technocratic populism

Kevin, I don't understand this reference. Isn't this a contradiction in terms?

Here we go again with the media and others playing "concern troll" for the Democratic Party. We better shape up and go all right wing or we are doomed, doomed.

But you know what? I've got another little idea.

Look, let's put this all in the proper perspective. It is the Republicans have lost big. It is they who are in shock, and are confused. I'm don't doubt but that they have no idea what to do, which way to turn.

It's time for us, the Democrats, to play the role the Republicans have enjoyed for the last 6 years.

We should become their Concern Trolls.

We should explain to the Republicans what they can do to command, once again, the respect of the American people. We should communicate to them the Democratic principles, values, and practices they should adopt to revitalize their electoral prospects. We should describe ways they can, in the right trick lighting, almost resemble Democrats, even though they can never attain that exalted status.

I think it's just the least we can do for them. They've pitched in and done it for us for these many years; now they can reap the benefits of OUR altruism.

So why don't we give it a good college try?

(Actually, there is a genuine problem here. What SHOULD a Republican do to change his party? Say that he refuses to pursue reckless wars, and will take diplomacy seriously? But then how is he different from a Democrat? Is he going to proclaim that he's going to stop passing tax cuts, or that he will actually cut spending? How is that going to sound Republican, or find a way of working?

About the only thing I think they might manage to agree amongst themselves to change is actualcorruption. In principle, they could be the same party and NOT be corrupt -- though it's hard to see how in practice they would manage it.)

The circular firing squad has already begun. Kos is going after Carville, Carville is going after Dean, Dean is just lurking about being crazy, and the interest groups are already demanding their bit-- the Democrats have to please the grave-robbers, the baby-killers, the troop-haters, the terrorist-appeasers, those that value spotted owls over humans, those who want racism in college admissions, those who want illegal immigrants to vote, etc., etc., etc.

While republicans spent six years trying to govern, democrats spend six years mostly just campaigning and trying to score political points. Given that their only priority is their own electoral success, it's no surprise they managed to eke out a victory.

However, they can't humor all the interest groups without horrifying the mainstream. So, they either lose the support of NAMBLA and the communists, or they horrify the American people. Either way, they disintegrate in 2008.

The Democrats have been sliding to irrelevance for a long time; 2006 merely delayed the inevitable.

Heath Shuler -- one of those 'conservative democrats' we have been hearing so much about in the media is in the NYT today talking about the function of government as 'helping people who can't help themselves' --- compassionate yes -- but conservative, not so much

The people of the United States are the only issue of concern for the next Congress. What are the Middle Class in 2006 except people with Chinese goods and a pantry of food they keep in a banker's pantry?

The correct path for Democrats is that which it has always been--taking care of as many of the masses as we can, with an eye towards bettering the lot of the whole.

ah: While republicans spent six years trying to govern

funniest line of the thread, so far....

Problems posting today--
The problem with trolls is that they steal bandwidth and bury discourse. The whole American Hawk douchebaggery is no longer funny nor productive.

My point above should have read: What are the Middle Class but barely disguised poor people with Chinese goods and food stuffed into a banker's pantry?

The whole post was lost, then reassembled badly by myself. Anyway, taking care of Americans is the way of the Deocratic party. Taking care of the poor is the way of my religion and the American way. . .

Posturing to lead the way forward is predictable outcome of multiple success stories and a good thing. I love the 100-hour blitz. The remaining hours should look to our wounds as tempered judgement should do--all things in their good time.

Problems posting today--
Yeah, Sparko. I was trying to read American Hawk's post and all I saw was "blah, blah, blah."

Ah, Kevin.

That's right, the Democrats aren't conservative. What they are are a bunch of liberal secularist, materialist, humanistic, deconstructionist, Darwinist, communist, socialist, athiestic French lovers who would prefer to hold hands with terrorists and understand them instead of loading the guns and taking it to them. The dems would prefer to kill babies rather than to educate them and nurture them through Bush's NCLB and Christian programs.

The Dems would rather pry money from the cold clutches of dead people and give their hard-earned money to some fat welfare queen living it up in federally funded New Orleans.

The Democrats would rather form an unholy union with spoiled, flighty Hollywood actors and force their nihilism and athiesm on the hard working people of this country.

You guys are gonna get creamed in '08! I'm gonna enjoy that. Revenge is a bitch, ain't it?

I enjoy egbert's parodies, but sometimes he goes much too far for credibility. Still, they're good fun!

Interesting to see how the media finds the Democrats to be so moderate/conservative. Seems like only last Monday they were happy to parrot GOP talking points claiming that they were all trotskites.

The position of the Senators on social issues is utterly irrelevant. Neither the House nor the Senate is going to have a single vote on one of Rove's wedge issues.

Nor is their position on Iraq particularly important. Outside the administration only Joe is an appologist for the original decision to invade. Everyone realizes that that was a collosal mistake. The only question that matters is how to withdraw without causing an even bigger screw up.

None of the Democrats elected this time support keeping permanent bases in Iraq for the purpose of defending Israel. Only Joe thinks that is possible and that is because he is too stupid to realise that its impossible.

I withdrew a bit from the tender mercies of Political Animal just prior to the election since I saw no purpose in engaging in debates over theory when the concrete would be demonstrated so soon and conclusively.

I feel much the same about threads like this. Many of the "newbies" are going to spend the next month deciding how to be the public servants that they wish to be.

I'm hoping that some of these known unknowns lead to some pleasant suprises.

While republicans spent six years trying to govern, democrats spend six years mostly just campaigning and trying to score political points. Given that their only priority is their own electoral success, it's no surprise they managed to eke out a victory.

Needs editing....

[While] republicans spent [six years trying to govern, democrats spend] six years mostly just campaigning and trying to score political points. Given that their only priority is their own electoral success, it's no surprise they [managed] failed to eke out a victory.

The Democrats really lost this election. Even though they won the seats, they did it by tricking the voters into thinking they were advocating Republican ideals. In 2008, the people will realize they've been had, and then the Republicans will go on to acheive permanent majority status.

Hawk, have a cup of STFU to wash down a capsule of Fuckitall. You lost. the American people have spoken.

We are tired of cradle-robbers and terrorist creators, of insane tax policy and those who disrespect the military to the point of abusing the troops.

Get over it. You are going to survive our reign just as we survived yours. Barely.

If by conservative Democrat you mean someone who opposses bringing the troops home how, advocates market solutions to the health care crisis, and promotes the priciples of international trade -- tben yes, I think it's pretty obvious the conserative Democrats have expanded their position in the party.

I always thought that when dumbfuck right-wing douchebags like American Hawk said "special interests" it was code for "black people" (which is code for "macaca" which is barely veiled code for something else).

this fits better here:

http://feinstein.senate.gov/06releases/r-dems-eng0517.htm

I think it's a winner for the Dems. I dislike some of the provisions, as I did with the Republican measure, but on the whole I'd support it.

Except for this and a few already well-formulated plans, I don't expect the Dems to propose anything soon. Mostly they'll hold hearings and investigate.

...it's unlikely that Democrats are going to focus much on social issues anyway in the upcoming congressional session...

That's really the key, isn't it? You can be a pro-life Democrat who in good conscience would vote to ban abortions. But as long as you vote for a leadership who would never let that on the agenda, well, welcome to the tent.

I'll take a conservative Democrat over a conservative Republican any day. Bring it on!

You can be a pro-life democrat and prevent far more abortions through reasonable economic, health, education, and social policy than any republican who banned abortion while reducing access to contraception, gutting sex education, and moving the nation toward a more social darwinian economic system.

I'll take a spotted owl over a Latvian pigeon any day.

I am really tired of the reich wing disparaging environmental protections. Species lower on the food chain, and the health they enjoy in the ecosystem is an indicator of how well we will be doing on down the path. Duh. Ever heard of the canary in the coal mine? Think before you spout off in the future and maybe you won't look quite so fucking ignorant.

from

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15675318/site/newsweek/

There was no bigger issue than the war, which Rove had pushed as a winning theme for the GOP. . .
Rove blames complacent candidates for much of the GOP's defeat.

With this kind of bullseye thought why would anyone trust someone like this to make any important decision about anything at all?

What many are uninclined to address is that some forms of incapacity are idiosyncratically optimal in narrow areas. I read somewhere that professional boxers were found to have less of some kinds of pain receptors, certainly a benefit in their field that would give them an edge over, oh, me with my exceptionally normal pain receptors.

If a boxer were to put himself forward as an expert in how much something hurts he might generate a lot support from people with an agenda of their own who would argue that as a boxer he hurts people all the time and gets hurt a lot himself so he ought to know.

But, clearly with his specific incapacity he's the last person we should listen to about this.

It's like that with social conservatives and religious maniacs and Republicans in anything that involves social relations, who, like boxers, are really enthusiastic about exploiting their specific incapacities.

(And that is probably why conservatives, pretty universally, like to see politics as sports.)

Kevin's going to great lengths trying to prove that something happened other than "throw the bums out".

Love the idea, frankly0. Yes, let's have Donna Brazile, Carville, Dean, Trippi, Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, Emanuel, Lieberman, and everybody else talking about what those Republicans ought to be doing to save themselves. It'd be spectacular.

Forget all the punditizers, those people have just had their world turned upside down and can only come out with garbled old scripts and recycled memes from long ago that all come out in a jumbled hash. It'll take them some time to reload their stock of cliches and get them in order.

Dems should, and I hope will, get back to what made them Dems-- looking out for the little guys. That'll scare the bejabbers out of all those Republicans who worship at the corporate throne, which will be fun to see.

And I'm predicting right here that Pelosi will surprise just about everybody and be a superb speaker. Forget about that "San Francisco liberal" BS. She grew up reading the Congressional Record, for cryin' out loud, and understands the institution inside and out the way it should be. She'll show the minority how a speaker can run the place without trampling all over them, even giving them a fair shake, and still steer things the right way.

It's a tough job, looking out for the House and leading the majority party at the same time. Gingrich and Delay were bomb-throwers who didn't give a fart about the institution or its constitutional responsibilities, and Hastert is a non-entity who can't be bothered to see why he should care about any of that. I don't see Pelosi that way at all. She wants to rehabilitate the institution itself. A tall order, and more power to her.

I enjoy egbert's parodies, but sometimes he goes much too far for credibility. Still, they're good fun!

Parodies? Hope so.

But I could show you a letter I received from a close kin, which slaps all those labels on me with serious venom, although, believe me, some of them don’t apply at all. I could give you direct quotes directed at me from Republicans in my neighborhood just because I was recently out canvassing for some Dem candidates. My favorite was “You Democrats just take our tax money and give it to the niggers.” I’ve been hearing that one for decades, but it had been a while.

And yes, one of my points is that folks like that seem to have gravitated to the Republican Party. Congratulations for somehow making them feel at home.

Pundits have Tester and Webbs positions wrong too, especially regarding abortion. Both are pro-choice. And Casey, who they have been playing up as strictly anti-abortion really isnt. Ive heard him interviewed and he's about as weak an anti-abortion politician Ive ever heard. Im not even sure he is, I think he may just be personally opposed. He said himself, he's not his father on that issue.

Is there any way we can get a better class of troll here? I mean, how many times can they predict doom for the Democrats and be utterly wrong? Shameless and sad. Isn't it time for them to go away and write their book?

Can you tell that to Lieberman?

He seems to think that partisans on both sides lost and it's now time for Bush and him to take their turn governing.

Can we give him a the chair of the subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts and leave it at that?

You can be a pro-life democrat and prevent far more abortions through reasonable economic, health, education, and social policy than any republican who banned abortion while reducing access to contraception, gutting sex education, and moving the nation toward a more social darwinian economic system.

You mean like Clinton did in the 90s?

As a Concern Troll, my first advice to Republicans would be to educate themselves with regard to the New Patriotism. First tenet: do not send young people off to fight wars that you can only seem to drum up support for by lying.

I think Dems were elected to pursue populist policies and for oversight. We'll see how the 100 hour plan goes for the Dems. My guess is that it will be extremely popular and give them momentum.

one - two - three - four!
We don't want your culture war!

Thank you!
[url=http://rexxcpch.com/xtrr/vrai.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://iyhhyxbp.com/fajk/icsm.html]Cool site[/url]

The circular firing squad has already begun. Kos is going after Carville, Carville is going after Dean, Dean is just lurking about being crazy...

No, that's a Repub talking point, and therefore, nonsense. Carville is old history. Dean has been vindicated and now the Brits want his help. (h/t Avedon, Sideshow)

...and the interest groups are already demanding their bit...

Yeah, Dems will serve their biggest interest group...most Americans like the middle class, small businesses, our troops, etc.

Repubs are the party of the South and serve their favorite interest groups: white evangelical extremists, lobbyists, and Repub cronies.

...the Democrats have to please the grave-robbers, the baby-killers, the troop-haters, the terrorist-appeasers...

You're confused or a liar. That's what Repubs do. See here and here and here and helping to appease Hezbollah here. You got a problem with a free democracy in Iraq that's anti-Israel? Take it up with Bush.

...those that value spotted owls over humans, those who want racism in college admissions, those who want illegal immigrants to vote, etc., etc., etc.

See, now you've exposed yourself once again as a Limbaugh dittohead trained in radical disinformation. Squawk away, parrot. You lost. Dems won.

Not one Dem incumbent lost their seat. But Repubs did.

The Democrats have been sliding to irrelevance for a long time; 2006 merely delayed the inevitable.

Bwah ha ha! Thanks for the yucks, loser.

Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit

Well done!
http://rexxcpch.com/xtrr/vrai.html | http://ruuozwri.com/cwfn/traf.html

Otto, go whore your blog at TLB's site. You guys can have a circle-jerk over there.

frankly0 on November 12, 2006 at 12:57 PM

Good idea.

Not one Dem incumbent lost their seat.

Worth repeating but correctly...Not one Dem incumbent lost a seat.

That LA Times article was the first time I'd seen anyone expecting the Democrats to expand abortion rights. Most people seem to realize that there'd be no way to pass that type of legislation... unless it's set up to trap Bush and other Republicans.

Well done!
[url=http://mhtqrxav.com/fexs/tssb.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://gkanhkiz.com/pvmf/cmwa.html]Cool site[/url]

Great work!
My homepage | Please visit

Well done!
http://mhtqrxav.com/fexs/tssb.html | http://vukwvomf.com/fycz/arbf.html

Is John McCain still on suicide watch?

Our sock-puppet blog-whore isn't even posting working links.

He's doing it politically, Dwight. He has formed an "exploratory committee" to start raising money for a run for the oval.

Personally, if Hagel runs, he has my support.

I laugh at American Hawk's analysis. The day of Karl Rove style political shananigans are over. The curtain has been lifted and the GOP has been shown to be the scared little cowards that they are. Now that you are in the minority in the house and senate, Hawk, you'll get to see how a real government is run. Don't worry, we real Americans will protect your rights along with everyone else. Why? Because we are the real party of values.

Thank you!
[url=http://rrqheqzt.com/ocsq/btsc.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://tiysckyz.com/shxr/ihtr.html]Cool site[/url]

Good design!
My homepage | Please visit

GC: Hagel's your choice over a Democrat?

Depends on the Democrat.

When I lived in Kansas, and Nancy Kassebaum was my senator, I crossed the ballot to vote for her and I worked on her campaigns. I do not appologize for that, as she was a good senator for the state of kansas and for the country.

D.
Because we are the real party of values.

I have some hope for the new government. Hope springs eternal. A divided government seems to work better, and certainly fits into the founder's scheme better. I voted for Casey in PA over Santorum.

I am curious to see if Senator Robert "uber-pork" Byrd of "secret hold" fame gets a committee, or if Alcee "impeached" Hastings gets the intel committeeship. If so...business as usual. Same government, different animal mascot. Still, at least it will be divided.

Hey Mike! How the hell you been buddy? haven't had the pleasure of your input for a while. I was afraid you were on a carrier in the Gulf!

Been busy indeed. And as someone else upthread pointed out, didn't see any need to comment on theoreticals when the realities would be here soon enough. I did browse after JFK's monumental gaffe to see if it got discussed here, but didn't see a particular thread on it.
I hope Jim Webb can play a real role going forward. He's a great, principled leader. Enjoyed watching Lieberman beat Lamont. The center must hold. Enjoyed watching Santorum go down. Bet he doesn't move back to PA. Thought that waiting until after the election to have Rumsfeld step down was like waiting to drop out of bootcamp until after just you've had your head shaved. Stupid. Next few years should be entertaining.

I'm curious: Which Democrat (or what type of Democrat) would force you to crossover to Hagel?

I mean, if you stuck a gun to my head and told me I had to pick between McCain and Hagel, the choice would be easy.

But I am going to assume that the Democrats do, in fact, nominate someone, and I don't see John Paul Stevens staying at work much beyond 2008 . . .

I talked to people on Whiteman and Leavenworth after the Kerry gaffe, and consensus among them was that they were more offended by a C-in-C too stupid to get that the joke was about him than they were at Kerry's slip.

I promised some time back I'd never discuss him again here, so I'll just hum to myself.

Hillary. I would love to see her on the Supreme Court, but I do not want her as president. If she won the Oval, 2010 would be a backlash so extreme that we would be crying for the good old days of 1994.

Hagel appointments would not scare me too bad.

As I recall Mike, you are not a fan. neither am I, for that fact. i didn't vote for him in the primary. I didn't vote for him in the general. I voted against aWol.

"Enjoyed watching Santorum go down"

Are there any videos?

I'm not saying she would not do a good job, mind you, I just think that she is too polarizing.

Yes, Hagel's choices wouldn't be insane, but I have to believe that his choice to replace Stevens would move the Court further to the right.

Oh, and Mike, contrary to some people's hopes, Kerry's "gaffe" proved meaningless.

Now, George Allen's gaffe...

THAT was monumental.

When the time comes to make my decision about what horse to back for 2008, Supreme Court appointments will definitely weigh heavily in the equation.

"Kerry's 'gaffe' proved meaningless"

If only someone could have sent word to Russert and Paula Zahn about that.

If only rdw would return, he'd tell us what to do. Yes, he and Mrs O'Hara will know what to do.

They are not thinking about it until tomorrow when they get back to Tara.

I have read this thread and it seems to me that some of the rightwingers (I would call them trolls, but after Tuesday it is clear they didn't keep us off the bridge) are utterly unwilling to examine the reasons they lost.

Folks, the Republicans lost because they thought of themselves as Republicans first and Americans second. Citizens just caught on.

There would not have been an Iraq war if the President and his team had considered what was best for America as opposed to what was best for his election chances, or maybe his oil company friends. Katrina would have been an opportunity to prove just how much they cared about all Americans if when looking at the weather reports they had started moving relief supplies toward New Orleans. If the President had looked at the original news clips from the scene and said "where the f*ck are the relief workers. Kick the tires and light the fires, I am going down there." Instead he went on air guitar photo ops and told his people to figure out how to blame the Democrats. If Denny Hastart when he first heard about Foley's problem "I am Speaker of the House. I have a duty to those pages. I don't give a damn who his contributors are, that SOB has to go and go now." The Republicans might have won if when confronted with Senator Stephens threat to quit if he didn't get his meanless bridge to nowhere, if they had resoundingly said, "don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way back to Alaska."

We can go on and on, but the last 6 years, and especially the last 4 years, is a never ending string of Republicans putting themselves and their party above the needs of the American people.

Just a little shout out to our pal,

Hey American ChickenHawk!

By the way, pal stands for Personal Ass Licker.

I'd turn that around Ron Byers and say I'm afraid its the Dems that are looking like they learned nothing and forgot nothing during their time in the wilderness. A smart Dem majority would be magnanamous and let Bush pick his own team for the last two years, instead you're like dogs that can't stop chasing cars with the anti-Bolton jihad. To the swing voters that just put you in power that looks petty and petulant, because it is. A smart Dem would have denounced the German grandstanding about Rumsfeld [much as Charlie Rangel did with Hugo Chavez] and said the American people are trying to address our problems and that they [the Europeans] should butt out. This would show [fool?] the public that you do have some sense of patriotism. Ah, but I'm sure I'll get several thousand other opportunities to to advise you over the next two years. Here's one more and then I'll go -- tell your new congressmen to rent their new houses, they'll be moving back home before they pay the closing costs.

Dumdsfeld is an arrogant embarrasment who should be tried as a war criminl. Now THAT would be Patriotic!

Welcome to the well deserved two year long melt-down of the Democrats.

The voters have given them a rope to hang themselves. Of course Democrats exist to please the voters.

After 2008, Republicans will rule the country for at least the next hundred years.

minion of the friendly troll

I am afraid some of the Democrats might want to follow your suggestions. Hopefully most won't. They were elected with a clear direction to drain the swamp and clean up the mess. I don't think the American people are going to be too upset if GWB's feelings are hurt, or if Dick Cheney is told to shut the fuck up.

Maybe the Republicans should now retire to their think tanks and figure out that PR doesn't trump real results.

Any party who says "government" is the problem should never be given control of government. The Republicans proved just what they believed. Hopefully the American people will remember that the phrase "the government that governs best is the government that governs least" is really a call to thoughtful, deft handed government, not for taking government apart.

Government is necessary. The Republicans would do well to keep that in mind. They should also keep in mind that government doesn't belong to the winning party, it belongs to the people. The winning party is just the caretaker.

Minion,

Arguably the D's won because people were dissatisfied with how things are going, including internationally. Sitting back and letting Bush pick his own incompetent people isn't exactly showing leadership and giving people a reason to vote for you in '08. But thanks for playing.

Petulant at not allowing Bolton? he couldn't make it through a Republican senate. That is why he is there on a recess appointment now.

Hey Minion!

Any chance you can get your Club for Growth friends to target Susan Collins and Gordon Smith?

For all the talk about how Lieberman-Lamont turned out for the netroots, not enough is said about the far right's whack job on Chaffee, forcing him to embrace Bush in the primary and mortally wounding for the general election.

At least Lieberman is caucusing with the Dems. I don't think Sheldon Whitehouse is going to be helping out the GOP anytime soon.

How exactly is a two-year melt-down of the Democratic party well deserved? We have been out of power for six years.

Don't write the epitaphs before the seats are even taken.

The Democrats don't have to launch a suite of socially progressive legislation straight out of the gate. Simply by not promoting a raft of socially regressive legislation they will effect a profound change in Washington.

I'm feeling better and better about this election. At last we have a group in office to protect American people from the Republicans. It's like a load has been lifted off my shoulders and I can breathe easier.

Bolton is the neo-con poster boy. He hates the UN. He loves the notion of America run amuck, threatening everybody if they don't do exactly what we say, and that is just when he is talking to our traditional allies.

We need a professional diplomat at the UN not a refugee from some neo-con think tank.

Civics lesson time, the new Senate doesn't start until January. The current (109th) Congress is composed of the guys who just lost. I am not sure, but I don't think there are enough Bolton votes to get him out of the Republican controlled foreign relations committee.

I'd like you guys to mark this page and bring it back up the day after the 2008 elections. When we were confronted with a cesspool of corruption and dysfunction at the UN that blocked any action on Darfur, North Korea, etc. -- you guys chose to attack John Bolton for wearing white slacks after Labor Day. I'd think a better policy would be to to to the Prez and try to negotiate some bipartisan reform proposal to be delivered at Turtle Bay, but that's why I'm a Republican and not near as smart as you.

last sentence should have said ... to go to...

Um,uh,duh,

I thought repukes stood for fiscal responsibility

and smaller gov? The effin deficit is larger than

ever, and the gov is more bloated than ever! Why

would anyone want those crooks in charge?

Great work!
[url=http://ytklruhq.com/iesr/qsbs.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://uxxokmvr.com/pajc/akwt.html]Cool site[/url]

Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit

Well done!
http://ytklruhq.com/iesr/qsbs.html | http://tltkcdsa.com/pxgy/yqlk.html

Can't we play nice just for a bit?

I promised some time back I'd never discuss him again here, so I'll just hum to myself.

I fail to see how that is "drumming up hatred for a war hero."

Seems pretty respectful to me.

I'm growing pretty happy about this election, too. Franky's suggestion kicked ass. I love the idea of a Democratic Concern Troll Squad :) Everybody seems to agree that the CW on the "new conservative Democrats" is wrong; here's my take on why:

The election was primarily a rejection of the radical right wing. It was a strong repudiation of extremism on taxes, war, social policy and culture war politics. It was essentially the entire country vs the Bush backwashers.

According to the NYT WIR, Republican party figures are interpreting this, *universally* (this is key), as not a slap in the face to their conservative ideals, but rather to a Republican Party grown ineffectual and corrput. This just superficially true enough to delude these guys into thinking that purifying the party and making it even *more* conservative will allow them to win again.

I truly, truly adore this. Republicans are in lockstep about this point, evoking Reagan and Gingrich. It's sort of like how DLC types felt about the Deaniacs driving the Dems off a cliff -- only the difference is, the Deaniacs proved prescient on the most important issue of the election. The Repups are claiming, IOW, that they can't win by evey *trying* to be moderate.

What *planet* do these guys live on? Reagan, the old beloved granfatherly figure, didn't have the heart to drown entitlements in the bathtub. The GOP made an ass of itself with impeachment, and redeemed itself by compromising with Clinton. Successful American politics *always* governs from a broad consensus on policy (which I won't call "the center" since such a thing doesn't exist).

Thing is, partisan lefty Democrats have a *lot* to be thankful for -- and no, old-school laundry-list interest-group politics doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with it. Our Democrats may disagree with us on some hot-button social issues (certainly with me personally on gun control), but the core group of policies they *will* be pushing for is substantially to the left of anything that came out of Denny Hastert's "majority of the majority" in congress.

So while it looks like some socially conservatives and neoliberal Dems won some high-profile races -- it's really pragmatic-minded liberal Democrats who are setting the agenda.

And suprise, surpise -- the majority of Americans like the issues that we pragmatic liberal Dems are offering :)

Go us :)

Bob

"I promised some time back I'd never discuss him again here, so I'll just hum to myself.

I fail to see how that is "drumming up hatred for a war hero." RSM November 12, 2006 at 6:41 PM

"Seems pretty respectful to me."
Posted by: Global Citizen on November 12, 2006 at 7:17 PM

Got to agree with GC here, much as I tend to strongly disagree with RSM I also have a decent sense of his views because of that conflict. I know exactly what he thinks of Kerry because I have been one of the ones that most strongly went after attacks on Kerry's military record at this blog. I respect military service, especially voluntary, and particularly when it contains a record of courage under fire and intelligent decisions under fire, particularly when it saves lives that otherwise could/would have been lost. Kerry fits that description, always has. The problem for too many people is that they confuse the way Kerry opposed the Vietnam war with what kind of service someone that acted so could ever have given instead of actually researching the record and discovering that even those that disagreed with his anti-war activities among those that actually served directly with Kerry respected his record/actions while in Vietnam itself and his awards. Red State Mike certainly wasn't trying to stir that pot, but I have to say RSM certainly seems to want to by launching this clearly unprovoked, unsupported and undignified attack on Red State Mike, one of our few non-Trolletariat conservatives at this blog. I have no use for such and I register my objection to it in this post, as I would argue Global Citizen did with her comment.

As to the thread topic itself, no one interest/voting block has any basis to claim that "they" won the election for the Dems, well aside from Bush and the GOP leadership that is...:) That though will not stop the advocates/supporters of many traditional such blocks from trying to claim that it was and therefore their agenda deserves special attention/focus from the new Dems Congress. This is inevitable in politics regardless of what the actual facts/numbers in the votes and exits poll data have to say on the matter. The most important thing here is to not let any of those myths take hold as conventional wisdom. This was a broad spectrum repudiation of the GOP agenda from everyone outside of their core base from far left to center right independents/moderates. This was a sea change in that going into the election the GOP held majorities in the House, Senate, Governorships, and State Legislatures. Now that is true in all four cases for the Dems, and they gained like at least eight legislatures, and six governorships along with no Dem incumbent being defeated neither at the federal level nor for governor. This is apparently truly an unprecedented event in American political history (at least no one appears to have come up with another example of this despite several days now that I have heard/seen)

This feels like a true realignment beginning, and the Dems are well positioned to make a generational shift in their favour. The next 2 years may well determine the shape of American politics for the next couple of decades thanks to the utter destruction of the reputation of the GOP as good on defence (Iraq, execution of) fiscally conservative (record deficits and massive additions to debt) and managers of the economy for all (see insecurity of middle class and the great risk shift leaving many middle class one disaster away from poverty and working poor one paycheck away from homelessness) and being the party that represents the average America (see repudiation of Bush/Rove base ideology/culture wars and way of operating politically). It is a very bad time to be a GOPer and a very good time to be a Dem. The Reagan Dems are coming home as demonstrated by Webb and the GOP is becoming more extremely conservative as well as an almost total southern party. The GOP as it currently exists appears to be on the brink of oblivion, and it will take a while for the new GOP coalition to form just as it did for the Dems, and it will not begin before the GOP stops worshipping at the alter of being ideologically pure (whatever the particular shape of it, it has branded the GOP as the party of elitist extremists trying to social engineer America, something the Dems had been perceived/branded as for some time to the advantage of the GOP) as the foundation of being a Republican.

Oh yes, I fully endorse Frankly0’s suggestion at the beginning of this thread, fair is fair after all…:)

My favorite was “You Democrats just take our tax money and give it to the niggers.” I’ve been hearing that one for decades, but it had been a while.

My favorite is when I hear that coming from white folks on welfare. Now *that* is hilarious. Personally, I hope those people keep voting Republican. I really don't want them in the same tent with me, no matter how big.

I see Red State Manson is back...

I guess it makes sense that you've been counting the seconds until I reappear, since you even went through the bother of naming yourself after me. I'm honored, in a way. You are probably doing the best you can. Hat tip to Scotian and GC for their bipartisan-ness.

I look forward to Jim Webb being a respected voice on foreign affairs from the dem side of the senate. He was a great warrior and a great SecNav.

kerry's unforgiveable sin seemed to be pointing out that americans committed atrocities in vietnam.

I'm certain that whoever blew the whistle on the 14yo Iraqi girl who was raped, and subsequently executed along with her family, is similarly a traitor to red state mike ... and if that person decides to run for office in the future, will be promptly swiftboated at that time.

mike's concept of what constitutes "respect" for the troops is, at best, the misshapen product of his own ignorance and racism.

so yeah ... despite the benign "I promised some time back I'd never discuss him again here, so I'll just hum to myself" ... red state's position on kerry is simply a reflection of his own immorality, and he should occasionally be reminded of that.

despite the benign "I promised some time back I'd never discuss him again here, so I'll just hum to myself" ... red state's position on kerry is simply a reflection of his own immorality, and he should occasionally be reminded of that.

Not only that, but what Scotian and GC have seemed to overlook is that RSM started out with, "I did browse after JFK's monumental gaffe to see if it got discussed here, but didn't see a particular thread on it," immediately before he claims that he promised not to discuss Kerry again.

Seems to me that he is the one stirring this pot on this topic by employing Wingnut Troll Tactic #4577: open a topic, get a swift kick in, then declare the topic closed.

Really, folks, don't fall for this crap.

Nads, I hope that Jim Webb, Viet Nam vet and Navy Cross winner (one below the Medal of Honor), performs admirably for our country as a democrat. Here's the citation for his actions

WEBB, JAMES H., JR. First Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps Company D, 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division (Rein.) FMF Date of Action: July 10, 1969 Citation: The Navy Cross is presented to James H. Webb, Jr., First Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps, for extraordinary heroism while serving as a Platoon Commander with Company D, First Battalion, Fifth Marines, First Marine Division (Reinforced), Fleet Marine Force, in connection with combat operations against the enemy in the Republic of Vietnam. On 10 July 1969, while participating in a company-sized search and destroy operation deep in hostile territory, First Lieutenant Webb's platoon discovered a well-camouflaged bunker complex which appeared to be unoccupied. Deploying his men into defensive positions, First Lieutenant Webb was advancing to the first bunker when three enemy soldiers armed with hand grenades jumped out. Reacting instantly, he grabbed the closest man and, brandishing his .45 caliber pistol at the others, apprehended all three of the soldiers. Accompanied by one of his men, he then approached the second bunker and called for the enemy to surrender. When the hostile soldiers failed to answer him and threw a grenade which detonated dangerously close to him, First Lieutenant Webb detonated a claymore mine in the bunker aperture, accounting for two enemy casualties and disclosing the entrance to a tunnel. Despite the smoke and debris from the explosion and the possibility of enemy soldiers hiding in the tunnel, he then conducted a thorough search which yielded several items of equipment and numerous documents containing valuable intelligence data. Continuing the assault, he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the enemy threw another grenade. Observing the grenade land dangerously close to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from the explosion with his own body. Although sustaining painful fragmentation wounds from the explosion, he managed to throw a grenade into the aperture and completely destroy the remaining bunker. By his courage, aggressive leadership, and selfless devotion to duty, First Lieutenant Webb upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and of the United States Naval Service.

Disputo, if I could delete the post I would.

I'm sure webb will perform admirably.

I'm uncertain as to the relevance of the above quote to your dismay at past american strocities. I'm sure killing soldiers in combat doesn't count as a war crime.

Mike,

I can't wait until the Republican swift boat machine really gets started on Webb. I would imagine they will tell you Webb wrote his own citation and wasn't even in the theater of operations on the day of the above cited action.

Who you going to believe Mike, the Marine corps or the Republican noise machine? That could be your choice.

I guess my problem with all the Swift Boaters is that they were obviously political tools taken seriously by media types claiming they were trying to be fair.

Fortunately it will be 6 years before he has to run again, unless the next President picks him to be Sec Def.

Ron Byers
I can't wait until the Republican swift boat machine really gets started on Webb.

Nonsense. He was unswiftboatable. If they could've, they would've. He ran against one of the obvious 2008 presidential candidates. Maybe Lieberman/Lamont had greater press, but only maybe. They pulled out all the stops available to them.

This is my last post of the night, and I hope my last post on Kerry. I wish folks like Ron Byers that defend this clown so strenuously would take a dispassionate look at the facts that the SwiftBoat people brought to light. Yes, Kerry was a hero for his actions on the day he got the Silver Star -- but he would not have been awarded that medal in any other war but Vietnam. The dryrot that affected the whole war by that point resulted in any officer - especially an Ivy League graduate - being puffed for publicity purposes. What the Swifties most objected to was Kerry's self-promotion in the days before and after his Silver Star -- his volunteering to write all the after-action reports, where he appeared as a Walter Mitty character almost every day -- his denial, then duplicitous reapplication for his first Purple Heart for being hit by a splinter the size of a pencil lead -- his seared recollection of Christmas in Cambodia, which was a preposterous lie. Face it, Kerry has about as much credibility as Al Sharpton, and the fact that your party nominated him completely cancels out the boner my party produced with GWB.

those who fail to recognize the monstrosity of the War On Iraq need to be reminded that the blood of every Iraqi and every soldier is on their hands, and that there has been no greater mechanism for undermining our national security than Bush’s unprovoked, unauthorized and unwise invasion of Iraq.

Agreed. These assholes deserve to stand trial for war crimes. In my household we have been agitating against this stupid waste of life and treasure since 2002.

As to Webb - they tried. They leveled charges of kiddie porn, but the book they skimmed is required reading at the academies.

And as for trying to push Gates through before the new congress is sworn in: Webb and Gates have a long and rancorous history. He woun't make it out of committee if Webb is on SASC.

I don't understand why anyone on the Left is bothering to push back against the ridiculous meme coming from the Right that the Dems won by being more conservative. I don't see a downside to allowing that to float around. Go on, let the GOP fool themselves into thinking that the election was a vindication of their platform, and that it was just evil Dems stealing conservative votes that caused them to lose -- they'll be even less prepared next election.

i have a question.

i have posted some of american hawk's gibberish elsewhere because it is so idiotic, and someone asked me what he meant by democrats being 'grave robbers.'

now, i know his stuff makes no sense, but ususally i can figure out what he's referring to in his typical lunatic fashion. can some one someone tell me what the fuck he is talking about in this instance?

your puzzled pal,
blake

The estate tax is grave robbing in the mind of the fever-swampers.

TYou counter that idiocy by pointing out that every child born in this country is $30K in debt from their first breath.

Call them cradle robbers. In every sense of the word.

癌症
癌症
尖锐湿疣
中国康网
尖锐湿疣
排铅
成人用品
尖锐湿疣治疗

中国康网
健康导航
资讯中心
男性健康
女性健康
两性健康
大众健康
母婴健康
疾病大全
中医中药
医学知识
药学知识
药品大全

Yesterday, it all seems soooooooo yesterday.

The Thread on November 1st, 06 named by Kevin, "Kerry and the camera" - 202 comments.

The Deep Thoughts tread of Nov 2 with 206 comments, many of which were about Kerry.

The myriad of posts of Kerry being brought up by the trools on other threads, which had nothing to do with Kerry. In fact, the trools were encouraged to keep bringing up that topic, as it held Iraq front and center.

One of the interesting facets of the trools harping on Kerry's supposed disrespect for the troops, is that not one of has posted on the losses our troops have incurred. Not once have they posted about the loss of limbs, massive head injuries and the like - Not once did any one of the chicken livered swine mention anything about Veterans Day. These ChickenHawk trools never show any concern about the troops except to cheerlead "Stay the course", or whatever bilk spews from the wee widdle cINc.

And, now may we close the subject?

Great work!
[url=http://omwweles.com/euer/zaxy.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://lgulfeyn.com/phpn/fsdc.html]Cool site[/url]

Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit

Well done!
http://omwweles.com/euer/zaxy.html | http://mqfncebe.com/zrnm/qwyq.html

"Not only that, but what Scotian and GC have seemed to overlook is that RSM started out with, "I did browse after JFK's monumental gaffe to see if it got discussed here, but didn't see a particular thread on it," immediately before he claims that he promised not to discuss Kerry again.

Seems to me that he is the one stirring this pot on this topic by employing Wingnut Troll Tactic #4577: open a topic, get a swift kick in, then declare the topic closed.

Really, folks, don't fall for this crap."

Posted by: Disputo on November 12, 2006 at 9:13 PM

Please do me the courtesy of recognizing I know how to read thank you very much. I know exactly what he said and you are reading more into it than I think is fair to do. Kerry did make a serious gaffe and left it hanging for several hours to a day (depending on how you define explaining it). When he made it I was one of the very first here to comment on it and point out that according to CNN's report (this being the following day from the original bungled joke) it was easy to see how someone could have dropped "us" without realizing it. However, the way it came out it did sound like a shot on the troops themselves and he should have come out faster to apologize for inadvertently creating that appearance even though he never would do such a thing himself. If he had done that there would have been nothing for the GOP to work with. Now I was glad to see his strong response, and it was a travesty what was done with that mangled punch line and his complaint was square on the money, but he did end up saying what he said and he did wind up having to apologize for that in the end. So making the comment Red State Mike did is perfectly fair given that context, then he followed up with basically saying that was all he was going to say regarding Kerry. That is not starting something, unless one is hypersensitive and/or looking for any excuse to start fighting with him or anyone that dares speak of Kerry's blunder as being on the warpath.

While I can see the resemblance to various wingnut rhetorical strategies one has to be careful not to always assume something is what it looks like at first glance/blush. I have never agreed with Mike regarding Kerry's record as he well knows given my rather strong views on it expressed during the whole SBVfT obscenity. Mike and I rarely agree on much of anything. For someone in military service I find some of Mike's positions taken in the past incomprehensible as well as reprehensible. However, Mike is also one of the few real conservatives I see show up here at all regularly and while yes he sounds like a Kool-Aid drinker on more than a few occasions at least he is a real person from all appearances as opposed to the Trolletariat bot personas/caricatures we keep getting like Chuckles and his sock puppet brigades to name one example. In any event in this case I genuinely see RSM overreacting and really being unfair given what had been said to that point regarding Kerry by Mike. If Mike had pushed it, or made a snarky remark about how he agreed in some way with the disgrace Bushco made of that gaffe then I would agree with the response he got from RSM was fair, but that is not what he did. All he said was that he saw no thread on the topic of Kerry's gaffe, period. Then he said he would speak no more of Kerry, probably because when he does several of us have jumped all over him for it and he is tired of it and sees no point in doing so repeatedly anymore. Therefore I said what I said, I stand by what I said, and I disagree that I overlooked anything in this matter. Sorry.

BTW, you do realize if you are correct about what kind of tactic it is and for causing then it was RSM that fell into it in the first place with his first response to it you know and not GC nor myself since we responded to his attack on Mike.

Red State Mike,

I do not consider and have not considered you to be any part and parcel of the above mentioned trools.

I may disagree at times with your positions, but you have served and are serving honorably.

Sorry Mike, but your citation about Jim Webb's 1969 Navy Cross is meaningless.

You see, Minion just told us that "The dryrot that affected the whole war by that point resulted in any officer - especially an Ivy League graduate - being puffed for publicity purposes."

Unfortunately, that would also invalidate McCain's medals as well, so I guess he won't be calling himself a "decorated war veteran" during his 2008 presidential run.

Hagel was a sergeant when he received his awards, so I guess he's "unswiftboatable".

Anyone who can dismiss any medals or service awards, especially those earned in combat, has never suited up, and their bloviating on it just shows their lesser nature.

By the way, I have been engaged in some of those debates with Mike.

I knew precisely what I was saying and why I was saying it. My reading comprehension is fine, thanks.

Minion I have no brief with Kerry. I do think he was swiftboated unfairly. If you don't like that he opposed the Vietnam War, fight on that ground.

Near as I can tell none of the meaningless charges made by the swiftboaters about his service actually stood examination. In any event the President, Vice President and damn near everybody in the administration took a pass on service in Vietnam. At least Kerry went.

If after all that has happened since 2004, you still believe anything spewing from the Republican noise machine, God bless you, you need all the help you can get.

If the Turd Blossom Republicans ever, one time, told the truth about anything I might pay attention to the noise machine. Near as I can tell it is all made up all the time. I think alot of Americans agree with me. Your day is done.

Anyway, if in the future you want to characterize my position on some subject do it accurately.

Global Citizen, my post was a riff on the idiocy of Minion, not a dismisal of medals nor a statement on their relevancy in evaluating someone's worthiness as a political candidate.

Nonsense. He was unswiftboatable. If they could've, they would've. He ran against one of the obvious 2008 presidential candidates. Maybe Lieberman/Lamont had greater press, but only maybe. They pulled out all the stops available to them.

Oh ho ho--that's rich.

Are you really trying to make the case that Webb was "un-Swiftboat-able?"

The central tenet of using a "Swiftboat" style attack on a Veteran is to MANUFACTURE charges against that Veteran that are of a dishonest nature.

I don't care who you are, where you served, what medals you earned and what the citations actually said and I don't care what your records, your friends, or anyone else says about you--ANYONE can be Swiftboated. ANYONE can have their military experiences turned upside down by someone who lies about what that person did or didn't do.

Welcome to American politics in 2006: no matter who you are, they can Swiftboat you.

To think that a dishonest tactic couldn't be used against a Veteran is laughable. These sumbitches would Swiftboat Audie Murphy and Alvin York if they could.

I'll accept that Webb had a stellar service record and that he probably wasn't in the same category as Kerry, but come on. When the standard is to make shit up, it's not hard to see where they would go that route against someone like Webb.

By the way, the first guy who was "Swiftboated" was actually McCain in 2000