I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
It's the old switcheroo!
Nothing in this hand,
nothing in the other hand,
Presto!
Angry Democrats and compasionate conservatives!
Ah, yes. George W. Bush, the Reformer with Results.
Some reformer.
Some results.
By the way, I've got an entry on Donald Luskin going off on Paul Krugman for "ethical violations" for making similar recommendations to the Democratic Party.
I wonder if Bobo will receive the same treatment.
"churlish defenders of the status quo," eh?
I love irony.
Conservo-yuppie sez:
Bush promoted a new domestic governing philosophy: compassionate conservatism. To be honest, that hasn't panned out.
Thanks for heads-up, Starbuck.
Ah yes. After welfare reform, the government no longer rewards bad behavior.
Where to start--?
When one says 'bad behavior," the name 'Enron' never even flickers in a Republican mind, does it?
Enron was bad? Hell, how about starting a goddamned war?
Other shorter David Brooks:
Democrats are player haters.
Not short enough, unfortunately.
Let's go to Plan B: Since the Democrats did most of the good things during the last century, how about us Republicans run on a progressive agenda?
It amazes me that somewhere, out there, someone is taking this shit seriously.
After basically calling the Repugs hypocrites for betraying their traditional values, he holds them up as the party of hope + reform?
To quote Bowie, "My brain hurts a lot."
David is right. All we need are creative accounting techniques a la Enron to make all of our social problems disappear. Kinda like those public school kids that aren't being left behind down there in Texas. There's so much hope in four more years of Bush that I'm actually crying at the thought of it.
funny, this brand of "hope" tastes like vomit.
OK since all good accomplishments came from the Dems and we tried to blame them after we failed to roll back these same accomplishments, let's just pilfer their progressive mantle and spitefully call them angry.
"Bad behavior" = niggers
Republicans cross dressing as progressives...
Bush promoted a new domestic governing philosophy: compassionate conservatism. To be honest, that hasn't panned out. So the task this year, starting with the State of the Union speech, is to come up with a new governing philosophy
It almost sounds like he's saying that Republicans don't have shit, I mean, seriously, don't have shit, but they're depending on Bush to pull a progressive vision out of his ass in time for the elections, so that the Republicans can run on past accomplishments of the Democratic Party.
Okay, Starbuck (I like that nickname for Brooks), depend on Bush to pull a progressive domestic vision out of his ass. That's what we like. When we're not "angry" (someone should start counting the number of times Brooks says the Democrats are "angry" in his column between now and when Bush transforms the Republican Party by making them the party of Democrats' progressive accomplishments, oh, sometime around next September or October).
Yeah, I read Brooks for amusement any more, but I got halfway through this one going "wow, he's actually saying credible things for once". Then the other shoe dropped.
At some point cognitive dissonance has to be actually painful, right?
GOP governing philosophy =
"I've got mine."
Since when does anger negate the possibility of reform and hope anyway?
david,
exactly.
Shorter David Brooks
Republicans don't want to govern, they want to rule.
So, David Brooks has emerged as the new agreeable face of Republican punditry, now that Wm. Kristol has been outed as a PNAC war schemer.
In this role -- as a provider of "middle-of-the-road" right-wing opinion-with-a-smile -- Brooks will need an entire foster family to "adopt" him for scrutiny.
Play fair, but play hard. If you believe Bush must go, he may be the most dangerous fellow inhabiting the 2004 elite media.
hahahha brooks uses il duce (rudy giuliani)in his latest piece of tripe.
there have been countless articles in the ny press how his administration cut welfare and food stamps to people who really DID qualify for them by making the forms difficult to get or fill out.
brooks needs to get out of the ivory tower on 43rd street (if he's not emailing his crap from dc) and visit food pantries. i'm sick of the politicians annual photo-op at christmas time when homeless people are torching themselves in cars using a hotplate either to keep warm or cook their meals.
newt had his "contract with america"-it's time the democrats educate the masses to stop "bush's war ON america".
Loser (& Atrios)--I was kinda hopeful about this column. Voters are skeptical of government, but they elect candidates who promise solutions for their problems, not ones who tear down departments. . . . corporate lobbyists have jumped into the vacuum. If principles aren't going to guide the Republican Party, the opportunists are happy to take control.
He seems to be on the verge of figuring out that a slash-and-burn policy toward government isn't a great idea, and that the GOP is for sale to the highest bidder.
This is tough for a man like him to accept, so it won't happen overnight. But Go David!!! Our side will get you yet!!
And your little dog too.
How does he get off saying the domestic policy is the major problem. This administration has wrecked 50 years of post WWII progress in foreign policy. The post 9/11 goodwill was squandered, every country in the world fears/hates us or wants to see us get our comeuppance. Al Queda and the Taliban have regenerated and the remains of the "axis of evil" are scrambling for WMD's to protect themselves. Then there are the thousands killed/wounded and billions squandered in Iraq. What is the positive republican message in all of this. I guess that things are so screwed up that they have finally stopped listening exclusively to the PNAC wacko's are are now giving the professional diplomats a small voice.
If the republican foreign policy platform is "Agree with us or we will kill you" then they have been sucessful.
Well, my armchair anthropological take on this boils down to tribalism. The average Bushie (not the evil genusii running the show, but the grunts, fundies, frustrated macho men, et al) sees themselves as part of a tribe that has just successfully eradicated the "competing" tribe. They see nothing compromising about taking and using the things left behind by the losers (Dems/liberals/Americans in general) to make their tribe more successful. That's only the spoils of war and the right thing to do. Brooks "criticism" of his tribe reveals that he is secure in his belief that the competing tribe is dead and he can now safely discuss appropriating their things without seeming to admire the Evil Others. These people have never seen America as a tribe (much less humanity). Remember the old guys with the immaculate lawns who hated kids and dogs? These guys have never felt a part of America, only their own hateful little tribe. Well, that tribe is, as Brooks puts it, "the governi
Well, that tribe is, as Brooks puts it, "the governing party," and they have to make things work instead of bitching about kids and dogs on their lawns.
Another tribal metaphor is American Football. Their team just won the superbowl (after paying off the refs, injuring half the other team, and threatening the coaching staff), so if they wanna steal some good plays from the other team, they're gonna do it.
Isn't life fun when it's just a game of good versus evil? It sure simplifies things.
Thinking of David's moist hound-dog eyes entreating from from within the doughy recesses of his soft balding head while skimming his latest NYT contribution makes my gorge rise. Of course, this is true of all the SansaBelt (TM-"fabrics that move...and waistbands that expand to keep up with you!) class of curvey plump and balding punditry.
I do agree with portions of David's clammy typing:
Republicans have no credibility.
The Republican Party is adrift domestically.
Republicans lack a set of goals.
Principles aren't going to guide the Republican Party.
Compassionate conservatism. To be honest, that hasn't panned out.
David, David, why do you hate America? Maybe you need a light snack...
Anytime someone attributes a "thought" or a "direction" to George Bush, I have to laugh.
this is the ussa - destroy the ideals of democracy with the greed of enterprise.
treat all other countries with contempt and take on the weakest among them with colonialistic motives either economic or bellicose.
"he who dies with the most toys wins!"
Democratic ideals are responsible for everything that's right with the country, so vote Republican.
Krusty's not around so I'll say it:
WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT?
what a hilarious thread!
Truly Republicans have lost whatever soul they ever had.
You know last night, I was trying to think of one good socially positive thing Repubs have done for the country in the past one hundred years-- or heck, going back to Lincoln. I couldn't think of anything. Anyone have any ideas?
Man, you guys are polarized.
[i]For my money, the best organizing principle for Republicans centers on the word "reform." Republicans can modernize the (mostly Democratic) accomplishments of the 20th century. That would mean entitlement reform, tax reform, more welfare reform, education reform, immigration reform, tort reform and on and on. In all these areas, Republicans can progressively promote change, while Democrats remain the churlish defenders of the status quo. [/i]
What he's saying is that the Democrats are embracing aspects of classical Republicans this election (anti-interventionist, the deficit!!), so, the Republicans (necessarily) must take on aspects of classical Democrats (government is good). He's saying that Bush needs to become Clinton, and do to other social programs what Clinton did to Welfare.
"Party of Anger" is coded language for 1996 Republicans. "Party of Reform and Hope" is coded language for 1996 Democrats.
Nixon signed good environmental legislation. That's about it.
I've checked.
Our only hope for what? To continue serving their corporate masters? To restore the fiscal integrity of the American economy?
"Party of Anger"
Will someone please point this out - on primetime, preferrably : to smack someone in the head and then turn around and claim their response is 'just angry' is ridiculous.
Effects have causes.
Republicans want power. As an end, not as a means. David Brooks just proved it. They have no ideology other than power.
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power....We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?
If Republicans start talking about 'reform', what they will really mean is giving away yet more tax cuts to the rich, regulatory loopholes to corporations and polluters, and eviscerating the public education system in favor of vouchers.
When reform is what's needed, you don't vote the ruling party back in... you throw the bastards out on their arses!
"Nixon signed good environmental legislation. That's about it."
Old Hat-- thanks-- that's right. Didn't he creat the EPA? Nixon actually did some surprisingly progressive/liberal things by today's standards.
What do you guys think Clinton did? He...stole the Republicans agenda.
The Republican party was adrift in 2000, was given something to do in 2001, and is now going to need to do something else to stay in power. Like...stealing the Democratic agenda.
I think it's great because it keeps both parties governing from the center, where I am.
What do you guys think Clinton did? He...stole the Republicans agenda.
The Republican party was adrift in 2000, was given something to do in 2001, and is now going to need to do something else to stay in power. Like...stealing the Democratic agenda.
I think it's great because it keeps both parties governing from the center, where I am.
Stone-- you're right, to a certain extent. I'm sure that's what Brooks was trying to say. This doesn't negate the other things people have said here. I mean, you can vote for fake progressives (republicans), or you can vote for true progressives: democrats.
David Brooks makes me want to smack him. He's a fatuous idiot who can't keep on message from one paragraph to the other, except that at the end it's always "Repubs good, Dems bad."
Me, I'm still holding up that forlorn, tattered little batter that says "Of the People, By the People, For the People" -- the thought that government exists to help the greatest number of folks by doing things that individuals or even large yet disenfranchised groups cannot, and tries to harm as few as possible. The thought that both the Left side and the Right side are supposed to be on the same side -- our side.
Silly freakin' me.
Brooks is like the guy in the old Kids in the Hall sketch, sitting alone in his apartment watching his leg turn gangrenous. He's too enthralled by the putrefaction (and the fact he can stick a fork in his leg without any pain) to think of doing anything helpful.
Poor Brooks: so many deadlines, so few ideas . . .
Alex - thanks, but do you really think Clinton/The DLC are true progressives? The Republicans can be fake progressives...and the Democrats can be fake conservatives. Each party gets to take advantage of the positive aspects of the other party.
Someone joked about Bush choosing Lieberman as his 2004 running mate.
I'm actually waiting for a candidate, either Democrat or Republican, to figure out that nominating a moderate member of the other party would be the move.
Think about a Clark/McCain ticket. A Bush/Lieberman ticket. It'd be a fucking juggernaut.
Ah yes, we Americans are beginning to understand what the Washington Republicans mean when they say reform. It's exactly the same as word deregulation.
Republicans term of art for "reform" or "deregulation" is what brought about the event of mad cow disease AND the entitlement of Enron and WorldCom to steal from their respective employees and their retirement funds, as well as to release more harmful contaminates into our air and water.
Even the last shuttle tragedy was an event that was short changed by the Republicans when Bush and the GOP refused to approve safety funding for NASA just months before that shuttle accident. Same conditions that NASA was in, in the first accident, in which NASA was in a position of having to accept increasingly hazardous conditions in order to met the same insufferable deadlines without adequate funding for safety priories.
We should call Bush the "Commander and Chief of Catastrophe and Despondency
Stone--
The problem is that this supposed "center" is a fabrication that too many of us buy into. They define "center" as what THEIR "average american" (White evangelical Christian fundamentalist) wants. If you define "center" by what the real average American wants(and examine where americans stand on actual issues), you see that the Dems are slightly to the right of center on most issues, the Green Party is just left center, and the Repugs are in a fairy facist la la land.
"I think it's great because it keeps both parties governing from the center, where I am."
The center? If we are living in a country governed by the center WTF would be a right-ist country?
To be honest, that hasn't panned out.
Trenchant analysis! In one sentence he explains (1) what compassionate conservatism was supposed to mean; (2) why its implementation failed, or else never took place; (3) and whether or not we should regret this fact.
Oh, wait, no he doesn't.
But then, my powers of analysis and understanding are clouded by my pathological angry, pessimistic, bush-hating.
It's looking increasingly as if Democrats will be the party of anger in 2004.
It's looking increasingly as if David Brooks will be the pundit of vacuousness in 2004.
I think this: "you see that the Dems are slightly to the right of center on most issues, the Green Party is just left" is a complete fabrication. I just don't see it.
I think Clinton was managing to hit the center pretty regularly, because we live in what is effectively a center-right country. The idea that the Green Party is just left of center has no basis in reality, and hasn't been born out by any of the elections the Green Party has run in. Look at the Green Party's power bases, where they're popular - San Francisco is nothing like the rest of the US. The Republican party is significantly more right-wing than the Democrats are left, but the Republicans are going to move left in 04-08 if/when Bush wins, for precisely the reasons Brooks mentions.
Lieberman and McCain I'd point to as two good examples of center-left/right politicians. You guys hate Lieberman, Republicans hate McCain, which seems to me to be a pretty good indication that they're at the center where
Longer shorter David Brooks:
Belief in shrinking government was a lie.
Compassionate conservative was a lie.
The Republicans need a new lie.
In think the word that Brooks is looking for is "deform." As in spoil, twist, contort, misshape, etc. Exactly what the Republicans want to do with all that we hold dear until our beautiful democratic republic is as ugly as they can make it.
the republicans are "progressive" & TNR is "liberal".
riiiiiiiiiiiight.
And Tim Russert says he gets complaints from the right and left so he is "center"
right on Steve in NYC!!!!!!
Just to reassure everyone that we're raving Hitlerites, (or at least dig Night Porter chic,)
Didn't Arendt say that one of the major causes of antisemitism, its "logic" if you will, was the way wealthy, prominent Jews affiliated themselves with whoever was in power, always looking like grovelling appeasers? Obviously to an extent this was necessary as a subject, second-class people, and it is hardly less hateful that people should suffer for their politics or lack thereof as for their religion, but it is equally clear that telling a mob of starving disgruntled proletarians that they should be grateful and obedient to the "only hope" is going to get you lynched. Maybe we're racist for seeing this pattern in Spineless Job Loserman's incredible bending-over-backwards to adore Bush and God as loudly as possible, Brooks and other "nominal Democrats" to deploy TINA, but shouldn't those Jews who believe in appeasement be considered the stupidest failed birth defects on the plan
shouldn't those Jews who believe in appeasement be considered the stupidest failed birth defects on the planet? Or maybe that's Americans who think we're going to remain a superpower by resembling a banana terror state.
TINA by the way is THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE, the insane, cult-like lie (spread by Thatcher, who first used it) that given the success of mixed economies and the monumental failures of the world bank, we should turn everything over to unregulated private multinational industry right now. Used here to mean that given that Bushco is the most traitorous swine to ever hate America and its people and military, having weakened us and given us unprecedented humiliation ans suffering, we have no choice but to keep him.
When did we beat child poverty?
I missed that one.
Good thing we no longer have crime either.
Cheryl -
"Ah yes, we Americans are beginning to understand what the Washington Republicans mean when they say reform. It's exactly the same as word deregulation."
Kudos. I've been noticing this since Reagan. Reform is a magical word. It also means viscerating social programs. They never say slash/do away with; its always reform. Things are going so swimmingly that if we get any more Republican "reforming" we won't have a safety net, environmental nor work safety standards. Aren't we lucky to be living in such wonderful times.
Brooks with another fake-out piece.
Pretend to be concerned about ballooing government when he knows damn well this is the Petrolican method to eventually burn down most of the federal government.
Damfa, what's that from? The "bankrupt the government" theory. We asked before and noone knew.
Looks like there's a plan for putting the "conservative" into compassionate conservatism.
They said the president's proposed budget for the 2005 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, would control the rising cost of housing vouchers for the poor, require some veterans to pay more for health care, slow the growth in spending on biomedical research and merge or eliminate some job training and employment programs.
For my money, the best organizing principle for Republicans centers on the word "reform."
Did this remind anyone else of Charles Durning as Pappy O'Daniell in O Brother Where Art Thou?
PAPPY
Languishing! Goddamn campaign is languishing! We need a shot inna arm!Hear me, boys? Inna goddamn ARM! Election held tomorra, that sonofabitch Stokes would win it in a walk!
JUNIOR
Well he's the reform candidate, Daddy.
Pappy narrows his eyes at him, wondering what he's getting at.
PAPPY
...Yeah?
JUNIOR
Well people like that reform. Maybe we
should get us some.
Pappy whips off his hat and slaps at Junior with it.
PAPPY
I'll reform you, you soft-headed sonofabitch! How we gonna run reform when we're the damn incumbent!
He glares around the table.
Zat the best idea any you boys can come up with? REEform?! Weepin' Jesus on the cross! Eckard, you may as well start draftin' my concession speech right now.
David Brooks = soft-headed sonofabitch!
Now Republicans control everything, and over the past three years the size of government has still increased, not even counting the war on terror.
Is what Brooks says here true, not the part about Republicans controlling everything, the business about increasing the size of the gov't?
I thought Bush & co. were creating programs that cost lots of money but not funding them (i.e. the no child left behind act) as a way to bankrupt the government.
Seth
seth: both.
kei & yuri, the "bankrupt the government" theory is from Krugman. (Others may have said it first, but he's written the most extensively on it.)
I'm so glad to see that this ridiculous Brooks article is up for discussion. I found it amazing. Brooks is saying "we Republicans ran on a promise to shrink government. But nobody wanted that, as we already knew. So we just lied. Just like we lied about Compassionate Conservatism. So basically, our new plan is to do whatever we feel like and call it Reform. What does reform mean? Who the fuck cares? We'll just call it that. And that's our program."
How is it that a jacka*s like Brooks gets a regular spot in the NY Times (rhetorical question)?
(I assume those of you who actually read Brooks do so for entertainment value only - he's quite a joke.)
I think it's great because it keeps both parties governing from the center, where I am.
Yeah right Stone your views are centrist only in the sense that the “center” refers to whatever policy is dominant at a given time. Whether this is due to ignorance or design on your part I don’t know but you misconstrue a radical right wing agenda for a moderate one.
You think Clinton's politics (in practice) are part of a radical right wing agenda?
You think Clinton's politics (in practice) are part of a radical right wing agenda?
I would steer clear of making a sweeping statement like that about Clintons career. There are areas where the Clinton, Blair “third way” overlap with the Bush agenda and in the end may produce the same result on those issues but this has a lot to do with the political realities they dealt with. If Clinton was negotiating with these powers that be, Bush is representing them to the exclusion of all others.
The Republican party was adrift in 2000, was given something to do in 2001, and is now going to need to do something else to stay in power. Like...stealing the Democratic agenda.
I think this is a deceptive description, the Clinton strategy could be better described as attempting to undercut Republican leverage by selectively appropriating positions they thought they had tied down. This has been rationalized on tactical grounds by many Democrats as a winning strategy, that’s debatable in terms of cost/benefit but these questions need to be evaluated in light of present circumstances. The Democratic party is not facing the Gingrich “revolution” but the Bush juggernaut prsenting different perils and different opportunities.
Ahh, so you think Clinton was a genuine, honest-to-goodness progressive, and only acted (for all intents and purposes) like a liberal Republican because Gingrich had him over a barrel?
Republicans, I think, forget how great Clinton was. Welfare reform, the Defense of Marriage act, relatively reasonable tax raises, Kosovo.
I also wonder whether people realize that Clinton would've attacked Iraq last year too, had he (in some alternate reality) won a 3rd term. Afghanistan would not have been enough, and Iraq was the only reasonable target. Clinton would've done a better job of creating a coalition, and there probably would've been more Iraqi casualties. He still would've attacked.
Ahh, so you think Clinton was a genuine, honest-to-goodness progressive, and only acted (for all intents and purposes) like a liberal Republican because Gingrich had him over a barrel?
No, that’s not what I think, I said it had been rationalized that way and the results are debatable. If you’re suggesting that Bush can dress up like Clinton to get elected I’d have to say there’s no chance of that happening. Clinton was able to use the threat of a very real, very right wing opponent. There is simply no analogous force on the left.
"You think Clinton's politics (in practice) are part of a radical right wing agenda?"
Stone, you're speaking with Atrios regulars, not regular Americans.
Don't get the two confused.
Afghanistan would not have been enough, and Iraq was the only reasonable target.
?????
"Enough" for what, Stone?
"Reasonable"? Under what circumstances? Or do you really buy that "Iraq was behind 9-11, I mean, Iraq had WMDs/WMD programs/WMD Bad Thoughts, oops, I mean, Hussein was a bad, bad man" litany, delivered with a barely concealed "Boy, these fuckers are stupid if they buy this BS," smirk?
Explain, please.
Noam Chomsky is just slightly left of center in Atrios land.
Noam Chomsky is just slightly left of center in Atrios land.
The center belongs to whoever plunks down the most cash, right Philly G?
alex, Teddy Roosevelt did quite a few good things, national parks and trust busting for a couple and damned sure he would beat the living shit outta W, GHWB and RR, might even have whupped Nixon too. that, or he would have switched to the democrat party.
Stone, you're speaking with Atrios regulars, not regular Americans.
Don't get the two confused.
And don't get Philly confused with anyone capable of independent thought.
Sharoney: "Enough" for the American public, after hitting Afghanistan. How do you think the public would've responded to the "War on Terror" turning into the "Detente on Terror" so quickly after Afghanistan. There was enough soccer-mom-bloodlust left to push us into another conflict. Clinton happily intervened when there was far less demand from the public. He would've pounced on the chance to go after a new dictator.
"Reasonable"? How many other countries do you think we could've 'liberated/bombed/wagged the dog/violated their sovereignity' (you choose) with the same cost-to-effectiveness ratio? North Korea, no, Iran, no (both far too difficult) what else, Libya?
Clinton would've chosen another target after Afghanistan - that's obvious. The choice would've been Iraq..
For all of you anti-war non-reluctant Democrats, what I'm trying to point out is that a Clinton/Clark/Lieberman/DLC/Gore 2000-2004 presidency would've made choices similar to Bush. The two parties, in practice, are very similar (AS THEY SHOULD BE.) The Republicans are behind the times (not surprisingly), in exhibiting this merging (they're not talking their walk, which hurts them), and I hope, eventually, that a figure like McCain will appear to perform the same centering function on the Republicans that Clinton had on the Democrats. God knows, they need it - if 9-11 didn't happen, Bush's presidency would've been an abject failure.
If, somehow, Dean wins, and stays left, the Republicans are going to co-opt so many left-wing policies that your heads will spin.
With Iraq, specifically, a Democrat would've handled things better with other countries, hell, anyone who didn't inspire the sheer rage in pseudo-intellectuals that Bush does would've done better - but the outcom
outcome would've been the same.
The two parties, in practice, are very similar (AS THEY SHOULD BE.)
If you see the world as being that devoid of possibility it’s not surprising that you don’t want to bother with more than one party but that doesn’t mean you can hand out the pseudo-intellectual awards. There’s no inherent logic that determines the course taken by politicians. I realize this is a disturbing concept but it’s something that people living in a democracy should really come to terms with. Democratic systems of government intentionally create a decision making process that’s inefficient by dividing power among coequal branches to defend us from overly ambitious leaders.
But you’re not alone in failing to appreciate the value of distributed power and competition in the political arena, the idea of a CEO president makes a mockery of the ideals of the founders of this nation. The free press that found that analogy acceptable is feeble minded and incompetent but still able to make a large part of the public forget the principals they claim the current war is supposed to defend. Part of their job is to frame decisions of those they favor as logical and inevitable. It’s a fantasy the public enjoys.
Clinton would've chosen another target after Afghanistan - that's obvious. The choice would've been Iraq..
That's just plain silly. I think he would have finished Afghanistan, and continued to go after Bin Laden. The last thing he'd have done is look around for something extraneous to blow up.
Is that what the fuck he was trying to say ?
I think this guy lives in parallel universe, or on another planet
Stone, you seem awfully sure of your mindreading abilities. Please let me know where you bought your palantir (or Magic 8-Ball), because a gadget like that would come in really handy.
But okay, just for fun, I'll play. You posit that Clinton would have attacked Afghanistan. Fair enough. Al-Quaeda was holed up there, so that makes sense. But after that you go off into la-la land, saying that "soccer-mom bloodlust" would have driven Clinton to attack Iraq. IIRC, there were massive national demonstrations AGAINST the invasion of Iraq, which BushCo chose to ignore in favor of his PNAC warmongering friends. So not only was there NO positive push to war with Iraq on the part of the American public, but in a Clinton WH there would have been no PNAC cabal pushing such an attack once their "Pearl Harbor event" materialized.
So your prediction-by-hindsight is far from obvious. In fact, as four legs good put it above, it's silly.
Two questions to you--did you approve of our attacki
...Two questions to you--did you approve of our attacking Iraq?
And would you vote for Dean if he wins the nomination? Or would you prefer to stick with the party who DID attack Iraq, for reasons that are now revealed as patently false?
Or maybe you think we should even have elections at all, given your "both parties in practice should be the same" sentiment. In which case, there's no point in discussing anything with you, never mind speculating on alternate histories.
And now, back to your regularly-scheduled programming on the Sci-Fi Channel.
...that's "Or maybe you think we should NOT even have had elections at all, given your "both parties in practice should be the same" sentiment."
Gotta proof my stuff better.
Republicans respond the exact same way as you guys - they change a couple of words, but that's it.
The beauty of our election system is that political candidates, generally, have to hew as closely to the center as possible without alienating their base. This is good, because the closer a candidate is to that mythic center, the more Americans he 'represents'.
The danger in American politics, in world politics, is fanaticism. Islamofascism. Communism. Fascism. Libertarianism. The extreme left and the extreme right. Nader and Buchanan.
I think people like a lot of you guys, which are pretty far left of center, are wasting your time by considering yourself with who the American presidential candidate is. He is never going to do a good job of representing you, and you'll always be unhappy. Same thing goes for any real conservatives out there who are reading this.
So, Stone--you still haven't answered my questions.
Did you approve of Bush's attacking Iraq?
Would you vote for Dean, if he is nominated, or for the present occupant of the Oval Office?
Palantir gone dark? Answer hazy/try again later? Or are these real-world issues too hard for your beautiful mind?
Oh, well; I guess Stone has retreated to the rarified air of his "mythic" center, where Stepford Voters dwell in shiny happy unanimous bliss, and elections are unnecessary.
Yes, I approved of the attack, because I wanted to see Saddam removed. I disapproved of the way the war was sold, since I think we could've done a better job of it, but that's all. Doing it 10 years too late is better than doing it 11 years too late.
I'd vote for Clark or Lieberman before Dean. If Dean comes to his senses and starts acting like he used to (in 98 or 99), then I'd consider voting for him. I think Bush may start co-opting Democratic positions in 04-08 if he wins, for the reasons that Brooks mentions, but the 2nd terms of Presidencies are generally so terrible that I almost think that people should support the challenger out of principle.
"Principle?"
Well, that's positive. I'm glad you actually feel voting is a worthwhile exercise.
I differ with you on the war, obviously. But hey, it's a free country.
I'm still learning about the Dem frontrunner, so I'm genuinely curious: how specifically in your opinion (or experience, if you're a Vermontite) has Dean turned to the left since '98 or '99 in terms of specific positions (other than his antiwar stance, which is a given?)
Dean's always been a moderate. His anti-war stance is misguided, but necessary, since he needs to activate the base (people like Atrios readers).
It's not that Dean has turned to the left since 1998, so much, as that he's been talking as if he had. You understand? He's playing liberal right now - and I think he's overdoing it. He's trashed Clinton a couple of times.
If the DLC and Dean compromise, realizing that Dean could be the DLC's dream candidate, and Dean keeps you guys thinking he's left-wing (like Clinton did) while subtly but quickly redefining himself as a Clinton-level moderate, then I think Dean has a shot.
If Dean overdoses on the love his base has been giving him, and starts actually believing along the lines of the people who support him: the "Democrats are bankrupt, we need to start a new revolution!" talk, then he'll have become a candidate of the far left (and the far right who can hold their noses on social issues), and won't be someone I'm i
Outside of all of this - Dean has been intricately involved with Planned Parenthood, and is essentially secular. I think those two qualities make him unelectable in 2004 America.
What if Dean becomes the Democratic candidate, and then someone finds out that Howard Dean performed an abortion while he was working with Planned Parenthood in Oct of 2004. What do you think the election results will be? 70% Bush? 80% Bush? Will Dean even win Massachusetts?
What if someone, in a public forum, simply suggests that Dean might've performed an abortion?
What if Dean becomes the Democratic candidate, and then someone finds out that Howard Dean performed an abortion while he was working with Planned Parenthood in Oct of 2004.
Clever wording, Stone. Saying “suppose someone finds out” assumes that he did and the fact need only be uncovered, an unproved accusation which was promoted unsuccessfully by disappointed anti-choice Republican office seeker Ruth Dwyer. Nice try.
What if someone, in a public forum, simply suggests that Dean might've performed an abortion?
You mean, like you just did? Like Freerepublic.com and Townhall.com have been doing for months? And that in their desperation they’re trying to bring up again just in the past few days?
Are you sure you're really a "centrist" and not just spreading santorum for the Right?
And to answer your question, Americans support Roe v. Wade. I don't think it's an issue. Bringing it up over and over won't make it one, because the facts don’t back it up—unlike, say, "What if George Bush was a cokehead and went aWol to avoid drug testing?"--a speculation that at least has some basis in Bush's known record.
As for Dean being "essentially secular," (a term that begs for definition before any substantive discussion), last time I checked, the USA had no official state religion (unlike Israel, England, and Saudi Arabia).
However, there is a strong Christian tradition that sometimes approaches in some people's minds the status of a state religion. (Turkey, which is also officially secular, is a good analogue here.) I believe that in that light talking about the role of religion in the civic life of the country is a good thing, and I applaud Dean for bringing up the subject--especially since Bush has talked the talk but has shown that he hasn't walked the w
cont'd:
hasn't walked the walk--except as an opportunity for pious photo ops.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
