| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Infighting We Can Believe In
Submitted by Patrick Ruffini on Tue, 11/18/2008 - 17:12
The price of power.
But there's also disdain for the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush/McCain/Lieberman policies. But in a city known for tone-deafness, there clearly isn't a more tone-deaf group than the Senate Dems.
I'm done with Reid as Senate leader.
I hope Reid is as forgiving
when we all support his primary challenger.
I sort of get tired of making this point, but Democratic leaders are often not on our side, they often don't agree with us, and it's foolish to consider them as teammates. They aren't.
With its congressional majority, the Democratic Party has refused to seriously try to end the war, to stop the bailout and to stop the trampling of civil liberties, just to name a few off the top of my head. In fact, with their votes, they have aggressively worked to start and continue the war, pass the bailout and destroy our constitutional rights to privacy. So, are we really surprised that they have rewarded Joe Lieberman with a chairmanship that he can use to investigate the president he said poses a danger to America?
Jane Hamsher, on the phone with Howard Dean:
JANE HAMSHER: With all due respect, Governor Dean, we were all just told to go screw ourselves. That our concern for Barack Obama and that our concern about the war and everything else that we fought so hard for within the Democratic Party is meaningless.
And Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet.
Promos
Recent blog posts
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
1 comments
TaylorD
0 comments
FMeekins
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
cringinghere
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Recent comments
-
Joseph Hertzlinger
-
samuelajanaku
-
Robin1
-
OzarkGuru
-
dean2
Search
Links
The American Scene
Conservablogs
Election Projection
FiveThirtyEight.com
Jonathan Martin
Marc Ambinder
Megan McArdle
Patrick Ruffini
Pollster.com
The Foundry
Government Bytes
Race 4 2008
Real Clear Politics
RedState
Ross Douthat
Soren Dayton
Infrastructure
America's Future Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Majority
Club for Growth
Election Journal
Heritage Foundation
ATR Blog
Leadership Institute
NewsBusters
Sam Adams Alliance
Republican National Lawyers Association
Republican Liberty Caucus
Washington Watch
National Taxpayers Union
NetRight Nation
Good Lefty Blogs
MyDD
Open Left
Swing State Project
Comments
It's been there for awhile
Why do you think DKos exists in the first place?
There is a huge chasm between the progressive section of the party, and the DLC portion of the party (the Blue Dogs and party elite).
Obama was championed as more progressive than Hillary, which he is. However, his votes on FISA helped to show that it will take a long while to change Democratic policies and outlook.
It can not be denied that many of the Democrats are spineless. But that's preferable to outright malevolence, irrationality and incompetence.
Oh just you wait
"malevolence, irrationality and incompetence."
That comes pretty much inevitably with being given the reigns of power over $3 trillion dollars that you can extract from the populace at will. Give it time.
What the devil makes you think that,
Seriously. Nixon wasn't exactly the best president ever -- he was very petty. But he did NOT run a Kleptocracy.
Neither did Ford
Nor Carter
Nor Reagan
Nor Bush I
Nor Clinton (who was a very able administrator kept squeaky clean by Gingrich. or so you'd like to say, if you felt like being honest).
I'm sorry, but no. This has been a horrid government of waste, mismanagement -- and nepotism. Made a killing off that bet.
Did you make a bet on corruption and favoritism with Obama?
See, this ain't real shit until you put some money on it.
So show me the money.
the squeaky clean impeached one
Nor Clinton (who was a very able administrator kept squeaky clean by Gingrich
LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
The impeached one was squeakly clean? Is that a description of the Housekeeping in the Lincoln bedroom, the cleanliness of the laundered Riadi/ Johnny Chung money or just a blow-smoke-up-our-arse laugh line?
The slimey tort lawyer Lerach from Cali who ran down tech companies had dinner with Clinton the day before he vetoed tort reform. The media NEVER touched that story. Now Lerach is up on criminal charges last I heard, neither Clinton nor Gore got touched by the campaign finance scumbaggery ... That ... was *clean* getaways.
I havent heard anything this funny since Clinton's 'most ethical administration' laugh line.
Is this guy a troll or just comic relief?
Impeached for an illegal question.
and, when my knives aren't out, I like to consider myself a swing voter, as my past voting record has shown. That is to say -- your party is mad, you're a blithering idiot if you can't see that, and I'm here to help.
calling people idiots for not agreeing with you
Nice Dale Carnegie touch you got there.
Being a swing voter is no excuse for ignorance about Clinton's (lack of) ethics.
more than 50% of men commit adultery.
You really expect me to care about him fooling around, if Hillary doesn't? Meh. He's her husband, she can make him sleep on the couch for the rest of her life, for all I care.
Family values are supposed to be about the family.
Um
First, we're talking about Congress here, which as far as I can tell has been a cesspool since, well, ever. This is because it actually has the fun of dishing out the goodies. The fact that the Republicans got up on their two hind legs and started having drinks with the neighboring farmer shouldn't be a surprise; we got started down that road almost immediately when Napolean, erm, DeLay, beat out Walker for Majority Whip.
Second, as far as Presidents go, you have a two-term limit which tends to limit the long-term opportunity for graft. But given the standard of "malevolence, irrationality and incompetence":
Nixon -- check on one, two, and three. I've listened to the Nixon tapes at the national archives. He's a paranoid nut who incidentally gave us the hyperinflation of the 70s.
Ford -- not quite enough time in office to do anything.
Carter -- Big ol' check on 3, less so on 2, certainly not 1.
Reagan -- I agree with you. But no one on the left would have agreed in the 1980s. NO ONE.
Bush I -- see Reagan.
Clinton -- yes, no, no. Although his first two years, when he had control of Congress as well, saw him taking some pretty big steps for two and three. Like you said, Gingrich kept him honest.
You could at LEAST trust Nixon to act in his own best interest
Nixon was unbelievably petty, but he went to China. I rather like the guy, though he should never have been president. America needs some evil bastards in the gov't -- they generally live in the CIA or FBI.
Carter was quite competent, for what he was trying to accomplish -- our last engineer in chief did a lot for our national infrastructure, and by gum he saved our economy. I personally favor realpolitik -- but carter's idealism was quite consistent.
Reagan -- in truth, he's only "not so bad" as bush because Bush was so totally off the deep end. The whole "let's go support international drug dealers and let them sell drugs in our inner cities" was a real gas. But you'd never say that he was malevolent, I hope.
Bush I and Clinton were the most competent presidents I've seen in a while. What in particular looked so irrational and incompetent with Clinton?
I am so very glad that this election is over. I know that the United States gov't has the methods and means to stage a terrorist attack on American soil -- I am fervently glad that they did not have the will.
You wrote "America needs some evil bastards in the gov't "
"they generally live in the CIA or FBI."
Ah yes - like Philip Agee and Daniel Ellsberg, for example. Alger Hiss was only a harmless employee of the State Department, of course, as opposed to one of those bad boys in The Company.
"I know that the United States gov't has the methods and means to stage a terrorist attack on American soil -- I am fervently glad that they did not have the will."
Depending on your definition of a terrorist attack, it's entirely possible that they've already launched it in the form of the economic disaster. Neil Cavuto had a special last weekend during the G-20 summit in which he interviewed several European conservatives who warned that the economic meltdown in Europe is far more dire than it is here (yet), and that literally millions of people were finding themselves without work and would lose their homes. My first thought on hearing that was "where are they going to put all this disenfranchised humanity - in refugee camps?".
All I can say is fasten your seat belts boys, cuz this is gonna be one helluva bumpy ride.
I'm damn certain that was just incompetence
and the law of unintended consequences.
Paulson wanted to push the whole problem onto his successor. Unfortunately for me, I thought he would be competent enough to pull it off.
[as for American terrorist attacks -- figure dropping nukes on Japan qualifies? I do, since we killed civilians in a type of asymmetric warfare]
;-)
Ah, the Howard Zinn revisionist historian
Ah, the Howard Zinn revisionist historian has appeared on our shores in the form of Rising Tide, the "schwing" voter. Thanks for sharing, RT. Now go get some balance and learn the real story of why we nuked Hiroshima if you want to be take seriously by the grown-ups. Hint: the numbers of civilians killed in the attacks (several hundred thousand) were millions less than those who would have been killed by a protracted siege of Japan because their government was willing to throw them under the bus, much like you're willing to throw us under the bus, rather than protect them from an invasion that would have lasted years and would have constituted actual genocide.
I know, it's not your fault you were propagandized in the Zinn/Blum/Chomsky school of the Krazed and Genocidal Amerikkanazi Terrorists, but now that you're free of those academic constraints, take the opportunity to become properly schooled in World War II history and strategy as opposed to mouthing the Liberal Talking Points you learned at your Marxist professors' knees. If you're too pressed for time to read, I recommend checking out the DVD miniseries called The War by Ken Burns, a nonpartisan documentarian with no political axe to grind.
yawn. just because it's terrorism doesn't mean it's bad policy
I didn't say that I was against it. Just looking at the definitions. Besides, when both sides start to use terrorism, then who's the knight in shining armor.
NOT an idealist here. I like realpolitik.
Geez, ever so quick to assume.
And Chomsky's only good when he's on his home subject, which is linguistics.
does anyone on the left use the term asymmetric warfare?
I really try not to read the dingbats.
I do
But then again, I'm in the military, so I should hope I know the term.
Dems - 'all of the above' on malevolence and incompetence
Why do you think DKos exists in the first place?
To be so looney and over-the-top that the certifiably insane left-liberal Democrats that are elected actually look reasonable and sane. The Dems should be renamed the "Silly party" and the progs-leftists who think they dont go far enough should be renamed the "Very Silly party".
Obama was championed as more progressive than Hillary, which he is. However, his votes on FISA helped to show that it will take a long while to change Democratic policies and outlook.
No, it merely shows that Obama is no different from the Clintons in 'putting political survival first'. That vote convinced me that Obama had no different ethics or integrity than the Clintons. They are all ambitious political grifters.
But that's preferable to outright malevolence, irrationality and incompetence.
Pelosi and the Dem leaders have gone the "ALL OF THE ABOVE" approach on those labels.
Survival instincts are good in a political party
rubberstamp congresses suck dog balls. moving on.
Yes, because the Dems are so silly
They're so silly that a majority of their country voted their representative into the White House.
Every politician puts political survival first. It's just a matter of voting in the ones who think that listening to your views is more important for survival than listening to someone else's.
I'll agree that Pelosi and many other Dems are certainly irrational and incompetent at many times. However, I think as a majority, the Dems have less of that than Republicans.
That's because
They've been out of power for the better part of sixteen years. Give it time, and a functionally filibuster-proof majority.
tush tush
do you really want to wait forty years?
just taking a historical perspective here.
You're assuming we have another forty years
Is that being overly optimistic? I wonder. I'm just sayin' that I hope we have forty years to screw around once we have a nuclear Iran and an overreaching Russian Empire with Putin making a renewed guest appearance as the Czar.
Iran is much more sane than Saudi Arabia.
one has an alliance between the middle class and the priests.
the other has an alliance between a despot and the priests.
Guess which one is more stable?
Besides, Iran craves getting back on America's good side.
Russia, as always, is being excessively paranoid. She'll go back to acting more sane once we put down the Star Wars idea. Besides, after Russia's stock market has lost 75% of it's money, they've got bigger problems than foreign policy.
Russia will continue to worry me -- but aren't you worried about China??
The only reason I'm not worried about China
Is because I grew up in Asia and Hawaii, and Asians are pragmatic business people above all things. They won't shoot the goose that lays the golden egg. As long as we continue to be their largest customer, it makes no economic sense for them to annihilate us. Plus it would not be polite.
There was an awesome book written in 1965 by John Hersey titled White Lotus which really speaks to your legitimate concern. I highly recommend it - along with a course in Mandarin - just in case. ;-)
china has already laid it's plans
to get off the dollar standard.
And then where will we be, when no one will buy our debt?
I've seen enough examples of Japanese 'politeness' to not fall for the whole shtick.
China keeps on pushing us to feed them money via economic stimulus packages.
Yeah, when they've got us by the short and curlies, they can do whatever they please to us, and we just bend over and take it.
Great, so I'll vote Republican in a few years
Or for whoever is willing to call the War on Drugs stupid, isn't against atheists/agnostics, and is willing to stop the 'survelliance state' atmosphere with bills like the Patriot Act.
That's the Libertarian party
Sounds like thats your real home. Just consider them Republicans on Speed (or your drug of choice). I really dont like third parties but if thats the only shoe that fits for you ...
.. unless you want to call yourself a "Ron Paul Republican" and make some noise to move the party in your direction. It was certainly entertaining at our district convention to get a guy who calls himself "Johnny Reeferseed" to attend the GOP convention and visit with the party stalwarts and put his 2 cents in.
The GOP is and will be for maintaining constitutional rights of citizens, and protecting soveriengty of borders etc., but wont ever be pro-legalization of drugs. We are not against atheists but we are also for something about the importance of religion that President Washington mentioned in his farewell address (look it up). While individual rights are vital, they are not the sole consideration in maintaining a successful society. We believe in patriotism, strong voluntary organization and communities, and the importance of families.
Whether you are a Republican depends on if you share the core values, one take on them:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/11/republican-core-values.html
Living up to such core values on the part of elected officials is another matter, but thats what primaries are for.
eh. I'm all for making the republican party more libertarian
i know quite a few republicans who voted for Ron Paul. They're saner than he is, though.
The problem I have with Big-L liberianism
Right now, libertarians don't really have a place in either major party. Big-L libertarians talk a good game about protecting the Constitution, but in the end they just sign on for whoever gives them the lowest tax rate. A few so-called libertarians are fine with draconian policies like the ones mentioned above.
I might've voted for Ron Paul this year if A) I didn't feel it was vital to take down as many R's as possible and B) he didn't think atheists were out to take away his Christmas (oh noez!).
Salesmanship vs statesmanship
Well. The Democrats' policies are silly, but I respect their ability to bamboozle the voters. the people were sold Obama based on a dishonest $600 million campaign and the most biased media in history ... Amazing how ignorant you can keep the people with the media on your side:
http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
The Dems won on Salesmanship and benefitting from perceived performance failures of Bush ... not statesmanship.
Some do some don't. Obama folded like a cheap empty suit - not a good sign for us in future negotiations with foes. Goldwater said he would rather be right than President - and it turned out exactly that way. he was.
Statesmanship always looks more impressive in the history books than up close. Up close it looks like a guy who throws away the next election.
Please Primary Reid
It would be great to further hurt Reid's dwindling popularity in Nevada. A rift on the left would soften him up nicely for a challenger to take him out.
geez. you blokes don't know anything, do you?
go talk to Hillary's primary challenger (for her senate seat).
I dare you.
Dear Kos, Primary Reid!!!
The thought of an R picking up Reid's seat sends a Chris Matthews thrill up my leg.
After All
That's why they call 'em the looney left. They can't take "yes" for an answer.
Let's face it, these are the guys (Kos) that convinced themselves that Palin's son was her grandson, and were obnoxiously defensive of Edwards until he himself admitted his affair.
Next, the inevitable talk of a third party will arise on Kos . . .
But getting rid of Reid would be a gift to the USA!
I agree wholeheartedly, however
Fortunately, since it looks like the Dems will pretty much have filibustered proof majority (even if we hold MN and GA there are the Northeastern RINOs who along with McLoser could give them a filibuster proof majority assuming they keep all their members in line) they will have incompetent leadership. Both he and Pelousy, have to be the worst majority party leaders in ages. That should at leats work somewhat in our favor.
Both anything that would help take that seat away from the Dems would defintely be awesome.
Isn't the right having the same issue?
Here at TheNextRight, isn't the point to build a stronger right faction? And that's what those on DKos and others who disagree with their leaders are trying to do as well. Build a stronger 'progressive' coalition. There are many disagreements on what is defined as 'strength' but that's the point of a democracy.
To call DKos a bunch of left-wing crazies is to insult the people who backed the 50-state strategy, and to insult the people who forced Lieberman to run as an independent. If all the people who go there ARE left-wing crazies, they certainly have a small but not insignificant political pull on the party.
and on the republican party
considering that a not-insignificant number of them are republicans.
Not all that surprising
The Kos Kidz have been demanding Lieberman's blood for a long time.
I seem to forget at times that the central issue that has united the Left in recent years is the war in Iraq.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes for them to turn on Obama. My hunch is, that once Obama is in office, he will have to re-evaluate his position on Iraq. In some ways, he has already indicated that he is doing so.
The situation on the ground is getting better by the day, but the peace is fragile. I predict that violence may actually increase in the opening months of an Obama administration, as insurgents try to push Obama to keep his promise and withdraw quickly, and make it seem that Obama is doing so on their terms. A more pragmatic Obama may choose to signal that he will not leave precipitously while the peace is so fragile, and that will certainly rile the left.
If he does otherwise, he will basically be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. We are close in Iraq, but not quite there. The Iraqi security forces are strong, but probably need a bit more time to be able to keep the country stable on their own.
Obama will be forced with causing a premature defeat in Iraq, and turning his base against him. My hunch is he'll pick the latter, hoping that he still has a significant amount of goodwill.
shh! it's not the iraq war that they're mad about
and they got what they wanted by primarying him.
A full list of who his supporters were, Republican and Democrat -- but mostly big business. Once you can see the traceries of power, you can work on removing them, one by one.
No fuss, no mess.
And are you saying that you can see the traceries of power?
Because if so, I'd like to know more. I'd like to find out if your traceries circle back to the same origins as mine - so far mine only circle back as far as the the oh-so-Progressive 19th Century.
it's actually pretty simple, if you've got a nose for money
but I don't pretend to be that smart. I just know someone who is (so when he says that all the climate change deniers are paid by the oil companies, I believe him).
As to power itself? Many organizations go back farther than that. The freemasons for one -- though they've been out of power so long it hurts (them, not me).
The current battle for power is between the Modernists, who like a diamond shaped society, and the pyrimidal Feudalists, who want a return to the old priest and strongman mentality.
Do they really think that Reid acted alone?
Obama put the word out a week ago that it was hands off Lieberman. Their anger should be directed at Obama. I agree with jmumich, Iraq is the next potential rift with the far lefties.
Obama was wrong about the surge, and made his most forceful "get out of Iraq" remarks before he had to admit it was "successful beyond our (his)wildest dreams". He can't go forward or backward at this point.
Needless to say
Obama doesn't really have to move the mountain of Iraq, Maliki as already brought the mountain to Obama. Getting out by 2011 would satiate most people wanting a withdrawl, and it would probably be at a point where Iraq security is at a point where we could leave them with minimal forces. That is also with fingers crossed that Iran is brought low by 60 dollar oil and the shitty ass economy and is forced to come to the table over nuclear power and creating stability in Iraq.
Iran wants to be friends with us
they wanted to help us after 9/11. Bush's crazy "axis of evil" speech made them more paranoid -- and us being in Iraq made for a nice proxy war.
But as far as paranoia is concerned, they are MUCH less paranoid than Russia.
Dealing Iran in as one of the regional stabilizers for Iraq will do much to create a new American ally in the region. And Obama's already been negotiating with them (which is good. talk is good. finding places of common interest is good).
To be expected
I love the leftwing blogosphere. After all..they supply me with my talking points. But I would trade 1000 leftwing bloggers for 30 million moderate Republicans in a heartbeat..and my guess would be that Obama would do the same. Throwing the anvil to the Republican Party means truly capturing the Lieberman wing of the electorate.. Realpolitik sucks if you are a ideologue. C'est la vie.
here's one liberal republican for you:
Dr. David Brin. Read his blog, it's fun!
Whaddabout Gitmo??
Isn't Obama getting wishy-washy on Gitmo as well?
No.
.
Thats another one Punchenko
Or . . .what do we do with 250 battle hardened terrorists? Sounded good during the campaign though "we must close Guantanamo Bay" . . .
I say send them to Cook County!
There are already a couple of terrorists there. They can swap stories . .talk about the good old days. . .tell their favorite stories about hating American atrocities . . .
Hmm
I'm very curious to see where Obama deploys his political capital; most likely in areas that will be very difficult for future presidents to reverse, like healthcare. He's holding his cards really tight, as expected.
not difficult at all
once you guys have a REAL solution.
seriously.
I want a good idea here, folks. I came here to listen.