Home › Blogs › Rick Moran's blog ›

The Difference Between Passion and Paranoia

Submitted by Rick Moran on Mon, 09/14/2009 - 10:52

I have been taken to task in the past for railing against those whose rants against President Obama have crossed the line of reason and entered the dangerous world of paranoia. I include in this category the Birthers, of course, as well as those who believe Obama wishes to set up some kind of dictatorship, and those who believe our freedoms have been "destroyed" or are in the process of destruction.

As for that last charge, I don't think it accurate to say that Obama wants to destroy freedom in America, but there is little doubt his policies "infringe" upon personal liberty. That's the point of his "common good" agenda; that sometimes, individual rights must be subsumed for the good of all. The fact that the Supreme Court occasionally agrees with that idea is troubling but not indicative of any bent to eliminate constitutional protections for speech, religion, or assembly. The idea that the courts, or the opposition, would simply stand aside and allow our individual liberties to be "destroyed" is therefore, paranoid thinking.

There is a line between passionate, reasoned opposition to Obama and the kind of paranoid thinking that drives Birthers and others to oppose the president. The terms are not mutually exclusive but one kind of thinking is productive and effective while the other is poisonous and unbalanced.

Equating the president with Nazis may be emotionally satisfying but is so far beyond the pale of rationality that it pegs anyone who uses such a cockamamie analogy as ignorant and not seriously engaged in debate. Ignorant because it is painfully obvious that anyone who refers to any American politician, right or left, as a Nazi" hasn't a clue what Hitler and his thugs believed; and not serious about debate because the epithet is used to stifle discussion rather than encourage it.

Similar attempts to paint the president as a "Communist" are equally paranoid and stupid. (Using the term "socialist" may seem more accurate but there too, it appears that there is a deliberate attempt to exaggerate the effect of the president's policies and incorrectly define the term.)

I saw a lot of passionate opposition to the president's policies at the tea party at the Capitol on Saturday. Most of it was spot on and based on patriotic notions of the constitution as well as a fierce desire to protect our liberties from the "common good" brigade of liberals who seek to promote policies that infringe upon our personal freedoms.

Were these protestors, who eschewed labeling Obama as dictator, or a Communist, or illegitimate because of his birth, any less passionate in their opposition than the paranoids who hold those beliefs?

I think it is demonstrable that they were not. The fire that burns in their bellies against the president's policies is no less bright, nor does their failure to join the kooks in their conspiracy theories mean that their commitment to the cause is any less total than those whose passion has allowed their thinking to spill over into the realm of the silly. To infer otherwise is not logical, nor is it very helpful.

"Passion" for a cause, by definition, engages the emotions and motivates one to act outside of themselves for a higher purpose. Those who believe that the president is wrongheaded, that his policies will lead to economic disaster, who can't abide Obama's prevarications, and see the enormous debt being piled on our children and grandchildren as preposterously unfair - without claiming the president wants to put his opponents in concentration camps - are channeling their opposition down a healthy, democratic path.

Not so much the paranoids. Despite evincing similar passion, all they are doing is giving the opposition the wherewithal to define all opponents to the president as crazies:

Amid a rebirth of conservative activism that could help Republicans win elections next year, some party insiders now fear that extreme rhetoric and conspiracy theories coming from the angry reaches of the conservative base are undermining the GOP's broader credibility and casting it as the party of the paranoid.
Such insiders point to theories running rampant on the Internet, such as the idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus ineligible to be president, or that he is a communist, or that his allies want to set up Nazi-like detention camps for political opponents. Those theories, the insiders say, have stoked the GOP base and have created a "purist" climate in which a figure such as Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) is lionized for his "You lie!" outburst last week when Obama addressed Congress.
They are "wild accusations and the paranoid delusions coming from the fever swamps," said David Frum, a conservative author and speechwriter for President George W. Bush who is among the more vocal critics of the party base and of the conservative talk show hosts helping to fan the unrest.
"Like all conservatives, I am concerned about this administration's accumulation of economic power," Frum said. "Still, you have to be aware that there's a line where legitimate concerns begin to collapse into paranoid fantasy."

There was plenty of that on display at the 9/12 protest in Washington but a fair assessment of the tone and substance coming from the hundreds of thousands who were there would relegate the crazies and paranoids to a small, but significant minority. I would guess that up to a quarter of the protestors could be identified with those fringe elements. This is worrying but not as fatal as Obama supporters would have you believe. In some respects, the real problem is not so much their numbers, but their influence on mainstream politicians:

Insiders' criticisms have been dismissed by some conservative leaders, who argue that the party needs an energized base -- even if it's extreme -- to gain in future elections. Some analysts think that conservatives' summer revolt against Obama's healthcare agenda helped erode public approval of Democratic leadership enough that the GOP could pick up as many as 30 House seats next year.
Leaders in both the establishment and the base think that the tension could define the upcoming battle over the party's 2012 presidential nominee.
"There's a war going on, a pretty big one," said Dan Riehl, a Virginia conservative whose popular blog, Riehl World View, has criticized those challenging the base. "Many of us distrust the elite Republican establishment."
Michael Goldfarb, a spokesman for John McCain's GOP presidential candidacy last year, likened the conservative fringe to liberal activists during the Bush years. The antiwar group Code Pink drew headlines, for example, when a protester with fake blood on her hands accosted then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- but Democrats still won elections later.

A little refresher course in recent history; in 2004, Democrats played with their own kooks, catering to many of their conspiracy theories, lionizing fringe players like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore, while trying to tap the "enthusiasm" of the netroots - as bonkers as any conservative crazies we have today.

That worked out well for them, didn't it?

The point isn't necessarily to purge the paranoids, but to marginalize them and deny them influence in the party. I know that Dan Rheil is not a paranoid and that his anger - justified at times - directed against GOP and conservative "elites" has both practical and ideological elements. But I think Dan would draw the line at some of the more paranoid beliefs held by those in the base and recognize the damage it does to reasonable, and wholly legitimate arguments against Obama and his agenda.

Passion does not equal paranoia. Those on the left who insist on equating "anger" with psychosis do so knowing full well that the passions aroused by President Obama's policies take many forms and are not all outside the realm of legitimate debate. It is simply convenient for them to lump all opposition to the president as crazy, or "racist." And it plays well among their own base as well.

Accepting those who are passionate in their opposition to Obama without having arguments meander into the fever swamps of conspiracy and fear would lead to the more rational elements in the opposition to come to the fore while de-emphasizing the kooks. That can only lead to more effective resistance to the president's plans to "remake" America in an image none of us - kooks or rationalists - want to see become reality.

2.5
Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (4 votes)

Comments

Some thoughts

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 09/14/2009 - 19:07.

Equating the president with Nazis may be emotionally satisfying but is so far beyond the pale of rationality that it pegs anyone who uses such a cockamamie analogy as ignorant and not seriously engaged in debate. Ignorant because it is painfully obvious that anyone who refers to any American politician, right or left, as a Nazi" hasn't a clue what Hitler and his thugs believed; and not serious about debate because the epithet is used to stifle discussion rather than encourage it.

Some comments that are a bit of a sideline to your main focus: The ADL and other Jewish organizations object to the use of Nazi analogies on what I suspect are pretty much the same grounds you're using, the idea that the Nazis are a particularly virulent strain of evil that nothing else could ever equal, and that analogies of that sort are entirely inappropriate because of that, and because they cheapen the evil. I totally disagree with this reasoning. I think it robs us of our ability to learn the lessons of that era. I disagree with the much-cited Godwin's Law, as well, even though I think its invocation is proper in at least 99% of the cases in which it is invoked.The Obama/Hitler comarpisons are obviously all included in that number. While you're correct about them being utter crackpotism, though, you radically overstate your case when you extend it to include all American politicians. There are, indeed, voices in American politics that beg those comparisons so directly that failing to immediately recognize them actually bespeaks a shortcoming on one's part (the previous administration being one of the best available examples). More broadly, American political discourse offers all manner of fascist and quasi-fascist voices. The politics of Michael Savage, to name but one example, bears so close a resemblance to that of the Third Reich that the differences are barely even worth noting. The German fascists weren't demons from hell; they were just people. Very bad people, to be sure, but hardly some sort of special bad that we can never match. Hannah Arendt had it right about them. That's the very thing that make them so creepy (and so fascinating). The mass-murder of Jews was only the ultimate extension of a fundamentally wrongheaded approach to governance and society--there's a great deal of horror between the fall of Weimar and the beginning of Auschwitz. We do ourselves only a disservice by discounting the lessons that history provides us.

Similar attempts to paint the president as a "Communist" are equally paranoid and stupid. (Using the term "socialist" may seem more accurate but there too, it appears that there is a deliberate attempt to exaggerate the effect of the president's policies and incorrectly define the term.)

The use of "socialist" in the context of the anti-Obama rhetoric is intended to suggest Bolshevist totalitarianism, of the model of the Soviets, Chinese, North Koreans, etc. This bespeaks a fundamental misunderstanding of the word. Few advanced nations in the world, for example, don't have a strong "socialist" element. These are mostly social democrats, though. The Bolshevists (I tend to use that as a more specific word than "communist," which, for much of history, was interchangeable with "socialist") are a tiny fraction of socialists. It was, in fact, the 19th century anarchists (who were socialists) who developed one of the first comprehensive critique of Marxism, arguing it could lead to this very thing (Bakunin's description of the state that could emerge was written 50 years before the rise of the first Boslshevist state, but so closely mirrors what actually did happen in Soviet Russia that it puts Nostradamus to shame).To return to the present, though, nothing anywhere in Obama's policies suggests "socialism." The various bailouts weren't initiated to take over the affected private-sector businesses; they were initiated to save them. When it came to health care, Obama refused to even consider a single-payer plan, pressing, instead, for one that preserved a failed private-sector insurance model. Obama's advisers are, for the most part, conservatives/Clintonites, which caused a great deal of anger in liberal circles when the administration was being assembled (I certainly wrote about it regularly at the time). There's barely a liberal among them, much less any known "socialists."

Those who believe that the president is wrongheaded, that his policies will lead to economic disaster, who can't abide Obama's prevarications, and see the enormous debt being piled on our children and grandchildren as preposterously unfair - without claiming the president wants to put his opponents in concentration camps - are channeling their opposition down a healthy, democratic path.

And, as I see it, it's very important that this happen. As a liberal, I don't want the right to rule, but I want it to be credible and effective, so the liberals will be forced to be the same. The American right has, instead, been progressively disintegrating for years, now, becoming little more than the home of assorted kooks and crackpots. That's not good for conservatism, but, more importantly, that's not good for the country.

Passion does not equal paranoia. Those on the left who insist on equating "anger" with psychosis do so knowing full well that the passions aroused by President Obama's policies take many forms and are not all outside the realm of legitimate debate.

As one who has been more frequently angered than pleased by Obama, I can certainly understand that. I don't think the left necessarily equates anger with psychosis. It's irrational anger that begs the question of mental stability, and far too much of what is aimed at Obama falls into that category (as was also the case with Clinton in the '90s). Conservatives today are angry that Obama is trying to implement Bolshevism, angry that he isn't an American citizen, angry that he's a Muslim, angry that he put death panels in his health care plan, angry that he's trying to give health care to illegal immigrants, angry that he addresses school students (like practically every other president), angry that he has a shadow government of "czars" in his administration, and on and on and on. It's something new every few days, and it isn't a little nutty--it's completely insane. Rational anger is almost invisible. Even the demonstration you mention from this weekend was the work of the crackpots--those who organized it are the same corporate astroturf organizations behind the "tea party" protests and townhall disruptions, the orgs that spread the crackpot lies about Obamacare including death panels, funding for illegal immigrants, and all the rest of that rot (they also fabricated the crowd size for the event, turning it into millions; even you seem to have fell for this when you wrote of "the hundreds of thousands who were there"--in reality, a modest 60-70,000 turned up for the event). The line between the crazies and the sane is becoming difficult to ascertain. In some cases--such as the birthers--the crazies ARE the Republican mainstream.

http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/

some other thoughts

Submitted by grackle on Sun, 09/20/2009 - 20:57.

The ADL and other Jewish organizations object to the use of Nazi analogies on what I suspect are pretty much the same grounds you're using, the idea that the Nazis are a particularly virulent strain of evil that nothing else could ever equal, and that analogies of that sort are entirely inappropriate because of that, and because they cheapen the evil.

Better: The ADL and other Jewish organizations object to the use of Nazi analogies [because] analogies of that sort … cheapen the evil [of the Nazis].

Get it? If not, I’ll spell it out: The objection is that frivolous comparisons trivialize the evil that occurred, NOT “that the Nazis are a particularly virulent strain of evil that nothing else could ever equal.” The “evil that nothing else could ever equal” is ALL in the mind of the commentor. The obvious implication of the ADL’s objection to flippant Nazi comparisons is that the evil of the Nazis COULD reoccur.

There are, indeed, voices in American politics that beg those comparisons so directly that failing to immediately recognize them actually bespeaks a shortcoming on one's part (the previous administration being one of the best available examples).

Yes, Bush was exactly like Hitler, which is why we now have a black President. Of course, seems perfectly reasonable to me! No shortcoming on MY part! No siree!

It’s called Bush Derangement Syndrome(BDS), folks. BDS was the reason we saw all the “Bushitler” references, the Hitler moustaches and devil horns on Bush posters.

The Left hated Bush but if you want to witness pure hatred just casually mention Cheney to one of these nuts. It’s advisable to unfurl your umbrella beforehand because the spittle will many times become more of a problem than watermelon pith in the front row of a Gallagher concert.

More broadly, American political discourse offers all manner of fascist and quasi-fascist voices. The politics of Michael Savage, to name but one example, bears so close a resemblance to that of the Third Reich that the differences are barely even worth noting.

Savage is loony to be sure, but resemblance to the “Third Reich?” No differences worth noting? I guess not, unless of course one goes to the trouble of reading history.

Is there ANY person on the Rightwing fringe that the Left won’t compare to the Leftwing National Socialist German Workers’ Party(otherwise known as the Nazi Party)? I propose a corollary to Godwin’s Law – Grackle’s Generalization:

The longer a Lefty waxes semi-intellectually the more likely that inane but politically convenient comparisons will appear.

Note to commentor: All hatred doesn’t automatically come from the Right; you folks on the Left have more than your fair share.

Those weren't "thoughts"

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Sun, 09/20/2009 - 23:48.

Get it? If not, I’ll spell it out: The objection is that frivolous comparisons trivialize the evil that occurred,

...which is exactly what I said.

NOT “that the Nazis are a particularly virulent strain of evil that nothing else could ever equal.”

That's the implication of that objection, because they (and plenty of other) define every Nazi comparison as frivolous. Rick did it in his original post, to which I was replying. That can't, in my view, be sustained.

 

Yes, Bush was exactly like Hitler,

Six words into it, and you've already marked your comments that follow as completely worthless.

Bush was a lawless right-wing thug, never properly elected, if you want to extend the matter that far, but even if you don't care to do so, this was a "president" who adopted political cleansing of government agencies, read our emails, spied on our phone calls, dug through our financial records, asserted he had the unchallengeable power to kidnap us and throw us in a hole without courts, laywers, any semblance of due process. He held he could try us in secret kangaroo courts with secret evidence and predetermined outcomes, and even murder us in secret, or just leave us down in that deep, dark hole forever. Or ship us to Syria or some other hellhole to be tortured. He asserted, in writing, that he didn't feel bound by hundreds of laws passed by our democratically elected representatives in the legitimate government, made official policy of baseless "legal opinions" that asserted, among other things, he could suspend constitutional rights at will. That's what ran the country for 8 years, while the "freedom-loving" conservatives--overwhelmingly in his corner until very nearly the end--built a Stalinist-style cult-of-personality around him. The damage he caused to our permanent institutions will take decades to reverse, even if the current administration was intent on undoing everything he'd done (and it isn't).

That doesn't mean "Bush was exactly like Hitler." It means comparisons to the German fascists are not only entirely appropriate; failure to immediately recognize those glaring similarities bespeaks a failure on one's part.

The Left hated Bush but if you want to witness pure hatred just casually mention Cheney to one of these nuts. It’s advisable to unfurl your umbrella beforehand because the spittle will many times become more of a problem than watermelon pith in the front row of a Gallagher concert.

As with most conservatives, you fail to make any distinction at all between rational hatred (such as that aimed at Bush by I and my kind) and entirely irrational hatred (such as was directed at Bush by the "9/11 Truthers", that which was directed at Clinton, and that which is aimed at Obama by creatures like the birthers). This isnt' the consequence of some sort of illness--it's the informed reaction of a responsible citizen to a reprehensible politician.

 

Savage is loony to be sure, but resemblance to the “Third Reich?” No differences worth noting?

The Savage Weiner's political commentary is built entirely around "culture war" rhetoric, a phrase and concept lifted directly from the Third Reich. His vile rhetoric is the same, his targets are the same, and he froths just like a Nazi when he spews it.

Is there ANY person on the Rightwing fringe that the Left won’t compare to the Leftwing National Socialist German Workers’ Party(otherwise known as the Nazi Party)?

At least you concede your own complete ignorance of history with that remark (saves me from having to demonstrate it).

 

Back at the commentor

Submitted by grackle on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 10:11.

 Me, earlier: Get it? If not, I’ll spell it out: The objection is that frivolous comparisons trivialize the evil that occurred …

 

The commentor’s reply:  

...which is exactly what I said. NOT “that the Nazis are a particularly virulent strain of evil that nothing else could ever equal.”

 Below is the commentor’s original quote with the relevant words bolded.  

The ADL and other Jewish organizations object to the use of Nazi analogies on what I suspect are pretty much the same grounds you're using, the idea that the Nazis are a particularly virulent strain of evil that nothing else could ever equal, and that analogies of that sort are entirely inappropriate because of that, and because they cheapen the evil. 

 Does the commentor not read his own comments? Is he confused? 

That's the implication of that objection, because they (and plenty of other) define every Nazi comparison as frivolous. Rick did it in his original post, to which I was replying. That can't, in my view, be sustained.

 Actually neither the ADL nor Rick Moran define or even imply that “every Nazi comparison as frivolous.” For instance, on their own website the ADL compares Neo-Nazi groups to Hitler’s Nazis. And Rick Moran objected to comparing American politicians to Nazis, which is a far cry from objecting to “every Nazi comparison.” The commentor ascribes words and thoughts to others that come only from his own imagination.  

 

The commentor counters my sarcasm about his earlier frivolous Bush/Nazi comparison with the standard Lefty BDS hate-filled boilerplate list which is way too long to quote here.   

As with most conservatives, you fail to make any distinction at all between rational hatred (such as that aimed at Bush by I and my kind) and entirely irrational hatred (such as was directed at Bush by the "9/11 Truthers", that which was directed at Clinton, and that which is aimed at Obama by creatures like the birthers). This isn’t' the consequence of some sort of illness--it's the informed reaction of a responsible citizen to a reprehensible politician.

 First of all, I am NOT a conservative. And it is the commentor who allows his hatred to render himself incapable of distinctions, namely the essential differences between Bush, the Bush administration or ANY American Presidential administration(Obama’s included) and Hitler and his Nazi regime, which was the point (that the commentor missed entirely) of Rick Moran’s thoughts on the subject.   

The Savage Weiner's political commentary is built entirely around "culture war" rhetoric, a phrase and concept lifted directly from the Third Reich. 

 Here again the commentor commits the sin of bloviating about history with bothering to actually read history. “Culture war” is “lifted” not from the “Third Reich” but from “the campaign from 1871 to 1878 under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck of the German Empire against the influence of the Roman Catholic Church.” Does the commentor believe Nazism was a phenomenon of the 1800s? 

 

The concept was later adopted in the 1920s by the Marxists, NOT the Nazis. The expression was introduced to modern America in 1991 by the publication of “Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America,” by James Davison Hunter. 

 

This information comes from Wikipedia, which NEVER mentions the Third Reich at all. Again: Savage is a loony but a Nazi he is NOT.  

His vile rhetoric is the same, his targets are the same, and he froths just like a Nazi when he spews it.

 Unsubstantiated assertions, hyperbole and NO quotes or facts. It is clear that to the commentor ANY persons or administrations with which he disagrees are Nazis – which is just the kind of frivolous, inane comparison that makes responsible debate difficult. 

 

Is there ANY person on the Rightwing fringe that the Left won’t compare to the Leftwing National Socialist German Workers’ Party(otherwise known as the Nazi Party)? 

 

Why do the "crazies" pose a threat to the GOP?

Submitted by johnson springs on Mon, 09/14/2009 - 19:07.

The point isn't necessarily to purge the paranoids, but to marginalize them and deny them influence in the party.

I disagree with this approach. If the passion can be focused the paranoia will fade.

The problem with the passion and paranoia of the so-called fringe on the right is that no leader has emerged among mainstream conservatives who can focus and harness the passions that Obama's policies have unleashed. Instead we have various would-be leaders chasing after the passion.

Unless it can be focused into effective channels, conservatives will have little to show and liberals little to fear from the passion on the right. For though the grassroots resistance to Obama is certainly conservative, there is also a powerful strain of anti-GOP, anti-elite conservative passion there as well. Many rank and file conservatives, especially those concerned with the national deficit and the scale of government, were ill-served by the Bush administration and are deeply disconnected from professional DC conservatives.

One expression of this divide is McCain/Palin. Unfortunately, Mrs. Palin does not seem poised to make a serious impact on national governance anytime soon and neither do her natural constituency who are expressing their dissatisfaction with both the liberal agenda and the conservative leadership and yet have discovered no formidable political leader of their own. 

Because they prevent the conservatives from being credible

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 09/14/2009 - 19:30.

The problem with the passion and paranoia of the so-called fringe on the right is that no leader has emerged among mainstream conservatives who can focus and harness the passions that Obama's policies have unleashed. Instead we have various would-be leaders chasing after the passion.

There's also the fact that much of that passion--I would guess nearly all of it--is a consequence of that paranoia. It's based on nonsense, rather than anything Obama has actually done. That passion doesn't need to be exploited; it needs to be eliminated. I think there is a fear, by many of the less irrational on the right, that fighting back against the nuttiness will render their cause less effective. I couldn't disagree more, but I'm a liberal, and can't expect them to take any advice from me.

Many rank and file conservatives, especially those concerned with the national deficit and the scale of government, were ill-served by the Bush administration and are deeply disconnected from professional DC conservatives.

The number who would fall into that category are tiny, indeed, though. Bush enjoyed overwhelming support on the right until almost the very end--only when he became a political liability in the approaching election were there big defections away from him. Even as late as December, after the Republicans had been decimated in the elections, self-identified conservative Republicans were still giving Bush a 72% approval rating. Bush was probably more popular among the conservatives throughout his entire administration than was Reagan. Their devotion to him was fanatical to the point of being creepy. They built a cult-of-personality around him, and practically worshipped the ground he walked on--massive approval ratings all the way.

One expression of this divide is McCain/Palin. Unfortunately, Mrs. Palin does not seem poised to make a serious impact on national governance anytime soon and neither do her natural constituency who are expressing their dissatisfaction with both the liberal agenda and the conservative leadership and yet have discovered no formidable political leader of their own.

Palin is their gal, that's the best they've done, and that she's demonstrably dumb as a box of rocks, a serial liar, and embarrasses her entire state and country every time she opens her mouth hasn't done a thing to deter her popularity among them. They want her to be their future, and if she's their future, they don't have one, and, alas, they do need a one. We need them to have one.

http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/

Credibility

Submitted by grackle on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 12:12.

 The problem with the passion and paranoia of the so-called fringe on the right is that no leader has emerged among mainstream conservatives who can focus and harness the passions that Obama's policies have unleashed. Instead we have various would-be leaders chasing after the passion.

 So far, so good. The above could serve as a paraphrase of part of Rick Moran’s post.   

There's also the fact that much of that passion--I would guess nearly all of it--is a consequence of that paranoia. It's based on nonsense, rather than anything Obama has actually done. That passion doesn't need to be exploited; it needs to be eliminated. I think there is a fear, by many of the less irrational on the right, that fighting back against the nuttiness will render their cause less effective. I couldn't disagree more, but I'm a liberal, and can't expect them to take any advice from me.

 David Frum and others on the Right constantly bemoan the “nuttiness,” as the commentor puts it, yet the commentor evidently does not believe such public opposition qualifies as “fighting back.” And the “less irrational on the right” remark strongly implies that ALL on the Right are irrational. And we are supposed to believe the commentor is sincere? Merely wanting to add to the discussion? Interested in responsible debate? Please.   

Many rank and file conservatives, especially those concerned with the national deficit and the scale of government, were ill-served by the Bush administration and are deeply disconnected from professional DC conservatives.

 So far, so good.  

The number who would fall into that category are tiny, indeed, though. Bush enjoyed overwhelming support on the right until almost the very end--only when he became a political liability in the approaching election were there big defections away from him. Even as late as December, after the Republicans had been decimated in the elections, self-identified conservative Republicans were still giving Bush a 72% approval rating. Bush was probably more popular among the conservatives throughout his entire administration than was Reagan. Their devotion to him was fanatical to the point of being creepy. They built a cult-of-personality around him, and practically worshipped the ground he walked on--massive approval ratings all the way.

 Uh-oh. Here the commentor veers off the edge of credibility. MANY on the Right had public misgivings about every aspect of Bush’s policies – both foreign AND domestic. From George Will to Paul O’Neill, from stem cell research to immigration, from Bush’s strategies in the Afghanistan war to the Iraq War, Bush faced stiff public criticism from the Right.   

One expression of this divide is McCain/Palin. Unfortunately, Mrs. Palin does not seem poised to make a serious impact on national governance anytime soon and neither do her natural constituency who are expressing their dissatisfaction with both the liberal agenda and the conservative leadership and yet have discovered no formidable political leader of their own. Palin is their gal, that's the best they've done, and that she's demonstrably dumb as a box of rocks, a serial liar, and embarrasses her entire state and country every time she opens her mouth hasn't done a thing to deter her popularity among them. They want her to be their future, and if she's their future, they don't have one, and, alas, they do need a one. We need them to have one.

 If amended the above would be kind of OK in the same way a cat’s litter box is kind of OK after the poop has been raked out. It is quite true that many on the Right feel betrayed by the Mainstream Right but that’s about all that’s credibly left of the commentor’s thoughts after the smelly stuff has been removed. 

 

And I wouldn’t discount Sarah Palin’s “impact.” “Dumb” she may be, in the sense that the commentor evidently believes that anyone who disagrees with the commentor’s nonsense is “dumb,” but one twitter from Palin and the Democrats feverishly began deleting parts of health care proposals while simultaneously loudly claiming those parts did not exist. 

 

Good grief

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 14:34.

David Frum and others on the Right constantly bemoan the “nuttiness,” as the commentor puts it, yet the commentor evidently does not believe such public opposition qualifies as “fighting back.”

No, it means David Frum doesn't qualify as one of the people to whom I was referring when I wrote "I think there is a fear, by many of the less irrational on the right, that fighting back against the nuttiness will render their cause less effective."

And we are supposed to believe the commentor is sincere? Merely wanting to add to the discussion? Interested in responsible debate? Please.

You're supposed to believe "I'm a liberal, and can't expect them [the conservatives who are ambivalent abut fighting the nuts] to take any advice from me." Just as I wrote. Did you actually read what I wrote before "replying" to it?

Uh-oh. Here the commentor veers off the edge of credibility. MANY on the Right had public misgivings about every aspect of Bush’s policies – both foreign AND domestic. From George Will to Paul O’Neill, from stem cell research to immigration, from Bush’s strategies in the Afghanistan war to the Iraq War, Bush faced stiff public criticism from the Right.  

That "many" doesn't translate into poll numbers of any notable size, even if you do spell it with all-capital-letters, and that last line is so misleading as to amount to a lie. In the real world, Bush enjoyed overwhelming support on the right until almost the very end--only when he became a political liability in the approaching election were there big defections away from him. Even as late as December, after the Republicans had been decimated in the elections, self-identified conservative Republicans were still giving Bush a 72% approval rating. Bush was probably more popular among the conservatives throughout his entire administration than was Reagan. Their devotion to him was fanatical to the point of being creepy. They built a cult-of-personality around him, and practically worshipped the ground he walked on--massive approval ratings all the way.

“Dumb” she may be, in the sense that the commentor evidently believes that anyone who disagrees with the commentor’s nonsense is “dumb,” but one twitter from Palin and the Democrats feverishly began deleting parts of health care proposals while simultaneously loudly claiming those parts did not exist.

The only thing "deleted" was a conservative Republican amendment offered by a conservative Republican Senator from my own state about paying for end-of-life counseling, and it was deleted because, after Palin lied it into "Obama imposing death panels," a gaggle of reactionary robots were being trucked in to every townhall meeting congressmembers were holding, screaming like brainless idiots, and preventing any public discussion from taking place. That' s not an argument for the effectiveness of Sarah Palin, unless you're gauging her "effectiveness" at lying, organizing brainless robots around lies, and defeating conservative Republican measures (one of the only positive ones on health care to be offered to date).

More grief for the commentor

Submitted by grackle on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 16:54.

 Me, earlier: “David Frum and others on the Right constantly bemoan the ‘nuttiness,’ as the commentor puts it, yet the commentor evidently does not believe such public opposition qualifies as ‘fighting back.’ ”

 The Commentor: 

No, it means David Frum doesn't qualify as one of the people to whom I was referring when I wrote "I think there is a fear, by many of the less irrational on the right, that fighting back against the nuttiness will render their cause less effective."

 So … David Frum is less irrational than a Birther-supporter. Who is David Frum more irrational than – the commentor? To write of “many of the less irrational on the right” implies there are some who are also “irrational,” like Frum, who just happen(from dumb luck one has to suppose) to oppose the Birthers. If the commentor now believes that David Frum is rational then the commentor needs to tend to the logic, implications and syntax of his words. 

 

I can keep bringing up folks on the Right, including the author of the post we are commenting on, who oppose the Birthers and the commentor can continue to claim that my reference is an exception until the cows come home but it would have been more honest in terms of implication for the commentor to have simply wrote, “I think there is a fear by many … on the right that fighting back against the nuttiness will render their cause less effective,” without throwing in the gratuitous “many of the less irrational on the right.” If that had been what he had written I would have had no argument.  

Many rank and file conservatives, especially those concerned with the national deficit and the scale of government, were ill-served by the Bush administration and are deeply disconnected from professional DC conservatives.

 The commentor states that “many” thought they were ill-served by Bush. Then, uh-oh! He turns around and immediately characterizes those “many” as a “tiny” category. 

The number who would fall into that category are tiny, indeed, though.  Bush enjoyed overwhelming support on the right until almost the very end--only when he became a political liability in the approaching election were there big defections away from him. 

 In the above the commentor is plainly referring to the “right” in general, which would presumably include moderate or liberal Republicans. He then uses that pronouncement to make a point about “self-identified conservative Republicans,” which is fallacious logic.  

Even as late as December, after the Republicans had been decimated in the elections, self-identified conservative Republicans were still giving Bush a 72% approval rating.

 Furthermore, is a 72% approval rating by “self-identified conservative Republicans” really evidence of a “devotion” that was “fanatical to the point of being creepy,” as the commentor declares below? Did the commentor expect that the majority of Republicans would disapprove of Bush? On the other hand, I guess that if you believe Bush was just like a Nazi, as the commentor believes, then it follows that ANY approval of Bush would seem ominous.  

Their[the “self-identified conservative Republicans”] devotion to him was fanatical to the point of being creepy. They built a cult-of-personality around him, and practically worshipped the ground he walked on--massive approval ratings all the way.

 Me, earlier: “ ‘Dumb’ she may be, in the sense that the commentor evidently believes that anyone who disagrees with the commentor’s nonsense is ‘dumb,’ but one twitter from Palin and the Democrats feverishly began deleting parts of health care proposals while simultaneously loudly claiming those parts did not exist.”

 

The Commentor:  

The only thing "deleted" was a conservative Republican amendment offered by a conservative Republican Senator from my own state about paying for end-of-life counseling … defeating conservative Republican measures (one of the only positive ones on health care to be offered to date)

 Me, I don’t want the government mandating death counseling, or as the commentor euphemistically prefers, “end-of-life” counseling. And according to President Obama and the NBC affiliate serving Portland, Oregon, Portland’s own U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a DEMOCRAT, was the politician that sponsored that infamous death counseling amendment – you know – the one that did not exist that the Democrats running the House hurriedly deleted(“She lies! Lies, I tell you!) after ONE little twitter by Sarah Palin. 

 

http://tinyurl.com/qqwf2z 

 

That's not grief--it's just noise

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 18:11.

So … David Frum is less irrational than a Birther-supporter.

Very good, grasshopper! And it only took two passes with plainly worded English to get that into your head.

Who is David Frum more irrational than – the commentor?

Well, he is a conservative.

The commentor states that “many” thought they were ill-served by Bush. Then, uh-oh! He turns around and immediately characterizes those “many” as a “tiny” category.

No, genius, the poster "Johnson springs" wrote that. I was responding to it with the part you quoted next. Taking issues with it. That's why the two passages contradict.

You really don't read these things before "replying," do you?

In the above the commentor is plainly referring to the “right” in general, which would presumably include moderate or liberal Republicans. He then uses that pronouncement to make a point about “self-identified conservative Republicans,” which is fallacious logic.

No, it's a response to a comment in the "Johnson springs" post about "rank and file conservatives." A part you thought I wrote.

Furthermore, is a 72% approval rating by “self-identified conservative Republicans” really evidence of a “devotion” that was “fanatical to the point of being creepy,” as the commentor declares below?

That late in the game, it certainly is, which is why I brought up when that poll was taken. Bush's approval rating was around 28% with the public at that time, vs. 72% among conservative Republicans. Bush had presided over a disastrous presidency, his way of doing business had completely decimated the economy, he'd bogged the U.S. down in a completely unnecessary war, left a budget he'd received in surplus drowning in red ink, and his party had just been handed their posteriors in the election the month before, and he was STILL getting 72% approval.

There's plenty of other evidence, of course--the polling was extensive throughout those years. Bush's approval rating among the righties was probably better than was Reagan's, and he never lost it. As bad as everything got, he never lost them.

Did the commentor expect that the majority of Republicans would disapprove of Bush?

They supported him in overwhelming numbers for years after the public had finally seen through him and entirely turned against him. When "Johnson springs" said rank-and-file Republicans were ill-served by Bush, I found it appropriate to point out that this is news to rank-and-file conservatives, who, in fact, supported him in overwhelming numbers until the end.

On the other hand, I guess that if you believe Bush was just like a Nazi, as the commentor believes, then it follows that ANY approval of Bush would seem ominous.

The Bush/Nazi paralells are inescapable for anyone with ANY real familiarity with the respective subjects. That doesn't mean "Bush was just like a Nazi," and you've been corrected on using such caricatures before.

And yes, any approval of Bush, particularly by last December, is quite ominous.

I don’t want the government mandating death counseling, or as the commentor euphemistically prefers, “end-of-life” counseling.

There was nothing in the bill in question that mandated anything of the sort--that was another right-wing lie. The bill provided that such counseling could be covered. It's entirely up to the individual to decide if they want it, just as is the case now.

And according to President Obama and the NBC affiliate serving Portland, Oregon, Portland’s own U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a DEMOCRAT, was the politician that sponsored that infamous death counseling amendment – you know – the one that did not exist that the Democrats running the House hurriedly deleted(“She lies! Lies, I tell you!) after ONE little twitter by Sarah Palin.

The measure was authored by Sen. Johnny Isaacson (R-GA). EarlBlumenauer was one of the co-authors of the House version of the same measure--the other three authors were Rep. Geoff Davis of Kentucky, Rep. Patrick Tiberi of Ohio, and Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana. All three are conservative Republicans. Boustany was the former hack surgeon just chosen by the Republicans to handle their response to the Obama health care reform address.

Again, those measures were deleted because of the furor caused by the misrepresentation of them, not because they actually established "death panels." You show yourself to be a lying charlatan in parroting that charge.

More noise

Submitted by grackle on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 11:45.

 I will begin by apologizing to the commentor and the readers for mistaking someone else’s remarks for his. I am new to this blog and am unused to the format used for comments here. Every mistake is a learning experience and I will certainly endeavor to do better. I will note, however, that most of my points had nothing to do with the error.  

 

The commentor seems to believe that history will care what Bush’s poll numbers were just before the last election. Public opinion is volatile and sometimes wrong; the public has been wrong before and will no doubt be wrong again. Real leadership is possessing the wisdom to ignore the polls at certain crucial points. The American public, after all, was against America’s entry in WW2, a mistake that probably cost many more lives than was necessary. History is filled with instances where the public was wrong. We are governed by a Republic, not the polls.

 

I believe Bush presided over a fair, if not totally admirable Presidency; the economy was strong over most of his 2 terms, the recent worldwide economic crisis having nothing to do with anything Bush did or did not do. 

 

As for Iraq, Saddam needed to be deposed and Bush did it, and now the Iraqis are a democratic ally, a situation which suites me just fine and in my opinion bodes well for the future of both the USA and Iraq. 

 

Bush’s contribution to America’s “red ink” is far less than what Obama wants to saddle the economy with and the Republican Party’s election problems were mostly of the Republican Party’s own making, Bush himself retiring undefeated from the political field with 2 terms as Governor of Texas and 2 terms as President, having never lost a race for political office. Of course the only way the Left can explain such success by someone so devoutly hated by them is to deny its legitimacy.  

The Bush/Nazi parallels are inescapable for anyone with ANY real familiarity with the respective subjects. That doesn't mean "Bush was just like a Nazi," and you've been corrected on using such caricatures before.

 I do wish the commentor would desist from his tiresome characterizing of Bush as Nazi-like and then coyly denying doing so. Bush was either like a Nazi or he was not; trying to embrace both viewpoints is ridiculous.  

 

The commentor, on the non-existent death counseling:  

There was nothing in the bill in question that mandated anything of the sort--that was another right-wing lie. The bill provided that such counseling could be covered. It's entirely up to the individual to decide if they want it, just as is the case now.

 Oh yes, the bill certainly provided that death counseling “could be covered,” alright – providing for someone from the government or paid a fee by the government to confront patients who are very ill with a death sales pitch, as in: “Oh, by the way, just in case you decide you no longer want to continue to be a burden on your family or society, we have a few ideas on how you can make that happen.”  Charles Krauthammer put it this way:  

It's not an outrage. It's surely not a death panel. But it is subtle pressure applied by society through your doctor. And when you include it in a health care reform whose major objective is to bend the cost curve downward, you have to be a fool or a knave to deny that it's intended to gently point you in a certain direction, toward the corner of the sick room where stands a ghostly figure, scythe in hand, offering release.

 http://tinyurl.com/l3jntk

 

Myself, I feel a bit more strongly about the subject than Krauthammer but include the quote as an relatively neutral yet informed example of proof of the fact that death counseling, despite the commentor’s protestations to the contrary, DID exist and WAS thrown out of the proposed legislation after Sarah Palin’s twitter remark. The Left has been desperately trying to paint it as a lie ever since. 

 

And I’m quite aware that some Republicans had a hand in the death counseling fiasco but the commentor would have misled the readers into believing that the Democrats had nothing to do with it and I couldn’t let a misrepresentation of that sort stand. Indeed, the Republicans and the Democrats went hand in hand down that grisly path. As I have written before, I am not a conservative or a Republican, and frankly do not trust either side at this juncture. My idea of the best outcome would be for no health care bill whatsoever to be passed at this time; any bill passed now would almost certainly make worse what it would purport to make better.      

 

The roots of the financial crisis

Submitted by Mead50 on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 12:04.

I believe Bush presided over a fair, if not totally admirable Presidency; the economy was strong over most of his 2 terms, the recent worldwide economic crisis having nothing to do with anything Bush did or did not do.

Good grief.

Here is a pretty good summary of the roots of the financial crisis, written by the Republican staff of the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The financial crisis of 2008 had its roots primarily in ill-conceived government policies. Many economists argue that the Federal Reserve under the leadership of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke kept interest rates too low for too long after the recession of 200, fueling a massive asset bubble in housing. Added to this were government “affordable housing” policies which pushed the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to support a boom in risky and unsustainable mortgage lending. The collapse of this bubble was the catalyst for the financial crisis.

Bush was the head of that government. Government policies were his responsability. Greenspan and Bernanke worked for him.

Get it?

To be fair, though

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 15:08.

...that summary puts far too much emphasis on the role of Fannie and Freddie. This is in line with Republican talking points, but, in the real world, they played very little role in what happened.

Your header is the only thing you've gotten right

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 15:04.

The commentor seems to believe that history will care what Bush’s poll numbers were just before the last election.

No, the commenter was refuting the notion that there was anything like widespread conservative disillusionment with Bush. There wasn't. Not at any time. And those poll numbers aren't just relevant to that question--they directly answer it.

I believe Bush presided over a fair, if not totally admirable Presidency; the economy was strong over most of his 2 terms, the recent worldwide economic crisis having nothing to do with anything Bush did or did not do.

That's false. The near complete lack of oversight exercised by his administration played a major role in everything that happened, and Bush, being the Man From Oil, let the oil companies rob the country blind during his administration, keeping what you'd have people believe was a "strong" economy at perpetual near-recession as a consequence, raising the price of everything. I told everyone for two years that all it would take to get rid of $4+/gallon gas is to get rid of Bush. And that's all it did take.

You rant against Obama's red ink, while giving Bush a pass, when Obama is the one left saddled with cleaning up Bush's mess. You rave about a democratic Iraq without any apparent awareness that, in practice, that means rule by the Shiite majority, the leadership of which is in the thrall of the Iranian mullahs--while Iran is trying to shed itself of such rule, Bush insured it in Iraq. You also don't mention Bush's lying the U.S. into that war, manipulating and browbeating the intel community into supporting a war on which he'd already decided, then blaming them, after it was all over, because all the things he made up about Iraq weren't true.

And, of course, you continue to rail against the obvious Nazi parallels with the Bush administration while failing to deal with the behavior that begged that question throughout its time in office. You didn't deal with a single point of it I mentioned (and my recitation was hardly comprehensive).

Your use of professional liar Charles Krauthammer, who is just repeating the talking points, does you no credit (and calling his parroting "relatively neutral yet informed" rather amusing). You can quote Krauthammer on "death panels." You can quote Sarah Palin. You can quote Betsy McCaughey, who made up the lie in the first place. The one thing you can't do--and the one thing McCaughey couldn't do, resulting in her being totally discredited by her own words on national TV--is quote anything from any health care proposals that establish "death panels." She couldn't do it because it isn't there.

And I’m quite aware that some Republicans had a hand in the death counseling fiasco but the commentor would have misled the readers into believing that the Democrats had nothing to do with it and I couldn’t let a misrepresentation of that sort stand.

You know "some Republicans had a hand" in that measure solely because I told you so. When I pointed out it was a conservative Republican measure, you countered:

"Portland’s own U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a DEMOCRAT, was the politician that sponsored that infamous death counseling amendment"

Confronted with the facts--that four of the five authors, between the House and Senate, were conservative Republicans--you've changed your tune, and hoped no one would notice.

Your errors extend far beyond merely reading someone else's words as mine.

Headers R Us

Submitted by grackle on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 11:32.

 Good grief. Here is a pretty good summary of the roots of the financial crisis, written by the Republican staff of the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

 The financial crisis of 2008 had its roots primarily in ill-conceived government policies … [etc, etc.] Bush was the head of that government. Government policies were his responsibility. Greenspan and Bernanke worked for him. Get it?

 Oh yes, I get what this commentor is saying. It’s just that I think it’s a bit more complicated and reaches back further in time than the commentor or the authors quoted evidently believe. To get another view of the financial crisis and financial matters in general the readers might consider visiting Econlog, an excellent blog by Arnold Kling, Bryan Caplan, and David Henderson. Their view of the financial crisis of 2008 can be hinted at by this excerpt from Arnold Kling’s scholarly paper, “Not What They Had in Mind: A History of Policies that Produced the Financial Crisis of 2008,” which was published by George Mason University in September of this year.  

For the roots of the crisis go back many decades, and if we are to avoid repetition, we have to fully understand the context in which decisions were made in the years leading up to the crisis … the seeds for much of the current crisis were sown in the policy “solutions” to previous financial and economic crises. Any attempt to dissect and understand the current crisis that does not account for the complex history, evolution, and integrated nature of financial regulations will not yield meaningful lessons for today’s policy makers.

 http://tinyurl.com/nkm8k2

 

Arnold Kling received his Ph.D. in economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and has served on the staffs of the CBO, the Federal Reserve Board and Freddie Mac.

 

I suppose historians and economists(and blog commentors) will argue forever about this recent and other financial crises. However, I think it is worth noting that the 2008 financial crisis happened all over the world, not just in the US. Evidently there were a bunch of government leaders besides Bush and his financial regulators that didn’t see it coming. For this and other reasons I tend to believe that the crisis was a systemic failure going back “many decades” rather than the failure of a single individual.     

No, the commentor was refuting the notion that there was anything like widespread conservative disillusionment with Bush. There wasn't. Not at any time. And those poll numbers aren't just relevant to that question--they directly answer it.

 I think the commentor and I may agree on certain trends, events and facts(like poll numbers) but perhaps not on their significance. I merely wanted to point out not that Bush faced “widespread conservative disillusionment” to the extent that they were calling for his impeachment but that he was indisputably the recipient of plentiful criticism from the Right on all his policies. 

 

For instance, George Will, a prominent conservative, criticized Bush’s domestic and foreign policy decisions. There were others. This is so widely known that it should be taken for granted. That Bush received strong job approval from certain segments of the Right proves nothing more than we all tend to approve of those we approve of, not that Bush never received criticism from the Right. 

 

It should be self-evident that George Will’s and others’ adverse opinions of Bush’s policies probably were not reflected in the poll that the commentor cites.     

I told everyone for two years that all it would take to get rid of $4+/gallon gas is to get rid of Bush. And that's all it did take.

 At the same time the USA was suffering high gasoline prices the rest of the world was also experiencing abnormally high gasoline prices, in many cases higher than in America. I’m just wondering – does the commentor believe that Bush caused the simultaneous rise of the price of gasoline in the entire world?  

You rant against Obama's red ink, while giving Bush a pass, when Obama is the one left saddled with cleaning up Bush's mess. 

 I don’t believe any mess left by Bush requires that Obama increase the national debt fourfold.  

You rave about a democratic Iraq without any apparent awareness that … [etc., etc.] … rule by the Shiite majority, … [Etc., etc.] … thrall of the Iranian mullahs … [etc., etc.]. 

 Iraq is now a democracy and an ally whereas before it was a hostile nation ruled by a murderous despot. Call me crazy but I prefer the former over the latter.  

You also don't mention Bush's lying the U.S. into that war, 

 I hear about Bush’s lies all the time but never actually see him quoted. Every public pronouncement by Bush is available on the internet. How about providing some links to a few of those lies.  

… And, of course, you continue to rail against the obvious Nazi parallels with the Bush … 

 Actually I’m not railing against “Nazi parallels with the Bush.” It was more of a gentle amusement at the commentor trying to paint Bush as a Nazi and in the same breath denying doing so. I know what a Nazi was and know the difference between a Nazi and ANY President of the United States. I feel kind of sorry for the commentor that he apparently does not.  

Your use of professional liar Charles Krauthammer … 

 I don’t believe Charles Krauthammer is a liar. I've found that he can usually be trusted to get his facts in order.  

… who is just repeating the talking points… [etc., etc.] … You can quote Sarah Palin …[etc.] … Betsy McCaughey, who made up the lie … [etc.] … The one thing you can't do… [etc., etc.] … is quote anything from any health care proposals that establish "death panels." … [etc.]

 Me, earlier: “And I’m quite aware that some Republicans had a hand in the death counseling fiasco but the commentor would have misled the readers into believing that the Democrats had nothing to do with it and I couldn’t let a misrepresentation of that sort stand.”

 

The commentor:  

You know "some Republicans had a hand" in that measure solely because I told you so. When I pointed out it was a conservative Republican measure, you countered:

 Me, earlier: "Portland’s own U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a DEMOCRAT, was the politician that sponsored that infamous death counseling amendment" 

 

The commentor:  

Confronted with the facts--that four of the five authors, between the House and Senate, were conservative Republicans--you've changed your tune, and hoped no one would notice. Your errors extend far beyond merely reading someone else's words as mine.

 I think the readers can see that when I make a mistake I own up to it. Let me assure the readers that I DID know of Republican co-sponsorship of death counseling without needing any prompting from the commentor, not that it would have changed any of the points of the debate if I hadn’t. The above quote is simply my paraphrase of a newspaper article and does not prove anything one way or another of what I knew about party affiliation.  Below is a direct quote from another article that refers to the (non-existent?) death counseling to illustrate my point:   

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., sponsor of the measure, says he's flabbergasted at the turn the debate has taken. "It's just beyond bizarre," he said. "At every point along the process, I got broad agreement from Democrats and Republicans alike."

 http://tinyurl.com/mw95wv

 

In the legislative process there are sponsors and there are co-sponsors. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. was the sponsor and the Republicans were co-sponsors of the death counseling. The commentor should know that and if he knew that he should also know that my quote doesn’t indicate a lack of knowledge about the facts of the death counseling sponsorship.   

 

My only goal was to let the readers know that, contrary to the commentor’s perhaps unintended earlier implication, it wasn’t only Republicans that had crafted the offending proposed legislation.  

 

Contract with America 2   Not

Submitted by EscapeVelozity on Mon, 09/14/2009 - 23:22.

Contract with America 2

 

Not a leader, a contract and plan of action....to be held accountable against.

Yes we need a leader, to galvanize the opposition and anger at Obama.  

David Frum aint it.

I suggest Eric Cantor is one of the best youve got in the GOP House right now.....he is young enough not to be scandalous and with history of corruption or votes that will drive people away.  Fresh face for the GOP, energetic..

I hope Newt Gingrich runs in 2012, as I did in 2008.  

Newt Gingrich/Fred Thompson 2012!  

Fuck yeah! 

Leaders choose themselves

Submitted by johnson springs on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 07:19.

Leaders choose themselves, in my experience. No one has stepped forward and seized the opportunity to lead the angry conservative rank and file because no one has developed ideas and themes that authentically address the concerns of the base including their deep dissatisfaction with the national leadership such as Rep. Cantor.

Unless and until such a credible leader emerges the base will continue to express their inchoate anger as best they can but will have little to show for it come 2010 in my view.

Normal 0

Submitted by Carina on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 09:28.

Normal
0

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}

Nice post. I really liked this article and it will be very helpful for me and for others..Thanks for sharing! <a href="http://www.rentcar.ro"> Rent a car</a><a href="http://www.rentcar.ro"> Rent a car</a> 

 

Just because your paranoid,

Submitted by EscapeVelozity on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 19:46.

Just because your paranoid, doesnt mean they arent out to get you. 

Rather than screaming "SOCIALIST!!!!"

Submitted by JMR on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 08:17.

Maybe the best argument to use when we see creeping socialism happening is simply to call it "creeping socialism." When I did that during the Bush administration, I'd get called "a liberal Democrat" by big-government Republican partisans, but that didn't slow me down because I was right. I think both administrations practically *define* creeping socialism, in a variety of ways, but especially when it comes to spending.