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia in 2005, than they did in 2001.

(via mydd)

A few years ago, Kos pointed out the obvious-- the Democratic party has a power structure made up of various portions of the "base" -- public service sector unions, manufacturing unions, minority groups, etc. This is well and good, as all of those interest groups are in some way are part of the interests that the Democratic party holds. However, what if you're not a union member, not a teacher, not a member of a racial/ethnic minority, etc.? Where's the "place" for those activists who have their own interests and their own views, and how do they get them heard and articulated? Blogs are not that place for them, but they served as an organizing community for those people to suddenly find out what they could do to get involved and make themselves heard.

Many people are stuck in a model articulated by late-stage baby boomers to actually udnerstand this, and their explanations invariably, like DC1974, they misunderstand what's going on.

Posted by: Constantine on June 25, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

And that anything that isn't communist-lite is not liberal. Like their far right religious cousins, they have hijacked the debate and turned off their peers to politics in general. Kos is a system of a larger problem.
Posted by: DC1974

I'm not sure if you intended to come accross as a cranky old coot ... but you succeeded admirably.

Posted by: Nads on June 25, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Brooks' "rabid lambs" oxymoron resulted in a less-than-dry keyboard and monitor here at Radio Free Donia.

Posted by: RT on June 25, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

YearlyKos showed most of the traditional media that the blog readers are not the rabid young whippersnappers they thought


The yearly Kos did no such thing and even if it did, this nonsense erases any sense of an adult presence. Kos is all anger. He's a sounding board for the moonbat base and has managed only to push the party further left making them even less relevent. The GOP has been toying with Senate Democrats the last two weeks and there's absolutely nothing they can do about it.

Kevins dreams of a coherent left in the blogosphere. The right was able to destroy Dan Rather's 44 year career in about 2 hours. The right side of the blogosphere made Xmas in Cambodia famous and exposed Kerry's heroic war record as something little less heroic than Big John's tried to sell us.

The right side of the blogosphere takes serial exaggerators like Al Gore and John Kerry and exposes them. The left would like to do the same. Kevin recognizes that'll be hard if they're all pissing on each other.

You see an example of it right now with Al Gore and GW. The left is creaming in their pants thinking GW is now 1st in the hearts and minds of Americans. It was just rates as #14 by Gallup as an election issue consistent with prior years. After Gore's movie leaves the scene and the 3 or 4 million who actually saw it are part of the polling pool GW will still be 14th.

The lefty blogs only speak to the choir. The righty blogs, when they have a story like Dan Rather or John Kerry speak to everyone.

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

I love that- "Where is the voice for white males who inherited money? When do they get their moment in the sun?"

Yes, how tragic it is that the billionaires can only spare hundreds of millions to run fake 'thinktanks' pumping out contrarian propaganda. The oppressed Christians of America demand their freedom! Automobile drivers are livid that one percent of the Federal money for transportation is spent on rail- it's tyranny, and demands a revolution!

Gee, maybe they should start a blog....

Posted by: serial catowner on June 25, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

serial catowner: "Their distribution systems that use thousands of trucks to deliver tons of newsprint to widely scattered homes, newsprint that becomes just another chore for the homeowner on the day after it's printed..."

I'm sure it is statistical, but my husband and I cancelled our subscriptions to the NYT and our local press, the Minneapolis StarTribune, just last week. We had three reasons: 1) the fact that we can get more news, faster, plus commentary, in the blogosphere; 2) the amount of paper involved. We were recycling a grocery bag a week of newsprint; and 3) the general muffled stupidity of the NYT and an offensive column in the StarTrib written by a right wing political hack. She is supposed to provide "the conservative perspective" on the news but dishes up a daily dose of unchallenged lies and propaganda. (We would not have cancelled the StarTrib for that column alone, but in light of 1 & 2, why not?)

In any case, yes, perhaps the MSM is feeling something gnawing away at their roots.

I don't read Kos, btw, and I'm pretty liberal.

Posted by: PTate in MN on June 25, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

As with most things, the mainstream media is not driven by by any kind of grand ideology. It is driven by money, and to a certain extent, blogs upset the apple cart. Political pundits, in particular, are the most wary. So it's natural for them to lash out at blog sites. I'm not sure what position blogs are supposed to be taking in politics and the media. Anybody who claims to have the answer to that question is selling something. There's a very good chance that the pinnacle of the blog phenomenon will be the candidacy of Howard Dean, which barely got out of the starting gate despite raising a lot of money.

Posted by: Quinn on June 25, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

The MSM are nonideological, careerist power following sycophants. The blogs are calling them on their weak bullshit and their throwing little ctybaby tantrums in response.

Fuck the media whores.

Posted by: The Fool on June 25, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

In the army of weakling democrats, the champion weakling can be found here. Lord what a weenie.

Posted by: razor on June 25, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

There's a very good chance that the pinnacle of the blog phenomenon will be the candidacy of Howard Dean, which barely got out of the starting gate despite raising a lot of money.

That's far from accurate. The blogs determined the last election. In destroying Dan Rather and the TANG story they helped GWB a great deal. In pushing the Xmas in Cambodia story and shedding light on Kerry's superficial wounds they created a groundswell of support for the SBVs and funded the endless ads of Kerry trashing the troops in Vietnam.

The pinnacle of the blog phenomenon is GWBs 62M votes. Dean was a disaster and nothing more. His election performance was pitiful having spent a ton of cash to come in a very distant 3rd. He was just successful enough to force Kerry too far left into his vote against after he voted for debacle.

The blogs will remain powerful. The MSM can no longer write the story alone.

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

I'm supposed to take David Broder seriously when he claims bloggers have no originality???

Talk about unintended irony!

Posted by: John Tomas on June 25, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know anything at all about lambs and their venom, but every wild hawg hunter knows "a cut dog barks and a stuck pig squeals."

Posted by: chad on June 25, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

ptate,

smart move but you didn't help the liberal cause even a little bit. Both papers are far to the left of center and reliable supporters of liberal politicians and causes. The NYT's is self-destructing with rapidly declining profit margins due to subscription losses and higher expenses. While they continue to reduce headcount they also spend more on legal fees. The Wilson/PLAME case was a very expensive debacle and they're still not done with it.

Bill Clinton could not get elected today. With the rise of talk radio, Fox and the blogs and the collapse of the MSM he'd get torched in 2006. Sixty minutes did a famous whitewash for him in 1992. A candidate would get killed if they tried that today. Ask John kerry.

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

If you guys were willing to step back and objectively read Kos and other lefty sites, you would see the obvious. The content is mostly juvenile and mostly devoid of any serious thinking.

We don't see things as they are; we see things as we are.

Posted by: Anais Nin on June 25, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

I'm late to this one but... When I first started reading blogs, they had relatively small readership (as measured by number of commentors) and, therefore, little influence. Thus, they were either ignored by the MSM or, more likely, the MSM was unaware of them. However, as blogs grew, they gained influence which forced the MSM to notice. When they finally checked out the blogs, they discovered that much of what was being discussed/riduculed was them and they didn't like it. The sort of immediate and direct accountability to readers provided by blogs is scary to them

Posted by: smiley on June 25, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Brooks is simply a point man for the truth laundering and one-hour marginalizing crew whose task is to frame, pigeonhole and dismiss opposition power through Rovian marketing techniques, otherwise known as lying through your teeth. From Kerry the phony war hero (and now, Murtha), to Dean the unstable, Gore the liar, Hillary the harridan devil incarnate, ad nauseum, the GOP has been relying on the Brooks geeks to go out there and eat the live chickens for them. No one's going to call them on it, least of all Brooks colleagues in the corporate media.

Aside from that, for the diminutive in soul and stature Brooks to say this:
politics has become the realm of the small-minded
is rich, and to criticize Kos with this:
the new boss is little different from the old boss - only smaller.
is just so typical of the prick.

Posted by: R. Porrofatto on June 25, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Broder's pissed because he got slapped upside the head so badly for his obsession with the Clenis.

Posted by: C.I. Dreyfus on June 25, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Newspapers are irrelevant now. Brooks, Broder and TNR fail to realize that liberal blogs grew because they failed to do their jobs, so we had to do it ourselves. I'm much smarter and well-informed since I've been reading blogs.

Posted by: Unstable Isotope on June 25, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Come on, Drum -- this just means they're afraid. This is them trying to define the left blogosphere, they're trying to definitively frame it, and the fact that they're so blatantly over-the-top with their cries of "facism" and "kingpin" shows that they're failing.

I say, "Whatever you say, Mr. Brooks -- just spell the name right and incude the URL, please."

Posted by: mercury on June 25, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, there's more arguing going on in this comment stream than I think I've EVER seen on Kos - and I read it daily.

Regarding pundits like Broder and Brock, Pachacutec over at Firedoglake makes probably the most astute point of all: If Broder and Brock had started blogs 2-4 years ago, would those blogs have any readers today? Could they compete? With Kevin, or Josh, or Atrios, or Brad?

Fat effing chance.

Posted by: CaliforniaDrySherry on June 25, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah. Why are we paying attention to Broder and Brooks? They have "loser" seeping out of every paragraph they write. The best reports -- and attitudes -- about this little tempest can be found at Mahablog and Wolcott.

Posted by: PW on June 25, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Broder and Brooks, two suckers of republican cock, have spent the last five years making excuses for George Bush, the dumbest, most small-minded election thief in U.S. history. It is litle wonder that the Washington Post and NY TImes have become largely irrelevant. Get used to it boys, you're days are numbered.

Posted by: Pechorin on June 25, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

It is clear that left to their own devices the Democratic establishment is unable to craft and execute a strategy to win elections. If you believe in democracy, then the blogs represent the popular debate on this vital topic.

Republicans are the party of ideas - bad ideas - but ideas nonetheless. Democrats are the party of programs and politeness. Until the party appeals to the native idealism and optimism of average Americans with rhetoric and ideas that gets them excited, they will continue to lose. Blogs may help fix this.

Prediction: Dems win control of NOTHING in November. Reps remain incompetent and corrupt. 2008 is the year. And no sitting Senator will the election.

Posted by: Armed&Liberal on June 25, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

hey rdw, please let me know when powerline or lgf or freerepublic decides to hold a conference for a long weekend in Vegas. Good luck getting the national media and the most influential members of the GOP to show up to that diet klan rally.


You are so unintentionally funny rdw.

Posted by: ReallyDumbWhitey on June 25, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Pechorin
Broder and Brooks, two suckers of republican cock...

Now there's a fine piece of spittle-flecked discourse. Good job living up to their low expectations.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

If David Broder had his way, Bill and Hillary Clinton's sex life would be a major topic during the 2008 campaign. Bloggers would hinder this - so we know what Broder's problem is.

What I can't figure out is what Drum's problem is. I suspect he posts items like this just to get a rise out of people.

Posted by: thinker on June 25, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

"Sixty minutes did a famous whitewash for him in 1992."

Oh, really? Forcing him to discuss adultery was "whitewash"?

Is this the same media that whitewashed Poppy's extramarital affair while in office? The same media that whitewashed W's "youthful indiscretions"? The same media that is whitewashing adultery tales of McCain, Guiliani, Jeb!? The same media that allows closet queens like Lindsay Grahams and Ken Mehlmans engage in gay bashing?

Posted by: Nan on June 25, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Have you seen the commentary about the "liberal" New York Times and Washington Post on liberal blogs?

Is it any surprise that figures whose marketability is built on the reputation of those two institutions will do anything to get people not to listen to liberal blogs?

Posted by: cmdicely on June 25, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

It's knee-jerk self defense, Kevin. Nobody knows how the blogs will eventually affect journalism, but we all assume they somehow will. The MSM undoubtedly feels this, too, and their reaction is immediate and negative. It doesn't have to make any sense beyond that, really, which ir probably a good thing, because knee-jerk reactions seldom do. It sounds like psychobabble to say they don't realize they're doing it, but they probably don't.
And we're gonna fling poo right back at 'em, and nobody wins, and aw fuckit...

Posted by: Doozer on June 25, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

Thank God KOS and the left-wing crazies are trying to dump a moderate Democrat, Joe Lieberman. Just more proof that the Democratic Party no longer welcomes moderates.

Posted by: Hey Moe! Hey Larry! on June 25, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

What on earth is going on here?

Fear.

Posted by: linda on June 25, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

"The content is mostly juvenile and mostly devoid of any serious thinking."

Just like your posts, brian. God, could you make it any easier? You're the Dan Quayle of this discussion thread.

Posted by: brewmn on June 25, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

rdw--

I used to be a G-d damned Republican fool like you until I woke up and looked around. You can gloat about Rather and the TANG story all you want, but your hero W is still a fucking coward who deliberately avoided the Vietnam service for which John Kerry volunteered. The ESSENCE of Rather's story was absolutely true. All that the scum in the rightwing blogosphere did was successfully focus on trivia and see it elevated to become the story itself.

The "impotent" Democratic blogosphere helped hold Bush to the lowest "re-election" since 1916. (I say election in quotation marks because of the Republican coup of 2000.) Bush was given his final boost by Osama Bin Laden, who put out his tape the week before the election because he knew it would help Bush--the man he wants to see in the White House. And it is the Democratic blogosphere that has helped sledgehammer Bush's poll ratings down to the lowest level of any second term president at this point in his term.

Kos helped the Democrats win special Congressional elections in Kentucky and South Dakota, helped Barack Obama win the primary in Illinois, among other successes, and has generally taken a centrist, inclusive standpoint.

rdw, it's really too bad at this stage of your life that you really don't give a rat's ass that your country is being killed by the rightwing chickenhawk bastards you worship so much. You think of yourself as a patriot,no doubt. What a fucking laugh. As I said, I stopped being a G-d damned fool. Not sure that you ever will though, pal. I actually care what happens to my kids and grandkids. I actually love this country. I don't know what the fuck you love, but it sure ain't America.

Posted by: Joe on June 25, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

This thread is great for two reasons, one being look at all the usual troll losers, and some new ones, repeating the tired old teenaged virgin GOP talking points, as if we're going to fall apart at the seems when some fat white guy or other bitter cracker mentioned lost elections or howard dean, and two, they are really bitter that Kos has taken off so far so fast, so all the assorted bitter fat white losers have to sit in their own sandbox filled with crap at lgf that doesn't get any attention at all. Imagine a GOP senator posting at LGF? Sure, they wouldn't get within 100 feet of such a cesspool of bitter white man rage.

Posted by: ReallyDumbWhitey on June 25, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

The MSM have owned the franchise forever, and they can't deal with the challenge that the blogosphere represents. Old media has had the exclusive rights to the manufacture and dispensation of the convential wisdom, and they are freaked out that the unwashed now have a voice of their own in the form of the Internet.

Posted by: swamp thing on June 25, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Mainstream reporters, despite their generally liberal temperaments, have an odd sort of contempt for actual liberal politicians, who they widely view as being wimpy, pandering, fence-sitting, poll-driven wonks who are hesitant to really speak their minds and insist on giving lots of boring policy-oriented speeches that don't make good copy.

Well, the blogosphere is anything but that, but it turns out the mainstream press doesn't like that much either.

Of course, one obvious conclusion is that despite the Republicans' three decades of working the refs, and Kevin's own parroting of the "media is liberal" canard, that the media in general and reporters in particular really aren't liberal. Over at the Horse's Mouth, Greg Sargent has several posts about the so-called "liberal media" uniformly commiting blatant journalistic malpractice in order to give the GOP cover on the Iraqi debacle.

Posted by: Gregory on June 25, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

I think I used the word bitter too many times in one post. Damn, I'm....sour.

Posted by: ReallyDumbWhitey on June 25, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Check out Hugh Hewitt's site today.... Newsweek has a profile on Hewitt in the next issue.

Posted by: Hey Moe! Hey Larry! on June 25, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Clearly--and largely unfairly--the press has seized on the likes of DailyKos and Little Green Footballs as exemplars of the blogosphere. And, I agree, that's not doing anyone much good.

Posted by: James Joyner on June 25, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Both papers are far to the left of center and reliable supporters of liberal politicians and causes. The NYT's is self-destructing with rapidly declining profit margins due to subscription losses and higher expenses.

You make the NY Times seem like the Manchester Guardian, which is utter nonsense. The Times is the organ of the establishment, the Ivy League elite. Its liberalism is cultural, and nothing more -- certainly not economic. The Times honchos don't want to lessen the gap between rich and poor; it might hurt their demographics.

Posted by: Vincent on June 25, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

This liberal boomer is delighted that there are blogs. Political Animal is the first blog I tune into every day. I also hang out at HuffPo and ThinkProgress. I've visited Kos from time to time, but I see less debate and discussion there and more echo chamber; I prefer blogs where people of varying viewpoints post. I'm glad that conservatives and libertarians post here. I rarely agree with them but I like seeing how they think, which helps me to think through how I would rebut them.

As others have said, blogs serve the purpose of ferreting out news which the MSM doesn't regard worthy. And since they cost little, SO FAR, they can counterbalance, to an extent, the MSM's being owned by big business with their biases.

I wish that we on the left could all make a pact to avoid obscenities and personal insults. Leave that to the rightwing. Although criticism of the left leaning blogs which claims that they are nothing but juvenile insults is wide of the mark, there are enough insults flung around to give some credibility to that criticism.

We are fighting an uphill battle here, folks. We are the voice in the wilderness, working against deeply entrenched interests. By all means let's present our viewpoints passionately, and where appropriate, back them up with cites. We are going to be accused of shrillness and vituperation no matter how we present our views, because to some conservatives disagreement is the same as attacking them, and because we do threaten entrenched interests.

If we eschew obscenity and personal insult, and how about let's avoid "tu quoque" arguments also, and present our arguments with all the rationality of which we are capable, then we will win hearts and minds of those who are capable of looking beyond well-known but dysfunctional views which have been "received wisdom", often for many centuries.

Posted by: Wolfdaughter on June 25, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Newsweek has a profile on Hewitt in the next issue

Good point, that -- the so-called "liberal media" has also treated the dishonest conservative bloggers -- but I repeat myself -- with enormous deference. Time made PowerLine it's blog of the year, for pity's sake, despite its enormous intellectual dishonesty and blatant advocacy of a tyrranical Executive (as long as it's Republican, of course).

Posted by: Gregory on June 25, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Joe
your hero W is still a fucking coward...

Fucking cowards don't fly single seat supersonic fighter jets. Never have, never will. There were plenty of opportunities for him to avoid military service totally, or take a cush ground job. He didn't. The F-102 had a mishap rate of over 13 losses per 100,000 flight hours, worse even than the Marine's Harrier, which is notorious for killing pilots.

My father didn't serve in Viet Nam although he served during that time period. but he served in the military like Bush. Was he a fucking coward too? was everyone who served in the military but not Viet Nam a fucking coward?

Stop impugning every person who joined the National Guard, or served in a service but did not deploy to Viet Nam in your desperation to get at Bush.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

cowards don't fly single seat supersonic fighter jets

They do, however, stop flying them under fishy circumstances long before their obligation is up. Bush's own service record shows that he did just that.

But ol' Mike is on record as, well, not caring about the records of either Bush or Kerry. He likes the myths the GOP serves up much better. Shame on him.

Posted by: Gregory on June 25, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Stop impugning every person who joined the National Guard, or served in a service but did not deploy to Viet Nam in your desperation to get at Bush.

Dishonest as ever, Mike. Joe's comment did no such thing. Bush's cowardice -- as demonstrated by his going AWOL, as his own service record shows -- is Bush's alone. Of course you, Mike, don't hesitate to perpetuate the smears of Kerry, no matter how many times the facts are pointed out to you.

You know what's the most cowardly of all? Republicans, from Nixon to Bush, hiding behind those who serve in order to shield themselves from criticism of their own failed policies. There's no one guiltier of that cowardice than Bush and Cheney, and no one whose honor entitles them less than to hide behind the sacrifice and duty of real soldiers.

Posted by: Gregory on June 25, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

"Stop impugning every person who joined the National Guard, or served in a service but did not deploy to Viet Nam in your desperation to get at Bush."

Stop impugning every person who criticizes Bush--who sends other kids to fight and die in a futile war, but refused to fight in a futile war himself--in your desperation to protect Bush.

Posted by: Joel on June 25, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory
They do, however blah, blah, blah...

Gregory changes the subject when he doesn't like the answer. Shame on him for that grade school tactic of the spittle-flecked.

But ol' Mike is on record as, well, not caring about the records of either Bush or Kerry.

Ol' Mike is on record of considering Kerry a backstabber to his fellow vets for his Winter Soldier "service", and is glad to redirect this thread into a 200+ post-a-thon debating that point, if that's where you want to take it. Why debate the future when we can rehash the 2004 election.

He likes the myths the GOP serves up much better. Shame on him.

Shame on you for thinking someone who would fly a supersonic fighter jet for his military to be a coward because he didn't fly it over Viet Nam. By yours and Joe's standards, we have thousands of military pilots who were cowards, many of them who gave their lives in "acts of cowardice" fighting to overcome failures of equipment and bad weather. Hell, I guess the astronauts that went to the moon were the ultimate cowards, since they weren't even on the same planetary body that Viet Nam is located on.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Joel
Stop impugning every person who criticizes Bush...

stop making up strawmen. I don't impugn every person who criticizes Bush. Just the ones that do it with lies.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

"Ol' Mike is on record of considering Kerry a backstabber to his fellow vets for his Winter Soldier "service"

Yes, you much prefer a man who was an outspoken supporter of the Vietnam War while at Yale and then used Daddy's connections to avoid it. Bush isn't so much a coward as a friggin' hypocrite.

Posted by: smuggler on June 25, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

"squadrons of rabid lambs [who] unleash their venom on those who stand in the way."

I read several liberal blogs every day and tend to generally much of what they have to say, but I'd have to admit that's still a pretty apt description of the comments sections on a lot of blogs, left, right or center. In fairness it's also no worse than some of the things I've heard bloggers call MSM opinion columnists and editorial boards -- again, as justified as I may personally feel such criticism may be in many cases.

Posted by: CalD on June 25, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

It is not just the commentariat that is being dinosaur-ed but newspapers as well. Craigslist and Ebay are siphoning off much of their classified ad income. The generation that grew up with email and text messaging and the Net hardly reads newspapers at all.
What is particularly scary for newspapers is that there are caught in the kind of trap that IBM was when personal computers were about to arrive: what they need to do in order to survive long term is the opposite of what they need to do to get a few more years out their current business model. For long-term survival, they need to position themselves as gatekeepers who are absolutely trusted by the population at large. For continuing their current business model as the gatekeepers _selected_ by the powers that be. As part of their current business model, they have been quite complicit in the deceits of the Washington elite that are peaking under Bush. So much so that the only way they could gain the trust they need to survive in a new form would be to expose themselves throughly, but that would discredit them. There is an opening there for some one newspaper to expose the rest, confess its own faults, and get a lead in the contest to be the trusted gatekeeper (if there is to be a broadly trusted gatekeeper at all).
More broadly, we are in a period of intense technological and social change. The rules we play by mean that whoever happens to be rendered obsolete is screwed. Auto workers or IBM, whoever. This encourages everyone who is about to be steamrollered to try to slow down progress. The more powerful sometimes have ways to keep their old ways going at everyone else's expense. A good example is Microsoft, which is a project that finished at least 5 years ago but keeps itself alive by using its copyrights to receive huge income for doing very little productive.
If we could find someway to support each other through these transitions rather than throw each other to the wolves, there would be less hysterical clinging to the old and smoother, more useful introduction of the new. That would, of course, mean a much more fundamental change in society than most of us are talking about.
I won't miss the commentariat when it is gone, but I do miss working class people having plenty of good jobs. And I miss being able to send my daughter off to college and have some reasonable idea of what the real jobs in the United States will be during her career.

Posted by: Kevin on June 25, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

smuggler
RSM: "Ol' Mike is on record of considering Kerry a backstabber to his fellow vets for his Winter Soldier "service"

Yes, you much prefer a man who was an outspoken supporter of the Vietnam War while at Yale and then used Daddy's connections to avoid it.

Smuggler, do you consider everyone who went in the military but did not serve in Viet Nam to be cowards or hypocrites? What about guys who joined the Navy and served in submarines? Simpering cowards? Or guys who served in the air force manning the ballistic missile silos. Craven jello-kneed wimps? How about the Coast Guard? I'm sure you save your most virulent hatred for them, jsut trolling around or local harbors saving lives and stuff.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, really? Forcing him to discuss adultery was "whitewash"?

Absolutely. The serial adultery was already old news. They had to bury the story and CBS worked very closely with them allowing the Thomasons to help direct and write the segment and doing as many re-takes as necessary to it right. After 60 Minutes the Clintons did exactly as they and CBS planned. They said they already discussed it and would not discuss it again. The MSM dropped it.

In 2006 there's no chance it happens that way. Bill in fact got away with quite a bit more than adultry and draft dodging.

My favorite part of that entire campaign series was Carville, Begalla and Clinton himself denying the affair with Gennifer Flowers by consistently saying, there was no 11 1/2 year affair. She claimed an 11 1/2 affair. The Clinton team always made sure they denied an 11 1/2 year affair. They never denied an affair. and the fact the affair was actually only 11 years and 5 months means they are still as honest as Abe.

This is a great country isn't it? Too bad those days are over.

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

"Smuggler, do you consider everyone who went in the military but did not serve in Viet Nam to be cowards or hypocrites?"

Stop making up straw men. Smuggler doesn't impugn every person who went in the military but did not serve in Viet Nam, Just the ones that supported the Vietnam War while at Yale and then used Daddy's connections to avoid it.

Posted by: Joel on June 25, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

They do, however, stop flying them under fishy circumstances long before their obligation is up. Bush's own service record shows that he did just that.

There was nothing fishy about GWBs service. Ask Dan Rather.

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: " blah, blah, blah . . . Carville, Begalla and Clinton . . . blah, blah, blah"

rdw, you posted on the wrong thread. You're looking for the archives.

Posted by: Joel on June 25, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

"Smuggler, do you consider everyone who went in the military but did not serve in Viet Nam to be cowards or hypocrites? What about guys who joined the Navy and served in submarines?"

Try and follow this; it's pretty simple.

I consider an eligible, able-bodied young man who is an outspoken supporter of a war who then takes active steps to avoid participating in that war to be: A HYPOCRITE!

Posted by: smuggler on June 25, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

"There was nothing fishy about GWBs service. Ask Dan Rather."

Oops, wrong again, rdw. Rather said nothing about the fishy circumstances under which GWB stopped flying.

But nice try. Do play again sometime.

Posted by: Joel on June 25, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

Blogs present an open and adversarial discussion and interrogation of what the government is doing and whether it is right or wrong. The MSM does not.

Bloggers are not afraid of a phone call from the WH or from a major sponsor in the coal, oil, gas or some other industry. The MSM are afraid. Very afraid.

Blog writing is often witty, pointed, and insightful. Writing and reporting from the msm seems, with some rare exceptions like Dowd and Rich, either insipid or silly (rabid lambs?, spittle-flecked loons?) and always aimed at bashing anyone who doesn't conform to right wing dogma.

Posted by: Chrissy on June 25, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

mention adultery and rdw gets really hot and bothered. sigh, I wish for those days too, rdw. poking around in someone else's sex life is a hugely important issue for the right wing. it get's us all kinds of randy, and I'm still not sure why.

Posted by: hot and buttered on June 25, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Is this how you get around your voluntary moratorium on NYT editorials?

Brooks is probably just annoyed you've been ignoring him. If you paid attention to him he'd just go back to his "red staters eat grits and bacon, blue staters eat grape nuts" crap.


Posted by: B on June 25, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Joel
Just the ones that supported the Vietnam War while at Yale and then used Daddy's connections to avoid it.

So all Yale grads went to Viet Nam unless they worked an angle or exercised a connection? Flying supersonic single seat fighters was a way to avoid injury in VietNam? If he used Daddy's connections for anyhting, it was to fly the most dangerous plane in the air guard, instead of taking a less dangerous job.

And of course, if anyone who served in the National Guard happened to have supported the war, you think them a coward, correct? But you probably think that every single person in the National Guard got in there through some connection.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

always aimed at bashing anyone who doesn't conform to right wing dogma.

I think that their bashing has a more subtle aim than that. The point is to create the impression that there is active debate by all points of view while at the same time excluding certain points of view. This type of propaganda system has been far more effective than the type that proudly proclaims that it allows only one point of view.
There is also some difference between what the MSM needs to do for the system as a whole and the MSM's own interests as one specific part of that system.

Posted by: kevin on June 25, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Time made PowerLine it's blog of the year, for pity's sake, despite its enormous intellectual dishonesty and blatant advocacy of a tyrranical Executive

Powerline was totally honest and, as events have proven, totally correct. Dan Rather retired in disgrace last week because Powerline proved he was a disgrace. Even Kevin Drum referred to Rather specifically and CBSnews generally as disgraceful. And Kevin wasn't even addressing the cartoonish mature of the forgery. He was only referring to the 'chain of custody'.

When all is said and done of the 2004 election the two big media events by far, as written by non-partisan historians, will be Dan Rather and the SBVs.

Powerline was in the middle of both with detailed docmentation. The cool thing about both stories is the protagonsist held on to stories that were so ridiculously fraudlent as to be incredible. Rather on his crayon memo's and Kerry on his moronic Xmas in Cambodia tale.

FACT: Dan's memo's were cartoonishly false.

FACT: Xmas in Cambodia could not possibly have happened as Kerry told the story. If only because Nixon was not President in 1968 but also because kerry's own journals prove he wasn't near Cambodia or even on a missionon Xmas Eve in 1968.


Powerline remains a powerful voice on the right

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

"And of course, if anyone who served in the National Guard happened to have supported the war, you think them a coward, correct? But you probably think that every single person in the National Guard got in there through some connection."

I guess that was supposed to be a serious argument? Mike, you're either a buffoon or 12 years old.

Wait, I can right your next post for you:

"Can't respond to my argument can you?!!"

Posted by: smuggler on June 25, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

red mike, say supersonic more. it makes everything sound so much more cool.

Posted by: hot and buttered on June 25, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, use ALL CAPS more often. Now you are getting really hot about dan rather and 60 minutes.
DAN RATHER! LUCY RAMIEREZ! MYSTERY ROACH, WHAT ARE WE SINGING ABOUT WE MUST BE FLIPPING OUT!!!

does anyone else notice rdw's and redneck mikes obsession on past events?

Posted by: hot and buttered on June 25, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

poking around in someone else's sex life is a hugely important issue for the right wing

Not at all. It's just fun ridiculing Slick Willie. Now thing about it, when you get into a man's personal character, as historians do with all Presidents, how do they take Bill Clinton seriously? Bill Clinton didn't take Bill Clinton seriously.

I don't think anyone blames Bill for Gennifer. any man married to Hillary might have a weak moment and Gennifer could induce many weak moments. Monica is of course an entirely different story. Whatever that was it was not sex.

There's two things that will always come up when discussing Bill Clinton and they simply cannot be avoided, Impeachment and Monica.

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

obsession on past events?

I'm not obsessed. But just for the record about this past events thing, how does not obsess on something that hasn't happened?

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

smuggler
I consider an eligible, able-bodied young man who is an outspoken supporter of a war who then takes active steps to avoid participating in that war to be: A HYPOCRITE!

Great. So some guy who actively supports the war while at Yale then graduates and then joins the Navy to operate nuclear submarines (or Air Guard to to fly air defense interceptors) in our standoff against the USSR is a HYPOCRITE.

Get this. There is no way to paint Bush's service as cowardice without painting the service of many ten's of thousands of other American's service as cowardice too. Period. An actual small percent of our military who served during Viet Nam went to Viet Nam. About half of the Navy's fighter squadrons did not deploy there. Things were hot in the Med too. Anyone in the ASW mission didn't go. Air Defense. Coast Guard. You can try to whittle and weasel and narrow your definition (Yale, Active, Daddy, Texas, Fighter,...) but it always ends up insulting lots of Americans that do not deserve the insult. And it makes you look cheap and petty and a liar or ignorant of our military and its people.

Want to impugn his service as lackluster? Have at it. I'll offer him no defense. Want to impugn him as a coward or hypocrite? I'll keep pointing out that you're insulting ten's of thousand servicemen who are neither at the same time.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

"Can't respond to my argument can you?!!"
Posted by: smuggler

Sorry. I missed your post. I was busy responding toy your argument. Your powers weaken by the minute, Darth Smuggler (must need a bottle or a nap).

Supersonic.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

rdw and rsm: since you both seem so well informed about W, can you tell us how many times W flew this "supersonic" whatever? How many times was he arrested? How many times did he skip out on a flight physical? Where was he in '72? How often did he do cocaine - a very highly addictive substance? How do you know he quit drinking? How many business failures did he have? Any successes? How come he passed out on the floor of the WH? Did he do community service? What was prostitute Jeff Gannon doing at the WH all those times?

Seems like the only thing your bushie can fly is the seat of his pants.

Posted by: Chrissy on June 25, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

But nice try. Do play again sometime

I said there was nothing fishy about GWBs service. I stand by that statement. That would also include his flying. I said to check
with Dan Rather. Dan and Mary Mapes devoted 5 years to investigating Bush & TANG. They found NOTHING FISHY.

We know this because Dan was just humiliated into retirement after a 44 year career. The Dean of network anchors waddles off with his tail between his legs. The Dan took on the George and the Dan lost. He lost BIG.

We now now GWB served honorable and was discharged honorably.

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

seems like the only thing your bushie can fly is the seat of his pants

Now Chrissy be nice. Bushie can fly elections. Ask Al. Ask John.

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Baa baa CHOMP!!

Posted by: Venomous Lamb on June 25, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

The right-wing media was so kind with Bill and Hillary Clinton, weren't they? Horse shit, I say. As corrupt, incompetent and unAmerican this Administration is, I don't think the left-wing can possibly say enough bad things about it.

Here is a fundamental truth:

The right-wing can dish it out, but they sure can't take it!!!

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 25, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Yup, just like all those years when Limbaugh and the rest of talk radio were seen as radical extremists by the MSM. That really ended up hurting the wingers bad.

Liberal bloggers should definitely apologize and be nice whenever they are attacked. That'll make people respect them.

Or maybe, just maybe, the fact that the MSM feels threatened and liberal bloggers can't be ignored is a GOOD THING.

Posted by: Sean on June 25, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Chrissy
Spittling deleted

Another fine piece of spittle-flecting. And you wonder why MSM looks down at liberal blogs. What was it Broder said, "...heavier on vituperation of President Bush and other targets than on creative thought."

Broder nails it.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Mike,

Bails of straw men. Anyone with a brain can see the difference between what Bush did and honorable service. Some kid without political connections was sent to Vietnam because gung-ho Bush avoided his service.

This is tiresome, but you started this by calling Kerry a backstabber. Now I'll use your logic: do you think every Vietnam vet who actively opposed the war when they returned home is a backstabber?

Posted by: smuggler on June 25, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

RSM, legitimate questions regarding Bush's really rather sordid character and past were never asked by the MSM, while the Clintons lives were scrutinized with a "vituperation" and vengeance that remains.

Vituperation is in the eye of the beholder. The msm is becoming obsolete because their own vituperation and bias is now questioned.

Posted by: Chrissy on June 25, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

smuggler
This is tiresome, but you started this by calling Kerry a backstabber.

It is tiresome, and it was started when Joe felt the need to call W a coward.

Now I'll use your logic: do you think every Vietnam vet who actively opposed the war when they returned home is a backstabber?

Nope. Just the ones that accused the veterans of committing widespread war crimes and being war criminals, this giving to the North Vietnamese exactly the confessions that they were attempting to torture out of our POWs. Etc.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

"Nope. Just the ones that accused the veterans of committing widespread war crimes and being war criminals, this giving to the North Vietnamese exactly the confessions that they were attempting to torture out of our POWs. Etc."

Hooray--Mike has apparently grasped the idea of making distinctions within an argument! Let us hope that he now shines this new light that has gone off in his head on his own reasoning powers.

Posted by: smuggler on June 25, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

rdw -

I think you overstate the importance of TANG, the Christmas story, and the swiftboat vets. Kerry lost due to his lack of charisma, and his snobbish, elitist manner. In the end, the muckraking stories had very little to do with his loss.

Posted by: Quinn on June 25, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

Chrissy
RSM, legitimate questions regarding Bush's really rather sordid character and past were never asked by the MSM...

I could care less when darts are thrown at Bush. I only care when they miss and hit veterans as collateral damage. But I think you're reaching for straws on the sordidness of his past. Either that, or almost everyone who grew up in the 60's is sordid. And harping on the subhect makes you look like you're stuck in October of 1999.

...while the Clintons lives were scrutinized with a "vituperation" and vengeance that remains.

Call the Clintons what you want, but they are not boring, and they continue to prove there is no such thing as bad publicity. And he's teflon through and through. I think the worst injury you could cause to Bill Clinton would be to ignore him.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

KOS wants Lieberman out of the Democratic Party.

With friends like that, who needs enemies??

Posted by: Hey Moe! Hey Larry! on June 25, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory: "They do, however, stop flying them under fishy circumstances long before their obligation is up. Bush's own service record shows that he did just that."

rdw: There was nothing fishy about GWBs service. Ask Dan Rather.

rdw, you are pathetic. Dan Rather had nothing to say about the fishy circumstances under which Bush stopped flying before his obligation was up. You can't face up to the fact that you got this wrong.

Moron.

Posted by: Joel on June 25, 2006 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

hey wingnuts

Bush is a coward who avoided service

Cheney is a cowward nwho avoided service 5 times

Rove avoided service 3 times

Kerry is a decorated combat war hero

Murtha is a decorated combat war hero

Kos was an artillery officer

FatWhiteGuy is a....well...he's a fat bloviating wingnut

Chew on those stubborn stubborn facts

Posted by: Maccabee on June 25, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, RSM, *anyone* who supported the war in Vietnam and chose, as Bush did, to decline the opportunity to be assigned to Vietnam was a coward. Every fucking one of them. Cowards. Just like you are a coward, supporting the Iraq occupation but not volunteering to serve when the military is desperately seeking soldiers.

Posted by: Joel on June 25, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

Maccabee
hey wingnuts

Bush is a coward who avoided service

Actually he served in the Texas Air National Guard where he flew single seat supersonic fighters. We discussed this above.

I'm sure you're a coward who has avoided service.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

Joel
Just like you are a coward, supporting the Iraq occupation but not volunteering to serve when the military is desperately seeking soldiers.

Open mouth, insert foot.

I have served. I fought in Iraq in 91, in Kosovo, and in the no-fly zone in Southern Watch. I'm frankly too senior to go over now. They don't need old guys.

Next...

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

RSM, Bush is a coward because he supported the war in Vietnam but he avoided serving *in Vietnam.* Your attempts at grade-school semantic games are pathetic.

Posted by: Joel on June 25, 2006 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

"They don't need old guys."

Wrong, RSM. I'm sure they'll be glad to have you. I personally know a soldier who is 51 and is shipping out for another tour shortly. You, RSM, are both a fool and a liar.

Posted by: Joel on June 25, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

The mainstream reporters and pundits, who torpedoed Al Gore and Gary Hart, among others, have a problem with the unanointed doing the same.

It's all about Lieberman.

Posted by: yodeler on June 25, 2006 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, RSM, you're a spring chicken(hawk):

http://www.rense.com/general58/esent.htm

Posted by: Joel on June 25, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

RSM, Bush is a coward because he supported the war in Vietnam but he avoided serving *in Vietnam.* Your attempts at grade-school semantic games are pathetic.

Joel, you're a moron for essentially calling the majority of our military who served during Viet Nam cowards, since the majority didn't serve *in* Viet Nam. And, yes, most of them supported the war.

All of the submariners, Coast Guard, 6th fleet sailors (Mediterranean Sea) strategic missileers, test pilots, intel guys, Antarctic exploration mission, armored divisions at the Fulda Gap, pilots flying cold war missions against the Soviets, and on and on and on. They did exactly what their country asked of them. You don't give a damn about them. It's Bush, Bush, Bush 24/7 life revolves around Bush what no baby in that bath water.

The only military you like is one that comes back early from a war and accuses everyone left behind of being a bunch a baby-killing psychos who deserve torture if they're captured because they're evil anyway.

Your attempts to attack Bush no matter the collateral cost to the rest of the military veterans are pathetic. And you personally are a pathetic coward who is perfectly happy to sit back and criticize and accuse of cowardice those who would risk their life protecting your freedoms. How very small of you.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

RSM: you really are missing the point about Bush and his character. Kids are dying in Iraq right now and the man responsible has shown a thorough and consistent lack of character and judgment throughout his life.

Posted by: Chrissy on June 25, 2006 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

All the breastbeating by Broks and Broder and TNR would make sense in a world where Coulter and Savage and Limbaugh did not exist.

In the real world, their laments are unadulterated nonsense.

Posted by: nut on June 25, 2006 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

To move away from some of the less relevant digressions, I think the real point is that the NYT, with two prestigious op-ed positions open, went for Brooks, whose appeal I have never understood, and Tierney, who occasionally writes something interesting. Those two have a great deal in common -- contemptuous of traditional liberalism, clever rather than intellectual, given to employing the trappings of academic analysis with no real academic credentials (or, at least in Brooks' case, the ability to do real sociology), full of themselves, frequently contrarian in the worst sense, voices that stir what passes for controversy rather than advancing public discussion. Both are thoroughly "presentable," well bred, and will never cause much discomfort to the comfortable. I understand that Joshua Marshall was available for one of these positions (I may be wrong); I suspect they could have found a real moderate conservative, a Catholic traditionalist, a social democrat, or any of a number of other unrepresented viewpoints. Marshall at any rate is a genuinely new and refreshing point of view, industrious, seldom clever for the sake of cleverness, has real academic credentials, and enough integrity to have burned his bridges to the American Prospect on what he thought was principal. But then he's a blogger. (As is Kevin Drum, another voice the Times isn't likely to reflect any time soon.)

Posted by: Gene O'Grady on June 25, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

FWG: I support the troops. I don't want them to be used, manipulated, distored by hate, tortured and killed for a rich fool's war for oil. You don't support the troops.

Posted by: Chrissy on June 25, 2006 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

The blogosphere needs to keep up pounding away at the MSM. As they slip into increased irrelevancy, the emptiness of the bubble will lead it into bursting. What the likes of Broder really cannot stand is that Kos supports the idea of subjecting, say, Joe Lieberman (an important man who they see in Washington all the time) to an election. The MSM despises elections and more so voters themselves, except if the election can be portrayed as a contest only theu understand. When an election is about people using their voices as free agents to select someone to represent them, the MSM rebels.... how dare mere voters cast votes when the MSM already has decided what is best for them.

Posted by: Alan on June 25, 2006 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

"Joel, you're a moron for essentially calling the majority of our military who served during Viet Nam cowards, since the majority didn't serve *in* Viet Nam. And, yes, most of them supported the war."

You have no idea how many of them supported the war. You're just making shit up. I know guys who were drafted and didn't serve in Vietnam. The ones I know *didn't* support the war.

"All of the submariners, Coast Guard, 6th fleet sailors (Mediterranean Sea) strategic missileers, test pilots, intel guys, Antarctic exploration mission, armored divisions at the Fulda Gap, pilots flying cold war missions against the Soviets, and on and on and on. They did exactly what their country asked of them. You don't give a damn about them. It's Bush, Bush, Bush 24/7 life revolves around Bush what no baby in that bath water."

Pure bloviation. You have no idea how many of them supported the war in Vietnam. Many of the soldiers that served in Vietnam didn't support the war, moron. You have no case.

"The only military you like is one that comes back early from a war and accuses everyone left behind of being a bunch a baby-killing psychos who deserve torture if they're captured because they're evil anyway."

Making up more shit, RSM. You're becoming unhinged here, buddy. Take a deep breath.

"Your attempts to attack Bush no matter the collateral cost to the rest of the military veterans are pathetic. And you personally are a pathetic coward who is perfectly happy to sit back and criticize and accuse of cowardice those who would risk their life protecting your freedoms. How very small of you."

Nah. Not really. I admire those who would risk their lives protecting my freedom. That's not what's going on in Iraq. None of those risking their lives in Iraq are protecting any freedoms of mine. That's why you're a phony and a liar. If you really believed that the military was protecting our freedoms in Iraq, you'd be over there. But you're a coward, because you could go, but would rather see others fight and die. Just like your little chimpy, Bush. You're so blinded by Bush-worship that you can't see your own hypocricy.

Moron.

Posted by: Joel on June 25, 2006 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

I miss my dog

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not obsessed.

...Clenis™...Clenis™...

Can't have it, I'm afraid.

Posted by: ahem on June 25, 2006 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

support the troops no matter what piece of dirt they are standing on.

'...as long as I'm not on the same piece of dirt.'

Posted by: ahem on June 25, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

If you paid attention to him he'd just go back to his "red staters eat grits and bacon, blue staters eat grape nuts" crap.

Blue stater here. Bobo will just have to excuse me for wishing to remain regular. ;)

Posted by: Ken on June 25, 2006 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK

have an odd sort of contempt for actual liberal politicians, who they widely view as being wimpy, pandering, fence-sitting, poll-driven wonks who are hesitant to really speak their minds

...

I'm not sure how that's going to play out in the long term, but in the short term I have a feeling it's nothing but bad news.

I can't speak for the media, but insert the word blogger for the word politician above, and I can almost see their point...

Another Washington Monthly, neutral observer, above the fray special...I tell you, if this blog represents the Washington Democrats mindset, it should be obvious to everyone why elections are being lost by the boatload...

what is the old saying, stand for something, or you will fall for anything...

wow...

Posted by: justmy2 on June 25, 2006 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

Over a decade ago I worked for a software company that sold software to various newspaper chains (the NY Times newspapers, Knight Ridder, Hearst) to help them compete against (then relatively) new threats like online searchable news articles, Craig's List classifieds, web-based entertainment and restaurant reviews, etc. The conventional wisdom even then was that the newspaper industry was O V E R (nobody suggested it wouldn't be a lingering, painful, death).

Priesthoods always react viciously when their control of official dogma is challenged - it doesn't matter if the priesthood actually even occasionally shares some of the challengers' opinions or not: the battle isn't really over the fine points of the dogma, it's over WHO GETS TO DECIDE what the dogma is. The disintermediation of "opinion news" is a critical blow to the self-appointed gatekeeper role of the MSM.

MSM pundits seem to smugly assume that they have some sort of god-given talent and are sole deservers of the right to opine and pontificate. Geez, all they have is a corporate job, for Christ's sake. Lots of people have corporate jobs. But suddenly total upstarts are getting on internet soapboxes and pontificating too! Without a license! And, what's even worse, many in the crowd actually prefer the amateurs. (I'm obviously not the only person who has noticed that some of the amateurs are more talented than some of the professionals.) You can't blame the latter for being demoralized ... and cranky.

Further, the priesthood, when challenged by heretics, first responds with smug disdain, then contempt and vilification, then panic and repression. I am somewhat encouraged by the fact that they seem to be entering the panic phase. But we have to be prepared to encounter some attempts at repression.

In my darker moments I'm afraid we may look back on this period as the Golden Age of the freedom of information.

Posted by: SFE on June 25, 2006 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think the MSM's opinion matters at all.

Posted by: Rich on June 25, 2006 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

One hundred forty five posts on this topic on this moderate site this afternoon.

The battle is already over. Broder and Brooks are simply "dead enders" trying to drum up an insurgency.

Political blogs, especially left leaning blogs, are providing a service long ignored by traditional media. What members of the the traditional media have to do is figure out what they have been doing wrong. They have to figure out exactly whose needs they haven't been serving. Assuming they care to serve the needs of the people they have been neglecting, they will then have to serve their needs in new and effective ways.

It might be that continuing to serve the people who invite them to cocktail parties is what they really want to do. If so papers will continue to shrink in size. Advertizing revenues will continue to decline. The blogs will continue their march to assendancy with the neglected audience.

Let me give members of the traditional media a hint. They have been focused on the conservative 1/3 of the electorate. They have been doing a piss poor job of addressing the needs of liberal or progressive Americans. Increasingly they have been neglecting the needs of independnts as well.

Posted by: Ron Byers on June 25, 2006 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

Joel
But you're a coward, because you could go, but would rather see others fight and die.

Three combat deployments (two to Iraq) and a few thousands of hours flying and 500+ carrier landings and been shot at plenty of times, but now I'm a coward.

Are you swiftboating me, Joel? Sounds like you are what you hate.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

Get this. There is no way to paint Bush's service as cowardice without painting the service of many ten's of thousands of other American's service as cowardice too. Period.

Sure there is, Mike. Bush flew fighter planes, and then chickened out of it. He welshed on his commitment to serve. He blew off a mandatory physical (which, of course, would include a drug screening), and then was grounded. He went AWOL by skipping off to Alabama. And he never reported to Guard duty in Massachusets, as his severance agreement stipulated.

And the beauty of it is, his own wervice record proves all this. Bush chickened out of flying those jets, and he blew off his service obligations. But you prefer to believe the lies about Kerry's Winter Soldier testimony -- no matter how many times you've been corrected -- and a comforting myth about Bush's service. And all you have to defend Bush is straw man arguments that misstate -- oh, hell, Mike, let's be honest -- lie about the points you can't refute honestly.

No one needs to criticize other vets -- although the cowardice of hiding behind those who served honorably is noted yet again -- in order to impugn Bush for his cowardice and dereliction of duty. His own service record indicts him. Shame on you for clinging to lies to justify your beleif in the myths fed you by the Republican cowards.

Posted by: Gregory on June 25, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

People read liberal blogs because in a world dominated by conservative media, they actually hear a differing point a view. No one forces David Brooks or David Broder to read li8beral blogs or take them seriously. Many progressives fed up with the servile press corp stop taking it and people like Mr. Brooks and Broder seriously long ago. As for the coordinated attacks on blogs it only means they see them as a threat. Burt Lance said it best, when talking about the new idea of a female VP and the attacks on Ferraro its the pioneers who take all the arrows.

Posted by: aline on June 25, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, leave for a few hours and the trolls take over. The hotter the smokescreen they throw up, the closer to making an important point you are.

Kevin @ 5:49 - I think you and I are on the same page (see my post at 1:31). The pundits-shape-conventional-wisdom paradigm is shifting rapidly, and their sweet-ass gravy train is in the process of being derailed and they're panicking.

I don't believe in addressing them directly (feeding them makes them stronger), but if you really want to rankle the conserva-trolls, you can even look at it from a market standpoint - if there wasn't demand for the "product", it wouldn't exist. How many new blogs are created every day?

Posted by: JB on June 25, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

"Are you swiftboating me, Joel? "

Heh.

You can dish it out but you can't take it?

Wussy.

Posted by: Joel on June 25, 2006 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory
Sure there is, Mike. Bush flew fighter planes, and then chickened out of it.

That's rich, coming from someone who (I assume) has exactly zero hours flying single seat jets, and exactly zero knowledge of what it takes courage-wise to do so. By your goofy reasoning, anyone who ever stops anything must be a coward, or they'd still be doing it.

As I have said throughout, but you and the rest of the ignorati choose to carefully ignore, you want to take pot shots at his record, at his performance as an officer? Have at it. Fair game. But calling the man a coward for "only" flying single seat fighters is just plain stupid. He has 650+ hours of flight time. Guys that chicken out don't wait that long to bail. Duh.

Shame on you for clinging to your uninformed lies about military service to justify your beliefs in the myths fed to you be liberal cowards that never even bothered to serve in the first place. A bunch of military haters. The only time you ever acknowledge the credibility of a veteran is when they're against a war. But of course it goes without saying they *must* be lying if they are for it, eh?

Yea, right.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

"But calling the man a coward for "only" flying single seat fighters is just plain stupid."

RSM scores another triumph in the war against straw!!

Nobody said Bush is a coward because of the number of chairs in his little airplane, RSM. We're saying Bushie is a coward because he supported the war in Vietnam, then when he had the chance to fly in Vietnam he turned it down.

All the soldiers who didn't support the war and who served elsewhere are not cowards. All the men who were opposed to the war and didn't serve are not cowards. Bush was a coward. Rove was a coward. Cheney was a coward. All your little buddies who are sending Amecans to Iraq to die in an occupation that has nothing to do with my freedom are cowards.

And you, sir, are a COWARD for not going to Iraq and for lying by saying you can't serve because you're too old.

Posted by: Joel on June 25, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

red state mike

You are a coward

andyou hide behind your keyboard


you haven't served and therefore should keep your mouth shut regarding democrats who have actually seen combat

your combat is confined to sitting there and hacking off at ann coulter's adam's apple

tell me where you live and i will put an Army recruiter in touch with you pronto

if you're under 42 you can serve

if you're older than you can volunteer

asshat redneck coward

Posted by: Maccabee on June 25, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

remember that stalinist chomskyite anarchist mark warner spoke at yearly kos and that kos and his zombie army have yet to go after hillary even though she's a strong suppporter of the gulf of tonkin resonlution

Posted by: benjoya on June 25, 2006 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

a mayor current false premise with MSM and even the "liberal" blogshere is to assume the status quo left right thing fromdays gone by. In fact many moderates and conservatives are frightened and opposed to bush and particularly the neocons. Even the Generals have come out agaist the neocons and the fucking moron Messianic President

Posted by: jimc on June 25, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

fat white guy


john kerry is a war hero

you are not

the only bleeding you've experienced is in your gums

Posted by: Maccabee on June 25, 2006 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

"Even the Generals have come out agaist the neocons and the fucking moron Messianic President"

But not our RSM. For him, our little chimpy can do no wrong. He flew an airplane with only one chair!!

Posted by: Joel on June 25, 2006 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

The reasopn I read liberal blogs, and the reason why my UID on DKos is #207 out of some 95,000 registered users is simple.

I started reading blogs a few years ago, and quickly sorted thenm out into readable and responsible, and, well, conservative. This is the reason why the liberal blogosphere has come from far behind to dominate the Internet, and why there is no reason to rail about the influence of the righty bloggers, because they have none.

The liberal blogs have a much better track record for accuracy than the conservative blogs. That is not to say that the left-side blogs never make errors, but they are far ahead of the right-siders who trumpeted the Bush lies about WMD and the need, THE NEED to invade Iraq IMMEDIATELY.

Sorry Kevin. I know you were on the wrong side of that one, and that is why DKos is higher on my list than PA.

The hatred on the conservative blogs is a turn-off, espoused in the desire to nuke the people who oppose them, and the lack of respect for due process and constitutional rights.

Plus, the liberals are MUCH better writers.

I am amused by all those hate-filled wingnuts who rail about DKos, because Markos has created something that will outlast him and which the conservatives could never match. Kos is but one of many who post on DKos, but it is the platform that he created that is his legacy, and the other contributors are as much a reason for the success of DKos as Markos is.

Anyone who doesn't like Kos care to offer an opinion as to why that blog has passed the conservative blogs like they were standing still, and sees five times the traffic of the biggest conservative blog?

Posted by: Repack Rider on June 25, 2006 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

Supersonic!!

Posted by: Joel on June 25, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

Maccabee, I look forward to hearing about your service in the military. Same for you, Joel. The Coast Guard needs a few good men, but maybe they'll take you instead. It'd be homeland defense, so you can suppress your simpering about having to risk your life for someone who doesn't look like you.

I've served with many democrats in the military. Them I respect. You I don't. They have credibility. You have none. They've served their country. You've only taken. Their actions speak volumes. You don't have shit to say and yet can't shut up. You purport to despise the swift vets, yet emulate them. Fucking hypocrites. You are what you hate. Chickenshit pussies. Both of you.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 25, 2006 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

What's with Kevin Drum today?

Is he sick?

Posted by: Hey Moe! Hey Larry! on June 25, 2006 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

They fear us because we are the 5th column, the reason for everything that is not right in their world. Our existence gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
They fear the questioning of their authority, they are suspicious of our motives. They fear us because we are organizing. They fear us because we are right and our idea's benefit the masses not the chosen few.

cue; wingnuts

Posted by: Neo the commissar on June 25, 2006 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

No self respecting aviator would ever spend time hacking off on a blog like this one, even if he had the party line cranial rectal inversion one red state mike claims. But, there is an orc employment relief act subsidized by the masters of the republican State, and red state mike fits the profile to a t. They are all the same, and aside from evil, boring.

Wants to serve but can't lets talk about clinton so I can keep it up asshole. And gets away with it here.

But when will you weenies stop swallowing whatever is shoved in your mouths by these scum? But, if the sanctity of the ban on intemperate language is to be upheld, maybe serfdom must be accepted. Priorities.

Posted by: razor on June 25, 2006 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

"The Coast Guard needs a few good men, but maybe they'll take you instead. It'd be homeland defense, so you can suppress your simpering about having to risk your life for someone who doesn't look like you."

I don't support invading and occupying countries that are no threat to me. You do.

"I've served with many democrats in the military. Them I respect. You I don't. They have credibility. You have none. They've served their country. You've only taken."

LOL! You don't know anything about me. You're just blowing smoke again.

"You don't have shit to say and yet can't shut up. You purport to despise the swift vets, yet emulate them. Fucking hypocrites. You are what you hate. Chickenshit pussies. Both of you."

Wow. Covered yourself in glory with that post, RSM. What a patriot.

You're nothing but a sissy pantywaist with anger issues. You're at the wrong site--try Little Green Footballs. They're more your size.

Heh.

Posted by: Joel on June 25, 2006 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, you are pathetic. Dan Rather had nothing to say about the fishy circumstances under which Bush stopped flying before his obligation was up. You can't face up to the fact that you got this wrong.

Moron

Lighten up Joel. You take yourself too seriously.

I'll explain this very clearly. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes investigated GWBs TANG history for 5 years. Danny Boy had nothing to say about the so-called fishy circumstances GWB stopped flying because there was nothing fishy there.

You can bet has he slinks off in his humiliation he wishes he found something. You can bet every moring when he wakes up and every night before he falls asleep he wished he found something. If he found something he would not have had to manufacture his 'evidence'. He could have retired to a parade of specials and a statium of gifts. Instead he only got a lump of coal and humiliation.

Trust me, Dan wishes he found something. Dan got it wrong. Powerline got it right. I got it right and 62M of my best buddies got it right. GWB is a two term President and Dan can at least take some satisfaction in helping that happen.

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, had to go away for a while.

Yes, Mike, W is indeed a fucking coward. Learning to fly (when he bothered to show up at all) commendable. But blowing off a year of his obligation? No, sir. Lying about it and having a family friend fix it for him? No sir. Deal with it Mike: W specifically requested NOT to be sent overseas. It's in the public record. John Kerry specifically requested duty in Vietnam. Also public record. W just didn't want risk his precious goddamned richboy neck. But he was pretty eager to see other people risk theirs. What the hell would you call it? I know goddamned well if the situation were reversed that you and every other rightwinger on this thread would be snarling about Kerry having no guts.

But Bush isn't just a coward for that. He's a coward because he never takes responsibility for anything. He's a coward because he's never succeeded on his own. Whenever he failed in business--which was every time--he just sucked off of his family's teat. He's a coward because he hides behind a vicious campaign apparatus that smears the patriotism of anyone who runs against him, including John McCain, who was being tortured by the Communists while Bush was jamming cocaine up his nose. He's a coward because he praises other peoples' service out of one side of his mouth while giving the orders to stab them out of the other. He's a coward because he's not man enough to question the patriotism of others to their faces. He has dishonest, lying con artists like Rove do it for him. He's a gutless, incompetent coward who fucks one thing up after another and always tries to avoid taking any blame for it. So do you read me loud and clear, Red State Mike? Bush is a gutless, fucking coward, an overgrown adolescent and a dry drunk who never confronted the reasons for his alcoholism. He lets others do his dirty work for him, and he always has--including the dirty work of getting shot at in Vietnam.

Posted by: Joe on June 25, 2006 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

RSM:

Everyone knows that the chances of seeing combat in Viet Nam was nil if you were in the Guard, which was why so many privileged children jumped in line ahead of regular folks to get into the Guard. I also have read that the type of plane Dubya flew was not even seeing action in Viet Nam at the time he was flying them.

Because George Bush made the effort to get into the Guard, where he knew there was no chance of seeing combat, instead of standing for the draft, makes him a coward and a hypocrite. And your arguing otherwise makes you a fucking liar.

Posted by: brewmn on June 25, 2006 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Bush ran away from the TANG because he was so full of cocaine he was peeing white flakes in 1972. His National Guard files were sanitized in the 1990's before he ran for governor of Texas. It's well known. The Bush family has always hid behind their name. I wonder if the media would have ignored it, if Bill Clinton's grandfather was one of Adolf Hitler's financiers, the way they ignored the fact that Prescott Bush, Dubya's grandfather was.

Quick question for you - How many times has George W. Bush been arrested? HINT: It's more than three and he has the longest criminal rap sheet of any president in history. Oh, by the way, Bill Clinton has never been arrested. Have a nice night. Ta ta.

Stephen Kriz

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 25, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

joel,

You logic regarding chickenhawks is silly. You would also be describing Lincoln, Wilson, FDR and that great patriot, Slick Willie. I suspect you'd also be describing your mommy although maybe she did wear combat boots.

More important, it does not matter. We live in a democracy. Each of us gets a vote. Not each war vet. Each of us. Your mommy, even if she didn't wear combat boots, gets the same vote as that great war hero, John Kerry. You don't have to like it and you can complain 24 x 7. But you can't do anything about it.

The neat thing about GWB and Dick Cheney is they don't suffer fools. It's why they were elected. You might think they're chickenhawks and every Frenchmen might agree but none of that matters. GWB is going to do what he is going to do. 59M liberals can whine and they could be joined by 59M Frenchmen. It would make absolutely no difference.

Go ahead and let off some steam. It's harmless.

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

How many times has George W. Bush been arrested? HINT: It's more than three and he has the longest criminal rap sheet of any president in history. Oh, by the way, Bill Clinton has never been arrested. Have a nice night

I have no idea how many times GWB has been arrested or Slick Willie nor do I care. But I do know how many times Clinton has been impeached and how many times he agreed to surrender his law license. I used to know how many pardons he sold but all I can remember now is it was over 100. I never did know just how many times he met with his young, unemployed, chubby dreamgirl.

I will admit GWBs legacy will be a tad boring compared to Bills but I'm sure Bill would like to change places.

See ya!

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

Aren't Political Animal and Daily Kos really two separate types of blogs? I think Kevin Drum is pretty level headed and while certainly having a liberal bias and not enjoying the Bush Presidency the analysis over shadows the emotion while at Daily Kos the emotion overshadows the analysis. In this respect he is in the same league of media as Rush Limbaugh. I'll say that I do think Daily Kos exposes the truth and for the most part prints the truth and promotes ideas I believe in, however the emotion is thick and if the ideas aren't your bag of tea the emotions are all that you can really see.

Posted by: Christopher Erin on June 25, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

The neat thing about GWB and Dick Cheney is they don't suffer fools. It's why they were elected.

Elected? Here and I thought it was because "daddy's" Supreme Court picks decided to end the FL vote audits early and install Bush Jr. before the final tally could be confirmed.

Posted by: Thumb on June 25, 2006 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Bush's legacy will be a good bit more pathetic than Bill's, I'm afraid. As far as impeachment, Clinton was impeached because the Republicans could - not because it was warranted. The converse of Bush, but a lot can happen in two years.

Toodles.

SK

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 25, 2006 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK

Karl Rove must be pleased? Who says he didn't play a role in much of this? MCMer's do seem to do a good job of regurgitating WH and RNC talking points.

And Bobo doesn't do things that aren't part of the overall RNC/BushCo plan.

Posted by: jawbone, aka Rabid Lamb with Venomous Fangs on June 25, 2006 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINK

W specifically requested NOT to be sent overseas. It's in the public record. John Kerry specifically requested duty in Vietnam. Also public record.

Here's something else in the public record. GWB is a two-term President. John Kerry is a Putz. Moreover GWB has been a transformative, not a transitional President. Besides appointing Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court, Rumsfeld at Defense, Bolton to the UN GWB has totally re-oriented foreign policy away from Western Europe toward Asia.

BTW: GWB did not request not to be sent to Vietnam. John Kerry deserves much credit for his service. He also deserves the scorn he's received for him embellishments, lies and the smear campaign he ran against his fellow vets.

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

Hhhmmm, I often go to DailyKos to find write-ups that have been researched to a fare-thee-well.

I, as one Rabid Lamb, appreciate the hard work the posters, diarists, and even commenters do on that blog.

Posted by: jawbone, aka Rabid Lamb with Venoumous Fangs on June 25, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

You are what you hate. Chickenshit pussies. Both of you.
Posted by: Red State Mike

Therefore you are a LIBERAL CHICKEN SHIT PUSSY

heeheeheeheeheeheeheehee

Posted by: someOtherClown on June 25, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, no one has the right to call Red State Mike a coward. If he indeed has the military service record that he says he has, and I have no reason to doubt it, he has my respect. But damn it, Mike, what will it take for you to see what a disaster Bush is? His administration manipulates the intel that sells the Iraq War. The civilians in the Pentagon blow off the military's manpower estimates. The occupation has been bungled almost beyond belief. The Taliban is starting to resurrect in Afghanistan. Bin Laden remains uncaptured, Iraq is in virtual civil war, we've been reduced to using hideous and immoral interrogation techniques, and on top of it all, a recent study showed that 80% of Marine deaths in Iraq were caused in part by the lousy body armor Rumsfeld has been procuring. (The late Col. Hackett's site had the story.) And to add insult to injury, Bush is weakening the Veteran's Administration.

You're a soldier, Mike. These guys running the country aren't. They fucked up and now they're trying to figure out how to blame it on everybody else. (Tommy Franks was so disheartened by these clowns that he had to step down just to preserve his dignity.) I started out as a War Democrat, and then, as every rationale for the war was proved a lie, I turned against it. I don't like being made to look foolish. I'll never trust that SOB Bush again, and I can't figure why you do. Yes, I'm 100% in support of the troops. I want them to have EVERYTHING they could possibly need. But it's time to rethink this whole mess. That doesn't make those who are anti-war anti-soldier. That is NOT the same thing.

Posted by: Joe on June 25, 2006 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

Just read Al's post at 1:06pm--thought the writer was doing a full blown parody--until I saw the name.

Tee hee.

Posted by: jawbone, aka Rabid Lamb with Venoumous Fangs on June 25, 2006 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINK

Here and I thought it was because "daddy's" Supreme Court picks decided to end the FL vote audits early and install Bush Jr. before the final tally could be confirmed.

Not much on history are you? David Souter did not vote with the majority in the 5-4 vote. He was one of Daddy's picks.

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

I am a liberal, and I am most definately not a troll. I almost always disagree with rdw and Red State Mike.

Joel, on this one you are way out of line. GWB flew jets in the Air National Guard. He had about 650 hours flight time. That record indicates that he was not a physical coward. Instead his lapses were moral and ethical. From all accounts he suffers (or suffered)from the adverse affects of cocaine and alcohol. He is said to have knocked up some little society girl who his family paid to have an abortion. I suspect he has any number of psychological problems associated with being compared to his daddy. I have heard that his mother never let him grow up, and covered his ass at every turn. He seems to have problems related to being a momma's boy.

Apparently he ran from the Air National Guard because he couldn't pass his flight physical. Not even the TANG wants pilots who are abusers of cocaine flying their aircraft. Not running from the TANG would have brought shame to his family--his mother in particular.

He has always surrounded himself with strong female care givers. Look at his personal confidants. Laura, of course, is number one, but there is Condi as well. Harriet Meyers is also one of those mother figures. Karen Hughes comes to mind as well. All of them provide him with female care givers. Some say real and office wives. I would suggest they represent his mother.

As to Red State Mike. If he has the record he claims (always a crap shoot amoung people like you and him who refuse to identify yourselves -- apparently so there is no accountability for your comments) calling him a coward is misplaced. A fool no doubt. A lacky without question. A coward, well no.

Now why did you let Mike divert your attention?

Posted by: Ron Byers on June 25, 2006 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, on Bush's service record there is a box he checked which specifically requests exemption for the applicant from overseas service. I'll try and dig up the actual graphic for you if you don't believe me.

We'll see just how "transformative" Bush turns out to be. And BTW, being "re-elected" doesn't mean you're right. Clinton was reelected with 379 electoral votes (as opposed to 286 for W, the weakest incumbent performance since 1916), and the Dems gained Congressional seats in 96, 98, and 2000. (Not to mention the fact that in 2000 the Dems whipped you in the popular vote for the third straight time.) Was he "right" in your eyes?

Posted by: Joe on June 25, 2006 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

As far as impeachment, Clinton was impeached because the Republicans could - not because it was warranted. The converse of Bush, but a lot can happen in two years.

Slick Willie was impeached because he lied under oath in front of a judge in a hearing. We know this because Bill said so when he agreed to surrender his law license and pay a fine.

GWB will not be impeached. He's no Bill Clinton. He's not anything like Bill Clinton. Bill was/is one strange dude. I have no idea what Monica was about but it had nothing to do with sex.

Posted by: rdw on June 25, 2006 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

What? David Brooks is mad at liberal bloggers? Now really, should we be suprised? Everybody knows to be a liberal today is to be in the position of "can't win for losin'".

David Brooks is an ass. Don't let it bother you in the slightest.

Blog on, K. Drum!

Posted by: bobbyp on June 25, 2006 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

GWB will not be impeached. He's no Bill Clinton. He's not anything like Bill Clinton

Your right gwb is da worst president ever nothing like Bill.

What are curious georges numbers at this week broke into the 20's yet?

Posted by: allen kayda on June 25, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

it's still the economy stupid:

unemployment links

the blogs are just a distraction typical karl stuff

Posted by: folks on June 25, 2006 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

Ill see our excellent post, SFE, and Ill raise you one. Im not in the least concerned for our freedoms. No one can control information anymore. Back around 1935 the MSM decided Roosevelts disabilities shouldnt be talked about and so they werent. Around 1964 they decided Kennedys infidelities shouldnt be talked about and so they werent. The potential danger from a moribund MSM is greater today but the new media is up the task. Trying to keep the lid on the these guys is like trying to put an oil gusher back in the ground.

Not just the blogs, cable is doing its share. Stewart, Maher, Colbert, those men are something never seen before: brilliant commentators who are also witty, and terrifically entertaining. When the Bushies read that 50% of college kids watch Jon Stewart they must have regurgitated their 3 martini lunches.

The trend lines are all in our direction. As the emerging Republican majority was happening, there were many defections from the Dems to the Repugs. Now it is just the reverse, including even the man who coined that memorable phrase.

Posted by: James of DC on June 25, 2006 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, it's been a long time since I trolled through the comments section on your site, Kevin, and I have to say you get some real loonies in here. Ick. How can you wade through all this mire?

Anyway, my point is that I think all this is just a Rove tactic. Nobody mentions the real fascists in Freeper Land or LGFootballs. Or Limbaugh spewing his hatred on talk radio. I mean, we just accept the propaganda coming out of Fox news as normal. Why pick on blogs?

Because they can't be controlled and because they stand to wield some real power come November. Who cares what TNR thinks? They lost their credibility a long time ago. And Broder/Brooks? Come on, those guys are highly paid mouth pieces (voice of Sauron comes to mind).

It ain't gonna be pretty because elections these days ain't pretty. Stay focused.

Posted by: billyblazer on June 25, 2006 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINK

Thumbs up billyblazer

more econ stuff
housing links

Posted by: folks on June 25, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

We'll see just how "transformative" Bush turns out to be

This isn't questioned. The changes are dramatic and they're permanent. Besides Alito and Roberts GWB has been outstanding regarding judicial appointments at all levels with highly qualified conservatives. We've already seen a significant change in court decisions. The work Rumsfeld has done regarding transforming the military has been overwhelmed by the GWOT but is dramatic. More impressive has been the change in foreign policy especially with Israel, Japan, India, Pakistan, Australia, Western Europe and Canada.

Rumsfeld's statement that we will form coalitions around the mission rather than allow coalitions decide the mission is a critical and dramatic change. This signaled the end of NATO as we knew it and the effective nullification of the UN. It also signalled the shift toward Asia where alliances for the GWOT are more valuable.

Another significant event is the rebounding economy after the 06/03 supply-side tax cuts. Although not path breaking in the sense of Regeans cuts they further reinforce the fact supply-side economics is the dominant theory. Bill Clinton ran on supply-side tax cuts. Al Gore eventually offered tax cuts and Kerry was careful not to offer rolling back the middle class tax cuts.

The GWOT trumps all this. The fact is the USA has changed dramatically more than anytime in several decades. One of the reasons Clintons scandals will be so visible is not much else happened. There's no Clinton legacy.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK

The changes are dramatic and they're permanent

You must mean all those foreclosure signs in my neighborhood

Posted by: kohyt on June 26, 2006 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

What are curious georges numbers at this week broke into the 20's yet?

Just like a liberal to live by polls. Saves thinking doesn't it? I'm not quite sure GWB's polls are helping liberals much. Watching the Senate Democrats last week was a laugh. They're helpless.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

You must mean all those foreclosure signs in my neighborhood

In the middle of the greatest housing boom in American history amid record levels of home ownership? You should move.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

Watching the Senate Democrats last week was a laugh. They're helpless.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK
and yet little georges numbers fall, I guess these people don't vote on the plus side enlistment age is up to 42.

Posted by: folks on June 26, 2006 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

1983, economist Victor Canto, a disciple of Arthur Laffer, published The Foundations of Supply-Side Economics. This theory focuses on the effects of marginal tax rates on the incentive to work and save, which affect the growth of the "supply side" or what Keynesians call potential output. While the latter focus on changes in the rate of supply-side growth in the long run, the "new" supply-siders often promised short-term results.

Hey this supply miracle is working national saving rate is negative and laborforce participation rates are down....... go team george

Posted by: folks on June 26, 2006 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

rdw,
You're everything that's wrong in the World Today.

Posted by: Nemesis on June 26, 2006 at 12:35 AM | PERMALINK

rdw, time to go up on your meds. Reality perception just isn't your strong point. I'm afraid the delusions and paranoia have gotten out of hand.

Posted by: rdw's Psychiatrist on June 26, 2006 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINK

who's more honest

caution extreme wingnut site tons of spyware

Posted by: kohyt on June 26, 2006 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

Where is Kevin Drum??

Posted by: Hey Moe! Hey Larry! on June 26, 2006 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

at Daily Kos the emotion overshadows the analysis.

Don't read it much, do you?

Posted by: Repack Rider on June 26, 2006 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

Came in to the tail end of the discussion and missed virtually all of it -- which is probably a blessing considering the dribblings I did see at the end of this thread (hi, Wooten! All *cough* "primed" for interest rate hikes every time the Fed convenes for as far as the eye can see? :) FWIW (and it may not be much), here are my observations about blogs:

As a veteran Deaniac and BlogForAmerica mainstay during the campaign, I can say that we learned the hard way about confusing an echo chamber of the like-minded with the wider political world. This has nothing whatsoever to do with ideology; it simply comes with the turf. Right-wingers lost on Social Security deform and they're on the verge of losing immigration because they make the same mistake everyone accuses of left blogistan -- confusing partisan fervor with broad support. Win in the 'burbs this year? Lose Hispanics for a generation. Karl Rove at least is intelligent enough to realize that.

I'm unfamiliar with the current Kos Kontroversy -- and to be perfectly honest, I'm profoundly uninterested in it. On the Dean blog, I found all the Kos fetishism kind of mildly sickening; I read linked Kos posts sparingly, only if it was essential to the topic at hand. The Dean regulars who also posted on Kos disgusted me with their incessant "Hey, if you recommend my Kos post, I'll recommend yours!" It really did seem like the worst sort of in-crowd clubhouse. I never dissed Kos on BFA, but I strenuously avoided paying attention to it.

We had a genuine troll/DoS attack problem on DFA (the trolls here are merely entertaining) which eventually led to registration, and always a lot of quarrelling over the proper role of moderation. Many Dean regulars wanted BFA to adopt the Kos ratings system, as a form of community-based moderation. I really think that's about the single worst innovation a political blog could ever adapt, because it facilitates *internalizing* groupthink in the worst way. At least with a heavy-handed moderator, you can get pissed at an individual. But If you want your comments to remain cited on Kos' first page, you make damn well sure never to challenge the Kos-ventional wisdom.

Not that I have a problem (lords know) with a left-wing blog specifically dedicated to tactical Democratic victories. But I do think something is lost if you don't allow contrary opinions to get in the mix -- even if they're just assinine trollish talking-point regurgitation. Learning how to parry them effectively is an essential political skill.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 26, 2006 at 1:41 AM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike said: "I have served. I fought in Iraq in 91, in Kosovo, and in the no-fly zone in Southern Watch. I'm frankly too senior to go over now. They don't need old guys."

Red State Mike,
I probably disagree with you on almost everything, but no one with your service record could be a coward. You have more than done your share and I thank you for it.

Posted by: kevin_r on June 26, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

Good thread.

It seems to me the most significant question is whether Kos and company will help or hurt the democrat party this election. I think they probably hurt because they reinforce the democrat image as liberal and soft on terrorism, and associated with the vehement hate Bush crowd -- all of which hurts democrats with swing voters/independents.

I think the effect is even worse if they succeed in dumping Lieberman. He is the well known and pretty well liked democrat vp candidate from six years ago. His dumping will be noticed and disapproved of by most swing/independent voters and, if the republicans are smart and place him in some significant position, then the message will be repeated continuously.

Posted by: brian on June 26, 2006 at 3:28 AM | PERMALINK

brian:

> It seems to me the most significant question is whether Kos and
> company will help or hurt the democrat party this election.

And what's most significant here is that your use of a certain
noun as an adjective demonstrates that you hold nothing but
malice towards the *ahem* DemocratIC Party, so your "advice"
here to us will be taken for what it's *cough* worth.

> I think they probably hurt because they reinforce the democrat
> image as liberal and soft on terrorism, and associated with the
> vehement hate Bush crowd -- all of which hurts democrats with
> swing voters/independents.

The technical term for this is unmitigated bullshit. It's a
standard-issue GOP tactical meme, though -- attempting to provoke
a fight between moderates and the Democratic base. But as a
*principle* it's totally meaningless. How many rabid haters are
there out there who thrill to Ann Coulter's "raghead" screeds, who
listen to ClearChannel every day, get all their news from Fox and
want to arrest priests and paramedics for giving aid to illegals?
How do you think *those* people look to swing voters/independents, eh?

Like, umm, unhinged right-wing fanatics, maybe? Shouldn't you be
*at least* as concerned with all their undue influence in the GOP?

You're not, obviously. You're only playing the game of trying
to make the Democrats feel embarrassed at their most passionate
supporters -- something which the Republicans *never* do, no
matter how insanely uncompromising their loudest voices tend to be.

The problem with the Kossacks is a an inflated sense of influence,
not the existence of a (gasp!) strong current of Dem partisanship.

> I think the effect is even worse if
> they succeed in dumping Lieberman.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'm really angry
with Lieberdude for all his strident support for the war -- and I
don't much appreciate his self-appointed role as the Democrats'
National Noodge on morality issues. On the other, though, Joe has
a very good voting record on some issues I care strongly about --
especially the environment -- and he has valuable seniority.

This is probably not a fight I would have picked. But I don't live
in Connecticut, either -- and it's up to those voters to decide.

It's hugely unlikely that Joe will get picked off in the primary --
and everything I know of his opponent tells me that he won't spoil
it by running as an independent in the general. But I don't think
this is quite the intent. If Joe's rival gets 20 or 30% in what should
have been an uncontested walk, that would be enough to send a strong
message to national Dems about the unpopularity of the Iraq war.

> He is the well known and pretty well liked democrat vp candidate
> from six years ago. His dumping will be noticed and disapproved
> of by most swing/independent voters and, if the republicans
> are smart and place him in some significant position,
> then the message will be repeated continuously.

1) His "dumping" -- and it's not exactly likely -- if it happens,
will be the result of Democratic primary voters in Connecticut
reacting to what is apparently a fairly inept campaign (e.g. that
idiot "little bear" commercial) by a guy who should know better.

2) Republicans aren't in a position to "place"
Lieberman anywhere, significant or otherwise.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 26, 2006 at 4:21 AM | PERMALINK

As I have said throughout, but you and the rest of the ignorati choose to carefully ignore, you want to take pot shots at his record, at his performance as an officer? Have at it. Fair game.

As I have said throughout, Mike, but you choose to carefully ignore, it's exactly Bush's own record and performance as an officer -- and as a Commander in Chief, for that matter -- that is being criticized, and you keep pretending that doing so is criticizing military men in general.

Bush's record speaks for itself, Mike. Whatever courage it may have taken to fly fighter jets at one time, Bush quit doing it, long before his commitment to keep flying was up. I am calling Bush a coward for chickening out of flying. (Going AWOL was, of course, just icing on the cake, and of course his continuation of the Republican tradition of hiding behind the genuine honor of those who have legitimately served is ample evidence of his continued cowardice.) You may find his record admirable, but then you're on record as clinging to falsehoods about both Bush and Kerry, so your admiration simply parralels rdw's flights of fancy as preferring comfortable myths over the unflattering truth.

Posted by: Gregory on June 26, 2006 at 6:04 AM | PERMALINK

Funny how this assault on us followed Rove's criticisms that our blogs just spread hate. They all seem to be taking marching orders from him.

The real source of resentment is that we have pointed out the lack of professionalism in the MSM.

Posted by: bob h on June 26, 2006 at 7:29 AM | PERMALINK

This is an easy one...when you look at folks like Broder and Brooks and their ilk what gets them frothing at the mouth is threats to their paychecks...I believe what they're reading (IF they are doing any actual research) is comments on liberal blogs (what happened to the wingnuts on right wing blogs - guess they don't exist for these fine folks) not the meat of the various venues. And, we certainly have our fine lists of crazies...but this isn't about their concerns for WHAT is said...it's that it CAN be said and isn't being said by them!

Posted by: Dancer on June 26, 2006 at 7:47 AM | PERMALINK

I used to work in news when it actually had some news content. What they have on now is all car chases, overturned trucks, celebrity marriages, and during sweeps periods some "expose" type story which is usually nothing.

Don't forget the people who compose the MSM are not what they used to be. They are beautiful and rich. They are not hard-bitten newspaper reporters who came up from the streets and were in touch with the people, for the most part.

I don't know what role or influence blogs will have. However, I discovered something last week that gives me pause to ever post again (which is rare, anyhow). That is that some blogs start to spam you. Huffington Post is sending me Daily Briefings and I never commented there in my life!
I guess just being there or having some acquaintance with it was enough.

Every day.. new spam. Can't unsubscribe, can get no reply from them.

Now, if blogs are going to do *that*, I guarantee they will wain as readers become disgusted. Or is Karl Rove the one sending me spam that SEEMS to come from Huffington Post?

Or do we need a blog "do not call" list?

Anyhow, HuffPo goes directly into my trash.

I hope this is not the future of blogging, because if it is, I'd say it's pretty dim, in more ways than one.

Posted by: Clem on June 26, 2006 at 7:49 AM | PERMALINK

I'd like to thank Red State Mike for an able demonstration of what Kevin was referring to by the phrase "Spittle-flecked loons." Very convincing and memorable!

Posted by: Joel on June 26, 2006 at 8:18 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

a set of people that have been fairly universally opposed to liberal thought for at least the past ten years, and have been quite willing to indulge any slander that was generated by right-wing neo-cons is now upset that the people who oppose their policies, known formerly as The Left, have found a venue for expressing their anger in blogs that was denied to them in radio, TV, or the print media for as long as I can remember.

It doesn't surprise me that this set of people, aka the Right-Wing Media, has chosen to denigrate their opposition. What surprises me is that you buy into the nonsense. Though, given your past history of preferring "seeming moderate" as a goal of your blog over "coherent analysis", it doesn't surprise me very much.

The past two sentences strike me as particularly dim: '"Spittle-flecked loons" seems likely to become the new media CW. Karl Rove must be pleased.'

Considering he's probably behind the anti-blog campaign, I would guess that he is pleased to reel a sucker like you.

Posted by: RickD on June 26, 2006 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

OK, that's what I get for posting after a few beers. They make great spittle. Having Joel lecture to me about military service would be like having him lecture Chrissy on the pain of childbirth. Caveat emptor...

Ron Byers
Joel, on this one you are way out of line. GWB flew jets in the Air National Guard. He had about 650 hours flight time. That record indicates that he was not a physical coward.

My point exactly.

As to Red State Mike. ...A lacky without question. A coward, well no.

I'll take that as a compliment.

Gregory
Bush's record speaks for itself, Mike. Whatever courage it may have taken to fly fighter jets at one time, Bush quit doing it, long before his commitment to keep flying was up. I am calling Bush a coward for chickening out of flying.

You're abusing the definition of the word "coward", Gregory. He was not a physical coward. Period. There were son many cush ground jobs he could have had, yet took the most dangerous Guard job there was.

I've looked at Bush's record, and don't approve of it but understand it. Viet Nam winding down, squadron switching missions and aircraft, It was post-war and the military was winding down. Time to move on. The only thing he was flying when he didn't get his flight physical was a desk. Alabama didn't have F-102s.

There's a reason why he didn't go up to the podium at the convention and highlight his military career. You and Bush appear to be in agreement on the stellar-ness of his service.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 26, 2006 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

What's up with Kevin Drum?

Posted by: Hey Moe! Hey Larry! on June 26, 2006 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I don't think this is necessarily a bad turn. I think it's a natural progression. Bloggers are experiencing a faster version of what gays and other marginalized groups have experienced. As Gandhi is said to have pointed out, "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." They're fighting us now.

Posted by: PerryS on June 26, 2006 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

Let me get this straight - people (who are voters, btw) on liberal blogs express their earnest frustration with our current government, while Ann Coulter savages and slanders the 9/11 widows on the freakin' Today Show...but the wrath of the punditocracy gets clearly directed at the voters, and not at her? She isn't characterized as the obvious spittle-flecked loon?

And Kevin is OK with this?

Posted by: Irony Man on June 26, 2006 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

There were son many cush ground jobs he could have had, yet took the most dangerous Guard job there was

...and, again, chickened out of it. Heck, Mike, even before he bailed ouf of flying altogether, he stopped flying the single-seat fighters and was restricted to two-seat trainers, where someone could be there to hold his hand.

Yes, yes, you run through the same tired excuses offered by the dishonest Bush defenders -- but, again, I repeat myself. But none of those excuses justify the manner in which he stopped flying -- skipping a required physical, getting himself grounded as a disciplinary action, going AWOL by skipping off to Alabama, and then blowing off reporting for duty as was required in his severance agreement.

"Time to move on?" What a joke. Bush shirked his obligations, just as he did in his failed businesses, just as he did in ignoring the warnings of al Qaeda's plans, and just as he is doing in sticking to his failed policies. Bush is not just a coward, Mike, he's a quitter. Your professed admiration and excusal of the myth of Bush, coupled with your shameful condoning and repeating of the utterly false smears of Kerry, marks you down as nothing more than a reflexive Republican apologist, and an enabler of a coward who hides behind the service of honorable soldiers to dodge criticism of his own failed policies -- just as Nixon did before him, even though he -- Nixon! -- dared not smear Kerry's heroism.

Pretty lame, Mike, and hardly honorable.

Posted by: Gregory on June 26, 2006 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory,

I do not profess admiration for Bush, and pretty much care less about what is said about him. The only time I ever get rankled and start spittle-flecting on this site is when people make accusations that catch veterans or current military in their crossfire in order to get at Bush or defend Kerry. The ignorance that people have on this site towards the military is amazing. Lack of knowledge makes you easily manipulated by your moveon.org and liberal left wing overlords. For example, the idea that someone who's never flown a jet has something useful to say about the courage required to fly one is kind of ludicrous.

So take your shots at Bush. Call him a failed businessman cocaine swilling womanizing whatever all you want. But if you think I'll sit back quietly and have you slag honorable members of the military in your need to get at Bush...nope.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 26, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

...mostly juvenile and mostly devoid of any serious thinking.

brian thinks he's describing the "DailyKos left" - but he's just saying the same thing people have always said when average, normal people start getting active in politics. The uppity-ups said it about workers in the 19th century, they've continued saying it about unions for a century, they said it about civil rights rank-and-file, they say it about every person with a family who decides they deserve a say.

To those defending the status quo, when an average, working man or woman speaks up, it's always "mostly juvenile and mostly devoid of any serious thinking." Of course it is. You just keep telling yourself that.

Posted by: Adam Piontek on June 26, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory,

Kerry cut his service commitment short too -- as did thousands of "honorably discharged" members of the military -- they all "chickened out" as well? That means Kerry is also not just a coward, he's a quitter -- using your logic. I will stick with Mike and not call either a "coward".

Posted by: John on June 26, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK


rsm: I'm frankly too senior to go over now. They don't need old guys.


thanks for your service...but i think you under-estimate the need...for bodies in the service..


For the 2nd straight year, The U.S. Army has raised its maximum enlistment age in order to make its recruiting goals amid the Iraq war. Now you can be 42 and still volunteer.

Meanwhile, the Army Reserve predicted it will miss its recruiting target for a 2nd straight year. - 6/21/06


"The Army spent approximately $426 million on reenlistment bonuses in fiscal year 2005 or almost 8-times more than its budgeted amount to meet its retention goals." - gao.gov


also...

in October-2005, the Army had such a hard time filling its slots that 12-percent of that month's active-duty recruits were Category IV.

Category IV recruits = applicants who score in the lowest third on the armed forces aptitude test.

f...y...i..

For the past 20-years, that number was kept at..LESS THAN 3%


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 26, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

I wouldn't be so concerned. It's clear that the
contempt they are showing is for liberal bloggers only. When the day comes that they show contempt equally for bloggers at every point along the political spectrum, from far right to far left, that's the day when I would become concerned.

Posted by: daniel sachs on June 26, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Watching the Senate Democrats last week was a laugh.

Yes watching the Feingold resolution that is EXACTLY what General Casey is now proposing be voted down by all those Senate Republicans was pretty funny.

Posted by: ckelly on June 26, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

and yet little georges numbers fall, I guess these people don't vote on the plus side enlistment age is up to 42.


Too bad GWB doesn't run again. He's kicked your ass 4 times now. Just like a lib to think the 5th time's the charm when there won't be a 5th time.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

"the blogs I have scanned are heavier on vituperation of President Bush and other targets than on creative thought."

False option. Next?

Brooks, you're a lightweight.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on June 26, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

W didn't win either election

they were both stolen

because rethuglicans can't win unless they cheat

btw

W is a coward who hid behind his daddy's skirts

and a failure at everything except cheating

now shut the fuck up and go back to whacking off at man coulter's adam's apple

Posted by: Maccabee on June 26, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Yes watching the Feingold resolution that is EXACTLY what General Casey is now proposing be voted down by all those Senate Republicans was pretty funny

Except Casey's plan has been in the works for over a year and was based on the training sequence of the Iraqi military as well as the political formation of their government.

Feingold is a joke but he's a good joke. He can only move your party further left. It is my fervent hope his candidacy is successful in this regard. You can't have too many moonbats getting headlines.

Has anyone noticed some of the news from the Surpeme Court? GWB is having real influence. This is not O'Connors court.

WASHINGTON (AP) _ New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito broke a tie Monday to rule that Kansas' death penalty law is constitutional.
By a 5-to-4 vote, the justices said the Kansas Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment to strike down the state's death penalty statute.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

>... [DailyKos] is mostly juvenile and mostly devoid of any serious thinking.

Then how come none of the writers there have gotten offered a perch on the op-ed page of the Washington Post?

Posted by: TK on June 26, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin,
The three blogs I read (somewhat regularly) are Political animal, Talkingpointsmemo, and Sullivan. Several other "liberal" political blogs I have glanced at do seem to be involved in an unnecessary amount of politicking and seem to be short on ideas that are party-independent. The thing important to guard against (and I'm not sure how) is to have all liberal-leaning blogs lumped together. Some are better than others at discussing substantive issues.
Ravi

Posted by: Ravi on June 26, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

"So I don't much care what a couple of non-serving whiney lefties like you think about me or my service."

Heh. Mutual, I'm sure.

Posted by: Joel on June 26, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

kohyt: You must mean all those foreclosure signs in my neighborhood


sure enough..

RealtyTrac, an organization that maintains a nationwide database of foreclosures, says mortgage defaults between January & March 2006 numbered 323,102 compared with 188,122 for the same period last year a 72-percent increase.

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 26, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

I wouldn't be so concerned. It's clear that the
contempt they are showing is for liberal bloggers only. When the day comes that they show contempt equally for bloggers at every point along the political spectrum, from far right to far left, that's the day when I would become concerned.

Actually, that concerns me more. Since now it seems like the media is trying to marginalize liberal voices in what seems like the last medium people allow it purchase, while giving the right, with it's luminaries like Powerline, Instapundip, Free Republic, etc. a free pass.

It's another SCLM smokescreen to eliminate liberal thought from circulation it seems.

Posted by: Kryptik on June 26, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

萍乡编织袋专业生产塑料编织袋

Posted by: 萍乡编织袋 on June 26, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

Since now it seems like the media is trying to marginalize liberal voices in what seems like the last medium people allow it purchase, while giving the right, with it's luminaries like Powerline, Instapundip, Free Republic, etc. a free pass.

Why are lefties so sensitive? You like to dish it out but you can't take it. Brooks has identified the bloggers with BDS. That's Bush Derangement Syndrome. They're gone crazy. Meanwhile bloggers like Powerline keep their feet on the ground and stick with the facts. That's how Powerline destroyed Dan Rather and probably did more to expose the Xmas in Cambodia fraud than anyone else.

Just today they added a post with links showing the unraveling of the Haditha story as originally reported by Time Magazine. They've already issued two corrections showing their sourcing wasn't nearly as sound as ethics would 'seem' to require and we may in fact be seeing another Rather-grade hoax.

The secret on the right is reality based reporting.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

手机双卡通

Posted by: 塑料编织袋 on June 26, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Maccabee,

You have a very bad case of BDS. Not to worry. You only have 2 1/2 more years of misery.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Thank you.

I'll have the moo shu pork and a Tsingdow. Some chopsticks would be nice, too.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 26, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

the idea that someone who's never flown a jet has something useful to say about the courage required to fly one is kind of ludicrous

Nice try, Mike, but the problem is your touting the courage it took Bush to fly jets just damns his coawardice in chickening out of doing so. Sure, he did something that took physical courage. But his service record shows that he stopped doing that very thing, and under questionable circumstances. The more you tout his so-called courage, the worse Bush's failure to fulfill his commitment looks.

Meanwhile, I utterly reject your claim that it takes any kind of special qualification to look at Bush's service record -- for example, that he was restricted from the single-seat fighters to two-seat trainers -- and draw the obvious (to anyone but Bush cultists like yourself) conclusions.

But if you think I'll sit back quietly and have you slag honorable members of the military in your need to get at Bush...nope.

The only one of us who slags honorable members of the military (Bush, of course, having exempted himself by his dereliction of duty) is you, Mike, in your perpetuating the baseless smears of Kerry. As I've said repeatedly, Bush's cowardice is his own, and applies to no one but him. (By the way, you also have to love Bush's phony claim in his 2000 campaign biography that he fliew with his unit for "several years" -- unless "several" has a defenition of "less than two" of which I was previously unaware.)

(To briefly address one of your other straw men, the fact that not all Vietnam-era service members did in fact serve in Vietnam does not at all reflect poorly on them; as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the fact that Bush forcefully advocated the war, then apparently pulled strings to get a Guard post, and furthermore specifically declined duty in Vietnam, marks him, and only him in particular, as a coward and a hypocrite. Although at least he has a bit more going for him than Dick "Deferments" Cheney. Again, that you so enthusiastically support these cowards and hypocrites hiding behind those who served with honor in order to avoid criticism reflects poorly on you, Mike. Did the service teach you nothing of honor?)

Kerry cut his service commitment short too -- as did thousands of "honorably discharged" members of the military -- they all "chickened out" as well? That means Kerry is also not just a coward, he's a quitter -- using your logic.

Not at all, John. Kerry did not "cut his service commitment short" -- he was rotated out after being wounded three times, as was standard practice at the time. Kerry did not "cut his service commitment short," the Navy did it for him. Bush, on the other hand, blew off his physical, was grounded, went AWOL to Alabama and then failed to honor his severance commitment to report to the Massachusets Guard -- and Bush's own service record documents all these facts. There's simply no equivalence between Bush and Kerry.

Posted by: Gregory on June 26, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

The House Republicans have Immigration Derangement Syndrome. Coulter, Savage, countless ClearChannel drivetime vein-bulgers appear to have a slightly more articulate version of Tourette's Syndrome. The YearlyKos event was full of self-important weirdos? Have you ever read pieces on political gatherings of the Christian right?

The situation with Kos is more, umm, komplicated. The MSM have made him into a celebrity -- and, naturally, a part of the MSM wants to take him down, because these kind of manufactured "struggles" make good copy. They're treating Markos no differently than they way they treated (e.g.) Princess Diana -- it's just the way the press works.

As a Dean vet, I know all about these dynamics. Some DC bigfeet take Trippi's bloviations about how blogs are transforming politics straight no chaser, and all of a sudden that becomes the storyline for scores of lazy reporters. Self-serving hype -- through the magic of slack -- soon becomes *conventional wisdom*.

Then, when it becomes apparent to all and sundry that the hyped CW is wrong -- do the reporters question themselves for being so credulous in the first place?

Nopers -- they write stories and opinion pieces trashing blogs for not living up to *their* lazy-minded version of events.

Colbert had these cretins' numbers at the correspondent' dinner: "You know -- fiction!"

Sheesh.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 26, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory
for example, that he was restricted from the single-seat fighters to two-seat trainers -- and draw the obvious (to anyone but Bush cultists like yourself) conclusions.

Riddle me this, Gregory. I knew guys that decided that landing planes on carriers was just too much. Too dangerous. In mid-cruise, they'd come in and request to speak with their CO, and let them know they just couldn't do it any more.

Were they cowards? Were they viewed as cowards by their peers?

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 26, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, your country is dying and you're standing there cheering its death on.

The "strong economy" you babble about is being built on credit, as household debt grew from $4.8 trillion in 2001 to $8.4 trillion in 2005. The housing market, contrary to your uninformed claims, is on the verge of a major retrenchment. I know for a fact that prices in the Chicago area have peaked and are headed back down. Median (as opposed to the misleading average) income has stagnated, and 80 million people have been without health insurance at some time in the last decade. The savings rate is now below zero for the first time since the Great Depression. The Republicans have added over $3 trillion to the national debt since 2001 and the true deficit is close to $700 billion a year. That's reality, pal, not Powerline bullshit.

Your country was lied into a war that has diverted resources away from the war against al-Qaeda. Twenty thousand of your fellow citizens have been killed or wounded for these lies, and 100,000 others will suffer PTSD. You also are evidently OK with the savage torture that Cheney demands in "interrogating" prisoners. But you're morally better than people like me, aren't you? So I guess that makes the whole Iraq fiasco worth it.

Your "reality" based side insists that Adam and Eve were real people instead of Hebrew literary mythology. You "reality" based side is doing its best to cripple science teaching. Your "reality" based side will eventually destroy America's scientific primacy and shift the center of the scientific community to China and India--where actual science can be done.

Your "reality" based side says, a'la Ricky Santorum, that the State has the right to regulate the most intimate sexual behavior of Americans and that the privacy of the bedroom is a "myth".

Your "reality" based side says that it's OK for Bush to invalidate 750 congressional laws, wiretap without court orders, sue journalists for printing the truth, and generally defecate on the Constitution.

Your "reality" based side has decided that women are essentially overgrown children who have no right to work outside the home, no right to birth control, and no right to even a first trimester abortion (or even emergency contraception after a rape).

The reality is this: the Radical Right is destroying this country. It is people like you who are enablers of this. You smirk, along with your Chimpanzee President, that my attitude is simply "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Wrong again, idiot. It's the rage against phony "patriots" like you who are killing my beloved country while shouting about their "loyalty" to it. It's the rage against a lazy, ignorant little rich boy who has failed at everything he's ever tried and still gets promoted. It's the anger against the most incompetent, dishonest clown who's ever been president. It's rage against the most unqualified person to ever run for president on a major party ticket since 1896.

Finally, since you seem so neurotically fixated on it, the NY Times recently revealed that DOD records show Kerry was indeed near Cambodia in late 1968. Further, John Warner, who was Navy Secretary at the time Kerry was in Vietnam, said this week that Kerry EARNED his medals in Vietnam and that Warner has personally seen the records that prove this. And oh, one more thing--the Dan Rather incident merely showed the power of rightwing brownshirt ranting. It did NOT in ANY WAY contradict the basic facts: that Bush was AWOL from his duties, that he was grounded from flying, and that his family connections got him out of his service. Stop lying about this, rdw.

If America survives in this century, it will be because of the efforts of millions of people like me. If it dies, it will be because of greedy, lying little right wing pricks and their enablers and cheerleaders--like you.

Posted by: Joe on June 26, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

. . . despite their generally liberal temperaments, have an odd sort of contempt for actual liberal politicians, who they widely view as being wimpy, pandering, fence-sitting, poll-driven wonks who are hesitant to really speak their minds and insist on giving lots of boring policy-oriented speeches that don't make good copy.Kevin Drum

While I have less than dying admiration for most MSM news gathering organizations, I fail to see what's wrong with this summation. Remember, what they did to the last liberal Democrat who had some interesting ideas. Oh if only Howard Dean were president today . . .

On the other hand, blogs and bloggers are an easy mark with their inflated sense of import.

Posted by: JeffII on June 26, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

First, kudos to Irony Man at 9:05: "Let me get this straight - people (who are voters, btw) on liberal blogs express their earnest frustration with our current government, while Ann Coulter savages and slanders the 9/11 widows on the freakin' Today Show...but the wrath of the punditocracy gets clearly directed at the voters, and not at her? She isn't characterized as the obvious spittle-flecked loon?"

Second, how interesting that a thread that starts out asking "What's fueling all this anti-blog rage?" has devolved into a rehash of two year old arguments about Bush's TANG service record! Is Bush a coward? Is he worthy of being CIC?

If you apply the counseling psychology practice of following the emotional energy, what does this diversion suggest? What's the emotional subtext? Bush's decisions about the War in Iraq/WOT cannot be trusted?

Conservatives still believe the MSM is a liberal bastion persecuting them. Discrediting the Rather news story on Bush's TANG record (a battle fought in the blogosphere)was a huge victory for them. (The Swiftboat vets attack on John Kerry's record was another.)

Liberals--finding the MSM to be weirdly supportive of the worst president in American history--find Bush's TANG service--or lack thereof and its coverup--just another story that the MSM didn't cover from a liberal perspective (along with the Swiftboat story). The blogosphere is our haven.

The fact that conservative voices in the MSM are attacking the liberal blogosphere, but not the spittle-flecked conservative one, suggests that they feel they have conquered the media but are nervous because the dissenters have found another place to congregate and be heard. So their task is to figure out how to shut them up?

I'm very nervous--Bushco has contempt for freedom of speech, and wants to suppress all dissent. This can't be good for the internet.

Posted by: PTate in MN on June 26, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory, maybe a closer scenario. Pilot is just not performing up to snuff on his carrier landings, and he flies a multi-seat cockpit plane like the E-2C. So for the remainder of cruise the CO makes the decision that he is restricted to the right seat (co-pilot).

Is he a coward?

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 26, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

All organizations are co-opted by the elites who run them to pursue the interests of those elites, not the interests of the members. The elites of traditional MSM are worried the elites of non-traditional media are gaining too much influence, so they resort to back stabbing journalism, which the Stalinst tool TNR is very good at. The effeminate Mr. Brooks also enjoys contributing to any propaganda that makes liberals look bad, which is his profession.

I find the conflict between establishment liberals and tepid blog liberals amusing. At least the Kos herd hates Leiberman and tries to do something about it. On the other hand, I see a lot of Joe Trippi in Mr. Moulitsas: using liberal politics to enrich himself.

Posted by: Hostile on June 26, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II:

I concur, save that I'd describe The Little Feisty One more like a Rockefeller Republican in antiwar drag than a bona-fide liberal Democrat.

Which is, you know, fine by me. Howard's federalist approach to gun control and civil unions was precisely the medicine the activist base needed.

And we took it even though he was much less liberal than most of us -- because the guy stood up and told the truth on the most pressing issue of our day.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 26, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

It takes courage--lots of it--to defend the wealthy and priviledged against the poor and powerless.

It takes courage--lots of it--to do the bidding of those who stuff money into your pockets.

It takes courage--lots of it--to sit stunned and motionless after being informed that the nation you lead has just been attacked.

It takes courage--lots of it--to wait for the courts to settle vote recount questions while your face breaks out into boils.

Kashenblade. Now there was a man!

Posted by: obscure on June 26, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Were they cowards? Were they viewed as cowards by their peers?

No. So what? That's merely argument by non sequitor. What's that got to do with the price of tea in China, or with whether Bush is a coward for ducking out of a war he otherwise loudly supported?

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

I've looked at Bush's record, and don't approve of it but understand it. Viet Nam winding down, squadron switching missions and aircraft, It was post-war and the military was winding down. Time to move on. The only thing he was flying when he didn't get his flight physical was a desk. Alabama didn't have F-102s.

"Time to move on"? Let me ask you, as a military man, is the decision about "time to move on" usually left up to the individual airman, as it appeared to be in Bush's case when he just stopped showing up, or do the opinions of his superiors and his service contract (such as the Agreement and the Statement of Understanding he signed) usually come into it to?

If a soldier in Iraq decides "hey, Iraq is winding down, we're standing down as they're standing up, I just can't stand to paint one more damn school. Time to move on. Think I'll pack my bags and catch the next flight home" will he be allowed to?

Also, explain to me, please, the philosophical and moral differences between "withdrawal is not an option" and "time to move on."

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

On the other hand, I see a lot of Joe Trippi in Mr. Moulitsas: using liberal politics to enrich himself.

Uh-huh - and what a cash cow liberal politics is in this day and age. Right.

Posted by: Irony Man on June 26, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Viet Nam winding down, squadron switching missions and aircraft, It was post-war

1972, the year Bush stopped flying, was not "post-war". Here are the combat deaths per service arm for that year of the Vietnam War:

Army -- 373
Navy -- 77
Marine Corps -- 172
Air Force -- 18
Total -- 640

Source: www.thewall-usa.com/stats

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Oh and Instupundit, NRO and Karl Rove arn't so kind of "squadrons of rabid" dogs or something - clearly David Border is extemely partsian loon of rightr - if didn't truely doesn't realize that neo-cons want to bomb everyone, from France, to Hans Bilx to liberals.

Yes, it's true, liberals don't like Bush but Border must not be living in the real world where the majority of Americans do NOT like Bush and believe Bush is dishonest, and that he lied about the war in Iraq.

Posted by: Cheryl on June 26, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan
"Time to move on"? Let me ask you, as a military man, is the decision about "time to move on" usually left up to the individual airman, as it appeared to be in Bush's case when he just stopped showing up, or do the opinions of his superiors and his service contract (such as the Agreement and the Statement of Understanding he signed) usually come into it too?

Real world answer. Left up to the individual.

A reservist can participate actively or in the IRR (individual ready reserve). In active reserve he or she drills for pay and collects retirement points towards their future paid retirement. In the IRR they do not get paid or earn retirement points. But they are still subject to recall.

If a soldier in Iraq decides "hey, Iraq is winding down, we're standing down as they're standing up, I just can't stand to paint one more damn school. Time to move on. Think I'll pack my bags and catch the next flight home" will he be allowed to?

If a reservist not on recall decides he's had enough, he can quit the reserve. He is still subject to recall, but it is far less likely it will happen, since he's not training with his unit.

While on recall to active duty, they are subject to all the rules of active duty.

Also, explain to me, please, the philosophical and moral differences between "withdrawal is not an option" and "time to move on."

Wha?

1972, the year Bush stopped flying, was not "post-war".

According to that same page, and applying the same "reasoning", 1978 was a combat year, and in fact they lost more AF pilots in 1978 than 1972. Read the fine print for the table.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 26, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

The MSM have made him into a celebrity -- and, naturally, a part of the MSM wants to take him down, because these kind of manufactured "struggles" make good copy. They're treating Markos no differently than they way they treated (e.g.) Princess Diana -- it's just the way the press works

Kos made Kos into a celebrity. He used them just as much as they used him. He's no virgin. From what I understand he's got the top blog in the business accordng to traffic. Of course he's a target. That's good because he signed up for it. He was seeking it.

The key for him as the key for Dean is to make sure you don't give them the material to take you down. For me the greatest irony concerning Dean is that while I thought, and still think, he's a moron, his famous scream was actually cool. He had his troops lined-up and wanted to give them something to remember. I didn't see a thing wrong with it and the 'scandal' that ensued was totally manufactured by the MSM.

Now that's how the MSM works. The fact is while that moment was bad Dean never had a shot. It was a mercy killing.

Kos is in the same place but he has a permanent perch. He'll never be influencial except in a negative way. The fact he motivates the extreme elements of the Democratic party is a disaster electorally. He'll never have enough influence to win an election, witness his 0- 22 record. But he'll have enough influence to keep the extremists like Dean up front and visible. This is the worst of all combinations for serious Democrats trying to win national elections.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

yeeek!

Oh and Instupundit, NRO and Karl Rove aren't some kind of "squadrons of rabid" dogs or something - clearly David Border is an extemely partsian loon of so kind - if he truly doesn't realize that neo-cons want to bomb everything and everyone, from France, to Hans Bilx to, to the NYT.

David Border deservies the Thomas Friedman award.

Posted by: Cheryl on June 26, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Al makes a good point: "Kevin, you couldn't be more right. Kos is right now the kingpin of the blogsphere. Through his control of the Advertising Liberally BlogAds network and his massive fundraising network, he (and his ally at MyDD Jerome Armstrong) sits at his keyboard doling out money to bloggers who support his extremist views and crushes those who don't. This allows him unparalled control of the blogosphere.

I don't thing Kos give money to OTHER bloggers but.. What is true is that Kos has the most popular blog in political circles right now, having more hits that anyone else but I can remember when Glenn Reynolds held that record.

It says the America's view must be changing.


Posted by: Cheryl on June 26, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, is there anything you DON'T lie about? Kossacks helped win special Congressional elections in SD and KY and helped put Obama over the top in the IL Democratic primary, in addition to helping various other Democrats with money. And Kos's site helped to force DeLay to campaign hard for reelection and spend money in TX22 that he could have spread to other Republicans, so there are some indirect victories, too. You'll notice that the GOP house gains in 04 were almost all confined to gerrymandered Texas.

As I said, "patriots" like you are killing the country.

Posted by: Joe on June 26, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

the Dan Rather incident merely showed the power of rightwing brownshirt ranting. It did NOT in ANY WAY contradict the basic facts: that Bush was AWOL from his duties, that he was grounded from flying, and that his family connections got him out of his service.

Dan Rather is a fraud. Last week he slinked off in well earned humiliation. Even Kevin Drum concluded his conduct was disgraceful and that was without examining the cartoonish documents.

The fact is the entire TANG 'scandal' was manufactured and never reached the level of good gossip. Dan and Mary Mapes investigated it for 6 years and their final act of desperation was the result of those many years of frustration.

This espisode is testament to the power of the rightly blogs as are the SBVs.

Dan Rather is a lying piece of garbage and last week CBS finally put him in the trash. To the extent he is ever remembered by History it will be in the analysis of the 2004 election and how he helped Bush.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

According to that same page, and applying the same "reasoning", 1978 was a combat year, and in fact they lost more AF pilots in 1978 than 1972. Read the fine print for the table.

No, the reasoning isn't based on the number of deaths, it's based on the well-known historical fact (not well-known to all, apparently) that US armed forces were still engaged in combat in Vietnam in 1972. The Paris Peace Accords were signed in January 1973. We weren't, therefore, in combat in Vietnam in 1978.

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

Finally, since you seem so neurotically fixated on it, the NY Times recently revealed that DOD records show Kerry was indeed near Cambodia in late 1968

Come on Joe, quit being such a putz. Xmas in Cambodia was never about being NEAR Cambodia. It was about being IN Cambodia. It was about listening to President Nixon lying to the world on Xmas Eve in 1968.

Tell me Joe, is everyone in Boston that friggin illerate they did not know Nixon wasn't President in 1968?

The beauty of Xmas in Cambodia isn't that it was so obviously a lie and so indefensible a lie but that so many stupid bastards NEVER figured it out. Kerry repeated the dumb story, that was seared, seared in him, at least 2x's on the floor of the Senate and who knows how many times in Boston and thoughout the Northeast.

John Boy has wealth beyond our dreams and travels day in and day out among the elite of the elite among Democrats. And not one of those simple bastards could figure out Nixon wasn't President in 1968?

Are you kidding me?????

As bad as that is it' not the worst part. His advisors in the MSM told him to remain mum. The internet, Fox, talk radio, etc is on fire ridiculing him for the level of stupidity from all involved that he could make up such a stupid story and then his syncophants wouldn't correct him. So lurch refuses to correct the record and wears the fool tag for months.

This story will outlive Kerry thanks to the collosal stupidity.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Again, more incessant lies from rdw. The Bush family scrubbed or sealed the records in Texas, and friends of the Bush family have confessed this. Rather was foolish to not use original documents throughout, but the substance of the charges was absolutely true, which you cannot refute.

And as for the SBVs, they dishonored themselves by lying and distortion. I met one of Kerry's ACTUAL boatmates in Wisconsin in 2004 and he was campaigning fiercely for Kerry-Edwards. The SBVs were pathological liars, pure and simple. Hell, several of them had actually endorsed Kerry's Senate runs in the past. Wonder how much it took to buy them off?

AGAIN, Warner confirmed the truth of the matter this week. And if anyone on TV was decisive in helping re"elect" Bush, it was Osama Bin Laden and his little video tape the week before the election. Bin Laden is evil, not stupid. He knew it would help Bush--Bin Laden's favorite, bungling incompetent enemy.

Posted by: Joe on June 26, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

You'll notice that the GOP house gains in 04 were almost all confined to gerrymandered Texas.

Yes I did notice that. I also noticed that GWB is the 1st President since FDR to build on his congressional majorities after his election in two consecutive elections. How about that? Clinton loses 55 house seats and GWB picks them up. GWBs electoral performance is the best in 70 years!

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

It says the America's view must be changing

That's true. America is becoming more conservative and liberals are panicky. Most liberals are still stunned GWB was reelected. They are the proverbial duck hit in the head. They don't know what to do but they sense they are adrift from the majority. Kos is promising them an answer and he's loud, bombastic and confident. He's also a total failure.

I love the fact George Clooney was willing to confess the fact he felt the term 'liberal' had to be restored. It had to be hard for him to admit that publically because he's also admitting the collapse. But that's what we have.
A democratic party without leadership or a uniting theme flailing around for both.

Allow me to give you one hint. John Murtha is a bigger disaster than Al Gore and John Kerry combined.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Also, explain to me, please, the philosophical and moral differences between "withdrawal is not an option" and "time to move on."

Wha?

Simple question. If withdrawal is never an option, then it's never time to move on, is it? You can't believe in both at the same time.

I say, Iraq's winding down, the mission's accomplished, post-war and the military is winding down. Time to move on. So we should leave Iraq, right?

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Geez, rdw, you really are obsessed. Kerry simply misspoke about Nixon, since Nixon was president-elect in Dec 68 and not yet president. And in the ill-defined border area between Vietnam and Cambodia, a couple of miles doesn't make much difference. As I say, you are fixated on this one point.

As for W's great electoral performance, it was the weakest re"election" since Wilson in 1916. Bush received only 286 electoral votes and again was one state from defeat. He pulled in only 50.73% of the vote in a two-way race, not exactly overwhelming. (I guess it was better than his LOSING by over 500,000 in 2000, the third straight GOP pop vote defeat.) The GOP won congressional elections in 02 and 04 by campaigning shamelessly on the corpses of the 9/11 victims, politicizing that outrage at every turn. And in my state (IL) Republicans get their brains beaten in.

You may not like what's going to happen on 7 Nov of this year. Brace yourself.

Posted by: Joe on June 26, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Geez, rdw, you really are obsessed.

To repost what I wrote in another thread:

Well, Wooten, ["rdw"] of course, is clearly quite disturbed. His writings, especially his frequent loss of contact with reality, exhibit clear marks of a personality disorder, probably some combination of paranoid personality disorder mixed in with mild schizophrenia and antisocial and obsessive-compulsive tendencies.

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan
Simple question. If withdrawal is never an option, then it's never time to move on, is it? You can't believe in both at the same time.

Be real. You're directly comparing the George Bush of 1972 with the George Bush or 2000, or 2004. Did you know that in that interval he became a born again Christian? Got married and had kids? Know how that changes people? Or that people change as they mature and experience life?

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 26, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

> Kos is in the same place but he has a permanent perch. He'll never
> be influencial except in a negative way. The fact he motivates the
> extreme elements of the Democratic party is a disaster electorally.

Wooten, not only are you wrong, but the quality of
your wrongness will demonstrate my argument. Watch:

First, all else being equal, having an energized base is better than
having a demoralized base -- something which Republicans know down to
their toenails. Having an energized base, though, means giving voice
to extreme elements in your party. Do the Republicans follow your
advice for the Dems and run away from their extremists? Hell, no.

Nonetheless, the GOP right now is suffering the same problem you're
accusing Kos of -- only it's on a much bigger scale for the GOP
because you've been in power so long. Take immigration. This is
an issue that you're not a fascist on, and neither is Bush. Bush
doesn't want to turn giving aid to illegals into a crime; he knows
that massive deportations "ain't gonna happen." But Bush is having
zero success reining in the House. Why? Because they're terrified
that their activist base will become so demoralized if a sane bill
makes it through conference and is signed by the president that
they'll stay home in suburban and exurban districts.

And what's this a result of? ClearChannel. Right-wing blogs.
Unhinged, extremist activist fury. So the GOP is in the process
of making a Mephistophelian (look it up) bargain with the future.
They might profit electorally this year from tanking immigration
reform -- at the expense of alienating Hispanic voters for a
generation. Bush knows this. Karl Rove knows this. But
they're impotent to proceed in the face of your frothers.

> He'll never have enough influence to win an election,
> witness his 0-22 record. But he'll have enough influence
> to keep the extremists like Dean up front and visible.

And you, Wooten, are a product of the right-wing froth machine. You
repeat unmitigated bullshit over and over again because you're read
it on a wingnut blog somewhere so it's gotta be true! While I don't
think you're an intentional liar, you're still exactly what George
Orwell predicted. Say it often enough and it becomes ... truthy.

Howard Dean is a Clintonite economic centrist, supports
federalism on some of the more divisive social issues (like
gun control and gay marriage) and never would have been
elected chair of a party still substantially controlled
by the DLC if he was anything remotely like an "extremist."

He said some intemperate things in the campaign. That proves ... what?

> This is the worst of all combinations for
> serious Democrats trying to win national elections.

Oh spare us your "concern," Wooten -- because it's the last thing
from genuine. Your goal is to keep the GOP in power, not to
"empathize" with "serious" Democrats. If you were sincere, you'd be
saying the same goddamed thing to Tancredo/Sensenbrenner supporters.

Kos people -- having debated with my share of them on the Dean blog --
annoy me with their smugness and insularity. But it's better that the
Democrats have a pool of righteously angry and motivated voters than
if they had a base full of the "serious" who make "electability"
their main concern. That crap is precisely why we nominated Kerry.

It may take a few cycles, but Job One for the Dems is to grow some
balls -- precisely what the Republicans have done since the 90s.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 26, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Rather was foolish to not use original documents throughout, but the substance of the charges was absolutely true, which you cannot refute

I wouldn't dream of refuting gutter gossip. You have nothing more, nor did Dan. That's why he slinked off in humiliation last week. That's why the TANG story died immediately after his fraud was so quickly exposed.

You can make all of the allegations you'd like and round up 1,500 friends of the Bush family to agree to them. GWB will still be President and you'll still be a putz. As Dan found out, you need proof.

As far as the SBVs I'm not aware of the specifics of his medals or any of that. I am an expert on Xmas in Cambodia. I think it ranks up there with Gary Hart telling the press to follow him as one of the dumbest campaign actions in all of history.

There are several disasters in judgement here each of which qualify Kerry as a putz. The lie(s) were stunningly stupid. When faced with the evidence which could not be denied he let his ego get in the way of issuing an apology whcih could have admitted to some 'youthful exuberance' or some such nonsense but would have let the issue pass.

But no. He let what was a braindead stupid statement he made several times stand as the record and made a bigger ass of himself.

This does not mean he didn't earn his medals but it does mean he's spent a substantial portion of his life with his head stuck up his ass. kerry killed his own credibility.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Be real. You're directly comparing the George Bush of 1972 with the George Bush or 2000, or 2004.

No, I'm comparing your belief that it was "time to move on" from the war with the right-wing talking point that "withdrawal is never an option". Which do you believe in?

Did you know that in that interval he became a born again Christian? Got married and had kids? Know how that changes people? Or that people change as they mature and experience life?

OK, so just to be clear in future conversations with you all statements or beliefs by Democrats held prior to, say, 2000 are off the table, because they've matured and experienced life? So you'll never mention anything Kerry, for example, did or said in 1972? Because you know that in the interval he married and had kids? Became a prosecutor and a Senator? Know how that changed him?

Got married and had kids?

Wow, married with kids. What a searing experience that must have been. How unlike that makes him from the run of ordinary Americans.

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

You're directly comparing the George Bush of 1972 with the George Bush or 2000, or 2004. Did you know that in that interval he became a born again Christian? Got married and had kids? Know how that changes people? Or that people change as they mature and experience life?

So the older, Christian, married father of twin girls would have volunteered for combat in Vietnam, but the single, healthy, prime of his fighting life young man shouldn't have been expected to?

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, I'm done with this thread. You sound like a very articulate but misguided Young Republican college student. I used to be a Republican myself (Ford, Reagan twice, Bush the Elder the first time) until I woke up and realized that the Right was drifting into utter irrationalism. I also became repulsed at GOP campaign tactics.

I've got obligations in the real world now.

Peace.

Posted by: Joe on June 26, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan
No, I'm comparing your belief that it was "time to move on" from the war with the right-wing talking point that "withdrawal is never an option". Which do you believe in?

I believe it depends on the situation. Of course.

OK, so just to be clear in future conversations with you all statements or beliefs by Democrats held prior to, say, 2000 are off the table, because they've matured and experienced life? So you'll never mention anything Kerry, for example, did or said in 1972? Because you know that in the interval he married and had kids? Became a prosecutor and a Senator? Know how that changed him?

If he doesn't bring it up and "report for duty" with his magic hat and team of fellow boatmen, I don't bring it up. He brought it into play. His stupid decision.

For that matter, there was never any doubt that Clinton was a womanizer who lacked integrity in his personal relations prior to entering the white house. So what. All I expected was that he honor the office.

Wow, married with kids. What a searing experience that must have been. How unlike that makes him from the run of ordinary Americans.

You must be single.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 26, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

First, all else being equal, having an energized base is better than having a demoralized base -- something which Republicans know down to their toenails. Having an energized base, though, means giving voiceto extreme elements in your party. Do the Republicans follow your advice for the Dems and run away from their extremists? Hell, no.

Dean is an extremist and a rather nasty one at that. He's a gaff machine who was put at the top of the DNC because he can raise money and 'mollify' the base.

The different between the GOP and the Dems is how much the extreme element dominates. Arguably kerry's biggst mistake was for voting against it after he voted for it.

The reason he voted against it was because Dean was stealing all the publicity with his radical anti-war views and Bush hatred. This little tack left during the primaries bit him hard on the ass in the general election and kept him on the defensive throughout. He never recovered for the flip-flopper charge.

The problem all candidates have is getting far enough right or left to win the primaries and then back to the center to win the general election. The problem Democrats have is your base is more bombastic and demanding. That's why Joe Leiberman is in trouble. That's why Kerry had to flip-flop.

GWB has been able to campaign and 'rule' as a big government conservative because he still cut taxes, made outstanding judicial appointments and was anti-French on foreign policy. The extremist right 'forgave' him for signing the education bill as well as other 'failures' Kos is not nearly so forgiving.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

If he doesn't bring it up and "report for duty" with his magic hat and team of fellow boatmen, I don't bring it up. He brought it into play. His stupid decision.

Pg. 54 of George W. Bush's "A Charge to Keep": "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years."

Hey, Bush brought it up. If he hadn't put it in his campaign biography and touted his supposed service with his magical use of "several" meaning "less than two" and his mysterious disappearances, I don't bring it up. Bush brought it into play. His stupid decision.

For that matter, there was never any doubt that Clinton was a womanizer blah blah blah

Hey, look over there! Bill Clinton! For God's sakes, please stop talking about Bush and start talking about Clinton!

Posted by: Stefan on June 26, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Take immigration. This is an issue that you're not a fascist on, and neither is Bush. Bush doesn't want to turn giving aid to illegals into a crime; he knows that massive reportations "ain't gonna happen"

Leave your silly strawmen at the door. No one has suggested massive reportations nor wants it except deportation for the criminal element and that's probably

The house just saved the election for GWB and the GOP. GOP sentiment is overwhelmingly for a bill to identify the 'now' law-abiding portion of the illegals and putting them on the path of reversing their illegal status AFTER, and this is critical, AFTER we get control of the border.

The number ONE election issue for conservatives is control of the border. Do not speak of a reform bill until that is done. We did reform in 1986 and it was a scam. We gained control of NOTHING.

If after we get control we find we need more immigrants let more in legally.

What happened is Hastert and the house leadership learned that their bill, far more restrictive than the garbage Bush and the Senate promoted, was still unacceptable to a majority of Americans, not just conservatives.

Hastert learned this from the election in CA-50, duke Cunninghams seat which stayed GOP thanks to a hard line on immigration as well as powerful internal polling. There are few issues where GOP voters are as closely aligned. Let's contrl the borders and only after that's done discuss reform. Then GWBs reform passes easily with even the far right in support.

it'll be hard for the GOP to add seats in 06. But not inpossible. If they do it'll be because they campaigned heavily on border control.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting. Rightwing DickWad, a self-professed chickenhawk, religious nutcase, and tax cheat who never served his country in any capacity; whose acquaintance with the English language is casual at best; who is not allowed to vote in this country; and who admittedly does not participate in the political process by voting, working for a party, or running for office, wants to talk about people with their heads shoved up their asses. On this, DickWad, we can agree that you have lots of expertise- having spent your putrid lifetime in that position. On anything else, not so much.

Posted by: solar on June 26, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

solar,

I voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush and Bush.

I also served in the Navy for 3 years but by all means define me as a chickenhawk, just like your mommy, Abe, Franklin, Woodrow, etc.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Oh spare us your "concern," Wooten -- because it's the last thing from genuine. Your goal is to keep the GOP in power, not to "empathize" with "serious" Democrats.

I am not quite sure where you read 'concern' into my post. I am overjoyed. Everytime I think the GOP is going to blow it the Dems come along and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

My comments was just a repeat of the simple and obvious tactical element of party elections spelled out a long time ago. The example liberals will be most familiar with is Clinton's 'new democrat' approach in 1992.

Dean had a much a shot at winning a national election in 2004 as Gary Bauer. He's too extreme. He's also too nasty. Here's an article today about Dean's management of the DNC.

http://www.amspec.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10008


Some people aren't happy. The Senate Dems have many more hard races than expected and much less money to move around. Deans big spending habits have not changed. As it stands today Rove has substantially more in the bank in invest in those 4 or 5 races where it matters.

As your party is ready to throw Joe Leiberman under the bus Rove will throw a few Million to help Kean upset the Democratic candidate in NJ. Kean is far from conservative but it would still be a huge pick-up. The Dems could easily lose in Michigan, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington as well. If the GOP can hold their loss to Santorum they could get a net pickup of 2, possibly 3.

This same math is true for the house. We are finding out many of the seats thought competitive are not and those that are competitive will be fully funnded.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan
Hey, look over there! Bill Clinton! For God's sakes, please stop talking about Bush and start talking about Clinton!

Why not? There's a chance he'll be our next First Lady.

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 26, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

300

Posted by: Red State Mike on June 26, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

"he (and his ally at MyDD Jerome Armstrong) sits at his keyboard doling out money to bloggers who support his extremist views and crushes those who don't."

As opposed, I suppose, to Karl Rove, Grover Norquist and the other Republican'ts, who just fling money right and left to those who don't agree with their viewpoint.

What a crock... David Broder is SO twentieth century.

Posted by: Cal Gal on June 26, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Rightwing DickWad, having previously stated he never served and doesn't vote, suddenly remembers a naval career (the Iraqi Navy, perhaps?) and a string of votes for morons and dickwads like himself.

The inability to tell the truth and to keep track of your lies makes you a perfect fit for the modern Republican party.

BTW, sorry those English as a Second Language classes aren't working out for you. Maybe you couldn't get them "funnded".

Posted by: solar on June 26, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

>> Take immigration. This is an issue that you're not a fascist
>> on, and neither is Bush. Bush doesn't want to turn giving aid
>> to illegals into a crime; he knows that massive reportations
>> "ain't gonna happen"

> Leave your silly strawmen at the door.

Tell it to your president, brother. The above is a direct quote
from Bush, directly addressing the issue of mass deportations which
would ensue if Sensenbrenner/Tancredo became the law of the land.

> No one has suggested massive reportations

No? What do you do with all the illegals who instantly
become Federal criminals under S/T, then? Cram our
already overcrowded Federal prisons with them?

> nor wants it except deportation for the
> criminal element and that's probably

The "criminal element" becomes instantly expanded to include illegals
simply by virtue of *being* illegals -- not to mention the church
groups and and aid workers who help them and/or don't instantly turn
them over to the DHS. You honestly think there's support among
local police and healthcare workers for S/T? How are you going
to protect the public and the public health if you now how a huge
group of people who have zero motivation to get anwhere near you?

Hey dingbat, why do you think that Specter and McCain oppose this, eh?

As for a genuine criminal element among illegals -- I don't know
even the most pro-amnesty Democrat who opposes deporting them if
they've committed a felony by virtue of their actual behavior.

> The house just saved the election for GWB and the GOP.

The House just *may* have helped (and I emphasize "may have") a
a few suburban/exurban-district House seats in border states where
the wingnuts are outta control on this -- AT THE EXPENSE of the
long-term alienation of Hispanics and other immigrant groups --
because these turkeys would rather have no bill than actually try
to address the issue. This is precisely political extremism.

Karl Rove knows it. So does Bush. They're concerned about the
long-term growth prospects for the GOP. You, OTOH, have your head
too far up Glenn Reynolds' ass to see further than the next polyp.

> GOP sentiment is overwhelmingly for a bill to identify the
> 'now' law-abiding portion of the illegals and putting them
> on the path of reversing their illegal status AFTER, and
> this is critical, AFTER we get control of the border.

And this is nothing more than pure demagoguery. It's like saying
we won't address a thing about drug policy until we "get control" of
the drugs coming over our borders. *How* many years have we been
at the WoD? *How* much drugs continue to come over our borders?

At the very least, it's going to take a few years
to "get control of the border." So what do we
do with all the illegals here in the meantime?

Heh.

This is why sensible Republicans joined Democrats in passing
the Senate compromise bill. Anyone who isn't merely a flaming
partisan ideologue fanning irrational hatred of illegals realizes
that you have to tackle both aspects of the problem AT THE SAME TIME.

> The number ONE election issue for
> conservatives is control of the border.

Exactly: A no-compromise position which won't solve the problem
and is out-of-touch with broad public opinion on the issue.

> Do not speak of a reform bill until that is done. We did
> reform in 1986 and it was a scam. We gained control of NOTHING.

And the Senate compromise is like the '86 bill ... how? Oh right
-- because it proposes "amnesty" -- even though illegals who want
citizenship have to pay hefty fines, back taxes and learn English.

> If after we get control we find we need
> more immigrants let more in legally.

Which is just an excuse to never address the issue. Look, even
if we turned the Rio Grande into the West Bank, we're *never* going
to "get control" in the way visualized by the illegal-bashers. There's
still thousands of miles of coastlines. There's still the Canadian
border. And the majority of our National Guard are *still* over in
Iraq. We can mitigate the problem -- and I advocate we should. I'm
not even averse to building a fence. But this will never be enough
for the strongest advocates of "border control" -- and these haters
shouldn't be allowed to drive policy on an issue that's so important.

> What happened is Hastert and the house leadership
> learned that their bill,

*Their* bill? If you're talking about Sensenbrenner/Tancredo,
that's a pretty unintentionally ironic statement :)

> far more restrictive than the garbage Bush and the Senate promoted,

And why do you think your president promoted such "garbage,"
eh? Wait ... I know. Bush *must* want to create a whole
new crop of legalized Democratic voters, just like in '86 :)

> was still unacceptable to a majority of Americans,
> not just conservatives.

Illegal immigration is what political scientists call a valence
issue. It's a concern for most people, but it's a *huge* concern for
a small minority -- in this case in Republican and swing districts.
City folks -- the ones who actually live among illegals -- are the
least concerned about saving America from a foreign plague of hard
work and religious values :) GOP strategists looking at the big
picture know they're up against a demographic time bomb -- Hispanics
are the largest-growing immigrant group, both of citizens and of
illegals. Alienate them for short-term benefits in a few districts,
and the national GOP will pull a Prop 187. Pete Wilson won that
election at the expense of a wholesale political realignment.

Ironically enough, the saliency of this issue among the GOP base is
demonstrating the unravelling of the GOP coalition. If Bush were
strong in the polls, if Iraq were less of a disaster, if the GOP
leadership were less demoralized from the scandals -- he could tell
his wingnuts to swallow hard and take one for the long-term good
of the Party. Instead, immigration has combined with conservative
dissatisfaction over taxes, Iraq, slow movement on the Christian
agenda, to create a climate where GOP voters in key districts are
on the verge of staying home in protest over ineffectual leadership.

That's why the House GOP simply can't afford to compromise
on this one. And that's a sign of weakness, not of strength.

> Hastert learned this from the election in CA-50,
> duke Cunninghams seat which stayed GOP thanks to a hard
> line on immigration as well as powerful internal polling.

"Stayed GOP"? Dude -- that district's in *San Diego*. A safe seat,
and the guy barely got 50%. Sure, it shows that you can demagogue on
immigration in districts that are *already* overwhelmingly Republican.

If I were you, I'd be shitting my drawers, not celebrating over this.

> There are few issues where GOP voters are as closely aligned.
> Let's contrl the borders and only after that's done discuss reform.

As "closely aligned" to a position every bit as much
in the realm of fantasy as making abortions illegal.

> Then GWBs reform passes easily with even the far right in support.

Heh. IF the US can effectively control the longest (or
perhaps second-longest) border in the Western hemisphere.

> it'll be hard for the GOP to add seats in 06. But not inpossible. If
> they do it'll be because they campaigned heavily on border control.

The two great gifts from God in Her Infinite Wisdom this year are the
GOP forcing itself to run hard on immigration and the Iraq war :)

Viva Tancredo! Go McCain!

Heh.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 26, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

Rightwing DickWad, having previously stated he never served and doesn't vote, suddenly remembers a naval career (the Iraqi Navy, perhaps?) and a string of votes for morons and dickwads like himself.

I have no idea what you are babbling about but I've never missed a Presidential election since Tricky Dick and I spent 3 years in the Navy.

I can't imagine why you think I would lie. For what possible point?

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

The "criminal element" becomes instantly expanded to include illegals
simply by virtue of *being* illegals -- not to mention the church
groups and and aid workers who help them and/or don't instantly turn
them over to the DHS. You honestly think there's support among
local police and healthcare workers for S/T? How are you going
to protect the public and the public health if you now how a huge
group of people who have zero motivation to get anwhere near you?

Not at all. The criminal element would be those who broke other laws while here, especially those in jail. You are babbling here.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

Which is just an excuse to never address the issue. Look, even
if we turned the Rio Grande into the West Bank, we're *never* going
to "get control" in the way visualized by the illegal-bashers.

It would be quite easy to get control of the border. The clear problem is the Mexican border and buiding a fence isn't rocket science. If we have a problem we can just hire a few Russians or Israeli's to advise us. They've done it very effectively. We don't need to stop 100%. 80% would be nice but we can get to 90% or more. IN those places where we have a fence it's been very effective.

This is a gimme for GWB. All he needs to do is show intent, put some bucks up and start the process. This has already started. If Karl Rove can show pictures of a real fence under construction it'll be a terrific election boost.

Good fences make good neighbors.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

That's why the House GOP simply can't afford to compromise on this one. And that's a sign of weakness, not of strength.


It's a sign of strength and of common sense. Hastert was ready for a deal. He didn't change his mind until very late in the game. He started getting feed back from the rank and file who were getting it from home. The GOP base is more united on this than on tax cuts or anything else.

Bush is much more pragmatic than given credit. His head and heart were with the Senate bill. Conservatives voted for him knowing he was a big fan of immigration. GWB and Rove learned at the same time as Hastert this was too serious a breach from the conservative mainstream. Just as important, not doing anything wasn't a problem. It was a smart move.

Their base needs to see progress on the border. They do not want to discuss reform. They want progress on secure borders. Not your strawman of a border but something better than the turnstile we have now. They listened to the people paying their bills.

GWB gets it. Bill Frist gets it. Denny Hastert gets it. That's why the bills were dropped with no inter-party acrimony

For Bush this is similar to the Harriet Miers debacle. He made a mistake but corrected it and recovered brilliantly. Sam Alito is proving to be a terrific choice. His base is thrilled. The base is now satisfied on immigration. He sent national guard to the borders and they've allocated more money for fences and security.

I'll quarrantee you if Karl Rove comes up with pictures of fence construction at the border he'll get a very good turnout.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

Stayed GOP"? Dude -- that district's in *San Diego*. A safe seat,
and the guy barely got 50%. Sure, it shows that you can demagogue on
immigration in districts that are *already* overwhelmingly Republican.

If I were you, I'd be shitting my drawers, not celebrating over this.

I know better. This is a seat vacated by a pitiful thief. Duke Cunningham was massively corrupt. This seat was ripe for turnover. Yet your candidate did less than 1% better than John Kerry in 2004 who did less than 1% better than Al Gore.

The fact is the Dems needed this seat and Tom Delays seat in Novemver to take back the House in 2007. They're not getting either.

I am not even remotely concerned.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

As "closely aligned" to a position every bit as much
in the realm of fantasy as making abortions illegal.

The fantasy of overturning Roe have been very good for the GOP.


> Then GWBs reform passes easily with even the far right in support.

Heh. IF the US can effectively control the longest (or
perhaps second-longest) border in the Western hemisphere


The Russians put a fence across Europe 50 years ago and they're socialist incompetents. The cool thing here is GWB merely needs to give lip service to the concept and he's already done more than that. There will be a fence in some sections.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

The two great gifts from God in Her Infinite Wisdom this year are the
GOP forcing itself to run hard on immigration and the Iraq war :)


On this we agree. Immgration is a clear winner. There's no downside here for the GOP.

Iraq is a bit different in that they need to depend on the democrats to act stupid and on this they're on solid ground. We saw Kerry chasing his tail all of last week. The Democrats could not pass a bill stating we should get out of Iraq sometime. They are that pathetic.

The GOP always has one ace up it's sleeve. It gets to run against Democrats.

Whatever happened to that 'culture of corrution' slogan? Did they ditch it because it failed so miserably in the Ca 50? Or did they ditch it because after Harry ringside Reid and William icebox Jefferson people assumed they were talking about themselves?

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

>> The "criminal element" becomes instantly expanded to include
>> illegals simply by virtue of *being* illegals -- not to mention
>> the church groups and aid workers who help them and/or don't
>> instantly turn them over to the DHS. You honestly think there's
>> support among local police and healthcare workers for S/T?
>> How are you going to protect the public and the public health
>> if you now how a huge group of people who have zero motivation
>> to get anwhere near you?

> Not at all. The criminal element would be those who broke other
> laws while here, especially those in jail. You are babbling here.

Wooten, I am not "babbling." You sir, are misrepresenting
Sensenbrenner/Tancredo, the House bill that passed and is
awaiting reconcilliation with the Senate compromise.

S/T transforms merely being illegal from a civil offense to
a federal criminal one. It also makes it a federal crime to
knowingly aid an illegal immigrant without turning them into the
DHS. Ever wonder why the Catholic Church is so opposed to it?

If you don't know this, I suggest you google
the legislation and have a squint for yourself.

You can have any opinion you want, Wooten
-- but don't fuck with the facts, k?

> It would be quite easy to get control of the border.

That's why we're so successful in the War on Drugs, right? :)

> The clear problem is the Mexican border and buiding a fence
> isn't rocket science. If we have a problem we can just hire
> a few Russians or Israeli's to advise us. They've done it
> very effectively. We don't need to stop 100%. 80% would be
> nice but we can get to 90% or more. IN those places where
> we have a fence it's been very effective.

While there are no doubt some urban liberals who find the idea
of a fence extremely distasteful and even against our values
as a nation of immigrants -- it's not the fence in itself that's
hugely controversial. The fence has been pretty popular in the
border regions where it exists. In fact, if the GOP approach
was to say let's leave immigration policy what it is right now
until we build the fence and gain control of our border, I can't
see huge objections on the part of pro-immigration Democrats.

But -- despite your distortions -- that's *not* the GOP approach
in the House. The House approach is to combine border control
with a raft of punitive, criminalizing measures aimed at illegals
and their family members, employers and members of the helping
professions who aid them. This is insanely mean-spirited, opposed
by religious groups, and implies impossible outcomes like either
stuffing our prisons with newly criminalized illegals (and the
newly criminal people who've helped them) or mass deporting them.

Then, after this Hitlerian regime is in place, we are allowed
to discuss opening up barriers to legal immigration -- but not
to illegals because there's no forgiveness for being illegal.

This is not an approach that the majority of Americans support.
The majority of Americans support a conditional amnesty for
illegals who have roots in the country and paid all their taxes.

> This is a gimme for GWB. All he needs to do is show intent,
> put some bucks up and start the process. This has already
> started. If Karl Rove can show pictures of a real fence
> under construction it'll be a terrific election boost.

Nope, because Joe Wingnut would *still* see Juan, Paco
y amigos down in the Home Depot parking lot at 7am.

> Good fences make good neighbors.

And after the fence is in place, there's 3000+ miles
of coastline east and west to start worrying about ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 26, 2006 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK

STOP


.


FEEDING


.

THE


.


TROLLS!

Posted by: It Only Makes Them Stronger on June 26, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

Wooten, I am not "babbling." You sir, are misrepresenting
Sensenbrenner/Tancredo, the House bill that passed and is
awaiting reconcilliation with the Senate compromise.

You are babbling. The house bill that passed 6/17 is not designed to become the law of the land but a negotiating start with the Senate bill. But even this is NOT going to happen.

From the AP:

In a defeat for President Bush, Republican congressional leaders said Tuesday that broad immigration legislation is all but doomed for the year, a victim of election-year concerns in the House and conservatives' implacable opposition to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.

"Our number one priority is to secure the border, and right now I haven't heard a lot of pressure to have a path to citizenship," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., announcing plans for an unusual series of hearings to begin in August on Senate-passed immigration legislation.

"I think it is easy to say the first priority of the House is to secure the borders," added Rep. Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record), the GOP whip

That's all rather clear isn't it. That part of the house bill designed to allocate funds to the fence building will be pulled out and passed in a separate bill and joined by the Senate BEFORE the election.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

> Good fences make good neighbors.

And after the fence is in place, there's 3000+ miles
of coastline east and west to start worrying about ...


That's why we have a coast guard. We're not going to stop 100% of immigration but we can stop 99% of the easy immigration.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

But -- despite your distortions -- that's *not* the GOP approach in the House.

It doesn't matter what the approach is in the House. They can't pass anything without the Senate. What matters is what gets passed by the Congress and approved by Bush and nothing is getting passed before the election unless they carve out financing for border security including fence building.

I'd rate this as highly likely. The democrats have the same polling data as the GOP. There's bi-partisan support for border security.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

Nope, because Joe Wingnut would *still* see Juan, Paco
y amigos down in the Home Depot parking lot at 7am.


If Joe Wingnut sees Juan and friends down at the Home Depot it's because he's looking to hire them because they work their asses off and do it under the table.

Joe knows a bargin when he sees one.

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

It would be quite easy to get control of the border.

That's why we're so successful in the War on Drugs, right? :)


I don't quite get the comparison. Smuggling drugs is very different than smuggling people. We're tying to solve a simple problem. Stopping people from walking into the USA from Mexico. It's no more complicated than that. Ports are a different issue. Canada is a different issue.

All GWB needs to get his base motivated is to give them what they want on border security. I believe the house bill had $700M for fence construction. Just write a separate bill to pass the $700M in funding and table the rest until the $700M is spent. Then see if there's been enough progress to address a path to citizenship.

It's nice and simple. This is a double rarity. The people know what they want and the party leaders understand them. The Senate bill favored by GWB is DEAD

Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK
Posted by: rdw on June 26, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

Stop Feeding:

Don't attempt to tell people what to do. It's a personality trait at least as obnoxious as trolldom.

You don't like it, scroll to taste. Blogs exist to foster debate -- and if they didn't, then why even bother to enable comments.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 26, 2006 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

>> Wooten, I am not "babbling." You sir, are misrepresenting
>> Senbrenner/Tancredo, the House bill that passed and is
>> awaiting reconcilliation with the Senate compromise.

> You are babbling.

Wooten, we already know you're a trollish dick. Don't be an asshole
on top of it. We're not only saying the same thing, but you haven't
remotely challenged my characterization of Sensenbrenner/Tancredo.

> The house bill that passed 6/17 is not designed to become the
> law of the land but a negotiating start with the Senate bill.

Which is a proceedural truism. Duh.

> But even this is NOT going to happen.

Because of the weakness of the House GOP leadership, who
lost control of the debate due to a disaffected base.

> That's all rather clear isn't it. That part of the house
> bill designed to allocate funds to the fence building
> will be pulled out and passed in a separate bill and
> joined by the Senate BEFORE the election.

Well, this is an interesting speculation I've heard nowhere else
save you. Personally, I doubt some of the adults in the Senate
who want comprehensive immigration reform are going to go for it.

The people who are passionately against illegal immigration aren't
going to be mollified by an election-year gimmick that doesn't
begin to address the problem of illegals in their own communities.

>>> Good fences make good neighbors.

>> And after the fence is in place, there's 3000+ miles
>> of coastline east and west to start worrying about ...

> That's why we have a coast guard. We're not going to stop 100%
> of immigration but we can stop 99% of the easy immigration.

The coyotes will adapt -- especially if there's a continued strong
economic incentive to come to America left unaddressed by pandering
to "border security" over addressing the issue comprehensively.

>> But -- despite your distortions --
>> that's *not* the GOP approach in the House.

> It doesn't matter what the approach is in the House.

The approach in the House speaks volumes about the nature of
issue. If this were merely about border security, we would have
gotten a simple fence bill through in the beginning of the year.
Bang, signed, done -- legislative victory. Instead, it's become
a war between people who want to see the problem realistically and
act humanely, and people who are hell-bent on punishing illegals.

The people who are hell-bent on punishing illegals have the loudest
voices on the issue -- which is why I doubt they'd be much mollified
by a fence-building bill that does nothing about the current problem.

> They can't pass anything without the Senate. What matters
> is what gets passed by the Congress and approved by Bush and
> nothing is getting passed before the election unless they carve
> out financing for border security including fence building.

Exactly. And that's a Bush failure -- who can't even pass a bill
with both houses controlled by his own party. A $700m fence-building
program isn't going to have an effect for years. It's not going to
mollify the hardcore frothers whose blood pressure rises every time
they see a brown face in a strip mall parking lot. And it's not going
to please the serious folks amenable to compromise, because a fence
isn't going to address the underlying problems that already exist --
false documentation, employers who look the other way -- all the
incentives which attract illegals to America in the first place.

And just *watch what happens* to the fiscal conservatives when
the contract goes -- as it apparently will -- to Halliburton :)

No-compromise types hate little more than
being placated by election-year gimmicks.

> I'd rate this as highly likely. The democrats have the same polling
> data as the GOP. There's bi-partisan support for border security.

Mexican illegals aren't properly-speaking a border security issue.

>> Nope, because Joe Wingnut would *still* see Juan, Paco
>> y amigos down in the Home Depot parking lot at 7am.

> If Joe Wingnut sees Juan and friends down at the Home Depot
> it's because he's looking to hire them because they work
> their asses off and do it under the table.

> Joe knows a bargin when he sees one.

And therein lies the incredible hypocrisy on the issue. There's a
goodly chunk of Bush's base -- not so much Joe Wingnut; more like
Reginald Wingnut III -- who wants exactly zero change on the issue.
They don't live near illegals. They appreciate their docile and
well-mannered gardeners, maids and nannies. And they own large
companies which -- if they don't hire illegals themselves --
certainly like the downward pressure illegals keep on wages.

It's interesting to watch you contort yourself on behalf of the
House leadership, Wooten. You've never struck me as a bigoted
guy, and you're way too much of a free marketer not to understand
illegal immigration from both sides. But you can't go with your
heart (and your president) here -- why is that? Because even
though you're not a bigot, you have no problem with using illegal
immigration as the new resentment and hatred-driven wedge issue.

Just as Muslims were the new blacks, gays were the new Muslims,
Mexicans in their turn are now the new gays -- a group that, by
assuming an anti-social parameter true of a small percentage of
them, one is then entitled to hate with impunity. The angry
'burbanites who wholeheartedly support Tancredo aren't driven
by border security or economics or even "protecting the American
way of life." They're driven by hate lust; they have no more
moral credibility than Dixiecrats who supported segregation.

Otherwise they'd be hiring the amigos to mow their lawns.

And the House bill's chances collapsed because the GOP leadership
doesn't have the moral strength to stand up to hate lust. And
that's a testament to Bush's tepid support among conservatives.

>>> It would be quite easy to get control of the border.

>> That's why we're so successful in the War on Drugs, right? :)

> I don't quite get the comparison. Smuggling drugs is very different
> than smuggling people. We're tying to solve a simple problem.

You think so, huh ...

> Stopping people from walking into the USA from Mexico.
> It's no more complicated than that.

Riiiggghhht. When whole families with little children are willing to
risk heat stroke and snakebite by walking across a 130 degree desert.

> Ports are a different issue. Canada is a different issue.

Coastlines are not a different issue.

> All GWB needs to get his base motivated is to
> give them what they want on border security.

The base doesn't want "border security." The base
wants its pound of illegal flesh. It wants *punishment*
for a human behavior explained in Econ 101 textbooks.

> I believe the house bill had $700M for fence construction.
> Just write a separate bill to pass the $700M in funding and
> table the rest until the $700M is spent. Then see if there's
> been enough progress to address a path to citizenship.

Tell it to Specter and McCain.

> It's nice and simple. This is a double rarity. The people
> know what they want and the party leaders understand them.
> The Senate bill favored by GWB is DEAD

A fence built by Halliburton and completed in an undefined
number of years at an undisclosed cost overrun is no
substitute for a pound of Manuel and Inez's flesh.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

Which is a proceedural truism. Duh.


If you know it's a truism the house bill will NOT become law why are you arguing as if it's going to be the law?

Because of the weakness of the House GOP leadership, who lost control of the debate due to a disaffected base.

There's nothing weak about the House leadership. They pass whatever bills they want, when they want and Nancy Pelosi is never, ever consulted.

Hastert and the boys realized any final bill out of committee was going to have too much amnesty in it for the base and they had to protect both Bush and the Senate GOP.

The cool thing here is Rove and Frist after seeing the same polls and hearing from conservative voters realized they had a bad bill and ended it by mutual agreement.

This might prove to be the smartest political move of the year so far. THe base is happy.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK

The people who are passionately against illegal immigration aren't
going to be mollified by an election-year gimmick that doesn't
begin to address the problem of illegals in their own communities.

They absolutely will after seeing the polls. This is a no brainer. There's wide agreement the primary problem to be addressed 1st is to stop the inflow. You don't bail out a sinking boat until you fix the hole.

What Hastert realized is we need a two step process. This could not be any simpler.

1st - stop the people coming in

2nd - after we stabilize the border process the people here.

It's so simple and so common sense it's elegent.


How hard is it going to be for Hastert to pass a bill for that $700M for border security? Obviously a piece of cake. Then it goes to the Senate where 1/3 is up for re-election. How many Senators do you think will vote AGAINST better border security?

If they do they'll have the advantage of knowing what their opponents campaign will be all about.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

Exactly. And that's a Bush failure -- who can't even pass a bill
with both houses controlled by his own party. A $700m fence-building
program isn't going to have an effect for years.


The fence will have an immediated effect. We'll see it on the evening of the November elections when the vote tallies are announced.

That's why it's not a Bush failure but a GOP win. The advantage the GOP has is a larger and far more coherent base. Everyone inside the beltway tends to lose perspective from time to time. GWB has a large base very capable of communicating it's feelings on issues. On this there's unusal clarity. Seal the border 1st. One step at the time.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

Just as Muslims were the new blacks, gays were the new Muslims,
Mexicans in their turn are now the new gays -- a group that, by
assuming an anti-social parameter true of a small percentage of
them, one is then entitled to hate with impunity.

The only hate I see is on the left. Dean and his crowd, that would be you, oozes hatred. One of the cool things about a fence is there's no comback for the Dean hate merchants. Fences don't discriminate. A 40 foot fence is 40 foot if you are white, black or brown.

The race thing is laughable. Browns are not the new blacks and never have been. You would love for that to be the case but it isn't. Mexicans are the new Irish, Italians, Ghanians, take your pick. These people work their asses off. They work harder than any group I know and that image is widely held. They are widely respected and most people feel they've earned a place here. The vast majority look at them and see their grandparents. They are us. GWBs best line has always been, "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande." Tell me it's not a little bit cool. The Bush family is far more integrated than 99.8% of the liberal elites we see running your party and posting on this blog and we might see in YOUR house.

The fact is a vast majority of conservatives agree with GWB on his proposal. It just has to be step two.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

Otherwise they'd be hiring the amigos to mow their lawns.

What do you mean otherwise? Who do you think is moving their lawn? Who do you think is keeping their resturants running and collecting the trash? I live in PA. Rather far from the Mexican border. 90% of resturant labor is mexican. The 2nd most important skill for a chef or resturant owner is to speak spanish. This is true in McDonalds and 4 star resturants.

And the House bill's chances collapsed because the GOP leadership
doesn't have the moral strength to stand up to hate lust. And
that's a testament to Bush's tepid support among conservatives.

You are babbling again. As you pointed out the House passed a bill. Hastert was holding two aces heading into the conference when the base told him not to pass any bill with amnesty. The base, that would be the people he works for, told him we do the border 1st and AFTER that's done we address step two.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

Tell it to Specter and McCain.

McCain and Spector will be on board as will all Presidential candidates.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK


rdw: That's why we have a coast guard. We're not going to stop 100% of immigration but we can stop 99% of the easy immigration.


Capitol Hill lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say the Bush administration is cutting critical Coast Guard funding. WASH. TIMES 3/3/06

Posted by: thissapceavailable on June 27, 2006 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

A fence built by Halliburton and completed in an undefined
number of years at an undisclosed cost overrun is no
substitute for a pound of Manuel and Inez's flesh.

The GOP base likes Haliburton. They'll do a good job.

When are you going to figure our corporate bashing has never worked? Republicans remember they work for these corporations and they invest in them. We think making money is a GOOD thing.

Maybe you can explain to me why the NYTs and Tom Freidman not only celebrated GMs recent demise and helped it along by trashing them. The last two years the industry has lost over 200,000 jobs and GM today announced 35,000 will take a buy out. These are ALL blue state union jobs.

At the same time GWB has been cozying up with Japan Toyota is deciding to increase it's manufacturing content from 60% to 75%. Combined with higher market share that will require a dramatic expansion of manufacturing facilities, IN THE RED STATES.

The current democratic leadership and the liberal elites are MORONS. Snear away at those crackers. And keep on transferring all of your jobs and people. You fools are likely to lose as many as 10 electoral votes in the 2010 census.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Capitol Hill lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say the Bush administration is cutting critical Coast Guard funding. WASH. TIMES 3/3/06

Lawmakers trolling for funds in their districts ALWAYS say these things. Next time we get a surge of mexican immigrants by sea let me know.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

Riiiggghhht. When whole families with little children are willing to
risk heat stroke and snakebite by walking across a 130 degree desert.

They assume the risk is surmountable. Put a 40 foot concrete barrier with patrols and they'll assume differently. You act as if these people are stupid. Once they realize the security is too tight to get across they'll stop. They may even force the Mexican govt to reform, afapt capitalist practices and actually create jobs! How about that!

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK


rdw: The GOP base likes Haliburton.


Halliburton failed to protect the water supply its paid to purify for U.S. soldiers in Iraq, an internal company report concluded. - AP 3/16/06

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 27, 2006 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: Lawmakers trolling for funds in their districts ALWAYS say these things. Next time we get a surge of mexican immigrants by sea let me know.

you are the one who brought up the coast guard...

and once again...

no documentation to back up your claim?...

but once again...

i will provide evidence...


May 5, 2005


Coast Guard: Proposed budget cuts would jeopardize mission

By Katherine McIntire Peters

kpeters@govexec.com

Coast Guard planners were thrown off course Wednesday by a House Appropriations Committee move to halve the agency's fiscal 2006 budget request for its long-term modernization program, known as Deepwater.

The Bush administration requested $966 million for Deepwater in 2006. During a budget markup session Wednesday afternoon, House appropriators, led by Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., chairman of the Appropriations Committee's Homeland Security Subcommittee, cut $466 million from the program and pledged to withhold $50 million until the Coast Guard provides the panel with a detailed account of how the plan would be funded over the next 20 years.

Since January, the Coast Guard has provided reports to Congress outlining the agency's homeland security modernization requirements, its asset acquisition plans with timelines and cost estimates through 2010, and cost estimates for the maintenance of legacy assets. What the agency, which is part of the Homeland Security Department, has not done is provide Congress with a detailed plan that projects costs over the entire life of the program.

Rogers' spokeswoman, Leslie Cupp, said Congress repeatedly has asked the Coast Guard for a 20-year capital acquisition strategy. In March, the Coast Guard provided a revised implementation plan for Deepwater, which included cost projections over the next five years, but that plan was derided as inadequate by members of both the House and Senate. "That was basically a preliminary report," Cupp said.

....

In the Senate, key members have called for accelerating the Deepwater program to complete modernization in 10 years--as opposed to 25 years, which is projected in the revised implementation plan--something that would be impossible under the administration's current budget plans. The House cuts, if they stand, would further hamper modernization.


In a statement, Commandant of the Coast Guard Adm. Thomas Collins said, "To say the Coast Guard is disappointed in the subcommittee's cut of the president's funding request for Deepwater would be a gross understatement. The Deepwater program is a cornerstone of the Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard's ability to fulfill their responsibilities to the national homeland security strategy."

Collins pledged to "work very closely with the administration and Congress" to obtain full funding.

The Coast Guard's spending plan for 2006 includes continued funding for a number of programs already under way, including $133 million to upgrade engines on the HH-65 helicopter fleet, $368 million to finish building the first national security cutter and begin building a second, and $38 million to sustain existing 210-foot and 270-foot cutters.

It's not clear how funding cuts would affect those programs.

"We really do hope we can find a way to resolve all this," said Coast Guard spokeswoman Jolie Shifflet, "so we can equip our people as best we can to protect our country."


RELATED STORIES

Homeland agency faces expanded mission with costly, outdated fleet (05/17/04)

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 27, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

Halliburton failed to protect the water supply its paid to purify for U.S. soldiers in Iraq, an internal company report concluded. - AP 3/16/06


I'm not quite sure what your point is here but you're boring. If Halliburton wasn't good at what it does it would not have the business. The Army isn't stupid.

Liberals have been piling on American oil and construction companies as well as most larg corporatiots in general. It's liberalism 101 I know but why? It's never been effective.

The only corporations liberals hurt is blue state corporations. You've helped unions at the expense of corporations, slowly driven them out of business, and now the unions are all but dead. Blue state continue to Hemmorage jobs and people to the red states.

You are the dumbest elites on the planet!

Look at union membership under GWB. It's collapsed. And you think he's the dope? Even worse, those corporations you so hate. They've acheived record margins, profitability and cash levels under Bush. They're expanding in Red States and in Asia.

GWB isn't just doing a number on unions. He's doing a number on Europe. ALL of his trade deals are designed to make trade with Asia and South America more profitable than trade with Western Europe. It's working beyond all expectations. Unit exports were up 14.7% in the 1st Qtr.

While you are so busy trashing him he's gutted your special interest groups and helped his own flourish. Why do you think the Europeans are so furious? Under GWB we're grown 3x's as fast and delinked our foreign policy. We are building a missle defense system, with Japan. We just held our largest naval exercises in over 40 years, with Japan.

Under GWB your world has changed dramatically and you don't know the half of it. Check out how many union workers are working the polls on elections day 2008. It'll be about half the number in 2000. You go George!

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

TSA,

I am not quite sure what point it is you wish to make but it's not relevent to the conversation with Bob which morphed into the politics of immigration based on the relative weakness of the GOP leadership.

The coast guard is inconsequential regarding this issue. Illegal immigration via the ports is not germaine. Illegal immigration via Canada is not the issue. The issue is the massive wave of illegal immigrants walking in from Mexico.

My point is very, very simple. The immigration bill is dead. It's been stopped by the conservative base. They want a two-step process. Get control of the borders 1st. Once control is established lets talk about citizenship for the illegals already here.

This is very, very simple. For the purposes of the November election this is great news for the GOP because it's both simple and easy. Just pass a bill showing you hear the base regarding security and defer the citizenship issue until we can evaluate progress on the border.

This is great for GWB, Frist and Hastert. They don't have to show much progress. Pass that bill for $700M for a fence and then show a few bulldozers.

I'm going to love watching politicians up for re-election vote against border security. Ain't gonna happen. It doesn't get any easier for the politicians. This will get the GOP base out to re-elect conservatives. You can forget getting the house back and yo never had a shot at the Senate anyway.

If this plays out as I am predicting the GOP will gain a senate seat.

You can get into the weeds about 1/20 of 1% of Halliburtons business or the Coast Guard and their routine begging for budget dollars but you'll be by yourself. Neither will factor into the election in anyway.


Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

bob, tsa,

This is very off-thread but I want to prepare you for November. You are certain the Democrats will be back in the majority. I am afraid you are putting too much on GWBs low polls. Your party actually has to do something to 'earn' it. CA-50 should have been easy. No way. Tom Delay saved his seat for the GOP. Every day we see you've been oversold on your prospects.


A few weeks ago, Minnesota state Rep. Keith Ellison's (D) prospects of
becoming the first Muslim ever to serve in Congress looked strong.

As he moved toward the Sept. 12 Democratic primary, Ellison had garnered
high- profile endorsements from the state Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party as
well as from the Minnesota AFL-CIO and other key unions.

But that was before two conservative Web logs began to do a little digging
on Ellison/s background. What they found - Ellison's ties to Louis
Farrakhan's Nation of Islam and his public defense of radicals who were
later convicted of murder - has made many Democrats in the
Minneapolis-based 5th district a bit nervous....
.... In law school, Ellison wrote an opinion piece defending Louis Farrakhan
and also helped bring a speaker to the campus for a lecture titled:
"Zionism: White Supremacy, Imperialism or Both?"

There's actually more. Ellison is NOT going to win. The state's MSM outlets have ignored much of the story but you know in 2006 that doesn't matter. The word is out. Powerline has been killing him and has a lot more material than shown above. The DNC really should have done a google search. This will also play into the Senate race because Rove will run a statewide campaign on the Democrats choice of Ellison.

It's very possible the GOP will lose in PA with Santorum and STILL gain a Senate seat or two.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

I couldn't disagree more that this is bad news for the liberal blogosphere. To the contrary, I think we are in the transition from ridiculing to fighting. There is a perception and attendant concern that the blogosphere that matters (the left) will play a still more important role in 2006 and 2008.

First, they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.
--Gandhi

Posted by: hoipolloi on June 27, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, yeah, and since when is rabies a form of venom? The right don't know no science. And they practice miscengenation for metaphors.

Posted by: hoipolloi on June 27, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

rdw:

>> Just as Muslims were the new blacks, gays were the new Muslims,
>> Mexicans in their turn are now the new gays -- a group that, by
>> assuming an anti-social parameter true of a small percentage of
>> them, one is then entitled to hate with impunity.

> The only hate I see is on the left. Dean and
> his crowd, that would be you, oozes hatred.

Wooten, this is a personal insult. Because of this one comment,
I have lost all desire to continue to play whack-a-mole with your
endless denial and circular reasoning. You live in fantasyland.

Has it ever occured to you that I'm the guy who has defended you
(and other trolls) from vicious ad-hominem attacks? I might have
my issues, bro, but being hateful isn't one of them. And if you
can't recognize this, I have to question whether you have any
gentlemanly instincts at all -- or whether you're simply (like your
attackers call you) an amoral tool with no core values whatsoever.

These are my last set of points to you on the immigration issue:

First, politicians run on failed legislation all the time. Bush
was the one addressing the Tancredo bill with "ain't gonna happen."

Secondly, you are in complete denial about the House approach. If
it were as simple as passing a fence bill -- don't you think a fence
bill would have been passed already? Instead, what's the new House
approach? To (as a Slate writer put it) perp walk the legislation
through the border states this summer with public hearings. Public
hearings -- why? Didn't you say it was as simple and elegant as
passing a fence bill? Why do we need more public input on that?

Because the point isn't to get viable legislation. The point is to
whip up frenzy on the issue (along with support for the Tancredo
approach) so that border-state Republicans can feel their pain.

What you're trying to do, Wooten, is spin Bush's worst domestic policy
failure since the Social Security debacle into some kind of potential
victory. The fence bill exists in your imagination. You haven't
even provided a reference to a right-wing blog talking about it.

Not everybody who opposes illegal immigration is a hater by a long
shot. But there is a loud core of them in the GOP base who are.
That's why Tancredo passed the House with an approach opposed
by religious groups, law enforcement and medical professionals.

And Bush missed an opportunity to have a Sister Soulja Moment with
these folks: "Look, I know they're here illegally. But it's a very
special kind of crime. They risked much -- in many cases their own
lives -- to come here, like all immigrants, for the sake of making a
better life for themselves and their families. They're hard-working
people, with a strong belief in faith, family and community. They
contribute essentially to this country's economy. Now -- illegal
immigration is wrong, and we can and should control it. We can
better control the border, we can improve document checking, we can
make it harder to hire illegal workers. But to turn these people,
and the American citizens who help them, into a new class of common
criminals is the wrong approach. It's morally wrong and impractical."

Now to Bush's credit, he tried. But he did it in a half-assed,
tentative way when he should have been strong and spoken of core
American values. And he failed -- because he simply doesn't
have the political capital with conservatives to pull it off.

Now if you think these are the sort of people who'd be placated by
photographs of a bulldozer on the border, you're more politically
naive than I thought. It's like expecting antiwar Democrats to be
placated by listening to Kerry or Lieberman criticize the war after
they voted for it. Or expecting antiabortion people to be placated
by SCOTUS decisions that incrementally restrict abortion access
while affirming the right for it to exist. The people who care
most passionately about an issue become offended by half-measures.
They'd rather see a hard fight for a piece of legislation that has
no chance of passing (like an amendment prohibiting gay marriage)
than a compromise bill get signed into law. That's what the hearings
are about, Wooten. Not to leverage a fence bill that could have
bipartisan support in both houses, but to whip up partisan frenzy.

If you don't understand this dynamic, you don't understand politics.

Your base has more than its share of superempowered whackos, Wooten.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

-- a group that, by
>> assuming an anti-social parameter true of a small percentage of
>> them, one is then entitled to hate with impunity.

> The only hate I see is on the left. Dean and
> his crowd, that would be you, oozes hatred.

Wooten, this is a personal insult. Because of this one comment,I have lost all desire to continue to play whack-a-mole with your
endless denial and circular reasoning. You live in fantasyland.

It is an accurate insult. You wrote the above. It's the classic northern elitist smear portraying gays as victims of hate by conservatives. It's typically self-serving, superficial and hateful. Fortunately, it's also a loser politically. Clinton ran as a 'new' democrat for a reason. Kerry banned the term liberal for a reason. Clooney wants to restore the term liberal for a reason. Progressives changed their name for a reason. The blue states lose to the red states for a reason.

The failure of the immigration bill is a huge victory for conservatives in the exact same fashion the 'cancellation' of the Meirs nomination was a huge victory for conservatives.

This is where you are off the tracks. It really doesn't matter that GWBs bill failed. Meirs was a collosal failure. But after Alito voted with the majority in 5-4 decision on the Kansas Death penalty case last week I can promise you ALL is forgiven.

What matters is the conservative base getting what the conservative base wants.

We have an arrangement with GWB and the Congressional leadership. They do what they think is correct and if we disagree they do what we think is correct. They work for us.

The attempt to pass a comprehensive immigration bill was a mis-understanding engineered by the MSM. It happens. Rove thought the GOP needed to deliver something big. The base reminded him it was too big and they needed a step at a time process. The only choice was to kill this bill and start over.

Hearings are free publicity. We'll have hearings so GOP candidates can film their campaign commercials showing how tough they are on border security. It's a gimme. It's big with the GOP base but not so much with liberals. Denny will schedule major air time for the fence.

Wouldn't it be nice to see house dems try to get to the right of Denny and raise his $700M to $1B?

The people who care most passionately about immigration won't be remotely offended. Pass some amnesty bill rewarding illegal acts and there will be hell to pay. But start with a fence and let's see how we do. Rome wasn't built in a day. If GWB doesn't do a good job we'll find someone who can do a good job but there will not be amnesty until someone does a good job.

BTW: I did see a few pictures recently of a fence being constructed. I was very pleased. I also want it patrolled. As soon as we see effective attempts to control the border it will be possible to discuss amnesty. This will not happen in 2006.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

A final point about the fence.

Controlling the Mexican border isn't addressing the root cause of illegal immigration. The root cause of illegal immigration is the economic incentive to come up here and work at jobs that pay 10x as much and more as you could be making in your home country.

Controlling the Mexican border *only* is like fighting drug smuggling without addressing the demand side of the problem. And while most people sort of half-heartedly support the so-called war on drugs -- nobody thinks it's been particularly effective. You can get powdered cocaine in Lower Manhattan right now that's cheaper and more pure than it was in the early 80s.

And this is why most war-on-drugs advocates also fight for drug education and substance abuse treatment programs. Nobody believes interdicting shipments alone will solve the problem in a comprehensive way. Likewise, if you stop the trotting across the Rio Grande, the coyotes and their exploited clients will simply adapt -- as have the drug smugglers.

A fence might please people who say that they're concerned about illegals, but who don't really pay all that much attention to the issue. It *won't* please the activists, because the activists are damn well aware of the dynamics of illegal immigration. They believe that turning illegals into felons will produce a disincentive to come here. Opponents respond that this is not so much incorrect as it is both immoral and impractical.

Serious anti-illegal people advise that the true choke-point is with employers who look the other way.

This is why your fantasies of a control-the-border-first approach are never going to fly -- either with passionate activists or serious supporters of a solution.

The dumbass general public who watches a newsclip of a bulldozer and feels pleased that "progress is being made" is the middle ground -- and the middle ground isn't driving this issue.

The activists are.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Your base has more than its share of superempowered whackos, Wooten.

Our base is in great shape. We're well organized, coherent and positive. Schumer, Kerry and Dean share mutual total contempt for each other and half of your Senate is running for President against the other half.

There are 50% more conservatives than liberals and we love America and we love being conservative. Many liberals will pretend to be something else in public. Your icons are people like Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha, Michael Moore and Joe Wilson. Ours is Ronald Reagan. Your bloggers are haters like Koz and the Huffington crowd. Powerline is 3 practicing lawyers.

GWBs 5 years have been horrible for you. Dan Rather is but one example. Bush Derangement Sydrome has yet to run it's course because you continue to hate.



Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Controlling the Mexican border isn't addressing the root cause of illegal immigration. The root cause of illegal immigration is the economic incentive to come up here and work at jobs that pay 10x as much and more as you could be making in your home country

This isn't at all complicated. The conservative base isn't remotely interested in the root causes of Mexico's failure to provide jobs for it's people. We all know why they're here. We all know how we ended up here.

It's a fundamental belief we should be able to control our borders. It's insulting we passed immigration reform in the 80's, were told we'd get better security, and didn't get it. It's a basic issue. Get control of the friggin border and don't even say, "trust me'. We have proof that does not work.

If a government can't control it's borders it can't provide security and we need a new government.

No conservative Congressman or Senator will ever say we can't do this. They will absolutely lose. If they say we shouldn't do this they will lose.

AFTER we have addressed getting control of the border AND have made progress on the task we can look to the more difficult task of root causes.

I expect GWBs bill would then pass in a heartbeat. We have 4.6% unemployment. They need jobs. We need their labor. Won't be hard at all to work something out. The presence of the 12M here is a secondary issue. Once we get control it all will fall into place.

BTW: don't feed me this nonsense about no border being airtight or anything to suggest we can't do this. There have been effective fences throughout the world and throughout history. I'm not in the liberal school that says America can't walk and chew gum at the same time. We are the greatest nation in civilization. We can build a wall.

BTW2: This is so serious for conservatives they will vote for the Democratic candidate if that candidate is more serious on border security. This is a critical issue.


Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Serious anti-illegal people advise that the true choke-point is with employers who look the other way.

This is why your fantasies of a control-the-border-first approach are never going to fly -- either with passionate activists or serious supporters of a solution.

The dumbass general public who watches a newsclip of a bulldozer and feels pleased that "progress is being made" is the middle ground -- and the middle ground isn't driving this issue.

The activists are


Wrong on all points. The activists drive nothing. Voters are driving this issue. Hastert didn't drop this issue because activists got their panties in a bunch. Hastert saw dramatic poll numbers showing wide anger at the fact we can't control our own borders. That's incompetence in a post 9/11 world.

Our TVs have been filled with images and stories of massive amounts of immmigrants walking across the borders for years now. These people might not be following the debate over root causes but they can see very clearly we have a border problem. It ain't hard to figure out a terrorist could walk across as easily as a laborer.

The fact is root caues of immigration are not on the political radar. Border Security is at the top of the pile. Root causes will not appear on the radar until after we get control of the border. Once this happens citizebship is a piece of cake.

In 11/06 immigration will not be an issue. It will be about border security. In 11/08 the issues will be linked in the fashion I described. Border Security will always be addressed 1st. No candidate will use the term amnesty unless preceeded by NO.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

The dumbass general public who watches a newsclip of a bulldozer and feels pleased that "progress is being made" is the middle ground -- and the middle ground isn't driving this issue.

I'm a little confused by your point here. I've been talking about political strategy. You seem to be talking about some intellectual debate. That dumbass general public you snear at is also known as the voting public. And they are most certainly driving this issue in this election season.

GWB didn't decide to send the national guard to the border to help process citizenship applications. He sent them to seal the border. He's saying, "I get it".

I'll promise you, of this I am certain, Karl rove isn't trolling for the votes of the activist this November. He wants the dumbasses. There's millions more of them.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Wooten, you really are a creature from another galaxy.

Riddle me this: If border security is such a broad-based hot button -- where's the fence bill? Why did the Senate spend so much time hammering out a Bush-proposed guest worker (you read: amnesty) program? How did Tancredo and Sensenbrenner manage to pass Toquemada-esque legal reprisals against the chicas y muchachos who stock our fast-food salad bars and dig our drainage ditches?

If Joe Couchpotato flips on Lou Dobbs and freaks every night -- if there's no meaningful opposition to a fence save for, I dunno, enclaves of ACLU partisans and Emma Lazarus fans on the Upper West Side -- where's the bipartisan outrage?

Where's a flippin' BILL? Where's Reynolds, PowerLine, Malkin -- ANYBODY -- on your side screeching for one?

The only place that a stripped-out fence bill exists is the same place your head resides.

In a galaxy far, far away ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

If border security is such a broad-based hot button -- where's the fence bill? Why did the Senate spend so much time hammering out a Bush-proposed guest worker (you read: amnesty) program?

As I've already explained GWB supported a bill he believes in. Immigration has never been a huge issue for him nor has he pretended otherwise. But there was an alleged push for broad nased immigration reform. The Senate passed a liberal bill GWB was in agreement wth. The house has a better idea of what the people want and passed a more stringent bill knowing it gets watered down in committee.

Both in fact misjudged their base. We don't want broad based immigration reform. That's why the bills ARE DEAD.

Are you with me on that? THE BILLS ARE DEAD.

Hastert has pulled the bill knowing ONLY the increased security portions are desired at this time.

It will come when the schedule permits. Hastert has to look at the calendar and fit it in at the best time for political advantage. It also makes sense to leave the issue for now and then come back to it. The broad based support is on the GOP side with plenty of incremental support from Independents and moderate democrats. Liberals Dems do not want just border enforcement and they especially do not want a fence. It's too Ariel Sharon. The French might not like us.

We are in a short lull. It was only after a lot of work and agony Hastert was able to get a bill together then only to find out he lost touch with his base. He's wisely taking time to assess his moves.

Be patient. It'll happen. As I told you, there is some activity now. Maybe sine the bill will be stripped down in it's goals they'll add to the $700M allocated for the fence. Denny knows this issue favors the GOP. There's no hurry.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

>>>> -- a group that, by
>>>> assuming an anti-social parameter true of a small percentage
>>>> of them, one is then entitled to hate with impunity.

>>> The only hate I see is on the left. Dean and
>>>> his crowd, that would be you, oozes hatred.

>> Wooten, this is a personal insult. Because of this one comment,
>> I have lost all desire to continue to play whack-a-mole with your
>> endless denial and circular reasoning. You live in fantasyland.

> It is an accurate insult.

Oh yeah, Wooten. I'm a *real* hateful guy. Hate R
Me. That's why I just criticized Stefan on the other
thread for "diagnosing" your personality disorder.

> You wrote the above. It's the classic northern elitist
> smear portraying gays as victims of hate by conservatives.
> It's typically self-serving, superficial and hateful.

Wooten, there's a term for this.
It's called projective identification.

> Fortunately, it's also a loser politically. Clinton ran as a 'new'
> democrat for a reason. Kerry banned the term liberal for a reason.
> Clooney wants to restore the term liberal for a reason. Progressives
> changed their name for a reason. The blue states lose to the red
> states for a reason.

And Ralph Reed apologized to black evangelicals for decades'
worth of race-baiting politics by the GOP for a reason, too.

Projective identification is a function of denial. Cognitive
dissonance keeps you from acknowledging that harnessing hatred
of the Other -- whether black, Muslim, gay and now Mexican --
is a time-honored part of GOP tactics. So instead, you call
Democrats "hateful" for pointing out what is only obvious.

I hate to pathologize you, Wooten; it really is bad form. But there's
nothing else that explains this sort of irrational thought process.

> The failure of the immigration bill is a huge victory for
> conservatives in the exact same fashion the 'cancellation' of
> the Meirs nomination was a huge victory for conservatives.

Uh-huh.

> This is where you are off the tracks. It really doesn't matter
> that GWBs bill failed. Meirs was a collosal failure. But after
> Alito voted with the majority in 5-4 decision on the Kansas Death
> penalty case last week I can promise you ALL is forgiven.

Except that there's nothing waiting in the wings to save your bacon
on immigration equatable to Alito. There is no fence bill, Wooten.
A fence bill wouldn't placate the Tancredo activists who want to throw
Manuel and Inez in jail. News flash: Manuel and Inez are already here.

> What matters is the conservative base
> getting what the conservative base wants.

Which is just a nice way of saying that your base has been
hijacked by mean-spirited, out-of-the-mainstream fanatics.

> We have an arrangement with GWB and the Congressional leadership.
> They do what they think is correct and if we disagree they do
> what we think is correct. They work for us.

And this kind of grandiose refusal to compromise is precisely what
the American public detests about excessive partisanship. Of course,
when passionate Dems do this about the Iraq war, you call us all
sorts of names: shrill, loonies, angry, out of the mainstream.

Which is only more projective identification. Why don't I just
bring it down to your level, Wooten: I'm rubber, you're glue.

Everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you :)

> The attempt to pass a comprehensive immigration bill
> was a mis-understanding engineered by the MSM.

But of course. George Bush had *nothing whatsoever* to do with it :)

> It happens. Rove thought the GOP needed to deliver something big.
> The base reminded him it was too big and they needed a step at a
> time process. The only choice was to kill this bill and start over.

Heh. "The only choice." Wooten, you're not even buying your own
bullshit. Bush was a border state governor with a family that's
intermarried with Hispanics; I honestly don't think he has a bigoted
bone in his body. And one of he and Rove's long-term goals is to
bring more Hispanics into the GOP. Well, did you catch those anti-
Tancredo rallies this spring? Does Prop 187 mean anything to you?
What's going on by the leadership is an act of desperation. Instead
of tempering your frothers for the sake of doing what's right for
the country (not to mention the GOP), the leadership is letting
them have their way for the sake of short-term seat preservation.

And they're risking a wholesale alienation of Hispanics that Rove
had thought to woo, because, you know, they support all those
Republican social values of hard work, family and religion.

Nice work, bro. That's what you and the "base" brought to the GOP.

> Hearings are free publicity. We'll have hearings so GOP
> candidates can film their campaign commercials showing
> how tough they are on border security. It's a gimme. It's
> big with the GOP base but not so much with liberals.
> Denny will schedule major air time for the fence.

Wooten, there aren't too many liberals out there (myself
included) who oppose the idea of a fence or border control
generally on principle. If there's momentum to pass
a stand-alone fence bill, then by all means pass it.

But there won't be, Wooten. Borders are like money -- they're
fungible. A fence won't begin to be effective until it's nearly
complete -- so we're talking about a project equivalent to building
an interstate highway. It's going to take years, maybe a decade,
to finish. And until such time as it is -- or it's so complete
that the gaps are easy to guard -- it won't produce any benefit.

And until then -- what do we do with the illegals already here?

> Wouldn't it be nice to see house dems try to get
> to the right of Denny and raise his $700M to $1B?

Except that since it's a big-government public works
project, it wouldn't exactly be moving to Denny's right ...

Sure, public hearings could build support for a fence. But they'll
also be a forum for Minutemen, would-be vigilantes, people who want
to see illegals behind bars or in steerage on the way back to their
home countries. There's gonna be a lot of pus-y, ugly, mean-spirted
speen vented, some of it downright un-American. And bet your boots
Univision and Telemundo are going to show extensive clips every night.
Oh, your base will just eat it up, true. But as the saying goes --
be careful what you wish for. Doubtless they'll be enough material
in there for some hard-hitting anti-Republican commercials as well.

> The people who care most passionately about
> immigration won't be remotely offended.

Where's the relief in the meantime?

> Pass some amnesty bill rewarding illegal
> acts and there will be hell to pay.

And that's why you lose on the issue.

The two alternatives to so-called "amnesty" are 1) Throw Manuel
and Inez in the slammer or 2) Ship Manuel and Inez back home.

Neither are practical on anything like the scale required --
and are morally offensive to an awful lot of people, besides.

By no means the least of them Christian GOP activists.

> But start with a fence and let's see how we do. Rome wasn't
> built in a day. If GWB doesn't do a good job we'll find someone
> who can do a good job but there will not be amnesty until
> someone does a good job.

You really think your base can wait around that long -- with
zero change in immigration policy until the fence is built?

I don't. I don't think the GOP leadership does, either.

> BTW: I did see a few pictures recently of a fence being
> constructed. I was very pleased. I also want it patrolled. As
> soon as we see effective attempts to control the border it will
> be possible to discuss amnesty. This will not happen in 2006.

Your base is not going to be placated by symbolism.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

I think you're confusing what the base wants and what Denny thinks he can get. They're two different things.

The no-compromise provision in the House approach is one that you seem to back as well: No amnesty for illegal behavior.

And it's that -- and not Denny being out of touch with the base -- that makes Tancredo the complete train wreck. No amnesty means making illegals into felons, and that means either punishing them or sending them home -- and this is unworkable on every level: it's fundamentally immoral (ask the Catholics -- it punishes family ties), it can't be done with millions of illegals, it's a disaster for public safety and public health (because illegals will hide from cops and doctors who have to turn them in).

Considering that this is the one principle that your base seems to be united behind -- don't you in your free-market heart find it just a little bit ... well ... frothingly extreme?

Now I don't think you're an ignoramus about the legislative process. My question had nothing to do with when Denny can pencil something in for a vote. I'm asking -- where's the bill? Bills get proposed months, sometimes years, before they ever get squinted at by the leadership. Where's the House or Senate lion who's sponsored a fence bill? Why isn't he on Dobbs going "Well, Lou, while it seems that immigration reform has stalled this year, I think the one provision that all Americans can unite behind is border security, so that's why I've proposed a bill to build a fence along the Rio Grande ... "

If there's a fence bill somewhere in the hopper, nobody seems to be talking about it. Why?

I think the reason's pretty obvious. Nobody wants to spend $700m on political symbolism. Serious people know that if you seal off the Rio Grande, the Mexicans are just going to start showing up on the coasts of Florida along with all the Haitians, Dominicans and Cubans. It's not a solution to anything but Lou Dobbs' favorite fright videos.

Serious people also know that the true solution likes with employers. If you can't hire illegal aliens, they'll stop coming here. And the solution to that problem is a lot more practical than building a wall: updated document checking technology and stiff fines on employers who get caught hiring illegals.

But nobody really wants to talk about this much, either. Maybe because it's a government imposition on business -- and we all know how much the GOP dislikes *that*.

And that's why the immigration issue has devolved into such a farce, and is going to be such a net loser for Republicans. The real solution is staring everybody in the face -- but the only alternative offered is a massively expensive Democrat-style public works boondoggle that won't address the problem for years -- by overburdening the Coast Guard.

Gods bless Univision. I wish I know Spanish well enough to follow their commentary on the upcoming hearings ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

Wooten, there aren't too many liberals out there (myself
included) who oppose the idea of a fence or border control
generally on principle. If there's momentum to pass
a stand-alone fence bill, then by all means pass it.

But there won't be, Wooten. Borders are like money -- they're
fungible. A fence won't begin to be effective until it's nearly
complete --

There are many libs who detest the idea of a fence. If left to Democrats a fence would never happen. There is nothing remotely funglible about a fence. In those areas where a fence has been installed they've been quite effective and very popular for reducing that kind of traffic in that region.

In terms of total immigration it's true they find other places to cross but it still slows them down and as the fence becomes longer it'll be easier for law enforcement to put a serious dent in the traffic. Until it reaches a satisfactory level of completion.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

If there's a fence bill somewhere in the hopper, nobody seems to be talking about it. Why?

Because they just killed the proposed bills. They have to start the process again and other things had already been scheduled. Denny already said he'll have hearings and debate 1st. They have to be scheduled. There hasn't been time. The base is happy to know the proposals are killed. He doesn't need anything today.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

I think you're confusing what the base wants and what Denny thinks he can get. They're two different things.

No I'm not. Denny realized the base didn't want a comprehensive bill yet. They did not want to hear 'trust us' on the security side. They lost our trust in 1986.

The no-compromise provision in the House approach is one that you seem to back as well: No amnesty for illegal behavior.

No, I liked the senate bill. There were of course a few things I didn't like but I thought the cost of citizenship was high enough without being punative. If in two years we find out the plans for a fence are substantial and advancing and law enforcement, including federal, is on top of it I will be all for passing this Senate Bill.

Put all 12M here now on the path to citizenship. Once they meet the requirements they get a totally clean slate and their vote counts as much as mine.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

the Mexicans are just going to start showing up on the coasts of Florida along with all the Haitians, Dominicans and Cubans. It's not a solution to anything but Lou Dobbs' favorite fright videos.

I'm not a fan of Lou on anything except we must have control of our borders. It's true some will try to find another path but in much lower numbers.

My expectations are once the border is controlled we'll up the number of available visa's by significant amounts. Those so desperate will have a much better change of getting here legally. I don't expect to stop illegal immigration. I want to take it down by 90%.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe because it's a government imposition on business -- and we all know how much the GOP dislikes *that*.


It's a burden on business, would still require a govt bureaucracy and wouldn't be effective. It would just slow their ability to assimilate and move up the food chain.

I happen to think it's good they have jobs. We have 4.6% unemployment and every retail outlet I go into has large 'hiring' signs. We need them as much as they need us.

We need some control of our borders.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

And that's why the immigration issue has devolved into such a farce, and is going to be such a net loser for Republicans

Security is always a winner for the GOP. The felony provision is the house bill was dumb but aside from that the House had a much better bill.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINK

You really think your base can wait around that long -- with
zero change in immigration policy until the fence is built?

I don't. I don't think the GOP leadership does, either.


Then why do you think they cancelled this bill?

I absolutely think they can wait as long as a fence is being built and just as important there's a commitment of resources to patrol, arrest and adjudicate violators.

Why does the wait have to be so long? We'll know in 12 months if real progress is being made. I could easily see some reform pass in 2007.


And this kind of grandiose refusal to compromise is precisely what the American public detests about excessive partisanship

This isn't a good example. There could be compromise on reform if Congress had any credibility on security. Bush doesn't have any on border security either. Get serious on security and we'll have a reform package more like the Senate bill.

We elected these people for a reason. They're to act as conservatives, not as elitists. Bush has gotten a lot of slack from conservatives on spending, education, prescription drugs, etc. There are times compromise isn't possible. Harriet Miers is one example. We were not going to allow another David Souter.

Security, then reform.

Your base is not going to be placated by symbolism.

I agree. Pictures of bulldozers and a new section of fence won't be enough. Piture's of miles of fencing with the ability to monitor those fences and react effectively to a breech will be enough. Knowing funds have been allocated and plans under development for a very substantial fence in heavy traffic areas will be enough.

This is Roves sweet spot. He can promise the base, 'we get it regarding security' and he can tell the moderates, 'we'll have reform very soon after consruction advances' based on the GOP senate bill.

The model here is obviously israel. We know from Gaza a fence works quite well. Our experience to date on the West Bank proves the trouble comes in via the gaps in the fence.

The Palestinians understand they operate under a timeline. The new Israeli PM WILL complete the fence while GWB is in office. It will accelerate negotiations and separation.

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

Projective identification is a function of denial. Cognitive
dissonance keeps you from acknowledging that harnessing hatred
of the Other -- whether black, Muslim, gay and now Mexican --
is a time-honored part of GOP tactics. So instead, you call
Democrats "hateful" for pointing out what is only obvious.

You are really out there with this psycho-babble. The Dean crowd is nasty and hateful. The man was not ready for primetime due to his lack of emotional development and innate sense of moral superiority resulting in his perchant for sticking his foot in his mouth and saying ugly things. I'm almost sure even after iscampaign he said, "I hate republicans". That's find for a hollywood flake but not a serious person. No doubt many liberals feel that way. Serious adults keep it to themselves.

His entire crowd is cut from the same cloth. you may not have had his blue blood upbringing but you share his preening liberal elitism.

I project nothing.

I laugh at elitists of all kinds. They're always frauds. If one is really 'special' they don't feel the need to tell everyone. Serious people don't profess to abhor generalizations in one breath and in the next label an entire group racist or bigot or whatever.

I am and have always been exceedingly comfortable identifying myself as a conservative especially in liberal circles. I love liberals who think by identifying themselves as liberal think they automatically hold high ground. As if registering on way or anther really means something. These fools are the most fun. They're always stupid. I loved Howard Deans discription of the diversity in his life as a kid. "I always got long with the maid!"

And you think Howard is in a position to call anyone a bigot?

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

bob, from slate, you'll like this. checkout the last paragraph.

Who said that when it comes to immigration reform it's the 'Senate bill or nothing'?* It sure looks like Senate conference leader Arlen Specter is moving rapidly, if not desperately, in the House's 'enforcement-only' direction. Specter's now willing to accept making the Senate's guest worker and legalization programs "contingent on having a secure border," reports the Washington Times. Specter also said

"I don't think the Senate will pass a bill that's limited to [enforcement]."

No fair issuing sweeping categorical prohibitions! Throw the steering wheel out the window! [You mean that's a suprisingly weak formulation?--ed Yes. He doesn't "think." This is the pre-conference bluster period, remember. House members may think he might think different in a few months!]. ... P.S.: More Specter

"It may be down the line that we will come to some terms on a timetable, with border security first and employment verification first."

How about this face-saving timetable: Border security, first, employment verification first--and Congress promises that in a few years it will debate a legalization bill? Throw the man a lifeline! ...

Posted by: rdw on June 27, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

You know, it's funny, Wooten. I was just about to start writing a genial post starting with how you and I turn out not to be so far apart on the substance (if not the politics) of immigration reform -- and then you send up that silly post about projection.

Dude ... that was really comical. You start out with a categorical denial ("I project nothing") and then, instead of constructing an argument to explain that you don't project (which might have included, you know, an acknowledgement that the GOP *has* used hate-the-Other techniques on occasion -- you know, the way Ralph Reed did when he apologized to blacks for it) -- you launch into a wild, fingerpointing rant at Howard Dean.

Wooten .... what does Howard Dean have to do with whether or not you deny bigotry through projective identification?

Nothing, obviously.

And in so doing, you produce a flawless, textbook example of just what I'm talking about.

Call it psychobabble if you'd like, but any psychologist on the planet would have called that projective identification for sure :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

bob, from Forbes


Five-term Rep. Chris Cannon survived the toughest challenge of his political career Tuesday against a political newcomer who portrayed the incumbent as soft on illegal immigration.

With 476 of 623 precints reporting, Cannon defeated millionaire real estate developer John Jacob in the Republican primary 56 percent to 44 percent, or 27,115 votes to 20,934 votes.

"I hope what it means is Republicans look at this and realize we don't have to be divided on the issue of illegal immigration," Cannon told The Associated Press.

Posted by: rdw on June 28, 2006 at 7:37 AM | PERMALINK

what does Howard Dean have to do with whether or not you deny bigotry through projective identification?

I didn't say HD had anything to do with projection. I said that projection is psycho-babble. HD is an great example of liberal elitism of the form which leads his 'kind' to assume they are morally superior to the rest of the great unwashed. Liberal elitism is a different item than projection.

Your point about Ralph Reed and GA politics has nothing to do with me. It doesn't make me any more or less racist than I otherwise may or may not be. One's level of racism has zero to do with their party affiliation. It's laughably shallow to suggest otherwise.

I am certain 99% of liberal disagree with this. They know it sounds absurd to say, "I'm a liberal ergo I can't be racist" but they do feel that way. I've had more than a few libs tell me supporting affirmative action meant you were against racism while being against AA meant you supported racism. They're that friggin stupid.

My comback to these morons was always standard. I'd ask where they live. That would always get a quizzical look. I'd then explain, "I'm used to white liberals using their 'liberalism' if it were proof they 'like minorities' A better way to judge this is to find out if they live in a white conclave in order to send their kids to white schools. We all know the term 'a good school district' is code for a white school district."

I can't tell you how many furious non-responses I'd get. White morally superior liberals ALWAYS buy homes in 'good' school districts. I can tell you none of those fools ever again suggested they're moral superiority around me.

In a nutshell this is why Clooney needs to buff up your image. Howard Dean lecturing anyone on race is as stupid as Teddy Kennedy lecturing anyone on the need for estate taxes. I wouldn't listen to Howard Dean any more than I'd listen to you.

BTW: I'm not suggesting you think any differently. Please continue to believe all conservatives are racists and by no means should you hesitate to let the world in on your great insights.

You are morally superior. Of this there is no doubt and you should tell everyone, everyday. It's why liberals are so popular.

Posted by: rdw on June 28, 2006 at 8:12 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, what a bunch of frightening straw scarecrows. Caw! Caw! I must've ... touched a nerve :)

First off, Ralph Reed's comment had nothing to do specifically with Georgia politics. He made it when he was national head of the Christian Coalition. You'd think if ol' Ralph can be introspective and honest with himself about the GOP, that you might be able to as well.

Secondly, Wooten ... how many months have we been debating? I have in archive over 100 posts I've written to you. Have I *ever* called you a racist, bro? You're a free marketer, and free marketers, as proponents of the global economy, don't tend to be racists. Don't you recall a message yesterday where I said that I didn't think Bush has a bigoted bone in his body?

And then once again -- all this bile against Howard Dean, George Clooney and your liberal "friends" whom you seem to take great delight in holding in contempt.

Bro, I didn't accuse you of anything. I made a statement about the GOP. If your response isn't to argue whether the statement is true or false, but rather to launch into an accusatory tirade against other people that blames them for the same sin -- I'm sorry but that's projection so hard you could print it in the DSM-IV.

The topic obviously makes you a tad too defensive for you to discuss it rationally.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

rdw:

"Howard Dean and his 'kind.'" Oh, that's funny ...

Of course, replace 'Howard Dean' with a representative of any ethnic, racial and/or religious minority and we all know what that verbal construction reeks of -- don't we.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, replace 'Howard Dean' with a representative of any ethnic, racial and/or religious minority and we all know what that verbal construction reeks of -- don't we.

Actually, no

his kid, is liberal elitists. It's not an ethnic group or something that happens to someone by accident of birth or involunatarily.

Posted by: rdw on June 28, 2006 at 5:57 PM | 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