David Horowitz Is Right — And Also, Terribly Wrong
David Horowitz has a piece titled Obama Derangement Syndrome. He makes two basic points. First, that Obama is not the anti-Christ, and that treating him as such makes us little better than the “Bush is Hitler” crowd we despised for eight years. Second, that Obama’s policies aren’t really that radical or worrying.
I agree with the first point and strongly disagree with the second. Horowitz mushes these two issues together into one global “Obama isn’t that bad” thesis, which is a mistake, because it gives Obama a pass on his radical socialist policies.
Let’s start with the part that will upset the conservatives:
I have recently received commentaries that claim that “Obama’s speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history” and “never has a politician in this land had such a quasi-religious impact on so many people” and “Obama is a narcissist,” which leads the author to then compare Obama to David Koresh, Charles Manson, Stalin and Saddam Hussein. Excuse me while I blow my nose.
This fellow has failed to notice that all politicians are narcissists – and that a recent American president was a world-class exponent of the imperial me. So what? Political egos are one of the reasons the Founders put checks and balances on executive power. As for serial lying, is there a politician that cannot be accused of that?
I think that when people start comparing Obama to David Koresh, Charles Manson, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein, we are indeed in “Bush is Hitler” territory.
I spent eight years watching a crazy set of people on the left use every trick in the book to attack and tear down President Bush on a personal level. They seized on every maladroit turn of phrase to suggest that he was a moron. They distorted his policy pronouncements, trumped up phony issues, and displayed an unyielding self-righteousness that justified literally any tactic used in service of their political ends. This is why they felt comfortable demonizing Bush to the point where they compared him to Hitler.
Remember how we hated that?
Now that our guy is out of power, we have to decide: did we hate those tactics because they were wrong? Or only because they were used in service of the other guy?
I do not want to see us becoming the conservative nutroots. It is not, as some suggest, that I am some “country club Republican.” I despise those people.* It is because I do not want to become that which I hate. When we make a mountain out of the molehill of Obama’s birth certificate; when we seize on a “Special Olympics” joke as the Height of Outrage and manufacture trumped-up howling rather than dismissing it as a dumb thing to say; when we insist on comparing Obama to mass murderers . . . when these things happen, we are becoming what we hated.
There are those who stand up against such nonsense; people like David Horowitz, or in the blogosphere: Allah, Ace, Charles Johnson, and others. We can start drawing up a growing list of Insufficiently Pure Conservatives and cast them out as apostates — or we can recognize that they have performed years of valuable service in support of the conservative cause, and that they are trying to keep us from taking on the worst traits of our enemy.
It’s seductive to take on those traits because of the justifiable anger we feel over Obama’s policies, which are ruining this country. And this is where I disagree with Horowitz. Horowitz says:
So what’s the panic? It is true that Obama has shown surprising ineptitude in his first months in office, but he’s not a zero with no accomplishments as many conservatives seem to think – unless you regard beating the Clinton machine and winning the presidency as nothing. But in doing this you fall into the “Bush-is-an-idiot” bag of liberal miasmas.
It is also true Obama has ceded his domestic economic agenda to the House Democrats and spent a lot of money in the process. But what’s the surprise in this?
No, it’s no surprise, but that doesn’t mean it’s not dangerous. We now have a situation where the CEO of a major American car company is resigning at the behest of the American president, and everyone is nodding their heads as though it makes perfect sense. It doesn’t. This is insanity. Putting the government in charge of our economy is socialism. It represents the end of capitalism, and without capitalism, there is no freedom.
FDR started to ruin this country with the New Deal, which gave us huge unsustainable government programs. LBJ kept the path of destruction going with the Great Society, which gave us new programs which essentially created a new underclass of people who maintain an irresponsible and criminal lifestyle using government funds. Obama is putting the final nail in the coffin, with trillions of irresponsible spending that will cripple our children financially, and with a mindset of centralized control of economic decisionmaking.
We have to fight it, and the first step is recognizing it for what it is — and how dangerous it is.
Horowitz wrote:
He is mistaken. Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush were not narcisists in the sense that it always had to be about them. They struck me as people who genuinely wanted to do the best they possibly could for their country.
Carter, WJ Clinton, and Obama all seem to sincerely believe that they are the center of the universe. Clinton, not so much because he was mostly active politically during campaigns; Carter all the time with his “scold” persona. Obama is just being Obama. BTW, Gore also falls into the mold.
So what we have is a distinct difference between the psychological makeup of Republican and Democrat leadership. I do not believe this is an accident.
Dr. K (eca563) — 3/31/2009 @ 7:38 amhttp://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Beyond-AIG-A-Bill-to-let-Big-Government-Set-Your-Salary-42158597.html Canning Waggoner is a wag-the -dog tactic to cover up the billions given to GM an Chrysler; the above story is scary.
jack (f17d93) — 3/31/2009 @ 7:42 amOnce again we fall into the line of reasoning that having an espionage and propaganda department within the Conservative POLITICAL movement is a bad thing.
Again, how can anyone explain even the existence of Obama if not for the fact the Liberal Nutroots created a such crazy propaganda that ten of millions of voters believe?
I am sorry but Ostrich is a perfect description of this position. Talk to an average guy who voted Obama and the shear mention of Bush goes into a tirade that echos the Nutroots crown.
A lie repeated one thousand times is the truth.
Jimminy'cricket (637168) — 3/31/2009 @ 7:42 amLet me fine tune, Obama does not exist without the Espionage and Propaganda machine the the Liberal Party created in order to bring Bush down and win two Federal elections.
All the sweeping rhetoric of Hope and Change would have sounded like the stupidity it is if tens of millions had not been SWALLOWED UP IN THE LIE.
Jimminy'cricket (637168) — 3/31/2009 @ 7:45 amI hope you’re not suggesting Obama’s insane, Pat.
Dan Collins (4dc2da) — 3/31/2009 @ 7:55 amErr … you are presuming logic and rationality in our election of Obama that may be countered with more logic and rationality? Not a mass LSD trip? Which can only be countered with the same irrational appeal to sentiment?
nk (fab561) — 3/31/2009 @ 7:56 amNah, I’m just kidding. I know it’s just his policies.
Dan Collins (4dc2da) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:02 amI agree. I had the same feeling when some liberal blogs suggested that Sarah Palin’s son wasn’t hers.
Andrew (8e2134) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:03 amWe absolutely have to remain vigilant with regard to analyzing every piece of legislation. The Obamateurism is the Day stuff is just for fun, of course. But the Obama = Hitler stuff is going to continue among the Alex Jones types because they were doing the same thing to Bush. MoveOn, though, was simply disgraceful, and we can’t let any mainstream conservatives get away with their type of hysteria.
Is it hysteria to compare Obama to Mussolini?
Dan M. (2417b5) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:08 amAndrew Sullivan is a CONSERVATIVE !!!!!!!!!
JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:10 am“Err you are presuming logic and rationality in our election of Obama . . .”
Where on Earth did you get that idea from?
Obama was elected in reaction to Bush, and Bush was unpopular for two reasons: 1) media distortions, and 2) some amount of shitty governing (overspending, etc.)
We need to counter media distortions, and either fix out party or form a new one.
What we don’t need to do is act dishonest and crazed.
Patterico (26b45e) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:12 am[…] Pontificates about David Horowitz Is Right — And Also, Terribly Wrong and hits a powerful insight about personal intellectual integrity. Now that our guy is out of […]
Fighting fair: is it an issue? « Whispers (3b871a) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:13 am[…] Pontificates about David Horowitz Is Right — And Also, Terribly Wrong and hits a powerful insight about personal intellectual integrity. Now that our guy is out of […]
Fighting fair: is it an issue? « Whispers (3b871a) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:13 amDr. K,
I don’t exactly disagree with you, but I think your opinion is set by ideology. Obviously a liberal or leftist would merely reverse your opinions about which Presidents seem to be narcissists.
To a conservative, buying popularity with the masses by playing Robin Hood is evidence of narcissism. To a leftist, buying popularity at the country club by “favoring the rich” (or Halliburton, Big Oil, etc.) is at least as much so (even if favoring the rich usually means merely taxing them at twice the rate of the middle class, rather than 3 or 4 times the rate).
I think politicians as a whole, on both sides, show their narcissism with their frequent propensity to cheat on their wives. It’s possible that at the Presidential level the Democrats have happened to do this more, or more recklessly, but this is a small and uncertain sample.
DWPittelli (2de73b) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:14 am#10
It’s still real to me, dammit!
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:15 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvTNyKIGXiI
I agree that we do not wish to immerse ourselves in Obama Derangement Syndrome, nor am I personally interested in the attacks on individuals made by the Left during the last 8 years.
But nonetheless, issues like Ashly Biden’s cocaine use, Obama’s inarticulateness without a teleprompter and the fact that Joe Biden is the stupidest Vice President in history, have to be brought up to contrast the hypocrisy of Democrats and the bias of the media as they make the drug problems of the boyfriend of the daughter of the GOP Vice Presidential candidate front page news but ignore the daughter of the Democrat Vice President.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:19 amIs it hysteria to compare Obama to Mussolini?
Comment by Dan M. — 3/31/2009 @ 8:08 am
Musso who? I want to compare him to Barney Fife.
nk (fab561) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:19 am#5, I am saying it.
Jimminy'cricket (637168) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:19 am#8, And while lies are lies the attention on her daughter remains, the personal attacks on Palin persist and half of America thinks she became a Governor being a moron.
So you tell me if lies and propaganda work eh?
It maybe tasteless, you can’t win the war just with it — but spreading lies and smearing your opponent is needed to create balance and tilt odds in your side.
Frankly the story right now should be on how our Drug Czar VP has a drug, sex crazed daughter who is allowed to work with CHILDREN!!!!!!! All because of politics and “peronal favors.”
Then after that you go back to how “Regular Guy Joe” helped get his brother and son into the greedy Hedge Fund business.
Ergo Joe is a crook and no to be trusted with BILLIONS in gov.t spending. Then after that you find his bad spending and once again smear him with the crook storyline.
This what was done to Bush Cheney for 8 years.
Jimminy'cricket (637168) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:26 amNo, Sir! I demand to differ!
elixelx (bfcb6e) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:30 amGood guys get nowhere in this filthy game known as politics! You can’t keep your hands or mouth or thoughts or actions unsullied in this little drama.
Yes we hated “Bushitler”, but that does not mean we should not use the same tactic! If anything the situation begs for DIRTY OPS!
Your Mom probably told you not to go down to their level, to stay above the mucky fray, to not become what you hate. I tell you, Sir, when you are pulled down into the gutter, fight a gutter fight, win, and then wash yourself clean–or don’t play at all! Take your bat and glove and go home crying to Mommy!
Barry gets away with nothing! Joe and Hillary and Tim get away with nothing! Those dil*os, Jon Stewart and Michael Moore get away with nothing! We will dance on their graves, because the MSM WON’T!
Incidentally, Joe Biden today thanked Zapatero, that Spanish shoemaker, that lily-livered socialist putz, thanked him, I say, for his assistance IN IRAQ! If we don’t say repeat these things nobody will ever hear them!
So, Sir, spit on your hands, roll up your sleeves, and prepare, as Mencken advised, to beat the proverbial s*it out of those who are full of IT!
Cricket boy, there is a reason I chose my blog’s name. And, quite frankly, if we were on the same podium, speaking at the same event (that would never happen because I’m not a public speaker) and you spent your whole time lying to the attendees, I would begin my speech telling the attendees you spent your whole time lying to them, then I would get into my own speech.
This is assuming we were there to speak ostensibly on the same side of the issue at hand.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:38 amI’m in Mexico now, and someone mentioned that Biden thanked Zapatero for the help in Iraq? Really? Zapatero ran on a platform of pulling troops out of Iraq, and the first thing he did when elected was pull the Spanish troops out. Maybe Biden meant “thanks for making Bush look stupid?”
It was a shame how Aznar blamed the Madrid train bombings on ETA, or they could have stuck with us through the surge.
carlitos (1014a5) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:40 amHmm. So to “fight” the “enemy” we must become like them, or even more extreme.
So they respond in kind. And then the Right amps up the volume, and so does the Left….
And more and more people get disenchanted with politics, vote party line, or opt out. The only people who are interested in politics become those who don’t mind wading through the sewage of lies and propaganda. Because the end justifies the means.
You aren’t wrong that the Left is using these nasty tools. I just think that the Right doing the same thing simply sends the process spiraling down to lower and lower levels.
And for some people on the Right, that is fine (“A Nation of Goldsteins,” perhaps). But…
It’s also just fine with the Left, I would remind you. Because it blurs the differences between the ideologies.
And the Left will win that battle.
Eric Blair (4d78ef) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:41 am
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:41 amthere to speak ostensiblyostensibly there to speak
I just read a pretty long piece about the election of 1800. What was written about Palin isn’t really that serious when you put it in perspective.
carlitos (1014a5) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:44 amFDR started to ruin this country with the New Deal
This is one of the fundamental differences in historical interpretation between the left (and, I think, the center) and the right.
It is generally true that economic conservatives think that FDR started to ruin the country. It is generally true that economic liberals think that FDR saved the country. My suspicion is that the center agrees with the liberals on this; even if they didn’t approve of the policies he adopted, they’ll think FDR was better than the alternatives many countries took in the 1930s … in an era in which Tojo, Hitler, Franco, and Stalin came to power, FDR looks like a moderate.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:52 amJoe Biden is the stupidest Vice President in history
Personally, I’d nominate either Aaron Burr or Spiro Agnew for that position.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:53 amaphrael, I’d have to agree with you on Burr and maybe Agnew. Biden isn’t dumb, just oblivious and prone to making shit up. Coupled with a bit of the Clintonian ‘tell them what you think they want to hear.’
carlitos (1014a5) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:58 amEric, that’s because Jeff is comparing Obama to Stalin, Manson, Saddam Hussein?
Dan Collins (4dc2da) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:03 amOr, maybe, now that I’ve thought about it some more, Henry Wallace.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:06 amdid we hate those tactics because they were wrong? Or only because they were used in service of the other guy?
You could hate it for both. What you can’t deny is that it was a smashing success that gave the Democrats complete control of the government. Horowitz doesn’t want Republicans to use the successful tactic against his comrade, especially if the accusation, like “Obama is Stalin”, is too on the nose.
j curtis (d760e8) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:07 amaphrael, Burr and Agnew had their problems and may have been worse Vice Presidents ( but Biden has 4 years to exceed them still ) but neither of them was a patently stupid as Biden is.
As for FDR, he was a great con artist and convinced people that he was diligently working on improving the US’ economic situation even as he worsening it with incompetence and whacky ideas. Just as FDR ran on the platform in ’40 of keeping us out of WWII even as he was allowing the British to run a covert operation in the US to drag us into it.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:14 amCarlos, You think that Zapatero pulled Spanish troops out to make Bush look stupid? At the time, March 2004, the War in Iraq was going swimmingly, and Bush was even more popular than Barry is now!
No, Sir! Don’t twist the facts! The Spanish withdrew because they were chicken-s*its who had just had their necks twisted by Al-Qaeda, and who ran around headless for a while, begging AQ not to whack them again!
Biden’s comment about the help in Iraq was NOT a shot at Bush; it was a shot at Biden’s gaffe-prone brain! Only the former head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the AI (“Assassination Insurance”) called Joe Biden, could “misspeak” like this and have useful idiots spin his idiocies!
Know whom I mean, Carlos?
PS. Biden also thanked zp for the work of the Spanish troops in Kosovo, a country Spain does NOT RECOGNISE, and from where they are, this very week, withdrawing their troops!
Sure they helped, albeit most unwillingly!
elixelx (bfcb6e) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:16 amSpeaking as someone who actually *is* a “Country Club Republican” (at least a Republican who belongs to a country club), I’m really troubled by the ever-narrowing rules about who’s a “true conservative.” There’s a real whiff of Robespierre about some of the rule-makers.
Honestly, do these people think they’re going to win a general election with a narrow, rigid agenda behind a Jindal or a Palin or whichever candidate they’ll wind up anointing as the One True Conservative?
Aron (f3bcff) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:21 amSo, it’s better to re-nominate McCain?
Dan Collins (4dc2da) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:29 amYep. Clinton survived his eight years in office largely because his enemies couldn’t refrain from throwing in a whole lot of crazy in with the many, many legitimate things to criticize about him–leading to the public shrugging and being willing to wait out the two terms–and Obama could benefit from the same factor if Republicans go overboard and out of touch with reality in criticizing him. Document and criticize every real flaw and misdeed, but don’t go into Jerry Falwell/Jonathan Chait mode, please.
M. Scott Eiland (5ccff0) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:34 amWe should not forget the objective, which is getting our people elected. The nobility of that objective justifies whatever we do to achieve it, as long as we succeed.
Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:36 amI’m kind of struck by Horowitz’s conclusions, based on all the facts he’s been presenting for at least 20 years, since Destructive Generation.
President Obama, just on the basis of his inaugural address has a deep seated contempt of all American institutions, They employed the media
and applied the Alinsky rules, to which as you’ve
gathered truth is no defense. The bulk of the attack was directed at the candidate who did decide to fight back and actually challenged some of his premises, that was not John McCain. Consequently it became necessary to deligitimate
not only her policy critique, but her status as
a wife and mother
We are incurring debt for mostly non productive purposes, at a rate that would stagger the mind. We are blithely ignoring real threats, from AQ, N. Korea, Russia; because well we’re busy trashing our economy too well. If there was some
narciso (996c34) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:38 ammeaningful opposition in elected office, one would be more sanguine of our long term prospects.
Instead anyone who makes a real critique of the utter lunacy and some would say, maliciousness of his strategy is demonized. First Rush, then Santelli, Cramer, Roberts, Rove, and now the original source of the critique. Yet we have the likes of Brooks, Parker, Noonan, Buckley, et al who misread the situation so aggregiously and we have to add Allah and more often than not recently, yourself Patrick; raising semiotic flags.
Do you Country Club Republicans think you’re going to win a general election with a narrow, rigid agenda that appeals to fat, middle-aged, bourgeois white guys who play golf?
Official Internet Data Office (3df6eb) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:39 amnk #6,
The “logic and rationality” behind Obama’s election was about as straightforward as it gets: people thought he’d be better for the country than the other guy.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: “Nature within her inmost self divides/to trouble men with having to take sides”… and your side put up a shitty candidate (just like my side did with Kerry in 2004).
It’s the curse of the two party system, which I believe bears primary responsibility for the fucked-up state of American politics today.
That said…
The idea that freedom and socialism are mutually exclusive is silly, as is the idea that freedom and capitalism are joined at the hip. I’d wager dollars to donuts that a democratic socialist (who has socialist leanings, but views them through the lens of democracy – respect for the notion of private property, rule of law, separation of powers, etc.) would be better for “freedom” than an authoritarian capitalist (e.g. China).
Leviticus (3c2c59) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:39 am“It is also true Obama has ceded his domestic economic agenda to the House Democrats and spent a lot of money in the process. But what’s the surprise in this?”
This is the biggest mistake conservatives are making.
What in the House economic agenda differs from Obama’s ideology.
davod (bce08f) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:43 amHey! Maybe I could stand to lose a few pounds, but I am NOT fat.
Dr. K (eca563) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:43 amBut nonetheless, issues like Ashly Biden’s cocaine use, Obama’s inarticulateness without a teleprompter and the fact that Joe Biden is the stupidest Vice President in history, have to be brought up to contrast the hypocrisy of Democrats and the bias of the media as they make the drug problems of the boyfriend of the daughter of the GOP Vice Presidential candidate front page news but ignore the daughter of the Democrat Vice President.
The problem with attempting to point out the hypocrisy is that the MSM is so in bed with the Dems that the right only ends up looking petty and whiny. Couple that with our never-ending good manners used during battle and our fate seems sealed. For the next four years, we on the right will continually run the risk of becoming what we have loathed.
On the upside though, is that with the inordinate amount of seemingly reckless decisions our president has already made, there won’t be any need to resort to the nitpicking overreaction to his foot-in-mouth gaffes – his bad policies will give us plenty to work with.
The worse thing that can happen is the right’s nitpicking it’s own identity to death before an audience more than willing to jump on anything that will deflect attention away from the doomed sinkhole we are all being dragged toward.
Dana (137151) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:45 amAnd before everyone jumps on it, I realize that most of you probably see China as a perversion of true capitalism (because of the pervasive role of the state in promoting and controlling that capitalism, in interfering with the Free Market)… but you can’t really make an appeal to an ideal form of government that doesn’t exist (true free market capitalism) unless you afford me the same luxury in appealing to my own fairytale (a socialist form of government that efficiently takes care of its weakest members while respecting the rights of all of its citizens).
Leviticus (3c2c59) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:46 amWhich agenda is that?
Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:47 amModern industrial civilization relies on contract enforcement to function, which is something that true free market capitalism lacks.
Also, under true free market capitalism, there is no protection of individual rights.
Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:50 amMichael Ejercito, that’s nonsense. “True free market capitalism” does not lack enforcement of contracts. You’ve redefined this idea of capitalism into some sort of anarchist silliness.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:55 amSPQR, how do you privatize enforcement of contracts? Or protection of individual rights?
Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:59 amEjercito, you are conflating radical Libertarianism with “true free market capitalism”. That equivalence exists only in your mind.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/31/2009 @ 10:07 amI agree with most of what you’ve said; however, I don’t think anything will change (looking at the big picture) when the Republicans next gain control.
The problem is not with Democrats or Republicans. It’s with our Federal Government. We’ve spent so much time joining one side and denouncing the other. All the while, the Federal Government grows; legislation grows; costs grow. And we stand on the sidelines pointing fingers at the ‘other’ guys – be they the other party, big ‘bad’ business, antiabortionists, gun control freaks, adulterous senators, smut peddlers, same-sex marriage opponents, drug-legalization zealots, or sanctuary city mayors.
All of this obfuscates the real problem: a bloated, out-of-control Federal Government. The ‘idea’ of a smaller government has been missing from any party’s platform for many decades. And it’s not likely to return. Having a Republican President with a super majority in both houses (even with a right-leaning Supreme Court) will not give us what we want. They will continue to do what they think they need to do to get reelected.
The gelatinous mass of laws, regulations and dictates, coupled with the mentality of ‘how do I get re-elected’ is too large a force. It cannot be righted by the small changes the system grants through the legislative process.
The only way to ‘right this ship’ is to sink it and build a new one.
Corwin (ea9428) — 3/31/2009 @ 10:11 amBah. My husband plays golf at the country club and we’re not particularly fat or bourgeois. I was struck by Patterico’s aside that he despises “those people.” All I’m saying is “those people” — the “moderate,” the “pragmatic,” the “less than doctrinaire” Republicans that are so easily dismissed by the hardcore types, are vital to even get the party to 40 percent — and we’re going to need the middle to win.
Aron (fd12bd) — 3/31/2009 @ 10:15 amThis is hilariously off-the-mark. I’ve been right about George Bush every step of the way – he was a disaster for the economy, he was a disaster on all other domestic policy fronts, he was a disaster on foreign policy, and he was an insufferable asshole and a dumbass to boot. If you’ve been a liberal in the United States screeching about how horrible George Bush and the Republican party are, you have been absolutely vindicated on each and every issue.
Meanwhile, Obama’s Republican critics are complaining about teleprompters, the nobody that’s bringing back the imaginary fairness doctrine, and that the mainstream media isn’t covering their tea parties. The only sensible criticism of Obama comes from liberals, and we’ve done more of that in two months than Republicans did of George Bush in eight years.
Your whole party is a joke that’s been grasping for straws since all the ringleaders bailed out leaving you rank-and-filers with nothing but one of the most abysmal governing records in American history. But yeah, you just keep digging in. That’ll do ya good.
TEH NARRATIVE (863676) — 3/31/2009 @ 10:21 amHow was Bush a disaster for the economy, considering that the economy grew for six years in a row, until his final months in office?
Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 3/31/2009 @ 10:23 am“TEH NARRATIVE”, kind of a poor parody of our Democratic shill trolls actually. Keep working on it.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/31/2009 @ 10:25 amWell, you obviously haven’t tried to learn very much about why the economy is in such bad shape, have you?
Here, find something out about the world.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0zEXdDO5JU
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhDkZjKBEw&feature=related
TEH NARRATIVE (863676) — 3/31/2009 @ 10:28 am…but seriously, how do you feel about cocktail Conservatives? Or closet conservatives? Or America First conservatives? Is our desperation showing? The point is to stop sweating the stupid stuff, the gaffes, the teleprompter nonsense, blah, blah and focus on the very real things our president is promoting, endorsing, and signing off on that will do very real damage on us, no matter what kind of conservative, and/or citizen, we are.
Dana (137151) — 3/31/2009 @ 10:30 amWell, somehow, my pingback got caught up in the spam or moderation triggers.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/31/2009 @ 10:38 amI am curious to know why you think it should. Capitalism is a economic system. Contracts and individual rights are guaranteed through the system of government
Steverino (69d941) — 3/31/2009 @ 10:41 amI, too, believe that comparing Obamalini to Koresh or Manson is wrong –
AD - RtR/OS (7f6512) — 3/31/2009 @ 10:43 amboth were much more forthcoming in what they wanted to do, and how they wished to do it.
“TEH NARRATIVE”, your video links don’t really help the parody much, keep working on it.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/31/2009 @ 10:51 amRather than “woe is us!” every time Obama/Pelosi/Reid do something, we need to come up with a viable, marketable alternative. The Republicans won in 1994 because they had a Contract with America. The Republicans hemorrhaged in the 2000s because they
Aron (474155) — 3/31/2009 @ 10:51 amkept shooting themselves in the feet, from Trent Lott to Mark Foley to Larry Craig to Ted Stevens, while the media got ever more hostile to their views and the Democrats went back to the basics in places like Virginia.
narrative – you obviously haven’t tried to learn very much about why the economy is in such bad shape, have you?
And you obviously don’t have much of an education, when you’re citing youtube as an exemplary source of accurate information.
Take your first video, a simple animation fit for Leftists who are only capable of simple ideas. Go to 6:48. This is interesting – it alleges that idea of selling mortgages to under-qualified buyers came only from the banks. What Democratic organizer put this simple video together for the simple people, hmm?
Thanks. Now we know the level of your ‘learnin’.
Apogee (f4320c) — 3/31/2009 @ 10:52 amApogee, that would be “larnin”
— Just trying to avoid the communication gap.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/31/2009 @ 10:55 amThe problem here is that the voter pool is not homogeneous. Many of us prefer to keep political discussion at some reasonable level of decorum and intellect. But much of our society is so ‘dumbed down’ that vitriolic name-calling is what they understand.
Though I’m middle aged, I recently got a college degree. Many of the young voting-age people in classes with me were at precisely the name-calling level. For critical thinking to be expressed was the exception, not the rule.
Sure, we must continually appeal to reason. But if we only appeal to reason, we have no chance of getting the votes of the unreasoning. I would suggest we learn from our opponents, and use PR and advertising, the web, and any other available tools to creatively present our message.
Right now, unreasoning voters see our image as “rich old farts who don’t care about ____ (fill in the blank)”. I wouldn’t try to convince them we ‘care’, but I’d change the rich old farts to Joe Camel, you get the idea. Advertising can work.
We are like conventional soldiers fighting a guerilla war. We have to adapt. If we can’t get creative, we are going to lose.
jodetoad (b147dc) — 3/31/2009 @ 11:01 amI havent read all posts but this line jumped at me..
Again, how can anyone explain even the existence of Obama if not for the fact the Liberal Nutroots created a such crazy propaganda that ten of millions of voters believe?
It can easily be explained but not if you refuse to look in the mirror. Bush Co with the help of Republicans, Big Government Conservatives and, yes, some Democrats too, have presided over some of the worst failures in American history.
A rushed war for WMDs that did not exist and a war whose justification changed as each was proven false. Thousands have died. Billions spent. No WMDs found. No connection to those that attacked us on 9/11. Any dissent was, however, “aiding the enemy” or “not supporting the troops” Just one justification after another for a policy that we all know damn well Republicans/Conservatives/ Limbaugh would condemn if Democrats did the same. The end result is Al Quida growing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, OBL still on the loose and international hostility toward us.
An attack on 9/11 which came after being warned that OBL was determined to strike in the US.. The memo was ignored because, supposedly, it did not spell out all the details of the attack. What’s a President to do? Bush went on vacation. We know the rest of the story.. Not his fault!
The promise of strong economy and reduced deficits if only we gave tax breaks to the top income earners and for the first time in history No War Tax. Any dissent was “class warfare” We know the results here too. But deficits are either not important or the fault of someone else, if you listen to Republicans.
Deregulation of banking and investment industry in the belief that a totally free economic system is best because regulation is bad, and government can do no right. Government is the problem as the old Gipper said. We were assured three years ago when these taxes were again cut that we would have prosperity. And not to worry, the market will self regulate. Does anyone believe that has worked out at planned?
Karina response. Once again its blame-the-Democrats time but unlike most Republicans, most Americans think that the Federal Government has a role to play in disaster relief and if the local officials screw things up, the Feds should be prepared. If you think the Federal response to Katria was “a heck of a good job” well then I guess you voted Republican.
Understand this. All these failures are due to the failure of Conservative and Republican ideology to address the problems of today. Republicans offered only more of the same wind packaged in new bottles the worse of which was Sarah Palin. Most people realize that and voted for change..any change.
Well those are my thoughts but what can you expect from a “Liberal Nutroot” who falls for Liberal propaganda?
VietnamEraVet (04b9ee) — 3/31/2009 @ 11:01 am#34 Michael Ejericito,
“We should not forget the objective, which is getting our people elected. The nobility of that objective justifies whatever we do to achieve it, as long as we succeed.”
Our objective is not “getting our people elected,” it is to elect people who will help create a just society based on steadfast principles. We want politicians who do more than pay lip service to creating a free economy. We want politicians who help to ensure individual liberty. We want politicians who allow us to raise our children in a manner consistent with our own moral and/or religious beliefs. We want people who will provide for a strong defense of our nation.
It is natural that some of these principles will conflict with one another, individual liberty and strong defense (and sometimes our moral and/or religious beliefs) for example. There are tensions between liberty and security and liberty and license.
We want politicians who are aware of these tensions and who are wary of too much government intrusion into our lives.
We don’t want “our” people merely because they are “our” people. And if you want to create a just society based upon principles, it helps if you try to do so in a principled manner.
I am now awaiting my purging and show trial.
Christian (abaa8f) — 3/31/2009 @ 11:02 amthe market will self regulate. Does anyone believe that has worked out
atas planned?Partially. The parts of the markets that aren’t being propped up by bailouts and stimulus packages have been naturally self-regulated just fine. The bad investments, bad loans, and inefficient companies have been appropriately devalued and are being replaced or repaired to compete in today’s markets. Loan recipients are being scrutinized zealously. Just as you would do if it was your own personal money being lent.
allan (c29ad8) — 3/31/2009 @ 11:30 am“I am curious to know why you think [capitalism] should [protect individual rights]. Capitalism is a economic system. Contracts and individual rights are guaranteed through the system of government.”
– Steverino
Right, but that’s why I objected to the idea that “without capitalism, there is no freedom” in the first place.
Leviticus (43095b) — 3/31/2009 @ 11:35 amI see that VeV and The Narrative vomited all over this thread. As usual. They really enjoy savaging the charicatures in their heads.
JD (295739) — 3/31/2009 @ 11:39 amVietEraVet, once again you spew long-ago debunked nonsense. You really lost your grip on reality quite a while ago.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/31/2009 @ 11:46 amA governmental system that precludes the freedom of a free market will necessarily preclude other freedoms. And the overbearing weight of a governmental system that continuously adds to the list of freedoms no longer available will necessarily destroy all freedoms and lead to a ruling class and “the rest of us” where “the rest of us” are afraid to do anything due to gulags and suchlike.
Contrary to liberal opinion “the slippery slope” is historically proven.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/31/2009 @ 11:47 amI saw VeV wrote something but, since I’ve read other of his lunatic fringe comments, I didn’t bother to read it this time.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/31/2009 @ 11:48 amWithout capitalism, there is no freedom. Please Milton Friedman’s book, Capitalism and Freedom.
Contracts and individual rights are guaranteed through the system of government, but may also be enforced through private courts or arbitration.
Official Internet Data Office (3df6eb) — 3/31/2009 @ 11:55 amSlightly Shorter VeV: “We can’t bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell ‘em stories that don’t go anywhere – like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on ‘em. ‘Give me five bees for a quarter,’ you’d say.
Now where were we? Oh yeah – the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones…”
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 3/31/2009 @ 11:56 amHonestly… how can you be so gullible? The government forced them to make all of these bad loans? The banks are the victims here? When was the last time you heard of a victim walking away with hundreds of billions of dollars in their pockets?
So according to you, the Democrat’s master plan consisted of forcing bankers to become rich beyond their wildest imaginations, collapsing the global finance markets in the process, at which point they would take control of government with catastrophic disasters to deal with all around… Yeah, that makes sense.
TEH NARRATIVE (863676) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:00 pmTEH NARRATIVE, the effects of the CRA have been widely discussed. Do learn the basics of the issue before thinking you can lecture others. And silly strawmen arguments like your last sentence don’t improve your credibility at all.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:02 pmPatterico, I want to thank you for standing behind my comments when I harped on the unwillingness of conservatives to stand behind their people through thick and thin. But on this issue of “we are becoming what we hated,” I have to say this:
You. Do Not. Understand.
The Left’s (and general society’s) response to Republicans and conservatives has ALWAYS been personal, social, and cultural. This is a result of the ability of the Left, since the days that Film really took hold in the public conscience, to control the definition of its enemies. Heck, why do you think too many folks say “I’m conservative, not necessarily Republican” if not to stay on the good side of the definers? Isn’t that what David Horowitz, a man who knew better in the past, is now counseling? Isn’t that what you are counseling?
To hell with that. We as Republicans and as conservatives need to make this PERSONAL, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL. If it means we let the freaks out, WE LET THE FREAKS OUT. The Left and the Dems need to be paid back for the crappy behavior they indulged in these last 4 years.
The third time can be the charm.
Brad S (9f6740) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:07 pmTN is very busy burning down strawman armies while propegating lies and deceit and dishonesty and all sorts of redundant deja vu all-over-again type stuff.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:08 pmBrad S, Truth Before Dishonor, not Might Makes Right or Ends Justifies Means.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:10 pmSPQR,
I’m just trying to work this out. Why don’t you tell me what the plan was? If nefarious, conniving Democrats were behind the CRA, and they planned it all along to be some sort of delay-fuse time bomb, why weren’t they the ones ending up with the hundreds of billions of dollars? Why did all that money instead go to a small conclave of financial wizards on Wall Street that usually supports Republicans? What kind of sense does that make?
Also, what’s the strawman? Are the bankers the victims here or aren’t they?
TEH NARRATIVE (863676) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:12 pm“Contrary to liberal opinion “the slippery slope” is historically proven.”
– John Hitchcock
Interesting. I remember making the same argument about waterboarding.
Leviticus (43095b) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:14 pmActually, I think that the Democrats master plan went something like this: We take it as an article of faith that banks discriminate against some of our in-pocket voters because they are run by evil racists who enjoy making people who don’t look like them miserable. We need to do something to force those evil racist banks to extend credit to those honest, upstanding Democrat voters who would otherwise be profitable bank customers if only the banks weren’t so racistly evil. By doing so we will demonstrate our loving care for our base, while at the same time stick it to those evil racists who run all the banks.
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:16 pmJohn,
It is in no way Honorable to squat down on the Moral High Ground and try to give some tribute to your enemies while your fellow social and ideological travelers get cut down by gutter means. In fact, from a military perspective, it gets you overrun in the long run.
Politics has a whole lot of Ends Justify the Means in its moral code, and is reinforcable when you are able to tell your side of the battle when you win.
Brad S (9f6740) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:18 pmSo what’s the panic? It is true that Obama has shown surprising ineptitude in his first months in office, but he’s not a zero with no accomplishments as many conservatives seem to think – unless you regard beating the Clinton machine and winning the presidency as nothing.
I’m amazed Horowitz would confuse winning political campaigns with job qualifications.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (de7352) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:18 pmAnd the way they stick it to those banks is…. letting them get away with billions of dollars?
And if the CRA has been around since the 1970s but this is the root of the problem here in 2009, what took so long for things to get this bad? Why didn’t the CRA trigger a global finacial meltdown in the beginning of the 200s, or during the 1990s, or 1980s, or even back in the 1970s when it became a law?
TEH NARRATIVE (863676) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:21 pmBy how much did Obama reduce the deficit?
Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:22 pm“TEH NARRATIVE”, doubling down on the logical fallacies, I see.
Seriously, if you don’t understand the involvement of the CRA in the mortgage industry, you are clueless about this issue.
SPQR (72771e) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:22 pmIt occurs to me that I was not clear about what I meant by the term “Country club Republicans.”
I do not mean to insult every Republican who belongs to a country club.
I do mean to insult a particular type of Republican: one who is soft, slightly racist, and doesn’t *really* care about conservative principles — but instead cares only about lower taxes so that their lives are more comfortable.
Such people are unlikely to be reading this blog, frankly.
Patterico (89ef78) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:22 pmLeviticus: As a point of clarity, I do not like the idea of waterboarding and I would not take part in that activity. But waterboarding does not fit into the Geneva Convention definition of torture. Calling it torture in a public forum is disingenuous at best. Insidious is more accurate than disingenuous.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:23 pmThe Stentorian has great information on propaganda.
Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:24 pm“Country Club Republican” is a connotation which, by definition, is for all intents and purposes undefinable. From my perspective, there are indeed many “Country Club Republicans” on this blog, created by a “Country Club Republican.”
But them CCRs are very valuable, unlike RINOs, which need eradicated. 😉
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:29 pmAt worst, it constitutes assault and battery.
Read this .
The ends justify the means if they are successful.
You need to live in the real world, John.
Besides, what is honor except public opinion?
Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:31 pm“…(a socialist form of government that efficiently takes care of its weakest members while respecting the rights of all of its citizens)…”
Didn’t “Dr. K” post recently how the ChiCom govt has no social-welfare safety net for the vast mass of Chinese?
AD - RtR/OS (7f6512) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:32 pmPlus, I would think that the Tibetan diaspora would have some things to say about the second half of that statement, along with the Uigurs from the area once known as Singkiang.
Comment by Patterico — 3/31/2009 @ 12:22 pm
Are you trying to tell us that Arlen Spector and George Pataki don’t read PP?
AD - RtR/OS (7f6512) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:36 pmHow does one be “slightly racist”, Patterico. Isn’t that kind of like being kind of pregnant?
Teh Narrative is off its rocker.
JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:45 pmBesides, what is honor except public opinion?
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 3/31/2009 @ 12:31 pm
How about the simple concept of being able to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning?
Being a “man of honor” is doing the right thing when you know no-one is watching;
about rejecting the concept of doing something “bad” because “no-one will ever know”,
because of the fact that you will know.
These are why learned men of the West (we used to call them Liberals, such as Jefferson et al) have usually rejected out-of-hand the concept of “the ends justify the means”.
What good is success if one has to sell his soul to the Devil to attain it?
AD - RtR/OS (7f6512) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:46 pmPat,
Love the theory, it just doesn’t play in reality.
The Left re-defined the battlefield that won them the Congress in 2006 (i.e. “Republican Culture of Corruption”) and the presidency in 2008 (Google “Bush=Hitler”).
We sent out our moderate Republicans in 2008 and they slimed him too. President Bush was a gentleman that even Iran recognized not to mess with him (look at today’s LA Times, matches word for word what Mao said about the GOP Presidents in the 70’s), yet the gentleman never returned fire.
How did we regain the Congress in 1994? Newt would fire back. Hard.
And our first line of attack is Biden’s daughter, and the lack of Liberal Tolerance for Gov. Palin.
As a Jew, I learned in the early days of Israel that they would kill 10 terrorists for one civilian that was killed. Maybe it is time we Conservatives and Republicans do the same thing.
8 years ago, I would have said “Stop,” But no more. Chicago Rules, after all, it is Karma.
JSF (98a373) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:47 pmSomeone put a group of clowns in congress in Jan 2007 and it’s been a 24/7 circus since.
Scrapiron (4e0dda) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:47 pmSomeone put a socialist or worse in the white house and you don’t expect socialism or something worst to break out.
The only way O’Dumbo can now deny he’s a socialist or worse is to admit he’s too stupid to be in charge of a hotdog stand and resign.
“What good is success if one has to sell his soul to the Devil to attain it?”
What if too many around you have either been cut down or already made Devil’s bargains in order to keep certain intellectuals happy? Isn’t it incumbent upon you at that stage in the game to get on the side of the angels, By Any Means Necessary?
I’m admittedly shaky on my Catholic churghgoing as of late, but I’m dead certain God has no problem with people showing their humanity, in full view of him. I’m dead certain God feels it is honoring Him when I fight back with ALL THE TOOLS I HAVE. I’m dead certain God has no issues with me standing behind my fellow Republicans 100% in this time of trouble.
Are you certain God has no problems with you and your Moral High Ground behavior?
Brad S (9f6740) — 3/31/2009 @ 1:00 pmYour statement makes the assumption that the Democrats had any idea about the consequences of their actions. As a party, they are anti-intellectual with regards to economic theory or history. I suspect all they were interested is the next election cycle.
Forced to assume a bunch of unprofitable loans, banks did what they needed to do to 1) remain profitable for their shareholders, and 2) minimize the risk inherent in the bad loans. And, yes, with the change in rules some bankers figured out ways to make billions gaming the system.
The thing is, they wouldn’t have been able to do so if the rules of the game hadn’t been changed.
Pious Agnostic (b2c3ab) — 3/31/2009 @ 1:08 pma) What does Rodriguez Zapatero have to do with Mexico?
b) Eric, et al — the only point I want to try to crystalise on my position is that you need to fight the battle on all fronts and simply saying “we won’t engage in espionage and propaganda” seems at face value innocent and out-of-touch with reality. You don’t win elections by “simply taking the higher ground.” Ask Mr Dem Candidate 1988, Mr Dole and Mr McCain.
With that said, I think you all needs idealist and men of “integrity” to carry you across the finish line — even if that means setting adrift the radicals and bomb throwers on your side for political expediency.
Just life — you need all types.
Jimminy'cricket (637168) — 3/31/2009 @ 1:08 pmVictory is the only rule.
Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 3/31/2009 @ 1:10 pmBrad S, if all it takes to make the world a safe and healthy place is for me to torture an infant to death, the world will never be a safe and healthy place.
Sacrificing principles for a hoped-for end causes one to lose his principles. And the end hoped for never arrives. So, what remains of the honor of the person who sacrificed his preferences (since principles, by definition, cannot be sacrificed)?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/31/2009 @ 1:10 pmBy Any Means Necessary
In my studies, I have been heavily influenced by a political philosophy that argues that the American political system was created in direct opposition to Machiavellian principles. It also argues that almost every tyranny of the 20th century was founded upon Machiavellian principles, which are the “by any means necessary” and “live in the real world” political arguments.
One may win elections by these methods, but one does so at the expense of their own principles. If the purpose of politics is the creation of a just (or more just) society, then society can only be made worse when people sacrifice their principles to win elections.
When you genuinely keep to principles the angry rabble are eventually revealed for what they are, hate filled people with no concern for the just treatment of others. Martyrs have power, but only when their followers don’t give the other side martyrs.
Christian (abaa8f) — 3/31/2009 @ 1:12 pmComment by Brad S — 3/31/2009 @ 1:00 pm
My conduct, as long as I keep it within the bounds of the law, is between me and my God, and is of no concern to you, Sir!
AD - RtR/OS (7f6512) — 3/31/2009 @ 1:19 pmI don’t demand that anyone follow my personal Code of Conduct; and, though I may disapprove, I certainly will allow you to conduct yourself in the manner in which you find appropriate – just don’t try to do it in my name.
If I transgress the Laws of Man, I expect to be punished, just as if I transgress the Laws of God I expect to have to answer for those too.
If there is no high moral ground to aspire to, there is only the low-lands of the swamp that Man has struggled for eons to escape.
And, I do enjoy the ability to face myself in the mirror. I might not be as successful as others, but only rarely have I not been able to hold my head high.
Ok, John Hitchcock, it is time to ask this basic question:
Who has to die, who has to be tossed aside, who has to be condemned for apostasy, in order to be “honorable” and to uphold “principles?”
Brad S (9f6740) — 3/31/2009 @ 1:26 pmBrad, your question intentionally assumes false premises. Your question intentionally mischaracterizes my statements.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/31/2009 @ 1:31 pmSure sounds like a load of projection there.
AD - RtR/OS (7f6512) — 3/31/2009 @ 1:34 pmJohn Hitchcock,
When you excoriate RINOs like Arlen Specter, when you preach to conservatives to avoid being human, when you make little statements like “Leviticus may have a point,” you open yourself up to questions like mine.
Or did you think you were untouchable on that Moral High Ground?
Brad S (9f6740) — 3/31/2009 @ 1:40 pmHey Pat. Good post. In some ways.
Regarding means vs. ends: I see a lot of people arguing that because “they” did something vague to “us”, anything that “we” do in response is inherently okay. Or, since we need to return to power to save the world, anything “we” do is okay. “We” being the Right, and “they” being the Left.
I can’t speak for the whole world or “my” movement, but I don’t follow this in practice. If I see liberal websites lying about factual & empirical statements, I don’t endorse that. I don’t repeat lies, and I don’t like them. A communications system that passes around lots of lies is ultimately bad for everyone involved, regardless of short-term gains.
For another, more specific example, I don’t support the “nuclear option” in the Senate, for Democrats or Republicans. The filibuster, in moderation, is a useful tool. It should stay. However, a filibuster used constantly by one party – the Republicans – but never by the Democrats – is a bad and abusive system, and needs to be put back in balance. I’m not sure how to do that, but I’d prefer it to be without scrapping the filibuster completely.
Moving onto the substance of the post:
No, it’s no surprise, but that doesn’t mean it’s not dangerous. We now have a situation where the CEO of a major American car company is resigning at the behest of the American president, and everyone is nodding their heads as though it makes perfect sense. It doesn’t. This is insanity. Putting the government in charge of our economy is socialism. It represents the end of capitalism, and without capitalism, there is no freedom.
See, in general, sometimes you seem like a guy open to reasoned discussion, which makes it seem like there’s a hope of demonstrating to you exactly how crazy and screwed up this is.
For example, Western Europe is full of governments with heavy government intervention in the economy. If this is “socialism”, then the people who live in Western Europe don’t feel like they’ve been deprived of freedom. Frankly, that’s because most of them are pretty free. Just ask, say, Freedom House.
Freedom is not an on/off switch. You should understand this as well as anyone, as a prosecutor. You’d have more freedom as an economic actor if you could break contracts, lie about your products, withold money from creditors, and etc etc etc. But from a system level, once everyone began to imitate you, the system would collapse. Freedom beyond a certain point brings massive suffering from predatory systems.
Not only that if “putting the government in charge of our economy is socialism”, than was Reagan a socialist when he fired the country’s air traffic controllers? Was he a socialist for enforcing the Clean Air Act? Was he a socialist when he allowed the creation of a government structure to backstop the Savings & Loan scandal? Because under Reagan, the government intervened in the economy constantly. So either Reagan was a socialist, or what Barack Obama is doing is not socialism merely because it involves government intervention in the economy.
See, this last paragraph is so full of… be polite… wild and inaccurate generalization as to make my head spin. And yet, you seem sort of open to discussion and knowledge! Why don’t you look into this matter further?
I mean that seriously. If you’re going to lead this massive crusade against “government intervention in the economy”, don’t you owe it to yourself – and your commenters – to do a little research into the consequences of your imagined alternatives?
Do you know what *not* bailing out the banks would have done to this country? A brief example. The best real-life, realistic bad consequence I’ve heard of anyone coming up with in response to our debt spending is that if we run up all this debt, foreigners will stop believing in our currency and pull their money out of our economy.
Well, do you know what would happen if we let every major financial institution in America collapse at the same time? Here’s a hint. Foreigners would lose enormous f*cking bales of money and would react by pulling anything that was left out of our economy.
The fact is, not bailing out these institutions would have led to a literal, Argentina-style collapse in the US. Within months. Our domestic economy cannot function without credit anymore. Credit is everywhere. Any purchase of more than fifty bucks requires, for 90% of America, something involving credit.
That may be bad, but it has to be dealt with. I can’t take Republicans, or conservatives, seriously when their alternatives involve catastrophic economic collapse.
So, if you want to be, as a party, credible to independents and moderates, you need to find a serious expert who thinks that NOT bailing out the financial system is survivable; who thinks that massive lowering of taxes right now is good for the macroeconomy, or that massive spending cuts – as would be needed for deficit-busting – would ALSO not, again, send our economy into literal, near-term collapse.
I don’t see it. Not an iota of it. But I’m always willing to be convinced that I’m wrong.
glasnost (4ed100) — 3/31/2009 @ 1:41 pmExcept the ones that advance Teh Narrative. They are good, as you so commonly use them.
Another ass-pull?
Proof of this, or was this an ass-pull?
JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 1:49 pmI don’t see it. Not an iota of it. But I’m always willing to be convinced that I’m wrong.
Here’s considerably more than an iota.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (de7352) — 3/31/2009 @ 1:50 pmBrother Bradley – Don’t confuse it like that. It has its talking points and it will not be deterred. Plus, it is easier to argue with those charicatures in its head.
JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 1:56 pmJSF, at 93: and between you and the people on the left who feel the same way you do, you will doom the Republic.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:02 pmThe filibuster, in moderation, is a useful tool. It should stay. However, a filibuster used constantly by one party – the Republicans – but never by the Democrats –
never? o.k….. right……
anymore in that bag glas?
setting5 (983921) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:07 pmaphrael – I would note that the vast majority of the regulars around here simply skim over comments like that.
JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:07 pmMy goodness, what an inane question.
First, the ATCs worked for the government, and only the government could fire them.
Second, firing a few workers is NOT putting the government in charge of our economy.
That you would even attempt to equate the two is intellectually dishonest.
Steverino (69d941) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:08 pmSteverino – Remember, glasnost does not repeat lies, and does not like them. Being colossally wrong on a variety of topics is quite fine though.
JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:10 pmPart of the problem with this is that we have no good criteria for what constitutes socialism at this point. Or at least, a lot of people who use the word “socialism” don’t seem to know what, exactly, they’re talking about. They have a concept, but not a definition.
The essence of socialism is “government control over the means of production”. See, that’s also pretty vague. Under Milton Friedman capitalism, the Federal Reserve can mess with the money supply. That effects certain businesses. It affects them quite a lot. It can make or break them. Is that “control”?
What if the Fed Reserve Chairman says “hey, I’m going to raise interest rates by 5% unless you follow my suggestions”. Is that “control”?
Heck no, anymore than it’s “control” when I tell you that I’m going to sue you or call you mean names unless you do what I want you to do. That’s not control, just coercion. And coercion is a fact of life.
So, until I see Barack Obama making all the banking employees into government employees – not de facto but literally – not socialism, sorry. Coercion – you don’t get my benefits unless you play ball – is a fact of life under any economic system you can think of, including capitalism. It may be – and is – bad at some times and in some forms, but it’s not universally bad.
Again, if you’re tempted to doubt it – do you think that banks would put up with all the intrusive and inefficient things we do to make them avoid lending money to terrorists if we didn’t have the power to coerce them into it? That’s what we did. We passed a law. Law equals coercion. If you don’t obey it, we coerce you until you obey it. But it’s not control.
What BO is doing is coercion. And you have no problem with coercing the private sector, in principle – whether it’s mounting campaigns to get people to de-invest in Iran, or coercing Absolut Vodka not to run ads showing a revised US-Mexico border, or with the federal government coercing state businesses to stop hiring immigrants.
You just don’t like coercion when it doesn’t meet your goals. You need a better yardstick, sorry.
glasnost (4ed100) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:11 pmBro JD,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (de7352) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:12 pmThe temptation was irresistible. Glasnost can have fun going through the list of hundreds of economists and checking their credentials.
We await proof or evidence for the above referenced assertions …
JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:14 pmAnd you have no problem with coercing the private sector, in principle – whether it’s mounting campaigns to get people to de-invest in Iran, or coercing Absolut Vodka not to run ads showing a revised US-Mexico border, or with the federal government coercing state businesses to stop hiring immigrants.
This confuses private means of voluntary persuasion with government orders backed up by folks with guns.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (de7352) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:16 pma filibuster used constantly by one party – the Republicans – but never by the Democrats – is a bad and abusive system, and needs to be put back in balance.
Another ass-pull?
Proof of this, or was this an ass-pull?
Sigh. Okay. Used 300% as often in this Congress and the prior congress as in any two congresses prior to that since World War Two. Thanks for correcting me.
Any purchase of more than fifty bucks requires, for 90% of America, something involving credit.
Okay. What sounds more correct to you? 80% of all purchases over $500 involve credit? How are we defining credit?
Yeah, it was an a*s-pull. We’re all vulnerable to a*s-pulls. Pat’s post is chock full of them, as are the comment queue. If you catch generalizations of mine that are not accurate, please point them out. I’ll be sure to return the favor.
Differentiating between a*s-pulls and lies requires a modicum of good faith. That’s why I didn’t accuse Pat of “lying” when he called “socialism” the end of “freedom”.
glasnost (4ed100) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:17 pmThat is more likely, but not at all substantiated.
Let me guess … you are falling back on the threat of a filibuster is the equivalent of a filibuster meme that we saw advanced here previously. But, since you have in no way sourced your asspull, we have no way to verify whether it is an asspull or a fact.
JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:23 pmUnder Milton Friedman capitalism, the Federal Reserve can mess with the money supply.
I know I’m going to regret asking this, but exactly what do you define as “messing” with the money supply? I’ve actually read Friedman, and went to one of his public lectures back in the late 80’s. I don’t understand a lot about economic theories and machinations, but your answer will tell us quite a bit about your knowledge of the subject at large.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:27 pmUsed 300% as often in this Congress and the prior congress as in any two congresses prior to that since World War
Source please.
We’re all vulnerable to a*s-pulls. Pat’s post is chock full of them
STRAWMAN ALERT. THIS IS NOT A TEST. STRAWMAN ALERT.
So you’ve just admitted that everything you’ve said here was originating out of your backside. OK, forget I asked you anything previously – you’re done here.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:35 pmBrother Brad,
A list of platitudes with economists’ names signed up doesn’t really play a lot of ball, sorry. Do the left and right need to have a contest to see who can get more economists to sign up to their petitions? Shall we just have a poll of economists and pretend that settles the issue? I’d bet money that we’d win both.
I can’t find a single economist quoted with a statement like “if we let AIG and Citigroup go bankrupt”, everything will be fine. The whole reason this started was because the bankruptcy of Lehman brothers led a mutual fund to break the bank, and the beginning of mass panic.
Now, I bet you might be able to find a single economist suggesting that letting Citigroup, AIG, and Bank of America go bankrupt would be okay. Still, I’d like you to try. I think you’re wrong, and that large majorities of economists would also think you’re wrong.
Large majorities of economists could be wrong, of course, but to convince me of that, you’d need some analysis that demonstrates that you understand what would happen when those firms went bust.
Something like this.. Not that it specifies what would happen, but this is reasoned discussion.
Do that. Get Pat to put it up on the web. Let real economists take a stab at it. We’d all learn something, even if we don’t agree on what, exactly, we would learn.
Why not? Not afraid of an open debate on the subject, are you? This topic has not been nearly explored enough on the Net.
There are conservative economists with some credibility. For example, get Jim Manzi to make a statement to the effect of “Our country would have been fine if AIG, Citi, and BoA went bust. We’d have only lost about X in capital, and that’s not so bad.” Or, hey, Megan McArdle. That would at least make me willing to read the rest of his detailed argument.
I highly doubt that either of them would say that, though. Nor do most of the Republican financiers I know think that our country would have been, um, fine without bailing out our financial institutions. Nor do most Republican lawmakers. That’s where this “bipartisan consensus” on the bailouts came from.
glasnost (4ed100) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:37 pmWe’re all vulnerable to a*s-pulls. Pat’s post is chock full of them
Nothing more needs to be heard from this quarter. Done.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:45 pm#93 Comment by JSF — 3/31/2009 @ 12:47 pm
The tactics of the last Presidential election will be a cakewalk compared to the next election. If ACORN, MSM, and the truth squads were tough last time (with a republican President/administration in power), this next election cycle will be a bloodbath.
So, as to a question of tactics, do republicans keep the old formula (honor, morality, and ethics), and likely lose? Or do they recognize the new values (charisma, style, and charm) and possibly win?
Not for the sake of the party, but for the Country, republicans must try to keep their principles intact and appeal to the people on an intellectual and ethical basis.
The People decide whom to elect. Let them have an honest choice. If the People choose to elect immoral, unethical, and dishonorable officials, so be it. It is their (our) prerogative.
At the very least, if the republicans can hold the higher ground, the People will have a chance/choice to elect an honorable government — if the republicans do not become like the democrats.
We owe it to our Country, at the very least.
Pons Asinorum (49f381) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:51 pmJD –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture
Lots of subsidiary discussions needed, percentage of all bills vs. absolute numbers, etc etc. Out of time for today.
But this doesn’t capture the problem either, because it doesn’t have a “cloture votes that failed” category. That number is absolutely higher – way higher – in this congress and the prior one – than any administration since WWII. Again, best-guessing.
But forcing a cloture vote equals a filibuster. The word “filibuster” is constantly conflated as a shorthand term with “forcing a cloture vote”.
That’s because they are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing. You need 60 votes to break a cloture vote, and the needing of 60 votes is what’s at record high rates. Which explains the nuke option. As the article mentions, since 1971 the actual filibuster part where you talk in front of a lectern never has been rendered mostly useless.
If you really want to ride my butt about it, I’ll start using the term “forcing cloture votes” instead of “filibuster”. But it’ll just make my posts longer.
glasnost (4ed100) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:52 pmSo you’ve just admitted that everything you’ve said here was originating out of your backside
Everything said here by everyone not citing a source as they say it is either a) opinion b) value judgements or c) trying to remember facts they heard last week from the hazy swamps of their memory, otherwise known as a*s-pulling.
Everything you say here is, by contrast, an elaborate procedural game for coming up with reasons to try and wall people like me off.
Look pal, it’s a blog comment area. We best-guess things. If they’re direly wrong from a factual standpoint, various worker bees will show up to take their best shot at demonstrating that fact, unless you’re groupthink dominated or your admin bans people to protect his audience from evil thoughts.
If you want to demonstrate that I’m wrong about something empirical, please fire away, but feel free to lay off the Drama Queening. You don’t have a lot of punitive power, so I pretty much enjoy the ride either way. besides, isn’t that a leftist attempt to silence debate? You want me to start coming up with lists of a*s-pulling inaccurate statements made in this comment section for a week? You know, like a pet project?
glasnost (4ed100) — 3/31/2009 @ 3:01 pmComment by Pons Asinorum — 3/31/2009 @ 2:51 pm
I seem to recall a political slogan that would be quite relevant here:
AD - RtR/OS (7f6512) — 3/31/2009 @ 3:02 pmA Choice, Not An Echo!
This confuses private means of voluntary persuasion with government orders backed up by folks with guns.
Not the third one! That was an order implied by threat of arrest. But while we’re here, you’re also confusing voluntary persuasion with “control”! I don’t recall Congress passing a law requiring Rick Wagoner to step down. No one threatened him with arrest. Voluntary persuasion!
Actually, the best term would be “coercion”. You’re not threatened with arrest, but the government may do something you don’t like. That applies to your private examples as well, and it’s not the same as “control”. What the government is doing is about the same level of coercion that Carl Ichan exercises. And it’s a fact of life. Happens in DoD Acquisitions, for example, all the time. The SEC, the FCC, etc, etc. If you’re arguing broadly against the end of coercion in government-business interactions, you are almost certainly contradicting yourself, because there are all kinds of coercive actions in government-business interactions that you support.
glasnost (4ed100) — 3/31/2009 @ 3:08 pmJD: comments like mine, or comments like the one I was responding to? 🙂
I’m exaggerating a bit, but not much, because it’s a serious concern to me: as Americans of both political stripes decide that the other group of Americans is their enemy and must be defeated at all costs, the price will be paid by the country as a whole.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/31/2009 @ 3:13 pmAphreal,
If you really believe that, then what have you done to stop your side from attacking Palin’s children? Or going after a charity because Bill O’Reilly is speaking pro bono?
You guys re-drew the line the past 8 years, and I’ve seen no apology, no reticence over calling an American president a “Nazi” or as Thiom Hartmann does on Air America everyday, calls all Republicans and Conservatives “Nazi’s”
I lost family to the German National Socialist Party, and to be called that due to my political philosiphy is wrong.
You want it to stop. Show me what was done to cool the attitude by the Left between 2003- 2007? Bueller?
JSF (9d1bb3) — 3/31/2009 @ 3:20 pmbut feel free to lay off the Drama Queening
Ah, projection – the last refuge of the common – variety troll.
You want me to start coming up with lists of a*s-pulling inaccurate statements made in this comment section for a week?
Yes.
it’s a blog comment area. We best-guess things
Apparently you don’t read much of the posts here, nor the comments.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/31/2009 @ 3:29 pmIf you want to demonstrate that I’m wrong about something empirical,
I asked you to support your statements regarding the Fed and Friedman’s theories, and got back zilch. So the next time you feel the need to pontificate, try finding some actual substance for that enormous spleen – venting.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/31/2009 @ 3:31 pmcalling a spade a spade is not stooping to the level of those folks on the left who distorted president bush’s policies and words. with obama, he is a lying, sneaky man who will stop at nothing to turn america, the country i love, into a socialist country, under the guise of his love for america.
the goal is to win, but the loudest voices are the ones heard. you have to speak in terms and vocabulary the masses understand. unfortunately, due to the poor educational system here, the majority of the population doesn’t understand what the phrase, ‘socialist country’ means. it’s a ‘gimme more of what you have, since i don’t have it, regardless of how you got it’. they are taken in by cute phrases, with no real sense of what it means.
compared to what this country used to produce in terms of public education, we’ve sure ‘dumbed down’ what’s being taught. and now we’re paying the price.
taking the high road and not commenting truthfully on obama and the democrat’s true intentions will not guarantee a win in the next election. speaking the truth about their lying ways will.
ktr (182d33) — 3/31/2009 @ 3:31 pmAmerica is over. Deal with it.
RB (4813a0) — 3/31/2009 @ 4:02 pmJSF – aphrael is one of the good Leftists. Save your fire for the ones that deserve it.
glasnost – Who here is calling for AIG, Citi, et al to go bankrupt? Or is that another ass-pull? That is not the only alternative to Barcky’s solution to spend almost a trillion on the “stimulus” package (I), and then at least quadruple the deficits going forward, in order to correct the wrongs of President Bush’s deficit spending. No matter how many times I read that, it makes no sense, but that is Barcky’s idea, not mine.
JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 4:03 pm…unless you regard beating the Clinton machine and winning the presidency as nothing. But in doing this you fall into the “Bush-is-an-idiot” bag of liberal miasmas.
The campaign wasn’t nothing, but then Obama had huge funding to hire campaign professionals and set up websites and all the other things that were done in very businesslike – damn near military – style. He didn’t do it himself, and lucky for him that he didn’t. His behavior as President is a huge contrast to the juggernaut of the campaign, as he gallops off in all directions at once, leaving wreckage behind.
It is also true Obama has ceded his domestic economic agenda to the House Democrats and spent a lot of money in the process. But what’s the surprise in this?
Maybe it’s not a surprise, but it’s not leadership either. For his entire career out of Harvard, he’s had the support of every murky leftie organization in the country, hoping to grasp the keys to power. They’ve used him as a figurehead to cash in on his PC persona and his glibidity. They’re still doing it – he’s never had to exert control of a large organization to secure any particular result, and his ceding the ‘stimulus’ to the likes of Reid, Pelosi & co without any public statement of his specific goals shows that the organizations are largely free to run amok. They have done so.
And Mr. Horowitz brushes off the monstrous deficit – the instant quadrupling of the deficit for generations – as ‘a lot of money’. Such a term may be appropriate for the Johnson administration, but Horowitz isn’t engaging the generational theft at all.
Insufficiently Sensitive (aa4142) — 3/31/2009 @ 4:03 pmBut….Bush did lie….he lied about Iraq, and stemcells, and torture, and small government and free market capitalism. He spent 700 billion dollars and 4,000 lives from the finest military on the planet to make another Islamic state while increasing size of government, pandering to hispanics, handing out corporate welfare and buggering the prime from 9% down to 0.5%.
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 3/31/2009 @ 4:11 pmAnd you guyz said nothing.
“If this is “socialism”, then the people who live in Western Europe don’t feel like they’ve been deprived of freedom.
Freedom beyond a certain point brings massive suffering from predatory systems.”
glasnost – Bonus points foe extra stupidity today! That Western European quasi socialism just leads to underemployment, inefficiencies, more stagnant economies, etc., etc. Loved the French student protests a couple of years back about not being able to get a job. Nobody wants to hire them because under the French rules it’s almost impossible to fire someone even if they are incompetent – I guess that would cause some of the massive suffering you are talking about.
People don’t have the freedom of opportunity we have here. Business owners don’t have the freedom to pursue ideas without excess interference. Completely different systems and cultures.
If you’re content with stagnation, underemployment, class warfare, and xenophobia, western Europe is the place for you, but it was a nice attempt at a comparison.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/31/2009 @ 4:14 pmAnd Our New Liberal Overlords are not going to be so bad for the country…but they will be awfulawful for conservatives.
wheeler's cat (9bde5b) — 3/31/2009 @ 4:19 pmNational healthcare will kill the GOP.
You see…….even conservatives dig big government….but they only want big government to benefit them.
Obama is throwing enough economic spaghetti against the wall that some will stick and we’ll avoid a Great Depression.
But you guyz are stone hypocrites.
Someone should called out Bush….you supported him right down the line.
That’s right jen/kate/nishi/@$$wipe, keep the same line of bulls!t going. Maybe one day you’ll convince someone that any of it is true. What was Jeff’s line, “go f#uck yourself with something barbed?” Of course, I’m just paraphrasing, but that about covers the sentiment.
mossberg500 (392f23) — 3/31/2009 @ 4:19 pmCan we interupt this thread so glasnost can quibble over definitions that don’t mean anything substantive to the discussion?
HELL NO!!!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/31/2009 @ 4:19 pmGo play in traffic nishitwat.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/31/2009 @ 4:21 pmwheelers – STFU, nishit. This is a griefer troll. A vile nasty one. Amongst some of its prior highlights was its advocacy of genocide in Africa. Wedge Strategy !!!!!!!!!
JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 4:22 pmIt appears that nishit is off its meds again. Serious Daddy issues.
JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 4:24 pmNot paying taxes will kill the dhimmiRats!
mossberg500 (392f23) — 3/31/2009 @ 4:28 pmJD,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/31/2009 @ 5:02 pmAs you predicted. Glasnost must be tired, with all that goal-post moving.
So nothing’s changed. Breitbart just wrote that the Obots are barging in to disrupt and distract, deflect anything away from the performance in play. And they’re getting paid to do it, IIR. So here’s another guy stomping in, deflecting this thread’s topic and purpose.
I sort of resent the cheating your side is committed to.
Vermont Neighbor (dc9c6c) — 3/31/2009 @ 5:04 pm“FDR started to ruin this country with the New Deal, which gave us huge unsustainable government programs. LBJ kept the path of destruction going with the Great Society, which gave us new programs which essentially created a new underclass of people who maintain an irresponsible and criminal lifestyle using government funds. Obama is putting the final nail in the coffin, with trillions of irresponsible spending that will cripple our children financially, and with a mindset of centralized control of economic decisionmaking.”
Right wing fairy tales always skip eisenhower’s highways and Dubya’s Medicare drug benefit.
imdw (803b85) — 3/31/2009 @ 5:25 pmDubya’s Medicare drug benefit.
imdw – What’s the left Kult myth of the day on the above, that it was done to ensure drug company profits?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/31/2009 @ 5:34 pm“imdw – What’s the left Kult myth of the day on the above, that it was done to ensure drug company profits?”
We certainly did pick the expensive way to do it.
imdw (6e3234) — 3/31/2009 @ 5:39 pmdaleyrocks – The Left was against it, because they did not spend enough.
JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 6:04 pm“daleyrocks – The Left was against it, because they did not spend enough.”
You followed the news back then, I see.
imdw (de7003) — 3/31/2009 @ 6:11 pmdaleyrocks – I love the fact that the Leftists now argue that the complain about the Medicare prescription drug plan, because it did not go far enough, did not spend enough. Yet they try to hang this benefit around Bush’s neck like it was a bad thing.
JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 6:16 pmBernie,
This is the Google Blog search from 2003 to 2009 of Bush is Hitler.
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&um=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=bush+is+hitler&as_maxm=1&as_miny=2003&as_maxy=2009&as_minm=1&as_mind=20&as_maxd=20&as_drrb=b&ctz=420&c1cr=1%2F20%2F2003&c2cr=1%2F20%2F2009&btnD=Go
Tell me, did any Liberal say it was wrong? No, they joined in.
Write me back whenOlbermann has any debate on his program between the Right and the Left — Oh, and someone should write Olbermann and tell him Bush has not been President since Jan. 20.
But Thom hartmann continues to compare Conservatives and republicans to Hitler — which Liberal will stand up and say this is wrong?
I bet no one.
JSF (9d1bb3) — 3/31/2009 @ 6:18 pmWhile left wing dicknoses rely on lame tu quoque responses as a substitute for an argument.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 3/31/2009 @ 7:04 pmIIRC, Ike sold the Interstate Highway program as a National Defense priority, to enable the transfer of men and material across the country, after experiencing the inability of the railroad system to handle all of the traffic during WW-2 in a timely manner.
AD - RtR/OS (7f6512) — 3/31/2009 @ 7:34 pmglasnost – Who here is calling for AIG, Citi, et al to go bankrupt? Or is that another ass-pull? That is not the only alternative to Barcky’s solution to spend almost a trillion on the “stimulus” package (I), and then at least quadruple the deficits going forward, in order to correct the wrongs of President Bush’s deficit spending. No matter how many times I read that, it makes no sense, but that is Barcky’s idea, not mine.
Dude. Those companies.
They needed a trillion dollars to avoid going bankrupt.
That’s why we gave them a trillion dollars.
(If I don’t remember the exact number and don’t look up the number, am I “lying”?)
You have an alternative? That avoided them going bankrupt? That involved something other than paying off their debts for them? What was that? Now I’m very, very curious. Also, you should probably call… John Boehner.
So… you’re mad about the stimulus? That’s only about a third of this year’s deficit – and half of it was tax cuts. What if we repealed the tax cut half? That would help the deficit. Would you feel better? Because I think we could get some bipartisan action going on that one.
glasnost (4ed100) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:01 pmJSF – aphrael is one of the good Leftists. Save your fire for the ones that deserve it.
Wait, there are Good Leftists? Did I miss a memo?
glasnost (4ed100) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:03 pmHey look! Norman Ornstein! AEI! Making the same point as me!
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/our-broken-senate
glasnost (4ed100) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:04 pmglasnost – Do the rich suffer differently than the poor in your ideology or is all suffering equal?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:10 pmOK, so Ø’s not Hitler, but are we still OK with the comparison of the President to a chimp?
Dave (in MA) (d51df8) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:26 pm“While left wing dicknoses rely on lame tu quoque responses as a substitute for an argument.”
Its lame beacuse the tu quoque only works if you dont like highways or medicare or social security.
imdw (7c85b9) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:43 pm“IIRC, Ike sold the Interstate Highway program as a National Defense priority, to enable the transfer of men and material across the country, after experiencing the inability of the railroad system to handle all of the traffic during WW-2 in a timely manner.”
Smart dude.
imdw (ddf5c7) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:46 pmI had no idea that the “stimulus” package was only for AIG and Citi … Half of the “stimulus” was tax cuts?! Now that you need to document. I know Barcky likes to preen about how we are getting an extra $13 every 2 weeks, but I doubt that adds up to $400,000,000,000+. Does it really matter where 1/2 of this year’s deficit comes from? The Left liked to squeal about deficit spending under Bush, yet their solution is to quadruple deficit spending in the first year, and rack up multiple trillions in deficit spending going forward. The mind, it boggles.
Yes, glasnost, there are some Leftists that are good people. aphrael is one. You are most certainly not one.
Remember folks, this one does not repeat lies, and does not like them.
JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:46 pmObamalini?
President Goodwrench?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:46 pm“I had no idea that the “stimulus” package was only for AIG and Citi ”
AIG and Citi, if you’re referring to the bank bailouts, aren’t getting money from the stimulus. They’re coming from the law passed last year.
imdw (ddf5c7) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:55 pmDude. How many things are you going to make me document today?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Provisions_of_the_Act
Geez, it’s only 37%. That actually surprised me; I’ve heard half a lot of time.
And the stimulus does not equal the deficit. We’re projected for a 1.8 trillion dollar deficit in 2008. The stimulus is about a third. The bailout is about another third. We’d have had the highest deficit in american history this year even if the stimulus plan had never existed. Learning is good.
glasnost (4ed100) — 3/31/2009 @ 8:57 pmI agree with the first point and strongly disagree with the second.
Since David Horowitz himself once suffered from ultra-leftist, radical sentiments — but is presumably fully cured and recovered from that grotesque condition — I’m not sure if there aren’t bit and pieces of his distant past sometimes adversely coloring his view of people like Obama—-a situation perhaps somewhat analogous to a reformed alcoholic getting antsy around a bottle of booze?
However, when Horowitz makes this observation, I think he’s quite sober and down-to-earth.
Mark (411533) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:31 pmWIKI IS NOT A FUCKING SOURCE !!!!!!!!!!!
Wildabeasts would totally kill a rhino, and they are all fluent in Dutch.
Even if we were to believe that 37% of the “stimulus” was tax cuts, that depends on what you define as tax cuts. Barcky conveniently does not count allowing existing tax cuts to lapse as tax increases. He also says that low interest rates on home loans are a form of tax cuts. So, forgive me for being skeptical that over $300,000,000,000 are actual tax cuts.
I am well aware that the stimulus is not the deficit, asshat. It is but a fraction of same. Baracky’s budget goes even further. I am still waiting for the explanation as to why the way to fix Bush’s evil deficit spending is to quadruple it.
And we will have the highest deficits in American history, going forward, even with the CBO numbers, thanks to Baracky’s dishonest budget proposal.
imdw – Take it up with glasnost. That was its metric, not mine.
JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:32 pmWIKI IS NOT A FECKING SOURCE !!!!!!!!!!!
Wildabeasts would totally kill a rhino, and they are all fluent in Dutch.
Even if we were to believe that 37% of the “stimulus” was tax cuts, that depends on what you define as tax cuts. Barcky conveniently does not count allowing existing tax cuts to lapse as tax increases. He also says that low interest rates on home loans are a form of tax cuts. So, forgive me for being skeptical that over $300,000,000,000 are actual tax cuts.
I am well aware that the stimulus is not the deficit, asshat. It is but a fraction of same. Baracky’s budget goes even further. I am still waiting for the explanation as to why the way to fix Bush’s evil deficit spending is to quadruple it.
And we will have the highest deficits in American history, going forward, even with the CBO numbers, thanks to Baracky’s dishonest budget proposal.
imdw – Take it up with glasnost. That was its metric, not mine.
JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 9:33 pmPatterico,
Do you think it is fair to compare President Obama to Hugo Chavez?
Danger (76e9ca) — 3/31/2009 @ 11:51 pmI agree with the general sentiment but I reserve the right to refer to Obama as a “smeging smeghead” in the privacy of my own home.
hoglet (d63e2b) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:38 amGlasnost, I see you making a basic logical error above. “Coercion – you don’t get my benefits unless you play ball…” You are conflating use of force to hurt with failure to act positively on your behalf. Many people miss that distinction, but there is a world of difference between threatening to hurt someone unless they do X, and refusal to do something they would benefit from unless they do X. Coercion is the former, the latter is persuasion.
Phlinn (60b02f) — 4/1/2009 @ 2:53 pmI think, for reasons that really aren’t clear to me, that you are setting up an either/or argument: either we wave policy papers at Obama and convince everyone we’re nice people or we ridicule Obama which, you seem to say, makes us no better than Code Pink or whatever.
Your strategy is great if you want Obama II in 2012, if you want to beat him in 2012 it really sucks.
There is no reason why we can’t point out the dangerousness of what he’s doing, though you seem to make calling in what it is, socialism, off limits under the “big meanie” rule and point out the Special Olympics gaffe (sorry, but the president saying that is a lot bigger deal than your drunken uncle doing the same), the DVD gift gaffe, now the iPod gaffe. Working both tracks this builds the narrative that this bunch 1) doesn’t know what it is doing and 2)what it is doing is profoundly dangerous.
In my view, the ridicule is at least as important as policy as criticism of Obama is routinely equated with racism because if you can’t criticize him in 2012 you can’t win.
streiff (755ea6) — 4/1/2009 @ 4:28 pm[…] Patterico discusses the BDS tactics of the left over the past eight years and asks a very pertinent question. Did we hate those tactics because they were wrong or simply because they were used against “our guy?” While I definitely disagree with portions of his first statement (BHO really is as dangerous as some Patterico listed), I fully agree that the insidious dishonesty of the left against “our guys” is wrong because insidious dishonesty is wrong, regardless of the victim of the insidious dishonesty. […]
Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » All Tactics Are Not Equal (73d96f) — 4/2/2009 @ 11:38 am[…] takes David Horowitz to task over a post called <a […]
Patterico Gets It Terribly Wrong - streiff’s blog - RedState (796605) — 4/2/2009 @ 12:33 pmI prefer the term “free enterprise” to “capitalism”. When we use the name the socialists have adopted and corrupted for describing the system, we’re just falling into their dirty mental-associations trap. Free. Enterprise. Lovely ring to it.
starboardhelm (94c0da) — 4/2/2009 @ 6:59 pm