I usually post a link, thanks for the reminder. The speech has been discussed before, most recently comparing it to Zell Miller's speech before the Republican National Convention in 2004.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/GoebbelsAndMiller.htm

-- Jim Montague

I am confused. I followed the link and found the following:

In fact, the speech I quoted above didn't come from Joseph Goebbels. It was delivered by an American — Senator Zell Miller at the Republican convention last week. I had to change only a few words in order to disguise the source. Republicans cheered Miller enthusiastically — even as he quoted Franklin Roosevelt saying, "All private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

So, are you saying that it was actually Goebbels or no? The way I read Mr. Browne's post, that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems to me as though he is saying, that while the Miller speech was Goebbels'esque and the sentiments are the same, that it was not an actual Goebbels speech. Am I missing something?

Is there something wrong with them supporting the 22 Democratic Senators who stood up and opposed the condemnation resolution, or supporting the numerous House Democrats who would have done the same? -- GlennGreenwald

There was no agenda behind my question Glenn. I was sincerely wondering-out-loud. But now that you bring it up, I would say that yeah, off the top of my head, I can see "something wrong" with supporting anyone with a "D" next to their name at this point. It just goes back to a general disagreement about where we are as a country. Or perhaps what I perceive to be a disagreement.

With the exception of a few Green candidates I have voted for Democrats exclusively in the past. Never again. I believe that supporting and voting for a party (and its members) that continue to screw you and the country over is not a very intelligent policy. I find it absurd in fact. How does the message, that what they are doing is unacceptable, ever reach them if we all vote for them regardless? And, before you go off on a rant about how those 22 did not screw anyone, let me just say that I agree, they didn't. This time. Practically speaking and WRT the Dem leadership... does it matter? Where have they been? They are a party that has control of the reins of power. Should they not be held responsible as a party? What happens when you target individuals, win those battles and still get screwed? What happens when Hillary Clinton gets elected and nothing changes?

I believe that your stance -- and feel free to correct me if I am wrong -- is that they shouldn't be held responsible as a party. That, even though you recognize the futility of it all and write frequently about how the Dems are spineless, craven capitulators (at best), you still would recommend people attempt to work within the system to move the Democratic party to a "more sensible place." Thus, in this case, the loaded question: "Is there something wrong with (move-on) supporting the 22 Dem Senators..."

To me there is just no logic or common sense behind that stance. I sincerely am not trying to call you out, bait you or offend you here but, I see only fear and ignorance driving that belief. The problem is systemic. The system, as it has been changed/gamed, is no longer responsive to that stance (if it ever was). Whether or not this 22 voted this way, this time or that 22 vote another way, another time, the facts on the ground are... well, they are obvious. Which is why El Cid (I think it was him) and me asked you to read and comment on Chris Floyd's Post-Mortem America essay. Given that it came out at nearly the same time as your post concerning the fact that what America is has fundamentally changed -- that nearly every illegal action we abhor has now become the sanctioned law of the land, etc.

So, if I am correct in my assessment, then you can perhaps see why it is more than a bit frustrating for me to see people so ready to be fooled again and again and again because they are afraid. Either way, my post in response to Timberman was sincere and not meant to be antagonistic. I realize that may be difficult to believe but I really was simply wondering-out-loud.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm

I Googled and went to the site listed above while waiting for you to give me a direct link and I couldn't find the speech there. Many, many very similar in tone but not that specific one. It could be there though, I didn't look too hard for it.

You say we have to punish the miscreants by withdrawing support. But isn't praise (and/or support) part of the "training program" too? Reward good behaviour too, and your message to the party is twice as strong. -- Arne

Er...care to name anything that should be praised?

Nevermind. Don't bother. I have been paying attention and, to my mind, there literally isn't anything of note to praise.. so, seriously, don't bother.

It really doesn't matter Arne. We could go back and forth on this forever. We just do not see the same things.

The problem is systemic. It is way beyond "getting just a few more 'good' Dems and we are home free." I don't know how else to explain it and I am exhausted with this.

Good luck to you.

I think it's easy to be dismissive of the differences when the differences don't matter to your life. -- GG

WTF? That "your" had better be of the royal variety. As in, "our."