EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democrats: Slack-Jawed Yokels at a Three-Card Monte Festival
In rhetoric there are two common tactics debaters use when the facts aren't on their side: they attempt to change the subject or alter the terms of the debate.
Magicians frequently use misdirection when they're about to make something disappear.
Grifters have been making money off of rubes since biblical times with the, "Hey, look over there" ploy just before they hide a card, slip a coin from under a shell or otherwise fool the mark.
And strong-armed stooges have been intimidating the timid for time immemorial.
But none of them hold a candle to what the Bush administration and the right wing echo-chamber has been doing to both the press and the Democrats for going on seven years now.
The MSM and the Democrats have been fleeced more times than a slack-jawed yokel at a three-card monte festival. And after every encounter, the Democrats tentatively peak out the bathroom door, hair dripping from yet another swirly, and whine, "Hey. The big kids took my lunch money, again."
The problem with this is, when they get fooled or intimidated, the people get screwed and democracy gets shortchanged. It also allows Republicans to beat us even when they aren't holding the winning hand.
Two recent examples - the press's and the Dems' response to the MoveOn ad on General Petraeus and the discussion surrounding Dan Rather's suit against CBS - show how effectively the Republicans use these tactics, and how seriously it undermines the basic tenets of democracy our founding fathers built into the Bill of Rights.
Let's examine them, starting with the MoveOn ad.
The MoveOn Ad- It's the Issues, Stupid
MoveOn correctly raised the following questions: Was Petraeus a credible witness? Was he being honest with Congress and the American people? Was it appropriate for a military man to carry partisan political water? Would he, in fact, be betraying us if the answer to some or all of these questions were yes?
Serious stuff.
But have we as a nation had a full debate on these issues? Nope. Republicans raised a huge stink over name-calling, and the Democrats and the MSM veered off on an orgy of recrimination over a bad pun.
Let's pause a moment and contemplate this astounding turn of events: the nation became obsessed with MoveOn's bad pun-to the point where both Houses of Congress passed proclamations condemning it - but basically dropped the extraordinarily important issues raised by the ad.
The fact is, Petraeus did lie - or at least deceive - Congress and the American people about the "success" of the surge. The GAO Report, statistics from the UN, from humanitarian groups, and Iraq's own count suggest there was no verifiable change in the number of sectarian killings since the surge began. More importantly, most of the objectives of the surge were political, not military, and none of them were met.
The sleight-of-hand Petraeus used to create the appearance of military progress was straight out of a grifter's playbook - he appears to have changed the way we count sectarian deaths.
Those bodies piled in the corner over there? Oh, they don't count. They're ...uh ... let's see ... uh ... victims of crime. Yes, that's it. Crime victims.
Using legerdemain to deceive Congress? Trying to pass off an abysmal failure as a success? "Well, maybe that's not appropriate," mumble a few of the less timorous Dems. But then the Republicans scream, "Wait! Look over there! Those people are calling a General a bad name! A General with all kinda medals an' stuff. This is serious! Quick! We need to nip this in the bud! Call out the instigators!"
And like a bunch of four-year-olds at a magic show, the Dems and the MSM turn from General Prestidigitator to watch Chuckles the Clown perform some inane foolery, and those hoary facts and abject failures disappear in a cloud of righteous indignation.
But here's the deal. There's ample evidence suggest that MoveOn's questioning of the General's impartiality and objectivity was more than warranted.
After all, Petreaus has a history of acting in a highly partisan and political manner. In September of 2004, he intervened in the presidential election by placing an op-ed in the Washington Post defending Bush's "they're standing up, so we can stand down" pitch.
This issue - whether we were succeeding in Iraq - was perhaps the most hotly contested and important argument in the campaign. It's fair to say, Petraeus' op-ed - strategically timed before the election and placed in Washington Post - helped Bush win in 2004.
The fact that Petraeus was wrong, that the Iraqi security forces were not "standing up" merely makes the substance of MoveOn's ad all the more important. An independent assessment of Iraqi security forces headed by Retired Lt. General Jones found that the security forces - which Petraeus was in charge of training when he wrote his op-ed - are so riddled with sectarianism, incompetence and corruption, that the Commission recommended they be disbanded and that the US and Iraq start over again and rebuild them from the ground up.
Bottom line? The preponderance of evidence suggests that Petraeus was intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people on the military outcomes from the surge; that he is ambitious and that he has a record of partisan and political behavior that is as blatant as any General since MacArthur; and that he may have misrepresented progress in Iraq once before. In short, the issues raised by MoveOn's add were legitimate, vital to our national interest, and on target.
As for the name-calling? Perhaps uncalled for. Whatever else he may be, Petraeus has served this country and worked diligently to defend it. But he has only himself to blame. You don't jump smack into the middle of the political fray in a highly partisan manner twice, then get to run and hide behind your stars and medals.
Generals with integrity who feel they must become political retire before doing so. One of them, Lt. General Gregory Newbold, articulated the failings of this administration's Iraq policy on behalf of all troops as eloquently as anyone, when he said, "My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results."
That, for the record, is what supporting our troops looks like, when misdirection, change of subject and hysterical emotionalism are stripped away from the debate.
But most of our Democratic slack-jaws and the MSM are still staring at Chuckles the Clown and wondering how Petraeus and Bush pulled off the magic act of making the surge seem "successful."
The few who saw the facts get swept off the table are simply too timid to point it out - "What if the other boys and girls don't believe us?" they ask, with quaking voices and knocking knees. "Worse yet, what if they call us names like 'soft on terrorism'?"
Pathetic. Instead of confronting the faux patriots who used the simple threat of name calling to start a war under false pretenses; to gut the first and fourth amendments; and to commit unprecedented acts of greed, graft and corruption, the Dems, trying to be all things to all people, run and hide, and thus become nothing, to no one.
And now, Petraeus - Bush's very own Preatorian - is joining in the obscene chorus calling for military intervention in Iran. Having exalted him to the status of a warrior-god, and having failed to confront his clay feet, the Dems will be hard-pressed to rebut him.
Cowardice has its costs.
Dan Rather, the MSM, and the Feckless Dems
The MSM's reaction to Dan Rather's $70 million dollar suit against CBS is extremely revealing. As with the MoveOn ad, the issues raised by the suit are vitally important. They have serious implications for the fitness of the President to serve and the state of journalism in America -just as they had when Rather was summarily dismissed by CBS after their sham in-house investigation run by Bush family cronies.
And just as with the MoveOn ad, these issues got subordinated to questions of little or no import, raised by an hysterical right wing echo-chamber. And just as with MoveOn, the Democrats served as enablers, because they stood idly by in stunned silence like deer in headlights while it happened.
Here's the synopsis: Rather and Mapes used several sources to confirm that Bush had received special treatment in getting into the Texas Air National Guard and that he in all probability went AWOL, and failed a drug test or refused to take his physical to avoid one.
Mapes wrote a book detailing the research she and Rather relied on, and Sidney Blumenthal has published a thoroughly researched examination of the incident for Salon. It's hard to read either without being convinced the charges were true, and the case strong.
Rather used, as one of his sources, a couple of memos signed by Bush's squadron commander, Col. Killian, detailing Bush's violations.
Marion Carr Knox, Col. Killian's administrative assistant, said the contents of the memos were true, although she didn't remember typing them. It's possible Killian typed them himself, and Ms. Knox acknowledges she could have simply forgotten typing them.
A handwriting analyst confirmed that Killian's signatures on the memos were authentic.
As for special treatment? Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes admitted intervening to help young George get into the Texas Air National Guard (called the "champagne unit" because so many children of privilege found their way into it as a way to avoid the Vietnam war) at the request of George Senior.
When young George went to Alabama, he claimed to have fulfilled his military obligation with a Guard unit there. Yet there is no record of him ever attending a Guard meeting. Moreover, George senior asked some old friends - Linda and Jimmy Allen - to keep their eye on young George, and Linda said that to her knowledge, he never went to a National Guard base or wore a uniform.
Ms. Allen told Salon, that while she saw no evidence that he was involved with the Guard in any way, she did remember him drinking to excess, urinating on a car, screaming at police and trashing the apartment he had rented.
Right wing attack squads seized on one of the sources - Killian's documents detailing the charges - and claimed they were forgeries. Their only "proof" that they were phony-that the margin justification and superscripts used in the memos were not available back then -turned out to be completely wrong. Several electric typewriters of that era had both capabilities.
The preponderance of evidence suggests Rather got the story right, even if the documents aren't used as evidence. It shows that the contents of the documents were true, but it also suggests the documents were authentic. Indeed, Blumenthal's case is so strong, you come away believing that even if the documents had been forged, Rather's story stands as accurate based on corroborating information. It's also hard not to believe that there's been something close to a conspiracy of silence on the part of the MSM, and an abject caving to power and cover up by CBS.
Nevertheless, no one fought back, and the forgery charges stuck.
So once again, we have a story with profoundly serious accusations that was de-railed by righteous indignation from the rightwing echo chamber. Somehow, an accusation (quite possibly a false one) aimed at Rather and his CBS team, made the rest of the story simply evaporate. In fact, while the press promptly dropped the Guard story, the issue of Rather's handling of the story rattled around in the press for weeks.
It's as if the entire MSM headlined "DOG BITES MAN" for weeks on end, while they ignored a story about a guy who was running around the country biting dogs in broad daylight. You get the sense that if deepthroat called a reporter today offering a tip, the editors would have insisted that they hang up on him and write a story on bad sourcing.
Now, which is more important: whether the President of the United States is lying about matters directly relevant to his credibility and his fitness to serve as commander in chief, or whether one out of several proofs of this behavior might (or might not) be phony?
Remember, this is a man who called himself a "war president," a man who sent young men and women off to war on a pack of lies and deceptions with no compunction, and a man who used fear and intimidation as key parts of his campaign strategy.
If it became widely known that Bush used privilege to avoid the Vietnam War (a war he supported - provided, apparently, that other people fought in it) then failed to fulfill his duty - probably to avoid drug tests - it would have almost certainly altered the election.
But the press dropped it, and the Dems cowered before the right wing assault on what amounted to a mere sideshow to these major issues. Yokels indeed.
Fast forward to today. How does the MSM respond to Rather's suit? As if it were the courageous act of a dedicated reporter trying to get to the bottom of a critically important story that had been wrongfully suppressed?
No, they portray it as the act of an egomaniac or attempt to diminish it with fake pity, paying absolutely no attention to the critically substantive issues it raises - issues that have hung out there unaddressed for more than three years now.
If this confirms that the Democrats are pathetic cowards, it also tells us a great deal about the press. They've simply stopped performing the task our Founders envisioned for them when they provided First Amendment protections - informing the people and holding the privileged and powerful accountable.
The Death of Truth and the Wages of Cowardice
Why has the press abrogated this responsibility? Because they've become one of the powerful elite. Because they've shifted from a profession operating according to an ethical canon, to a business driven only by a bottom line. Because they've aligned themselves with the Republican Party's corporatization of America.
The press won't rescue itself - but the Dems can confront this kind of demagoguery by standing on principle.
They can quit trying to be all things to all people, and stand up to the bathroom bully.
They can refuse to let Chuckles the Clown fool them and the American people by taking strong, clear stands on issues of substance, and insist that those issues be addressed, instead of mumbling dried out mush, spoon fed by inside- the-beltway consultants designed to say nothing and offend no one.
It's not like that strategy has worked for them. They've lost two consecutive presidential elections they should have won by replacing their values with cowardly "consultant speak."
Only the Republican's dishonesty and gross incompetence allowed them to win the 2006 mid-terms.
And now, the only thing less popular than Bush is a Congress dominated by spinmeisters, consultants and cowards who are once again advocating this losing strategy of saying nothing, offending no one, and holding no public principles other than the most smarmy inanities and cynically calculated positions defined by polls.
And so we have a Congress swooning in front of metals, uniforms, and stars like a high school girl at a Justin Timberlake concert, afraid to withhold funding to end Bush's Iraq folly, afraid to put impeachment "on the table," afraid to assert their Constitutional responsibilities on Iran, afraid , afraid, afraid.
And we have an MSM allowing a distinguished journalist to get mugged by right wing wackos over mere trivialities, and worse, joining in on the mugging the second time around when they had a shot at redemption.
Meanwhile, issues of vital import to our nation get swept under the rug.
And it goes well beyond Rather and MoveOn.
Basically, Pelosi Reid and crew are doing what Dems have always done: folding like an accordion at a polka festival.
No wonder the Republican charge of being weak on defense sticks. When we quake in corners afraid of name-calling and drop our principles quicker than a geek gives up his lunch money we reinforce that stereotype.
No wonder the MSM can get away with substituting "balance" for truth, "fairness" for accuracy, as they pursue corporate-will-to power and profit over public interest. When the Dems cower and pander, there's no one to stop them.
Pundits are saying it would be nearly impossible for the Democrats to lose the 2008 elections - but don't underestimate their ability to fold a winning hand. Mumbled mush and political cowardice have enabled them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before, and judging by their performance over the past few weeks, they're well on their way again.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
45 Comments so far
Show AllRather was a fool to have stayed silent. He should have fought it at the time. The way the media spinned it because of one document was pathetic. They should have said: we have all these other documents that are confirmed as true.
Its horrible how Bush was able to get away with so much. The media and democrats are to blame for going along with it.
I used to think the Dems were spineless and naive too but I came to realize they and the repugs really are the same team. The Dems are not "us" and as long as that delusion is held, we all lose.
The Dems may indeed be spineless but they're not stupid; they know what's at stake -- namely, the empire. They know what happens if the Iraqi oil bill doesn't get passed, and they know what happens if those US military bases in Iraq don't get secured. Iran will claim its role as major power in the Middle East; the rest of the Gulf states will ask the US military to shut down its bases and leave; and Israel will have no choice but to come to some kind of arrangement with the Palestinians -- such as vacating the occupied territories.
All this is gonna happen sooner or later anyway, but the Dems don't wanna be seen as responsible for it just now -- not until they at least get the White House back.
It's frightful to think that the next election could possibly be turned by Dan Rather. But it could happen. He either will produce unassailable evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was right all along, or he will provide a spark of hatred for liberals that could blow even a bad candidate, like Giuliani, right into The White House on flatulence power supplied from talk radio. Let's hope Dan knows what he's doing, and let's hope he sees the fight as being about all of us, not just about him.
The Democrats are just as much on the dole of the defense and energy industries as the Republicans. Why should they change any policies? Our Senators and Representatives of both sides only care about remaining in Washington and staying on the gravey train.
At the end of the article something was said that reminded me of something I thought of a long time ago. The "values" voters, voters in the last two elections who said they voted Republican because the Republicans have more values, they're right. Republicans might value torture, elitism, greed, revenge, and selfishness but at least they stick to their values. Even as ugly as those values are it's better than someone who says whatever they think is the thing to say at the time to get ahead, ie. no values.
The democrats are spineless republicans. Hillary Clinton not only supported the invasion of Iraq she now has joined LIEberman to whip hysteria against Iran. She is a true believer.
All politicians are political whores who pimp their influence and power to corporations and special interest groups. In return they get a war chest and a "base". The politicians and the corporations get what they want. And the American people are forced to pay for it, both with their lives and their dollars. What a country.
Hoa binh
No, I have a new theory: the Democrat politicians WANT it this way. They can blame the Republicans, but they can maintain their policies, bought and paid for by the same corporate masters, under the cover of spinelessness.
Why do I say this? No Democrat presidential candidate within reach of the nomination is going to pull our troops out of Iraq. Pelosi and Reid were just beaming when they passed the most recent jobs export legislation disguised as a trade bill. Clinton wants to invite the health insurance companies to the table to negotiate a health care solution. Then there's the MoveOn resolution in the Senate, the lack of a similar resolution against Limbaugh, the resloute unwillingness to do what the majority of Americans want, and so on. It goes on an on and on. They simply can't be doing all this simultaneously because of a combination of ineptness and a simple lust for power in 2008. It's beyond the limits of reason at this point.
So if you really want to see a slack-jawed yokel, take a look in the mirror. WE are the slack-jawed yokels, for buying into the charade that the Democrats are as ineffective, feckless, and flaccid as they pretend. They aren't.
trippin: Excellently put.
You can't claim to be spineless when you're the one with the power, but keep deferring to the supposed "opposition". The best you can claim to be is apathetic, that's at BEST folks. AT BEST you can say that it doesn't matter enough to flex your (political) muscle.
Don't let anyone convince you that the Dems need 60 votes to either get anything done or even block obnoxious Republican-sponsored legislation. The are in power NOW, they have the votes they need to steer the nation NOW. What do they do with it? Censure moveon.org for telling the truth in such an impolite way. Rush Limbaugh, well HE has freedom of speech, moveon, they're just a bunch of liberals, no one CARES what they think, thus it should not be protected speech...
At least the Republicans are honest about their fears and hatreds, the Dems want to have their cake and smash you in the head with it too.
BTW, I'm registered Dem (still, after changing in 2004 from independent, back before I fully realized that it's all the same party) and will remain so until my candidate (Kucinich) is defeated in the primary, at which point I'll be registered independent, or possibly Green.
I like John Atcheson's analogy of the phony 'two-party' politics and MSM being akin to a 'Three Card Monte' con of the American public --- particularly since I have long been using the same 'Monte' analogy in my posts at Common Dreams, AlterNet, OpEd News and other sites, as educational tools for dealing with this "Vichy American" Empire's 'Monte' con game.
The other analogy that I have found useful in explaining the depth and consistency of the ruling-elite Empire's deceitful 'gaming' of the American public is to compare it with the cartoon of 'Lucy' continually lying and pulling the football away from 'Charlie Brown' every fall at football/election season.
However, with all of the self amusement and educational value that I get from coming up with analogies of how the global corporate Empire behind this facade of 'Vichy America' cons, tricks, screws and otherwise continually fools what they consider the 'rubes' of America, I continually find myself coming back to the harsher reality that these imperialist, ruling-elite 'games' actually hide a deadly and consistent death-spiral of massive looting and massive war crimes against humanity ----- which certainly constitutes a corporate fascist criminal enterprise on a global scale, and which is being done 'in our names' --- in America's name.
On the topic of MoveOn's ad, which Atcheson notes, I found myself addressing the darker, harsher and more fascist depths of this analogy in an AlterNet post:
"MoveOn is going to have to learn a simple lesson that even the French learned in WWII ---- that the government is now a 'Vichy' government installed by the occupying fascist Empire, and that attempting to deal with any party in a 'Vichy' government is more stupid and dangerous than Charlie Brown believing Lucy when she says, "No, Charlie, really, really, THIS time I'm not going to fool you again and pull away the football --- again."
It may be very up-setting to MoveOn and to the American people, BUT as American people, we have to face the real fact that we no longer live in either a supposedly 'exceptional' country, or even a normal country. We are faced with the reality that we live in a virtual "Vichy America" which has been fully taken over by a guileful and disguised global corporate Empire ---- just as France in WWII had been taken over by the Nazi Empire which installed the 'Vichy' government.
MoveOn has not yet faced this reality, nor dealt with the harsh reality that the ENTIRE government of "Vichy America", including; the presidency (of either party), Congress of both houses AND both parties, and the supposedly objective MSM are all conspiring con-artists running a 'game' of 'Three Card Monte' on the 'marks', suckers, and rubes of America.
Any organization, like MoveOn, that claims it can influence the global corporate fascist Empire that now fully controls "Vichy America" is both stupid, dangerous, and treasonous for 'sleeping, if not conspiring, with the enemy'.
Any organization, like MoveOn, in order to really level with people, and avoid conspiring with the enemy, must honestly say:
"The very most important question that the American people should ask is not, "Where do you stand on the war?", but, "Where do you stand on the EMPIRE that has taken over our country --- a fascist corporate Empire, hiding behind their facade of a two-party "Vichy America" --- of which the oil-war in Iraq is only its biggest and most visible crime, so far?"
To claim to be principled in their anti-war efforts without recognizing, confronting, and attacking the Empire behind wars is either extremely naive, or extremely duplicitous ---- and the powers behind MoveOn don't seem naive."
Certainly, I would hope that we have all realized by this time that the 'Democrat' party is duplicitous, as well as the MSM (main-scam-media). But with the coming likelihood of a second (and now nuclear) preemptive war in the Middle East, it is vitaly important for anyone in the principled anti-war movement to fully understand the extent of this ruling Empire's 'Three Card Monte' and not to be, as John Atcheson says here, "Slack-Jawed Yokels" who might accept the 'campaign necessity' of voting for the Kyl/Lieberman 'sense of the Senate' virtual free pass to bomb Iran as Senator Clinton recently did.
There is no compromise with this deadly global corporate fascist Empire that can be assuaged with campaign contributions or election-night hopes. We at at war with an Empire which has already stolen our country, is stealing our childrens' lives in their oil-war, and will soon be willing to bet on destroying our whole world. Thus, battling this Empire is perhaps the only truly 'existential threat' that we as average peole will ever meet ---- not withstanding Cheney and Olmert's absurd claim that Iran is an 'existential threat' worth launching nuclear war against.
Now how dumb a rube do you have to be to get suckered back into this Three Card Monte con again???
We all need to remember the essential characteristics of ALL 'Three Card Monte' con game schemes:
1. ALL the participants (other then the rube) are ALWAYS in on the con.
2. The lead con, playing the role of 'card dealer' (currently Republican), will from one round of 'gaming' to another, change roles with the 2nd party con, who plays the role of 'player' (currently Democrat).
3. The shilling con, playing the role of supposed 'objective observer' (played by our lying MSM) will ALWAYS tell the rube that it looks easy to win the game if only the rube bet differently than the current player.
4. The rube (played by the US voters) takes the advice of the supposed 'objective observer', and bets to switch to the supposed 'current player', thinking that this will beat the 'current dealer'.
5. The rube is suckered out of his money, property, or more, because he can't believe that this Three Card Monte game is all that complex — or that ALL the participants are actually conspiring to cheat him.
6. Return to absolute rule one of ALL 'Three Card Monte' scams —— ALL the participants that the rube even sees ARE REALLY, REALLY part of the friggin CON.
Believe it Americans: You are being continually conned, election after so-called election, by a cast of CONS who would bring tears of admiration to Joseph Goebbels' eyes.
Believe it Americans: You are being continually conned, election after so-called election, by the world's first global corporate fascist Empire that has taken over every political snd media 'player' you see in this complete facade of "Vichy America" and they are running their EMPIRE against your interests and continuing to 'play' you as a rube. The global corporate fascist EMPIRE has done one better than even the Nazi fascist EMPIRE did in "Vichy France" — they have convinced the people in their own 'homeland' that "Vichy America" is still a democracy where voting can change things —- while the only thing that they will change is how completely and totally they will screw and con the rubes out of more and more of money, savings, homes, and children's lives to continue THEIR EMPIRE.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_alan_mac_070226__22vichy_america_22.htm
Democrats, you call yourselves an opposition party?
http://blogs.dmregister.com/?p=9204
David Goodner
Straight Out of the Cornfield blog
Des Moines Register
http://blogs.dmregister.com/?author=755
You Mr. Atcheson, are the rube, if you believe that the policies of the next Democratic president will be fundamentally different from the current band of brigands.
We're not going to walk away from the vast petroleum reserves that lie beneath the Iraqi desert and the mafia-like "production sharing agreements" being forced into the Iraqis will require a signficant and continued U.S. military presence to vouchesafe.
Its the talk of drawndowns, troop reductions and pullouts that are the true misdirection and your article plays neatly into that conceit by presuming that the Democrats intend otherwise and would effect change if only those crafty republicans would just stop tricking them.
I find it troubling, that you Mr. Acheson, who claim to be a writer published in the Washington Post as well as "policy journals" would take the so-called mainstream media to task for facilitating this contrivance, while you yourself continue to throw logs into the funerary pyre of the final vestiges of American democracy.
I would ask if you are simply blind to obvious, and well-understood facts or are you a willing shill?
I think this chart explains rather well why Democrats are seen as moderate right instead of even slightly left.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007
Seems to be that they ARE moderate right instead of left.
Hmm. Food for thought. BTW, take the poll and see where you rank. Personally, I score what appears to be almost exactly polar opposite (on both dimensions) of Mike Huckabee.
neomunk: as you may know, protected speech is a can of worms - consider the sedition act(s), as well as Schenck (the almost uniformly misrepresented "Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater" ruling), etc.
For more information: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/an-antiwar-march-sc_b_64779.html
Me? I'm banking on the ice caps melting and Washington DC being underwater in a few years. Mass extinctions of Born Again Christians. Pox, Pestilence and sulfating boils. Terrorists jumping out of the shoes of all Americans. (They followed our troops home, no doubt)
That'll fix 'em.
When I was in High School in the 60's, It looked then like we were all going to be in for a hell of a ride. Let's keep this circus glued together for just a few more years til I check out.
In 100 years, Republicans and Democrats will only be remembered as those who were in charge during the Fall.
restive: Thank you for the link, no I was not previously aware of the origin of 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' ruling.
The point I was trying to make above wasn't about free speech though (it would have been longer, see my posts in the Common Dreams threads dealing with the Andrew Meyer taser incident for examples), it was about hypocrisy. Not only that, it was about being hypocritical IN FAVOR of pro-war foolishness.
Again, thank you for the enlightening link, and I agree, the topic of free speech (especially PROTECTED free speech) is a large can of worms. A fulfilling and highly important can of worms to be opened, but messy nonetheless.
Sorry, I'm not buying the B.S.
Articles like this are an apologetic attempt to excuse the misdeeds of the Democrats by calling them "naive" and "stupid". They are not. They are crooks, on the same team as the GOP, who are not worth voting for, ever again.
The American people gave the Democratic Congress a clear MANDATE to end the war, stop the neo-con madness and rein in Bush, if not impeach him outright.
Well, impeachment isn't happening (thanks, Nancy Pelosi!), and neither are any of the things voters charged these scumbags to change.
To call these people "cowardly" and "gullible" is an insult to one's intelligence.
Ex-GOPer Pat Buchanan summed it up: "The Democrats and the Republicans are twin wings of the same bird of prey."
neomunk: you're most welcome. i hear ya about the democrats - the DNC types (as in, the front-runners at present) seem to have hypocrisy and duplicity down to an art form, just like the repugnicans. politicians, gotta love 'em...
Not to be nit-picky, since I pretty much go along with everything Mr. Atcheson says above - but I believe he means to say "medals" when he keeps saying "metals". Beware the spell-checker. Bloggers who can't spell or do their own proofreading lose credibility in my book.
Quote from George Bush the Liar: "I've been to war (har har). I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war."
This fool's hobby is to see how many outrageous lies he can tell and get away with during his lifetime.
By the time the "liberals" get done trashing the Democrats, they'll be lucky to win another seat in either house, much less the presidency. With "friends" of the Democrats like them, the Republicans need not worry about losing a thing..
The Democrats aren't fleeced; they're doing the fleecing. They've degenerated to front men for the Republicans.
I agree with others here. There's some myth mongering going on.
Myth #1: The Dems are a progressive party. When? When their tent was large enough for Dixiecrats and Ronald Reagan? When LBJ prevented a real investigation of JFK? When they took us to Vietnam? Why they handed over authority to the Bushes? When they failed to go after Bush Sr. for lying about being "out of the loop" on Iran/Contra?
Myth #2: The Dems don't have enough votes to change course in Iraq.
Myth #3: The Dems have been fooled time and again.
Anyone with a computer and internet connection, or access to a public library, can read world events, Google News, foreign policy journals, etc. As elected officials, the Dems are privy to MORE information.
If such information offered a compelling case to bow before Bush, it would be in their best interests to make it known. But this isn't the case. So we're left to conclude that at least 50-90%+ of the Dems have been co-opted by the same ruling establishment that put the Rethugs there.
Some of them are undoubtedly even craftier than Rethugs -- they have the same neocon agenda, but they must additionally sugarcoat it and engage in mock indignation, to live make-believe lives (more so than ordinarily politicians). I like to call them Crypto-Republicans in the Democratic Party (probably forming the majority).
Out of desperation, I voted Democratic in 2004 for only the third time in my life (I voted for McGovern in 72 and am embarrassed to say I voted for Clinton in 92). I won't get fooled again.
I think Atcheson is dead right in his analysis of the recent MoveOn ad sideshow, and his closing observations about what's fundamentally wrong with the MSM and what's self-defeating about the tactical and ideological blinders of the DC Democratic Party leadership.
In between however, I don't really see what the fate of Dan Rather, and the lawsuit of Dan Rather, has anything to do with what's wrong with the Democratic Party leadership.
I still think Karl Rove pulled a con job on CBS, fed them the forgeries about the National Guard so they'd keep kicking that dead horse of an issue, and in the process got 60 Minutes to pull a major piece they were planning to run right before the '06 balloting about Dick Cheney's knowledge that the papers about yellow cake uranium from Niger were forgeries all along. I mean, which really IS the bigger public corruption story - lies about what Little George did in the 60's, or lies about what helped start the needless war we're now in?
And for my money, there's still enough of a difference between the GOP (which has purged itself entirely of potentially credible national leadership) and the Democrats (who marginalize their few remaining credible progressives, while alienating figures like Ralph Nader, Cindy Sheehan, and others who could broaden and revitalize its base) that I'm unwilling to damn all our elected representatives to go roast in a common hell.
In my opinion, there's much to be said for the notion that Reid and Pelosi and Conyers and Al Gore are qualitatively different, and far more fundamentally respectable, 21st century American citizenship role models than the likes of Tom Delay, Trent Lott, Newt Gingerich or George Bush.
The Dems will break your heart a thousand times if left to their own devices. But if you keep an eye out and scream in their faces loud enough when needed, sometimes they can be shamed into doing what's necessary and right. News flash! Eternal vigilence is the price of liberty.
With the Republicans, you can scream all you want and it will not matter, for they are now totally without shame. They steal and plunder in broad daylight in the name of enforcing the law.
This is not a distinction without a difference.
It's still better to be led by the inept than by the evil.
Bill from Saginaw
(standing ovation)bravo,moveon.org.!!applause...now do it again!!hit them,again !! kudos and thank you,,,
Atcheson has done a good job of explaining the political theatrics of the one party system.
But that is the problem, it is only a show creating the impression of a functional democracy.
I have to side with the terse interpretation of militantliberal who says:
" The Democrats aren't fleeced; they're doing the fleecing. They've degenerated to front men for the Republicans. "
There is very little difference between the two parties as they both promote class warfare and international war crimes. Both parties will not hesitate to kill innocent people in developing nations.
Neither party has done anything meaningful for the average American in a very long time. The disparity of wealth continues to expand.
It is a misconception to present political events with the assumption that there is a viable a two party system.
Rather might win some kind of settlement with his lawsuit and retire with some extra cash, but his "journalism" has been marginal mainstream for decades.
As they say on SNL: Really?
The Dems are all so stupid that they keep getting "scammed," or "tricked," or "bait and switched." Really? All of them simultaneously for seven years over and over again?
Really?
The Dems are so "weak" and "cowardly" they, collectively, are "afraid" to do anything other than roll over repeatedly. Really? Was there a meeting where they voted for total abnegation of their powers? "Those cowering?" "Aye." Those not? ....
Really?
Is it possible it's all a scam on us? One team split into two groups: good cop, bad cop. One is crazy greedy and violent, the other so caring about the planet and it's people... all the while, not only does nothing change, everything on every level in every category continues to get worse and worse while the same pockets continue to overflow. We think there's "opposition" and "debate" and "partisan fighting" but the truth on the ground tells us all we need to know:
There is but one "policy," and it's being pursued without as much as a speed bump to overcome. The rest is theater.
"Petraeus has served this country and worked diligently to defend it. "
Too bad he can't keep this simple oath he took.
"I, David Petraeus, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of GENERAL, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or DOMESTIC, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
blessthebeasts October 11th, 2007 6:07 pm
"Out of desperation, I voted Democratic in 2004 for only the third time in my life (I voted for McGovern in 72 and am embarrassed to say I voted for Clinton in 92). I won't get fooled again."
Go Green in 2008!
Frank1569 it's the theater of the absurd. The people of this country are manipulated and controlled through MSM propaganda, lies, and fear. Lines between Republicans and Democrats in Congress do not exist. They are a despicable group.
Anyone who believes that the United States is a representative democracy that operates under the constitutional rule of law through the ethics of process is kidding him/herself. A Congress that truly represented its constituents would have put an end to the lawlessness of the Bush regime immediately-years ago. The government is a total sham.
Make no mistake, this country is run by an elite, conscienceless, corrupt, criminal syndicate where collusion between its phony government, military, and private corporations has placed pathological profit and power over the common good of the people. There is no common dream or ideal of progressive englightenment based on truth, reason, liberty, and social compassion anymore. The mission of this iron triangle is ruthless global domination and empire, a dictatorship disguised as a democracy.
As this psychopathic behavior and decadence eclipse empathy, lawfulness, and responsible restraint, eventually, the American empire will fall. Unfortunately, it will take the rest of us with it. Yet, like the drunk driver who walks away from a fatal accident unscathed, I envision that George Bush and Dick Cheney will unfortunately still be around, sucking on their silver spoons and making millions on book deals (written by others for them)and the lecture circuit. Where do these reprehensible thugs belong? They belong in prison. Anyone who can't see this simple truth isn't paying attention.
Emily Anne (10/11 4:54p) "gets" the message. It bears repeating. Hope she won't mind if I just copy it right down here again:
"By the time the "liberals" get done trashing the Democrats, they'll be lucky to win another seat in either house, much less the presidency. With "friends" of the Democrats like them, the Republicans need not worry about losing a thing". -----Thanks, Emily for pointing out the sense that can be extracted from a mishmash of back-slapping otherwise going on here about some third-party political revolution that ain't happening.
Bill from Saginaw: Thanks to you too.
Daily, I wake up believing it is not possible for the Democrats, the Journalists, the Judges, the Regulators and the Electorate trusting in all four to be more gullible, more cowardly, more craven, more lazy, or more lacking in common sense and general ethics than the day before. Each day, I am disappointed as I discover they each have sunk to new depths.
The Republic can survive degeneracy of the White House and perhaps two or even three of the "watchdog" groups, but not all of them at the same time, especially since coordinated protest among the Electorate has almost vanished. I fear for our future.
the dan rather link didn't work for me so try this:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/27/dan_rather_suit/
The Democrats owe quite a bit to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Faux News, and the rest of the corporate-right cabal.
Those far-righties consistently paint the Dems as leftists. If it weren't for that hyperbole, the Dems would be seen as the center-right party that they are. It is the non-stop onslaught of the right-wing MSM that is primarily responsible for the (hopeful) myth that the Dems are our political saviors.
a pox on both their houses. the dems deserve to lose. if gore would run as a green and support dem progressive or independent candidates in the primaries against pelosi/reid and the rest of that crowd maybe the dem "front runners" would finally listen to the public rather than their corporate donors. I am not the only one who would rather see the repugnants get saddled with credit for their crimes than vote for a dem who refuses to say he/she will get the hell out of Iraq in at most 6 months, and pledge not to attack Iran (or Syria, for that matter).
All politicians are weak hyper-approval seekers that have to pretend they have rock solid principles they are proud of telling you about. The Republicans seem strong now because they are playing for the last drop of cash they have already agreed to sell their soul for. A lot of the Democrats sold their souls as Republican light.
If you can get the money out of politics they may start to pander to the people again - but why should they. Other than a few crackpot mavericks they have to shill for the bucks to buy TV to get elected.
Facts are, good ideas and policies get politicians nowhere.
So you're all supporting Green candidates, right? Money, time, votes...
http://www.gp.org
Fascism. American Heritage Dictionary, p. 477. Standard book number
395-09064-4 (deluxe edition)
Fascism: a system of government that exercises dictatorship of the
extreme right through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerant nationalism.
Does that ring a bell, friends?
The Dead Dog Democrats are passive and defensive & they share the commitment to the banking-investment-war industry that the Republicans do, they just want to keep the people supporting it by serving them slices of the imperial cake, hence all the "get our veterans better benefits" rhetoric: deliver better goodies and people won't notice that the machine is still being greased with blood & oil.
The machine will not stop chewing up other countries & the planet until the machine comes to a halt & is dismantled entirely. It is not progress to have more domestically generous & more articulate imperialists in charge. More evenhanded distribution of stolen goods is still theft; implicitly threatening other countries with armed responses & calling it diplomacy is still war-mongering.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007
Look at the diagram and witness the political universe collapsing into a Authoritarian/Right-wing black hole.
While most candidates are concentrating themselves into 'mainstream' (non-offensive) positions it's no wonder Gravel, Kucinich and Paul can be easily labelled 'radicals' or 'fringe' by brain-dead, pliable journalists.