The DailyKos readership is actually older than the general public, with a median, as I recall, in the early 40s.

Also, of course the YearlyKos people licensed attentively to the DNC chair: Howard Dean is their man, and much the old party establishment and the punditocracy was horrified by his election.

Kevin,

I'm not even sure "radicalized" is the right word. To the extent that "radical" represents moderates' view of the Republican party, this may be true... opposition is solid and strident.

However, from a ideological perspective, it seems more correct to say that moderates' views have remained relatively stable - just cast into stark relief by the move of Republicans sharply rightwards. In other words, the Vietnam period was a somewhat conservative era fought by passionate leftists. The present day, on the other hand, is dominated by extreme conservatives fought by 75% of the country.

something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?
--Dylan

And plenty of us blog types are old enough to have grown up on Dylan.

I think a lot of journalists (though I don't mean to include Hertzberg here) don't quite get this because they haven't quite internalized just how far off the rails the modern Republican Party has gone.

Man, you aint kidding. In saner times, I would have been called a moderate Republican. Now, because I oppose the bat-shit crazies in charge, I have been accused of being a mao-ist loving liberal.

If being liberal means thinking objectively and supporting the spirit of the constitution then I am a liberal.

Proudly so.

The problem for the 27% is they have so demonized every one that doesn't agree with their barking mad worship of authoritarian rule, that we are all liberals now.

Except for the press corpse, who lives in some alternate reality.

Call it the cocktail weenie dimension.

Hertzberg's condescending article is garbage. Does Noam Chomsky look like a dope-smoking hippie from the 1960's with bell bottoms and a floral shirt? The problem is that the political spectrum has gotten shifted so far to the right that someone like Al Hunt of the WSJ is characterized as a "liberal" on some talk shows.

I deplore these simple-minded attempts to use what a person looks like to categorize their political views. George W. Bush may look and dress conservatively, but he is the worst kind of radical fascist who is, in the final analysis, a much greater danger to this democratic republic than Abbie Hoffman ever was...

A lack of LSD (liberal social democracy) is what is motivating mostly moderately liberal middle class people to become involved in politics.

It's all a matter of framing, which pundits seem to have a pathological need to do in order to tell their stories. Newt and the radical right managed quite successfully to frame republicans as the salt of the earth, and to frame democrats as dirty communist hippies.

Christians are all fundamentalists like Pat Robertson. Immigrants are all wetback Mexicans who want your jobs and your daughters. And bloggers are teenagers who live in their parent's basements and eat cheetos all day.

I'm glad to see that a few journalists believe their own eyes. It's a start.

What, exactly, is a "bog ordinary moderate liberal"?

A party that isn't a youth revolt, and isn't powered by free love, free LSD, and the fear of being drafted.

I dunno, sounds like a boring party to me. I'm pretty sure that being young with free love and free LSD is more fun than being average, and probably worth the fear of being drafted.

The Republican Party...a criminal enterprise masquerading as a political party.

This post should be printed out and dropped on the middle of Joe Klein's desk. As I was reading this, I kept thinking that it seemed to be written with him in mind.

Tom: What, exactly, is a "bog ordinary moderate liberal"?

A typo.

What, exactly, is a "bog ordinary moderate liberal"?

It's a liberal whose views don't stray to far to the left of those also held by acidophilic moss - for peat's sake!

Great post, though I would agree with GeoffBro's comment that I wouldn't necessarily use the term 'radicalized' as a description. Rather, I think your following statement about "how far off the rails the modern Republican Party has gone" is sufficient explanation enough. The people going to the YearlyKos are probably better described simply as 'activists'.

I was a registered Republican until Bush won the party's nomination. I knew enough then to realize that electing a worthlessly spoiled draft-dodging frat-boy coke-monkey wasn't good for the party or the country, became an independent, and haven't voted for a Republican since. Bush and the Tom Delay Republicans turned out to be a million times more corrupt, incompetent, divisive, and dishonest than I ever could have imagined (or would ever have believed possible). I can't foresee a time in the future where I will ever again for a Republican, but I have to say the continuing incompetence of the Democrats really makes we wish we had a third party.

Well, give Hertzberg points for actually being there and describing what he saw. Remember Li'Ann Coulter's pathetic "column" on the Democratic Convention that was rejected by USA Today? She claimed that all the attendees were dressed like and looked like hippies. Maybe when the USA Today editors read it they thought she hadn't really bothered to attend.

How many people dressed in standard, middle-class casual clothes while protesting against the Iraq War (AND after 5 PM or on weekends) have been told to "get a job," or addressed as "hippies" or "commies?" I have.

Rove and his ilk have created a serious rift between meaning and language.

That last paragraph is right on the money, Kevin.

The last six years has not been politics as usual, but so many journalists -- the younger ones maybe -- just don't notice. And maybe that's why the Kos community skews old.

The deep dynamic started with the Nixon Southern Strategy.

In FDR-designed politics, the authoritarians and the crazies were divided between the political Parties, and governance (and real power) were in the hands of a bi-partisan coalition, where moderate Democrats -- moderate because they were neither committed liberals nor reactionary conservatives, of which there were plenty of both in the Democratic Party -- led moderate Republicans of the Dirksen/Ford mold.

Nixon and Reagan moved all of the authoritarians into the Republican Party. Leading authoritarians is a lot easier, but, because of how it is easy, such leadership is prone to corruption and policy incompetence.

The dynamic empowering the Democratic Party is increasing numbers of militant moderates, repulsed by the authoritarianism, corruption and incompetence of the Republicans. The latter characteristics are not just the consequences of being in power, they are the natural fallout from the "Southern strategy" of Nixon, Reagan and Rove (which was not exclusively "Southern", of course). The composition of the Republican Party and the leadership style of the Republican Party have been shaped together, and it has consequences for policy.

The "bi-partisanship" forged by FDR in WWII, in part as a way of isolating his own Party's reactionary right-wing, is no longer functional. Democrats will have to take power and wield it. The quality of policy-making will depend on the ability of the progressives to discipline the conservatives, (as illustrated in Krugman's missive to Schumer).

Republicans have to be isolated like plague-infested vermin in this new politics.

The MSM is apparently overdosed on hairspray and oblivious of who their readers actually are. I'd love to see every blogosphere participant and reader of the NYT cancel their subscriptions on the same day -- the day that the NYT once again allows itself to frame the news according to GOP talking points. I suspect most of their readers are way out ahead of them.

I am 63 -- my husband is 60 and in any sensible era we would be 'moderates' -- now that raging incompetence is the center and fascism is their ideology I guess we are on the left. But then so is most of the population.

This war is an all-Republican affair.

You got that right. And that's why, when we have successfully brought democracy to the middle east, the Republicans will be in power for a generation at least.

I chuckle when I hear Democrats described as "wild-eyed liberals," because when I look around at co-members of my local Democratic committee, I find most all of them are older than I, and I'm 53!

I dunno, sounds like a boring party to me. I'm pretty sure that being young with free love and free LSD is more fun than being average, and probably worth the fear of being drafted.
serial catowner

Well, the 60's was (were?) more fun. I'm often reminded of Wordsworth's characterization of the French Revolution: "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven ..."

"It's powered by a lot of bog ordinary moderate liberals who have been radicalized by George Bush and the Newt Gingrichized Republican Party."

Speaking of liberal hippie radicals, did you catch the speech made by terrorist-loving liberal, Newt Gingrich?

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001."

"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives.... He was unstinting in his criticism of his fellow Republicans, in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

"We were in charge for six years," he said, referring to the period between 2001 and early 2007, when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. "I don't think you can look and say that was a great success.""

Holy Moly, even Newt Gingrich is one of us...!

Glad I wasn't the only one who never heard of "bog ordinary" before.
Reminds me of when Clinton (him, not her) said, in a 1993 press conference, that someone "didn't know him from Adam's off ox."
Thus am I educated; thank you.

mhr

Christ, what tripe. The Democrats just stopped getting into dumb, criminally dumb in this case, wars. The Republicans have flown off to some la-la land where every tax cut fill the treasury and every war brings democracy and peace. They, and you, appear to have no moorings in reality.

Those of us who remember the Democratic party of Truman and Kennedy know that the party that has gone off the rails is their old Democratic party

Right. The modern Democratic party is about ten paces to the right of JFK and another dozen to the right of Truman. Not that it matters at all, because you're basically a lying whore, but it's also a fact that while the current crop of GOP warmongers were dodging a war they believed in, the last two Democratic nominees for President enlisted to be part of a war they found troubling.

But what does the truth matter, right? You don't give a shit. Honesty is a sham. Truth is whatever you're programmed to believe. You're just a fascist little tool who judges people's courage by the number of people they're willing to send to die.

What a shitty world you must want.

Hey that Gingrich quote is great! Wonder what mhr thinks of it.

The last six years has not been politics as usual, but so many journalists -- the younger ones maybe -- just don't notice. And maybe that's why the Kos community skews old.

I'm not arguing that the younger journalists are clueful, but remember that many of the worst offenders--the "journalists" who defend Bushco at every turn with the "it's just politics" mantra--are longtime members of the Beltway Geezers' Club.

"This war is an all-Republican affair. And this generation, thank God, is perfectly content to stick with Chairman Howard."

Excuse me... It will not be an all Republican affair anymore when the Democrats will likely be in control of Congress and the White House in 2009, and GW has successfully run out the clock on Iraq. Don't be surprised that the "ordinary moderate liberals" move to the left once again when that transition happens. The Dem candidates are fixing to step into another big cow pie by talking up intervention in Pakistan and making statements about "what war we should *really* be engaged in", etc.

Bush will have the Army completely worn out by 2009 with nobody wanting to sign up. Don't be surprised if the Dems float a draft and end up being a pariah. The thing to do NOW is to pull out all the stops and get this thing over with by 2009. However, I think events on the ground in Iraq are moving out of our control so quickly that the efforts keep the lid on until 2009 may fail regardless of how badly the administration wants to run out the clock.

If a one of those serious beltway Democrat types gets elected president and still has troops in Iraq by the end of 2009, this will become a Democrat war quickly enough.

Kevin, I reckon you're going to be waiting a long time for our current lot of leading journalists to internalize just how far the Republican Party has gone off the rails.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater was marginalized by journalists, but today, we have the spectacle of Republican presidential hopefuls vying with each other to be the candidate with the most aggressive policy in favor of torture, evisceration of due process, and tearing up the writ of habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment. Today's journalists do not seem particularly perturbed by these positions, or indeed the vehemence with which they are expressed, but on the other hand are only too content to suggest that Al Gore is borderline for raising his voice in saying "how dare they drag the good name of the United States through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison."

Journalists have been in thrall to the right wing ever since the Reagan presidency. I don't care about how they vote, or their private views on "social policy"; objectively, they have been regurgitating and thereby validating the right wing narrative about Government incompetence and inefficiency, the virtues of enriching the rich, the alleged "weakness" and "naivete" of the Democrats in foreign and defense matters, etc.

These same journalists backed the impeachment of a popular President whose popularity increased as it became clearer to the American people that the right wing was attempting a coup d'état. The leading Washington journalists, the Broders, the Hiatts, the Gordons, and the whole crowd of talking heads and Sunday morning gasbags, have been corrupted to the core. We will not, and indeed should not, restore civil discourse in our polity until this corrupt opinion elite has been swept from power.

I think a lot of journalists... don't quite get this because they haven't internalized just how far off the rails the modern Republican Party has gone.

Maybe some Goddamn day they'll edumacate themselves. Or maybe, just maybe, they'll get some more edumacation in Nov 2008.

What a shitty world you must want.

What they want is a nice authoritarian paradise like the old USSR. But without the social benefits.

The KGB writ large, but with some good 'old your own your own' style survival of the fittest(or noble born).

The worst of both worlds, and they lust for it in the very depths of their authoritarian loving souls.

It's hideous!

Sex, drugs and rock and roll = a movement

YearlyKos = a few more dollars for the Democrats (but probably no new votes)

You can't just look at the sixties and say "Vietnam", you also have to talk about civil rights, women's rights, and everything else that happened between the Beatles and Altamont.

YearlyKos, in contrast, is a gathering of straight laced, middle class white people who think Edwards is as left wing as is tolerable and haven't met a union member since their plumbing backed up.

As fas as I can see, the Kos crowd is this decade's DLC. If it weren't for the war and the Bush administration's incompetence, there wouldn't even be a YearlyKos. And when Bush finally leaves the scene, and some middle-of-the road, no-agenda Democrat becomes President, YearlyKos will cease to exist.

Oh, I used to be a cold war liberal, most anti-Chomsky, anti anti-American, what you have. This administration (added to the hysterical derailing of the Clinton presidency) have certainly radicalized me. Things have happened that I would not have believed possible, but as they obviously are possible, I have been forced to re-examine my premisses. A strange concept to modern Republicans no doubt: factual observations leading to changes of opinion... Facts on the ground don't matter to this bunch and that is very, very scary.

The real problem with modern liberals is that they have no idea what rails are for.

Rails are for running you, that pathetic President of yours, and the entire GOP out of town (or this country) on.

re: HKH

Yeah, as far as actual socialism or even social democracy is concerned, but should we really, now, concentrate on the ownership of the means of production? While even the fairly, hmm, faintly socialist Constitution is used as toilet paper by this junta? Would that be practical?

Hmmm. Seems Kevin has "gone off the rails" with his buddy Hendrik, whose fact-checkers at the New Yorker missed his illiterate "Saudia Arabia" commentary recently.

John Murtha just got $150 million in earmarks on defense bills and the REPUBLICANS are off the rails? In psychology, what Kevin and Hendrik are suffering from is called "projection," and they're obviously at ease with their visits to the hatemongers at DailyKos whose denizens can rarely get through a sentence without f-bombs and spelling errors as egregious as Hendrik's "Saudia Arabia."

Or maybe Kevin has been ingesting some substance we'd all love to get our hands on?

No one naked around here. No chaos at YearlyKos. No "sweet smell of marijuana," as the straight papers used to refer to it. No demands for revolution. No denunciations of bourgeois democracy. The Democratic National Committee Chairman is listened to respectfully and cheered enthusiastically.

Ya know, its really really pathetic that you have make this sort of observation about a Democrat/liberal/progressives convention. And the intent is simply to combat the false romanticized boogeyman view of the left as perpetuated by right-wing propagandists.

What's happening now isn't a youth revolt, and it's not powered by free love, free acid, or fear of being drafted. It's powered by a lot of bog ordinary moderate liberals....

Enough! If the press doesn't already understand this, then they are viewing the world through highly partisan goggles. Not to mention, complete idiots.

"I'm not arguing that the younger journalists are clueful, but remember that many of the worst offenders--the "journalists" who defend Bushco at every turn with the "it's just politics" mantra--are longtime members of the Beltway Geezers' Club.

Posted by: shortstop"

Good point. I guess I tend with the older guys to chalk it up to inherent prejudices and with the younger to ignorance, but I'm probably wrong about that breakdown generally. (And as to those now older ones, I remember in 1998 loudly pontificating that Bill Clinton would have to resign any second. And I'm thinking -- what world do they live in? They must just be dopes.)

"John Murtha just got $150 million in earmarks on defense bills and the REPUBLICANS are off the rails?"

The above comment is a good example of what the media really needs to internalize. Let's use a example from the world of sports to illustrate the problem. Imagine two teams playing, where one team not only cheats but proclaims that it is perfectly entitled to cheat, yet still screams like a banshee if the other side even comes close to breaking the rules. I hope someone is able to figure out how the political party that proclaimed itself the chief enemy of Communism ended up adopting the same totalitarian mindset as the Reds. I guess that old saying about Aybss-looking-into is true.

Mike

DaveinBoca,
hatemongers at DailyKos... and his illiterate "Saudia Arabia" commentary

No one takes you seriously. Be a good troll and go back to the sites of Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and Malkin where the real hate is propagated. And keep worshipping at the throne of "W" where the illiteracy, not to mention incompetency and mendacity, is continuous.

Kevin is right. Here is a good example from today's WP;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202261.html

"two seemingly contradictory realities: blogs' growing influence as powerful backroom players in Democratic circles and the fact that they don't reflect the views of most Democrats, much less the general public."

This is pure bs. Liberal blogs reflect the views of the general public more than the Washington Post editorial and op-ed pages. I bet more people would agree with Atrios than David Broder. But according to WP journalists Atrios is a radical lefty and Broder is the voice of the "mainstream".

Dave in Boca is a follower of the "I know you are but what am I" school of political discourse. There is absolutely no reason to let him appear on your screens real estate without paying rent. Have a slice of pie instead.

Those of us who remember the Democratic party of Truman and Kennedy know that the party that has gone off the rails is their old Democratic party.

Yeah, since the Dixiecrats deserted in droves for the GOP, which welcomed them with open arms. Good riddance.

Sorry. Here is the link to Cleek's WaMo Disemvoweler.

Shouldn't one also compare the ages of those involved to the ages of the people who would show up at, say, the democratic convention, or state party conventions? My impression is that you see a lot of fully gray hair at establishment political meetings vs the salt and pepper gray one might expect at the kos meetings.

Not a "youth movement" perhaps, but a movement a decade or two younger than the current establishment.

Yeah, sure, Bruce Wilder, a political party which supports Congress passing a law which regulates the content of political speech, and a party whose vast majority of elected officials support the War on Drugs, and a political party which, on the local level, frequently supports regulating smoking in private establishments, not to even mention the instances of the same political party deciding to tightly regulate economic behavior, not due to any desire to correct for an externality, but merely because there is power to be acquired in doing so, is a party which has had it's authoritarian elements driven out. Sure.

Awhile back, Jeffrey Goldberg had a sensible piece in the New Yorker on how Middle West Democrats are closer to the Republican Party than to the screamers on the Left Coasts represented on this comment page. Go ahead and Google it & you'll find out that not all New Yorker writers are as illiterate & witless as Hendrik.

Most American voters view themselves as culturally conservative and nutroots like Kos and their MSM enablers as eccentrics. Zogby, Gallup, and Pew all have recent polls where Americans describe themselves as traditional and conservative over "liberal" by numbers of two to one or in one case, five to two.

Not that the nutroots care about winning converts, it's much easier to sling hateful epithets.

I am old and much more conservative than I was in the 60's with the sex, drugs and rock and roll. I read the blogs and the comments simply to get some sense of what is really going on. The MSM has lost all credibility with me except for the sports scores and obituaries. That being said,I agree that none of the Democratic candidates for president with the possible exception of Dennis can be considered anything further left than moderate and Hillary is plainly conservative. It was always the point about her husband that he was a liberal Republican and she is further right than he was. The biggest change I have noted is that while we have always had crooked politicians, they are all crooks today--at least in the sense that they are for sale to whoever will finance their campaigns. The MSM mostly turns a blind eye to this phenomena as well. That is why there is no money to fix bridges, but there is always a promise to cut taxes.

Awhile back, Jeffrey Goldberg had a sensible piece in the New Yorker on how Middle West Democrats are closer to the Republican Party than to the screamers on the Left Coasts represented on this comment page.

Of the people who post here most regularly, probably half have identified themselves as being from the Midwest or South. You can never get it right, can you, davey? Your record is as pristine as Bush's at this point.

Yeah, there are multiple billions to fund corn and sugar beet boondoggles, to pick just two, but the trade-off is between fixing bridges and tax cuts.

No "sweet smell of marijuana," as the straight papers used to refer to it. No demands for revolution.

As I remember from earlier times, quotes like this were almost invariably some form of: '... sickly sweet smell of marijuana ...'

"The modern Democratic party is about ten paces to the right of JFK and another dozen to the right of Truman."
Hell, the modern Democratic party is at least 15 paces to the right of Nixon.
It is indeed a turned up world when I, someone raised to be a Goldwater conservative, is thought to be the bug-eyed liberal of the family.

My parents wonder where I obtained my unorthodox political views, then I point out they voted for Goldy in 1964 when almost everyone else in the country voted for LBJ.

Mr. Hertzberg is one of the few decent political writers at the New Yorker.

Will:

"Yeah, sure, Bruce Wilder, a political party which supports Congress passing a law which regulates the content of political speech, and a party whose vast majority of elected officials support the War on Drugs, and a political party which, on the local level, frequently supports regulating smoking in private establishments, not to even mention the instances of the same political party deciding to tightly regulate economic behavior, not due to any desire to correct for an externality, but merely because there is power to be acquired in doing so, is a party which has had it's authoritarian elements driven out. Sure."

1. What do you mean by "a law which regulates the content of political speech"?

2. As for supporting the so-called War on Drugs, I am under the impression that most officials of both parties support this idiocy. And I think you will find more opponents of this "War" among the Democratic rank-and-file, although there certainly are Republicans with Libertarian leanings who also oppose this "War".

3. "Regulating smoking in private establishments". If you mean people's own homes, hardly. If by private establishments, you mean restaurants and bars, while these are owned by individuals or corporations, they are public establishments--i.e., anyone may patronize them. When smokers light up, they affect not only their own health but that of the other people in the room. The good of the greater number of people is served by regulating smoking in public establishments.

Moreover, in the cities and counties which have banned smoking in restaurants, revenue has actually gone up because the pool of potential clientele increased. I am one of many who refused to patronize establishments which allowed smoking in all parts of their facilities. Not to mention the people with various breathing difficulties who are now free to go into restaurants without being laid prostrate. The dire predictions of loss of income for said establishments with non-smoking laws have not panned out.

4. "Regulate economic behavior". You wildly exaggerate. We favor sensible regulations to retard the worst depredations of the greedy and unprincipaled. Viz Enron, an example of how an industry performs when sensible regulations aren't in place. We don't wish to drive all businesses into bankruptcy. But if regulations are in place, all businesses are subject to them. All have to adjust, and it's amazing how creative they can be! And how that creativity can actually work to the good of the majority of people, like when sensible environmental regulations are in place.

banned smoking

Dear Tom Snyder died this week. I was a big fan of his old late night TV show. I saw an early anti-public smoking advocate on the Tomorrow Show along with a tobak executive. The anti-smoking guy took out some snuff, put some up his nose and then sneezed all over the tobak exec, demonstrating what it was like for non-smokers to breath smokers' smoke. I miss that show.

Can a brother get a police riot up in here?

Of the people who post here most regularly, probably half have identified themselves as being from the Midwest or South.

And how I look down on them for it....

And how I look down on them for it....

You're just mad because you found how we spot Germanic folk on the street. And how we giggle about it.

No drugs, no free love, no riots?

What the hell is the matter with kids today?

I think it was the Chicago police riots of 1968 that turned the public away from the war and the use of abusive physical authority by the state. I do not think the Kossacks have it in them to taunt the pigs of Chicago into acting out their most precious desires in order to demonstrate to the public that that kind of physical authority is still in use. I do not think I have it in me either. Dammit.

daveinboca: Zogby, Gallup, and Pew all have recent polls where Americans describe themselves as traditional and conservative over "liberal" by numbers of two to one or in one case, five to two.

And yet in polls where instead of labels they ask about silly things like actual issues (e.g. UHC or the Iraq War), most Americans are a bunch of screaming pinkos.

The Triumph of the Wingnuts is an interesting example of changing people's brand identification despite having a distasteful product.

Buy Wingnut Beer, comes in red, white and blue cans! (and ignore the fact that it tastes like shit).

screamers on the Left Coasts

All of our Left Coasts? Can I contact them via the Internets?

What is it about wingnuts and the distinction between nouns and adjectives (Democrat vs. Democratic) and between singular and plural (Internet vs. Internets)? I know that facts have a liberal bias, but I wasn't aware that grammar also does.

It's a devious plot, Kevin. When the press departs, the clothes come off and the Free Abbie! signs abound amid the Owsley and Orange Sunshine.

We're just having trouble finding any foreign Commie govt interested in taking over the country. I think they're looking for a country of educated, healthy people, not the shopping-cart screaming loony nation we've become.

Groovy. Not.

(And I speak as a non-attendee who astrally projected my soul there for a look-see).

Ommmmmmmm.

Wolfdaughter, your view of regulation is so naive it is almost quaint. A large percentage of regulation has as it's primary purpose the imposition of an obstacle to new entrants to an industry, and thus increased competition. Democrats, quite often in alliance with unions, frequently are at the forefront of such maneuvers.

Yes, I know Democrats smugly deign to tell private establishments what is allowed on their property, and often put forth junk science, like second hand smoke "studies" to provide cover for acting obnoxiously paternalistically towards the establishments' customers and employees, as if those parties aren't fit manage their own lives. That's one reason why it so ludicrous to claim that the authoritarian element has been driven from the Democratic Party.

I never claimed that the Republicans were any better regarding the War on Drugs; I just said that overwhelming support for the War on Drugs by Democratic elected offcials made any claims about a deficit of authoritarians in the Democratic Party too silly for words.

At this late date, it still amazes me how ignorant people are of McCain-Feingold, which, yes, regulates the content of political speech, an act which is the very essence of the authoritarian.

I won't even get into Democratic support for abusive exercise of eminent domain, where the state is used to take property from one citizen, not for a public purpose, but merely to transfer the property to another citizen who the authoritarians favor. Yes, before we erect another strawman, most Republican thugs favor it as well, including our President, who used it as the mechanism for stealing (I won't insult the forum by using the verb "earned") his fortune.

Again, the notion that there is an absence of authoritarianism in the Democratic Party is simply absurd.

.... there are multiple billions to fund... but the trade-off is between fixing bridges and tax cuts Will Allen at 4:04 PM

...Governor Tim Pawlenty today said he is is open to all options to solve Minnesota's transportation and infrastructure problems including a special session of the legislature. Previously the Governor had been very cool to the idea of calling lawmakers back into session. He vetoed the transportation bill the legislature passed because it included a 5 cent a gallon gas tax.
Pawlenty indicated that even if he had signed the 2007 transportation bill or the 2006 transportation bill which he also vetoed the I-35W bridge would not have been replaced.....
The bridge need not have been replaced. There was discussion of installing heavy steel reinforcement plates.
Republicans would rather give tax cuts to their wealthy supporters than repair essential infrastructure. It is a shame that people die because Republicans are too immature to do their job.

Will Allen at 7:49 PM: .... regulation has as it's primary purpose the imposition of an obstacle to new entrants to an industry...of McCain-Feingold....abusive exercise of eminent domain....
Regulation has as its primary purpose, the safety of the consumer, the protection of the environment, and the protection of the worker. You need to harvest the hay on the South 40 to find enough straw for your straw men.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but eminent domain is in the Constitution. It's the law if the land. You apparently misunderstand the meaning of authoritarian. Hint, it doesn't mean the desires of a community.

McCain-Feingold attempted to limit the time ads could air, not their content. Perhaps that is too subtle for ya. Let's make it clearer: money isn't speech. Just because your favorite billionaires can fill the airwaves with their propaganda, doesn't make it free speech.

Second hand smoke is a know health risk. It's not junk science even if you can't figure it out.

Dave in Boca writes:Zogby, Gallup, and Pew all have recent polls where Americans describe themselves as traditional and conservative over "liberal"

We'd have to check his numbers, but there's no doubt that a minority in any national poll would label themselves liberal.

However a funny thing happens when people are polled on actual positions without using labels such as liberal or conservative. A majority tends to pick the liberal view.

All that the polls on whether one calls themselves a liberal show is that the right wing noise machine has been successful in confusing people (including Dave) as to what liberals believe.

Mike, you are ignorant as always. McCain Feingold specifically states that certain words are banned at certain times. When certain words are banned, moron, that is content regulation, even if they aren't banned continuously.

As to your other predictable idiocies, oh, yes, yes, the reason why, for instance, cab medallions are restricted in number in most major cities is to protect the consumer; like protecting the consumer from the uncertainty of whether it will be possible to hail a cab during a thunderstorm. The restricted medallions insures that the consumer knows it will be almost impossible. Say, Mike, do you put out cookies for Santa Claus each Christmas?

Now, to your greatest exploration of numbskullery, wherein you imply that if an action is the "law of the land", or the "desires of the community", authoritarianism is not in play. Hey, Plato? When the desires of the community, as expressed through their elected representatives, and approved by the Supreme Court, stated it was just fine to sterilize people who scored low on an i.q. test, against their will, do ya' think maybe, just maybe, that the authoritarian impulse was in play?

With every post you send, you push the envelope of cretinism. You are truly the Chuck Yeager of chowderheadedness. You have The Right Stuff. Congratulations.

For what it is worth, a majority of the French consider themselves traditional and conservative. In fact, the French are willing to pay high income taxes to support France's culture, language and traditional way of life. "Traditional and conservative" also translates into a centralized government, a outstanding socialized healthcare system, schools that work and a functioning infrastructure. Church and state are separate, and abortion and civil marriage for gays are legal and not even issues worth discussing.

The French are also much better prepared than Americans to meet the future. They are more productive at work, and ahead of Americans in internet use, use of alternate forms of energy, and knowledge of the world. They refuse to turn their culture over to the capitalists, and they monitor their media for bias.

Unemployment is big problem, as is the integration of Muslims into the French culture, but everyone agrees these are problems that need to be addressed in contrast to the US where--since we we can't even agree on the problems, much less the solutions--we have simply degenerated into name-calling and power-grabs.

In any case, as others have pointed out, the terms "traditional and conservative" can't be interpreted to mean blind support for "government is the problem" policies.

I haven't read all the comments, so maybe this has been pointed out.
The rude language and shock tactics (remember the confiscation of ?citypaper? with prephotoshop doctored photo of Nixon's penisnose on its cover) have been appropriated by our parents. It's their turn to giggle at our seething frustration over the flushing of reasonable discourse. Many have said it, but "Political criticism cannot be met effectively by rational argument." (Schumpeter in 30s) We have teenage parents syndrome (at least I do ... mine in or near their 90's). The younger generations are happy to join these octagenarian "rebels".

If this was the Young Repukeliscum Convention, there would be cocaine, rape and arrests of the young chickenshit repukeliscum. Any rapes here?

Ah, the wit of Michelle Malkin for "outing" Jack Cafferty as a "lefty" - He had criticized the Bushies for spending, er wasting, incredible sums in Iraq, but only a pittance for our own infra-structure. Cafferty, a lefty? on CNN-FAUX Lite who is considering adding Laura Ingrahem to it's programming?

POed Lib, well, coke make well be in attendance at the Young Repukes convention, but, you will never find a military recruiter. Of course, if they did join, they might become involved in some "friendly fire" against a fellow soldier who criticizes the Bush War in Irag.

As an unrepentant DFH who lives 40 miles from McCormick place, I'd like to point out one other difference between YearlyKos and progressive meetings of yore:

It didn't cost hundreds of dollars to camp out in Grant Park.

I thought about cruising by the convention, but when I saw the price of admission, I decided against it--as did many of my local friends.

They're entirely justified in the price--meeting all the Dem Presidential candidates?--but it's the diametric opposite of free dope.

That, and I hate McCormick Place. Corporate dysatopian nightmare place.

Will Allen at 12:28 AM:
Once again, Wee Willy tries to bully with his immature name-calling. Sorry, little boy, I'm impervious to your thuggish harangues.

..... certain words are banned at certain times....
Perhaps your stupidity makes you fail to note that was my point and hence not a First Amendment issue.
...laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Note, there is a clear distinction between "infringe" and "limit." Money, in case you can't figure it out, is not speech. Just because corporate interests can afford to flood the media with propaganda, doesn't mean they have the right.

....the reason why.... cab medallions are restricted in number in most major cities is to protect the consumer.....
Another Allen attempt at flashing red herrings. So now you think that there should be no regulation of hacks. It is hard to believe that any functioning human could be so clueless.
The fact that there are legal medallions not only protects the workers and companies who have their investment in them as well as providing the consumer with the assurance that the driver is licensed, and registered (but unfortunately not necessary knowledgeable). As a matter of simple economics, everyone know that there are times when all services are swamped, but it is uneconomical to put the more services out there when most of the time those services would be underutilized. Try to be responsive to the points: protection for consumers, workers, and environment.

........wherein you imply that if an action is the "law of the land", or the "desires of the community", authoritarianism is not in play.......
As I pointed out and which you are too stupid to research, the law of eminent domain is in the American Constitution in the Fifth Amendment :
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This has nothing to do with forced sterilization which has nothing to do with the topic and is not defended by anyone today outside of racists who tend to congregate on the right side of the political spectrum.

...With every post you send, you push the envelope of cretinism....
Whiny Willie, you are such an air head that if a rock fell on your skull, not only would it sink in, it would raise you IQ by 20 points. I realize that pathetic little attention whores like yourself crave to have people notice you. That's a high price to pay when all it gains you is the contempt of those who read your silly remarks.

Mike you are simply too stupid too grasp that the set known as "constitutional action" can quite easily overlap with the set known as "authoritarian action", especially when the first set is created merely by getting five votes. Saying that an action is desired by a majority, or that it is an act that the Supreme Court has not ruled unconstitutional, says exactly nothing as to whether the act is authoritarian in nature. Zero. Do you even have any synapses contained within you skull? You are the dumbest person in this forum, and that is sayin' something.

Your view of cab regulation is simply too idiotic for words; the notion that regulation must take the form of restricted medallions in order to ensure the driver is licensed is lunacy, and when you write....

"The fact that there are legal medallions not only protects the workers and companies who have their investment in them..."

....you agree with my point, which was that the primary function of regulation in many instances is to create barriers to entry in an industry, thus protecting exsiting operators from competition, and thus ensuring higher prices for consumers. Truly, are you so titanically, monumentally, stupid that you don't even realize that you have agreed with the person with whom you think you are in a dispute? Sheesh.

Widdle Willie Allen at 2:02 AM:

.... ...Saying that an action is desired by a majority....says exactly nothing as to whether the act is authoritarian in nature. ....
You obviously don't understand the difference between authoritarianism and majority rule. I suggest a course at your local grade school. It should remedy your problem
I await your list of modern individuals who promote eugenics, forced sterilization for non-sex offenders, and your citations showing that second hand smoke is not a hazard to the health of others.

Your view of cab regulation is simply too idiotic for words; the notion that regulation must take the form of restricted medallions in order to ensure the driver is licensed is lunacy, and when you write....
It should be obvious even to the mentally challenged, there is a difference between licensed hacks and gypsy cabs. Insurance, license, ownership of the medallion, etc. Get a grip on reality b'hoy.

.... the primary function of regulation in many instances is to create barriers to entry in an industry....
No, the primary function of regulation is the protection of the worker, the consumer, the holder of the patent, or the needs of the society in which the regulated activity occurs.

You display such ignorance, we have to wonder who explains to you which shoe goes on which foot every morning. However, the childish ignorance you exhibit, the immaturity of your tantrums, is much appreciated. Perhaps one day, you will outgrow your affinity to behave like a child in their 'terrible twos' or perhaps not. In any event, you provide cheap amusement to blog readers.

Mike, you don't even grasp the meaning of stuff you link to, do you? From your link....

"characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty; "an authoritarian regime"; "autocratic government"; "despotic rulers"; "a dictatorial rule that lasted for the duration of the war"; "a tyrannical government"

.....which in no way excludes the possibility that the entity exercising absolute or tyrannical rule can be a majority.

Happy to see that you recommend vigilance in protecting the consumer from lower cab fares and greater cab availability, even though you are still too stupid to grasp that one need not restrict supply of medallions in order to ensure that drivers are licensed. Gosh, you are stupid.

As for tantrums, you were the one who set the tone of our exchange.