Letters to the Editor
-
It's always the fault of those dangerous radicals on the left
In a similar vein, abhorring the radicalism of the Repub -- no, strike that, the Democratic party, David Kennedy, seer and prophet of things political, writes in the New York Times book review Paul Krugman's new book, "Conscience of a Liberal," that Krugman's book displays the frighteningly divisive politics of the Looney Left.
"Like the rants of Rush Limbaugh or the films of Michael Moore, Krugman's shrill polemic may hearten the failthful, but it will do little to persuade the unconvinced or to advance the national discussion of the important issues it addresses. It may even deepen the very partisan divide he denounces."
Yes, the Distinguished Reviewer in the New York Times warns that nothing should be done that runs the risk of offending Republicans and deepening the partisan divide -- this must be avoided at all costs.
Republicans are described as strong and decisive, when they make ever-more extreme statements -- as when they say, for example, we should use tactical nuclear weapons to attack Iran, or that warrantless wiretapping and secret prisons are helping defeat The Terrorists; therefore these programs need to be expanded.
On the other hand, Democrats who speak forcefully and with passion are denounced by the elites as pursuing some private vendetta, or nursing a grudge:
"For all that he inveighs against the evils of partisanship, Krugman astonishingly concludes by repudiating the chimera of 'bipartisan compromise' and declaring that 'to be progressive, then, means being a partisan -- at least for now.' Indeed at times he seems more intent on settling his neocon adversaries' hash than on advancing solutions to vexed policy issues."
Get it? Republican tough talk: manly, virile, reassuring. Democratic tough talk: petty, mean-spirited, and "shrill." Now that the elites have decided how to frame our public discourse, the opinion pieces and book reviews virtually seem to write themselves!
Liberals, not movement conservatives, are to blame for their failure to win elections, based on voters' perception they are wimpy on national defense. "Democratic bungling" is responsible for causing voters to believe, "that the party of Carter and Clinton (not to mention McGovern and Kucinich) might not be the most steadfast guardian of the Republic's safety."
Yes, it's almost election time, and the wise elites are beginning their always fun parlor game called, "Blame the Democrats For Everything Imaginable."
And, of yes, could the New York Times have commissioned a more stupid, lame, and feckless book review if they had tried?
-
Stuck in 1972
The far right has a new term “neo-McGovernites” to describe the anti-war net roots of the Democratic Party, a term that is used as an insult.
McGovern wanted to end the Vietnam War, but Nixon promised to “win” - he promised “victory” just like Glenn Reynolds and Hugh Hewitt do today in Iraq.
Our pro-war “serious” journalists don’t want to remember that Nixon didn’t “win” the war at all and that his election just resulted in more Americans dying before Nixon finally withdrew under great popular pressure.
In short, McGovern was right, and Nixon was wrong.
Did we learn nothing from that mistake? The strong anti-war sentiment expressed in all polls (for a very long time now) is that yes, the public did in fact learn something, and they don’t want to repeat that mistake.
This popular sentiment has escaped our serious political journalists who only seem to remember that McGovern lost the election, and they can’t seem to believe that an “anti-war” position could ever possibly mean anything other than a loss at the polls. They are stuck in 1972.
McGovern was right in 1972 and if we’d listened to him, fewer Americans would have died. If that is the lesson Americans have really learned, then being a “neo-McGovernite” is high praise indeed.
Maybe the neo-Nixonites should worry about that.
-
Management by adjective
What is wrong with the following statment:
Bouffant hairdoed, baby-faced, unabashedly liberal candidate John Edwards curried favor with his left-wing base today by laying out his plan for what many have called a socialist health care plan....
How about this one:
Lean and mean, take-no-prisoners, responsible Republican spokesperson Ann Coulter today excoriated the weakness of liberals who seem determined to weaken our victorious military just when it needs the support of every true American to complete its perilous mission in Iraq.
Nothing. Ask Joe Klein.
-
starrhopping
But what's driving me out of lurker mode is this: I see no sense of alarm in the left/progressive blogosphere that Hillary is probably going to be our candidate. Hillary, who has never stood up to Bush in any way that matters. Shouldn't we stop her? How do we stop her?
You, Digby, FDL, and others, seem strangely silent on this issue. And given our strange, front-loaded primary system, maybe soon it will be too late.
Who do you think should stop her? Who has inspired anyone to get behind them? People didn't just pick Howard Dean out of a hat in 2004. He triggered the enthusiasm that he did by inspiring people with passion and conviction and a refusal to be stuffed into the Beltway box.
Who is doing that now?
-
Control the congressional agenda
In the post you linked to:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-ortega/republicans-seeking-to
Ortga writes "But as the conservative cable programs find yet another reason not to cover actual news, sources say Republicans are gearing up for a resolution on Monday condemning Rep. Stark's comments".
A resolution condemning Stark's comments? Why can't the Democrats control the agenda? What happened to Hastert's majority of the majority concept - can't we apply some control as what comes up on the floor?
-
What I don't get is WTF do these stenographers get out of this..
Can someone please, please explain to me exactly what Vandehei, Murray, Klein, et. al. actually get out of their relentless efforts to prolong the carnage in Iraq and to prop up what has to be the most corrupt organization, the Republican Party, in the history of this country.
From AP via this mornings NYT:
Iraqi police and hospital officials put the death toll at at least 13 and said a woman and three children were among the dead from the pre-dawn raid in the sprawling district. They said 52 people were injured.
Associated Press photos showed the bodies of two toddlers, one with a gouged face, swaddled in blankets on the floor of the morgue. Relatives said they were killed when helicopter gunfire hit their house as they slept. Their shirts were pulled up, exposing their abdomens. A diaper showed above the waistband of the shorts of one of the boys.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iraq.html?hp
Do they really work so hard to prolong this occupation simply to advance their careers? Do they actually put so much time and effort into prolonging the senseless slaughter just so they get invited to the right cocktail parties? Or do they, like George W Bush, just get their jollies out of seeing two year olds getting their heads and faces blown off.
What the fuck is up with these beasts.
If any of you, VandeHei, Klein, Murray, etc. are out there lurking, please give me a clue here. What do you get out of this.
Why do you do what you do when you must know your actions are going to help continue the slaughter and carnage.
Why....