home

Blogging Broders

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:34:53 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Steve Benen and Jed Lewison highlight this comment from John Boehner:

"This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles," Boehner said during an appearance on conservative Sean Hannity's radio show.

Their Broderesque reaction: Benen - "I know I keep harping on this, but I think it matters. One of the angles I emphasized yesterday related to the perception that the American mainstream has a visceral dislike for this kind GOP rhetoric. [. . .] We'll see how that turns out for them." Lewison - "For the next two years, the only thing these guys want is paralysis. And that's exactly what they are promising to deliver."

Like David Broder, they seem to believe that "compromise" is what the electorate demands. If that were so, then Republicans would get wiped out in November. Instead they are headed to a historic victory. Like Broder, Benen and Lewison are seemingly unaware of reality regarding the public's attitude regarding "compromise" and getting along. The public does not care about that. They want a better economy and better policies. They do not care how it gets done. Indeed, they do not care if legislation gets passed. To the public, legislation is not "accomplishments." They just want things to get better.

Speaking for me only

< Obama Administration Doing A "Heckuva Job" On Foreclosure Crisis | 3rd And Long >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Blogging Broders | 178 comments (178 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The public (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by TomStewart on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:39:11 AM EST
    is like the parent who wants quiet. They don't care how it comes about, just so long as it happens.

    Or (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:54:10 AM EST
    The public is like the child who wants candy and does not care how it comes about.

    In any case, both scenarios create a fertile grounds for the seeds of fascism to germinate and grow.

    Parent

    Oh B.S. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:56:01 AM EST
    People are really suffering out there and then I have to put up with some hack like you calling them children clamoring for candy.....disgusting!

    Parent
    Hack? (1.00 / 2) (#17)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:03:55 AM EST
    Please look in a mirror, and pick a history book when you get done vogueing. All you do is whine for a daddy or mommy to fix things.

    Parent
    KMA (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:06:42 AM EST
    I go through deployments for this Presidential bufoon right now where I have a husband in a war zone and I'm sitting in the surgery waiting room waiting for my child to get alone.  Mommy and Daddy indeed.....and my head isn't so far up my backside I think the President is the tooth fairy.

    Parent
    Not Impressed (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:39:15 AM EST
    Patriotic flag waving and parading your personal hardship may get you sympathy from your friends, but it is a hack way to argue a point.

    American exceptionalism is the end run around nationalism.

    And I think activism is essential, but what you appear to be doing is the same kind of "activism" that the tea partiers are doing, I think it is counter productive.

    Parent

    Patriot flag blah blah blah (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:44:00 AM EST
    I do it.  All you apply yourself to is Obama cheerleading at all costs.

    Parent
    Cheerleading? (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:47:21 AM EST
    You are fighting an imaginary dkos, I have never been a cheerleader, unlike you and your hillary fanaticism.

    I do not get pumped up for politicians but I do realize that the Democrats are waaaay better than the GOPers.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:58:25 AM EST
    Perhaps the word is not apt, but the reasoning is sound - people don't care how they get what they want, they just want what they want.

    I can not say I care much how results are obtained within our democratic system. So yeah the nod to fascism is a bit out there, but not by that much.

    Parent

    I agree that people (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:04:28 AM EST
    aren't going to be overly concerned with how relief comes about, but they aren't spoiled children.  France is in the streets right now fighting for their retirements.  We are fricken braindead, or we jail so many people we have been beaten into submission or something....and those who aren't totally brain dead aren't children demanding candy....they are only awake.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:09:13 AM EST
    I dunno. Everyone wants what they want. Does that make them spoiled? Or merely asking for what's fair?

    Does it matter?

    Parent

    Sometimes it does (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:37:24 AM EST
    emotions drive politics.  Real suffering produces deeper longer lasting larger emotions that fuel people.

    Parent
    I just disagree (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:09:34 AM EST
    a couple of nights ago Maddow did a show from Alaska and talked to some of those people with signs demanding things.

    she talked to a couple of people with signs about Holder asking them why they hated Holder.  "his attitude about guns" they said.  "what specifically has he done or said about guns that you disagree with?" she asked.  not one could tell you a single thing.  one recommended she google.
    another said what she as angry about was intimidation by black panthers. BLACK PANTHERS.

    sorry these people are not only children they are idiot racist children.
     

    Parent

    It's sad (none / 0) (#30)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:22:07 AM EST
    they are either actively paranoid racist lunatics or they're willing to overlook the actively paranoid racist lunatics in their midst (or vote for them!).

    Parent
    I'm not singling tea partiers out (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    specifically.  Those choosing to vote for them who aren't part of that base I am though.  Only noting that the tea party is looking for a fight, and they will get votes from people who are hurting and nobody is fighting for them.  Our President has sided with Wall Street, and the banks and the corporations, and he continues to ante up with them too.  I think that people will vote for anyone who says they will fight what Obama is doing.  They may be sorry later, but who knows when pols lie and when they tell the truth?  Nobody, all you can do with the system we have is vote for what you need today and hope they don't screw you when they get into office.  This President does not fight for his people though and his people are looking for anyone who will fight for them no matter who they are right now.

    Parent
    Saw that show too (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 01:34:00 PM EST
    And Maddow said she was surprised by the social issues that the Tea Baggers raised....and she had thought it was all about economic issues.

    No, it is all about religion--as framed by social conservatives....

    The Tea Baggers are religious conservatives.....The economy is the thing they are talking about--but what motivates them, and their goals, are conservative religious issues.....

    It is not really about the economy for a huge swath of the Republicans....

    Parent

    Maybe the few Tea Partiers ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    ... that Maddow taped for her show were motivated by social issues, but polling shows that overall, they're motivated by financial issues, rather than religious/social issues:

    "What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today"?

    #1 - Economy - 23%
    #2 - Jobs - 22%
    #3 - Politicians/Govt. - 13%
    #4 - Budget Deficit - 11%

    ... (further down the list)

    Religious Values - 3%
    Moral Values - 2%
    Abortion - 1%

    Parent

    that (none / 0) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 02:11:34 PM EST
    is what they SAY.

    Parent
    Well, until ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 02:15:43 PM EST
    ... until the Strauss Mind Reading Machine is perfected, I'll stick with the polling data.

    Parent
    No, look at their views on other issues (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 02:21:17 PM EST
    There is polling on that too....

    They are talking about economic issues--to outsiders--but they are pro-life and against gay rights....do not believe in Evolution or global warming, etc....Against the UN...believe the End is Near, etc.

    It is the same group we have always known, with just a new name and some new (but really old) economic talking points....

    Who are the two most famous tea baggers?  Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin.   Does that not tell you something?

    Parent

    or (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 02:32:05 PM EST
    show me one that isnt

    Parent
    Yeah, I know ... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 02:48:10 PM EST
    A lot of Tea Partiers are also fundies, but the fact remains that when they're asked about the most important issues facing the country, religious issues are near the bottom.  To claim that "it is all about religion--as framed by social conservatives" or that "The economy is the thing they are talking about--but what motivates them, and their goals, are conservative religious issues" is silly.  There's no evidence to support it.  Beyond that, while fundies have been increasingly attracted to the Tea Party (and HP's sensationalist headlines to the contrary), devoutly religious conservatives make up only 22.5% of the Tea Party.

    Yeah, there are a lot of fundies (i.e. O'Donnell) in the Tea Party, but to label them all as such, and to suggest they're all (or even a majority of them) motivated by a secret, fundamentalist religious agenda, is simply speculation without any support.  The same goes for any suggestion that they are participating in a massive conspiracy to hide their "true" (i.e. religious) motives and agenda from "outsiders".

    Parent

    There is plenty of proof (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 03:13:13 PM EST
    And, no, it is not about hiding their religious views....just about emphasizing their economic ones....

    But, remember there was just a memo or two last summer about how to disrupt townhalls:  stand up and shout to throw off the speaker--and how many of them in lock step did just that?....

    And it is not just a person or two.  Sharron Angle.  Ken Buck....

    Scratch a Tea Partier, get a relgious conservative....

    I don't know actually, and forgive me if I should know, what your views generally are, but liberals are so dense.  They think politics is a straight up intellectual conflict over articulated issues....Bunk.

    Reihan Salam said it so well on the Chris Matthews show a couple of weeks ago--the Tea Partiers are not the voice of the "have nots" but the "are nots."  It is a culture war to them, a war for existential survival,  and they feel they are losing....

    Even wonder why you get this oddball stuff on issues common to many tea partiers--out of nowhere?....Rescinding the Amendment for the popular election of Senators??....

    No, it is not a conspiracy, but religious wackos live in a world of their own.....Not a secret one, but very isolated intellectually--but interconnected among themselves.

    I have been listening to a religious station on FM, in between times when I listen to Spanish Pop tunes, and was riveted.  The religious channel has sermon after sermon about the New World Order, abortion, the End Times....Nothing about the sayings of Jesus....

    If you don't tip your toe in their culture, you could very easily assume that they are operating in the same world of argument and opinion and policy that you are....

    Not so.  And liberals who don't understand that are being very foolish....  

    Parent

    they are (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 03:28:15 PM EST
    emphasizing their economic view because that is what they have been told to do.  its not rocket science.  

    Parent
    Really? The thousands of people ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 03:36:20 PM EST
    ... polled in these polls were told to keep their social views a secret while focusing on economic issues?  Then (judging by the numbers), they virtually all "obeyed" while managing to keep it secret from "outsiders"?

    You're right.

    It's not rocket science.

    Parent

    No need to apologize (none / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 03:32:26 PM EST
    I don't know actually, and forgive me if I should know, what your views generally are, but liberals are so dense.  They think politics is a straight up intellectual conflict over articulated issues.

    ... since it doesn't apply to me.

    BTW - What proof?  Let's see it.

    You claimed that Tea Partiers are motivated by religious issues and a religious agenda (i.e. "it is all about religion--as framed by social conservatives" and that "The economy is the thing they are talking about--but what motivates them, and their goals, are conservative religious issues").  My point is that it's not true.  Sure, some of them are motivated by conservative religious beliefs, but so what?  While there are many fundies in the TP, the TP is basically united on fiscal issues but divided on social issues, and the polling data shows that religious issues are waaaaay down the list of priorities for them, your story about fundie radio, notwithstanding.

    Parent

    Okay, so you're not a liberal? (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 03:48:13 PM EST
    Not that that is here nor there....but knowing a frame of reference can help a discussion...

    The polling on this is sparse and often wrongly worded...

    The poll you link to is from the Cato institute, a very conservtive outfit with an agenda....

    The question Cato asked was in essence whether the government should promote a moral agenda....

    I would ask how many of the Tea Partiers believe in Evolution.  I would ask how many oppose Roe v. Wade....

    You miss the dog whistles.  Let's just get back to the original constitution.....Straight out of the we hate the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade group.....The dislike of teachers....goes back to school prayer and religion in the schools.....

    The townhall protesters often volunteered abortion when they were asked what concerned them.

    Sure, there will be a true libertarian strain....But we can measure those folks by the support Ron Paul got in the 2008 Republican Primary....

    Parent

    Read it again (none / 0) (#97)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 04:03:59 PM EST
    I'm not one of the liberals you're describing.

    ... liberals are so dense.  They think politics is a straight up intellectual conflict over articulated issues.

    Tell ya' what.  If you think all of the polling data is flawed or biased (including the NY Times, Target Point, etc.) and you want to come up with your own questions that you think are better indicators, knock yourself out.  I'm sure they will be more accurate than professional polling groups.  Or you could come up with actual data to the contrary.

    Until then, all of your claims about the "true motives" of the TPers are simply opinion supported by speculation wrapped in conjecture.

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 04:08:14 PM EST
    I know what Cato is - it just happens they're one of the few organizations looking at this issue.  Their polling is supported by the other major polls (NY Times/Washington Post/Kaiser/Harvard).

    Parent
    There's often an element (none / 0) (#166)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 04:31:00 PM EST
    of "figures don't lie, but liars can figure" in these type of discussions. Like those perpetually enthralled Clintonistas who feel compelled to try to prove that because there are more post-NAFTA Wal-Mart and Burger King jobs available to the working class in this country that it means that no one is really hurt by NAFTA-like trade agreements..

    Obviously "the way politics work" for 90% of the populace in this country is about emotional identification and about people being deathly afraid of having any aspect of their infatuation undermined, i.e., being proven 'wrong', by any objective evidence to the contrary.

         

    Parent

    Actually, it's more like ... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 09:41:37 PM EST
    ... "figures trump fairy tales", particularly since you never provide one scintilla of evidence for your silly, CDS fairy tales.  But the reason is pretty obvious ...

    ... you go with what ya got.

    Parent

    They've driven me (none / 0) (#169)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 10:06:34 PM EST
    over the edge and I can no longer be held accountable for my actions. That's what CDS will do. Though, I am endlessly grateful for all that now-more-affordable-than-ever chintzy, lead paint covered crap the Free-Trade-forever crowd has put at my disposal. And of course, the money the outsourcers and their slick-yet-still-folksy enablers have made is going to start trickling down on all of us, starting any day now..

    Parent
    Precisely, ... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 10:21:50 PM EST
    ... and thanks for proving my point.

    Parent
    Precisely.. (none / 0) (#171)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 11:02:19 PM EST
    precisely everything that I said? Hey, I did express thanks for the lead paint..

    Oh, and how about the optics of that five million dollar wedding, put on by those champions of the working man during an economic crisis? Do those folks have their finger on the pulse of all the little people or what? Me, I can't get enough of this living vicariously through the Clintons. It's nothing short of Camelot redux.

    Parent

    What is it with you ... (none / 0) (#172)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 11:14:46 PM EST
    ... and the wedding?

    Upset you didn't get an invite?

    Parent

    an invite (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 11:27:53 PM EST
    just so I could say to them: "can't you two put the the American aristo act on hold for even one day and at least ACT like you have some sense of solidarity with the common man and with the times?". Right before I'm wrestled to the ground and pummeled beyond recognition by a couple of our Lord and Ladyships footmen.  

    Parent
    Awwwww ... (3.50 / 2) (#176)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 09:30:30 AM EST
    ...sense of solidarity with the common man and with the times.

    Yes, because it's all about symbolism for the srbiters of true progressivism, who like to create their own alternate version of reality, conveniently ignoring the fact that BC has raised 57 Billion dollars to help over 220 million people around the world since leaving office.

    But nice imagery on the pummeling fairy tale.

    Parent

    symbolism.. (none / 0) (#177)
    by jondee on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 02:46:35 PM EST
    get real. You were just telling me that I "don't know how politics work" because I said I expected some evidence of intellectual effort on the part of Tea Partiers.

    But obviously all that pageantry surrounding all our Lord and Ladyship warms the cockles of your heart, so by all means go with it. But, lets not forget to give a shout out to Bill's business partner, Mr October Surprise-Operation-Just-Cause himself GHWB. That guy deserves SOME credit..

    Parent

    Since when do you ... (none / 0) (#178)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 03:18:22 PM EST
    ... use evidence?  I provided plenty of evidence proving my point .... you provided none to prove yours.  But I do have you at an unfair advantage, ...

    ... given how hard it can be to prove a fairytale is real.

    BTW - Being factually challenged, you probably didn't realize the $57 Billion was a reference to the Clinton Global Initiative.  Just curious ... are you confused about GHWB's involvement in the CGI, or was that just another attempt at a red herring?

    Parent

    22.5% "and are it's fastest (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 04:35:59 PM EST
    growing segment"..

    If the economy were REALLY the issue of paramount importance to Tea Partiers that the pols suggest, one would think that their public statements and prescriptions would give much more of an indication of mental labor and analysis -- that one would expect from thinking, engaged adults. Rather than the generally banal, emtional venting exercises we've come to expecfrom that quarter.

    Parent

    Yeah, I read that (none / 0) (#161)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 09:55:24 PM EST
    Now explain how 22.5% (even when growing) establishes that TPers are monolithically motivated by their religion and religious issues, which is the point I was arguing against.

    As far as the rest of your post, you seem to be suggesting that, if they were focused on economic issues, the TPers' public statements and policy positions would be more reasoned and less aimed at generating emotional responses:

    1.  Not sure which statements you're talking about, I've seen plenty of statements from TPers complaining about economic issues (taxes - hence their name, the economy, jobs, government spending, the deficit, etc.).

    2.  Why?  Do you really think their going to get their fellow TPers fired up to go out and vote by making "public statements and prescriptions would give much more of an indication of mental labor and analysis".

    Seriously?

    You don't really know how politics works, do you?

    3)  If the TPers really are motivated primarily by their religious beliefs and those issues are the most important to them, where's the evidence?

    Parent

    The evidence (none / 0) (#164)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 03:07:00 PM EST
    is the utter lack of evidence of actual sustained thought being applied on their part to their alleged primary concern, i.e., the economy. The perennial, rote, right wing mantras of too-many-taxes and too much govt spending and saying "the economy is the most pressing problem" certainly don't qualify -- except as more evidence  that tea baggers are running on, and motivated primarily by, emotion and emotional identification with the CULTURE of their particular movement.

    Are you trying to make the case that there's a significantly constructive-rationalist current in the Tea Party because they mention the economy so often?

     

    Parent

    So the fact that ... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 09:28:27 PM EST
    ... there is (according to you) little or no evidence of "actual sustained thought" by the TPers when it comes to economic matters proves that they are motivated primarily by their religious beliefs and that religious issues are the most important priority to them?

    1.  How are you measuring what issues they're applying "actual sustained thought" to?

    2.  Even if someone accepts your premise, the conclusion you draw doesn't follow logically.

    3.  No - the point I'm making is the one I've stated (repeatedly).  TPers are split on social issues and united on economic issues.  There is zero evidence to suggest that they are motivated primarily by their religious beliefs or that religious issues are the most important to them.  There is plenty of evidence that economic issues are (by far) most important to them.  You just choose to discount it because it doesn't align with your preconceived notions about them.


    Parent
    Geez, Yman you're spoiling MKS' (none / 0) (#84)
    by BTAL on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 03:03:30 PM EST
    traditional axe grinding session there.

    Parent
    True, but you kinda prove (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 03:14:25 PM EST
    my point--declaring ahile ago you were an Evangelical....

    The correlation is very high, you would have to admit....

    Parent

    No point proven. (none / 0) (#91)
    by BTAL on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 03:44:27 PM EST
    As have posted here before, my beliefs are not part of my political arguments and I keep them to myself - where they should be.  

    Nor, do I accuse others with different or non-beliefs that it drives their political positions.

    Yours is a non-sequitur strawman talking point.  Yman clearly disproved your position.

    Parent

    But how would I know your beliefs (none / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 04:02:41 PM EST
    if you didn't post them here?  That you had to jump in on a discussion of how religion intersects political issues further shows your views....

    There is a very high correlation between conservative religious views and conservative  views on economic issues....

    That correlation is based on causation....

    The thread connecting conservative religious belief with current conservaitve belief on economics and other issues, including foreign policy, is a strong one.....take any issue and that connecting thread can be pursued, but it would be a long discussion and take awhile to unravel.....because your voter guides and sermons have steered you toward economic issues this year....

    Take the great cry of socialism.  I nearly laughed out loud when I first heard this....The taunt has always been "communist!"  Or commie, pinko, bleeding heart....

    But there are no more communists....So what is the next worst thing?  Socialist Europe....That we could become like Great Britain or Sweden is just a horror beyond belief???....Why is that?  I don't agree with the extent of their socialism....but why do the Tea Partiers so fear socialist Europe?.....

    Because Europe, old Europe, is godless.  This is the very real fear among Tea Partiers....

    Parent

    I jumped in? hahaha (none / 0) (#140)
    by BTAL on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 10:01:47 AM EST
    You started your tired axe grinding campaign, again.

    Interesting that you don't rail on about others here (who are on the left) when they make comments about their beliefs.  Your hypocrisy slip is showing.

    As to "voters guides and sermons", there you have just lost all credibility.  I have never seen a voters guide and have not attended services in many years.  Nice try but a swing and a miss.

    Parent

    Good point about not attending services (none / 0) (#141)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 12:26:37 PM EST
    The reach of the right on religious issues extends beyond just the weekly churchgoers....

    Many accept the right winger religious view as somehow authoritative even though their personal observation is not all that strict....

    Not hypocritical at all on religion.  The Republicans use religion to justify a right wing agenda.  Democrats typically discuss religion in a totally different context.

    What is interesting is how reticent the religious conservatives are this political cycle to discuss social issues.   I am not sure why this is....Generally, those on the right have been all too quick too jump on social issues and godless Democrats....

    I wonder whether this reticence is based on the general strategy of emphasizing economic issues.  Or, perhaps social conservatives worry they are on the losing side of social issues....I think this may be the case--perhaps because social conservatives have lost so much ground in opposing gay rights.....
     

    Parent

    Or more likely (none / 0) (#142)
    by BTAL on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 12:44:58 PM EST
    your ideology and beliefs are stuck in the 1980s and 1990s.  

    Parent
    Please explain (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 12:49:30 PM EST
    Do you mean conservatives have given up the push to get rid of Roe, oppose gay rights, and otherwise have more religion in the public square?

    I certainly do not see that....

    Parent

    The Pat Robertsons etal of the world no (none / 0) (#144)
    by BTAL on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 01:27:56 PM EST
    longer have political power within the party.  They are on the fringe and periphery at best but lack any clout like they did in the '90s.  

    Noone is stepping in to replace them nor are members of the party looking for replacements.

    As the dem party moved away from its racist past, the Rs have slowly shifted way from the hard religious right.

    Parent

    Palin and Beck are the new versions (none / 0) (#145)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    I do think that conservatives are not emphasizing social issues because they are not "winning" issues right now.

    But you evade the questions about Roe, gay rights and more religion in the public square.  Those issues are not over.

    That you analogize racism to social conservatism is interesting.....I dare say most social conservatives would disagree....To make such an analogy is to suggest that the social conservatives lost (and should have lost) the culture war (as they would define it.)

    I do think that is happening but not just yet...This article shows what the Right without overt religious overtones may sound like:

    And so when we were sitting outside, on his renovated deck, by his expanded pool, talking about the massive outdoor grilling apparatus he'd just installed, and I mentioned Obama's name and he responded with a visible tremor of disgust and said, in a description that was half-accurate and hence oxymoronic, "God, I hate that elitist bastard" -- well, I didn't necessarily conclude that his disgust had its wellsprings in prejudice. But I didn't think that it had much to do with health care either. Indeed, it was not the kind of anger -- or hatred -- that finds redress in changing policy at all, but rather in making the people who've made you suffer for reasons that go beyond reason suffer in return.

    I don't think religious conservatives are/were really all that much about religion.  It is about reinforcing their cultural status....as described in the above article (although in non-religious terms.)  

    Most conservatives have huge chips on their shoulders....They are Reihan Salam's "are nots."

    Parent

    Eh??? You are all over the map with that post (none / 0) (#146)
    by BTAL on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 02:54:10 PM EST
    •  Beck and Palin aren't religious leaders.  Nor spiritual beacons.  

    •  What issues are their to win?  Gay rights? If you want to talk about DADT or DOMA, talk to Clinton.  My sister is gay, last I checked we hadn't blackballed her from the family.

    •  Roe?  It has been the law of the land for how long now?  I don't believe in abortion and have a brother who is now part of the family after being adopted out vs aborted.  I just don't want tax payer dollars funding the procedures.  Same position as Obama obviously with the HCR bill & executive order.

    •  Racism???  Where did I make any reference to race much less analogize?

    •  That article snippet is laughable.  Care if I excerpt some progressive articles calling GWB a monkey then read in some hyperbole?  It would be the ying to your yang and prove nothing, just like the above.

    I don't think religious conservatives are/were really all that much about religion.

    Huh?  This is 180 degrees from your previously posted old saws.  Which is it, we evil right wingers are all rabid religious ideologues or not?  

    Parent

    About religion/not about religion (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 03:37:05 PM EST
    That is a much longer discussion....

    Short version:  Social conservatives in their opposition to women's rights and gay rights are, and always have been, making more of a cultural argument than a religious one.....Many Democrats of faith would agree.  The same social issues still exist today--it is just how you classify them.....

    You really don't say whether you want Roe reversed; or DADT or DOMA kept, or whether you would vote for or against gay marriage (and there have been many opportunities to do so); or whether there should be more religion in the public square....

    Clearly, you are not personally making a strong social conservative statement in your posts....

    There are people like David Frum who downplay the social issues but he is a lone wolf....Beck is appealing to religious conservatives in a big way....as is Palin....and they are more dangerous than Pat Robertson who did run for office....

    I agree that the social issues will play less of a role sooner than most liberals think.  The election of Obama and his appointment of Kagan and Sotomayor to the Supreme Court means that Roe will be around for a very long time.  I think liberals forget how much a victory that really is.  Gay marriage is becoing more and more accepted--all over the world including Latin America.  

    And, now the reluctance of conservatives to fight it out over social issues--for the time being....I think the fight is not over....

     

    Parent

    Too many social issues are foisted into the (none / 0) (#149)
    by BTAL on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 04:11:36 PM EST
    political arena and too many times at the federal level - by both sides.

    Personally:

    •  I would not expend any political effort in relation trying to overturn Roe.  Not a winner and just further roils the pot.  As stated though, govt funding is an issue.

    •  I was ~1/2 through my AF career when DADT was enacted.  For the military rank and file, it was an acceptable compromise and has worked.  Repealing may have some unintended consequences based on the actions of individuals on both sides of the equation.  Time will tell.

    •  My core belief is the traditional definition of marriage.  IMHO, civil unions can deal with many of the issues.  Pushing it to the federal level probably was not the correct path but we don't/didn't get to make that call.  

    •  Didn't understand the "more religion in the public square" item the first time around.

    Is it wrong for people of faith to push back when the other side aggressively push their agenda, even at times bordering on hate?

    Parent
    Push Back (none / 0) (#152)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 04:34:56 PM EST
    See, social conservatives are threatened when their values are not the only accepted ones....The government must adopt and inculcate only their values....

    That is how I read "pushback."

    That women have a right to choose or gays a right to marry does not prevent you from living your life as you see fit.  Social conservatives are threatened by others' liberty.....

    As to the culture, conservatives want the government to hold the tide back....Not going to happen.....Gays will be in the open.  

    Religion will or will not thrive depending on its merits.  Government will not save it from irrelevence....

    Parent

    So you see attacks on religious (none / 0) (#155)
    by BTAL on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 05:04:52 PM EST
    groups as acceptable, not the ones on the fringe aggressively pushing their agenda, but mind your own business religious groups?  It is happening and is just as intolerant and bigoted.  Is "art" inspiring when the artist chooses to get in the face of other's beliefs?  For just one example.

    As for the govt must adopt and inoculate values, that same charge can be leveled in return.  

    Gays are already in the open.  The point is how it is handled in many situations.  Guarantee, a SF style "in your face" display will not end well in the average NCO club for example.  

    As to:  "Religion will or will not thrive depending on its merits. "  History appears to be on the side of religion based on its longevity versus any govt ever established.
     

    Parent

    Attacks on religious groups? (none / 0) (#156)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 06:07:10 PM EST
    I would really doubt it....Religious groups who are anti-gay and who want the government to deny rights to gays?  Different issue....

    Each group can get in "each others' faces" all they want--assuming no stomping, etc.  It is when the anti-gay religious groups want the government to deny gays their rights under the law....That is the issue....

    NCO clubs and "not ending well."  Argh.  Still there with the homophobia?....I wonder how many NCOs are gay.....

    "SF style."  You conservatives really have this thing with San Francisco.  It is my favorite city in the world.  Or tied with Honolulu.  Not specifically because of the gay culture, except perhaps as a comforting feeling that gays and lesbians are treated with respect there.....And you guys just can't stand the city.  Too bad.  Wonderful place.

    Parent

    Doubt what? (none / 0) (#157)
    by BTAL on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 07:11:19 PM EST
    If your position is that there is not an alternate side to the so-called "culture" war, then there is no need to continue the discussion.  If you feel that there are not groups whose goal is to attack any and/or all religious organizations/individuals.  Sorry then I will not debate such a closed mind.  I see you chose to not to address the "art" example.

    The use of the stomping outrage deju is not missed, but not worth the rise you may have hoped for.

    Did you serve or are you just speculating and conjecturing about the NCO clubs?  Yes, there are gay NCOs, but that is not the point an you know it in response to my comment.

    I have enjoyed every of my multiple visits to SF (and Honolulu), but don't play coy in regards to how the gay community pushes their agenda.  Another swing and a miss.  

    Sounds like you are just wanting to play a game with this discussion.  That gets old and is disingenuous.

    Parent

    No, actually I tried (none / 0) (#162)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 11:09:20 PM EST
    to have a real discussion with you.

    But, I do not think you were forthcoming.  You waffle on the culture wars, saying they were a thing of the past, yet you still seem rooted in them.

    You are clearly not a libertarian.....

    Your last comments about the NCOs and San Francisco were very offensive and homophobic. Perhaps you may not have recognized that....

    But not a total waste of time.....Your views prove my point--underneath it all the culture war still rages....

    Parent

    Re: racism (none / 0) (#148)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 03:40:03 PM EST
    You stated:

    As the dem party moved away from its racist past, the Rs have slowly shifted way from the hard religious right.

    I don't know if this was just a gratuitous dig at (Southern) Democrats (who no longer are Democrats); or you really meant to make the comparsion between racist Dems and social conservatives....

    Parent

    It was both, because many of those (none / 0) (#150)
    by BTAL on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 04:16:52 PM EST
    dems (not all southern) are still dems but like the religious right, again they have been sidelined.

    Parent
    Angle, O'Donnell, Buck (none / 0) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 04:20:58 PM EST
    are just 3 new people running under the "R" label who would IMO fit the hard religious right label.  

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#165)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 03:24:11 PM EST
    what a wild, unwarranted, conjecture to claim that there's still a significant religious-socially conservative faction in this country and that they traditionally tend to cleave almost exclusively to the Right end of the political spectrum and identify with movements like the Tea Party..

    Where do people come up with this stuff?

    Parent

    Conservatives and Tea Partier's (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 03:24:53 PM EST
    economic views flow from their religious ones....

    It comes, in part, from an authoritarian impulse....Throw in fear....and some ignorance....

    Why is it that economic issues disconnected to affiliation with Democrats poll so well?  Even among many conservatives?  Because national politics is first and foremost about making a cultural statement.....

    True conservatives as in cautious, thrifty, disliking abrupt change--those folks no longer exist....Perhaps there are a few left in Yankee New England.  But this current group is on a cultural crusade....

    Parent

    give up (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 04:02:39 PM EST
    this mythical construct has been built to deflect what you are trying to do.  he will always be able to show some ridiculous poll that shows the TPers say the care about economic issues.  
    and perhaps they do.  but if you ask them about positions on social issues they are down the line right wing republicans and everyone knows this.

    oh, and you know what a libertarian is?  it is a conservative republican who is embarrassed to admit it.


    Parent

    Totally agree (none / 0) (#101)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 04:14:23 PM EST
    Digby has good posts on that in the last couple of days as well. The TP is the Republican base under another name. They are not some new group that just sprang up.

    Parent
    and a very convenient one it is no (none / 0) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 04:24:04 PM EST
    considering that the republican brand was even more in the toilet than the democrats.

    lets make up a new name for ourselves!

    Parent

    wow you are right (none / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 04:36:34 PM EST
    and it seems the christian right wingers have an opinion about this:

    David Brody of the Christian broadcast network has an message for his audience:

    Now comes word from the CW experts, better known as the mainstream media, that Christians and the tea party just don't go together.

    Their reasoning goes like this: The tea party movement cares only about fiscal issues, so Christians should take their social issues and go play somewhere else. News flash for the CW crowd: Wrong again. Strike three. You're out.

    The tea party movement is the perfect place for Christians to lobby for biblical values and priorities, and many Christians seem to know that.

    I have traveled across this great land and flocked to tea party events and rallies. Who do I see showing up? Conservative, Bible-believing Christians.



    Parent
    I know, but always interesting (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 04:15:14 PM EST
    Why are the religious conservtives so shy nowadays?

    Worried about not mucking up a winning message.....

    Well, enough time spent on that....

    Parent

    Again ... where's the data? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 03:53:51 PM EST
    The polls have consistently shown a split on social/religious issues in the Tea Party.  The TP is split into two camps - a Palin camp (traditional conservative/fundie) and a "Ron Paul" camp (libertarians) when it comes to social/religious issues.

    Parent
    Watch the leaders.... (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 04:08:45 PM EST


    Parent
    So the answer is (none / 0) (#105)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 04:38:56 PM EST
    ...you have none.

    Parent
    Those polls are dated (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 04:13:16 PM EST
    The Tea Party is not static....

    It has become the home of Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle and that guy in Alaska....

    The Ron Paul folks are going to be tossed out, or will mouth the right words as has Rand Paul....

    Parent

    Based on ... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 04:40:07 PM EST
    ... what, exactly?

    Parent
    see comment (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 04:41:48 PM EST
    #104 or read digby

    Parent
    So a fundy ... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:04:40 PM EST
    ... wants to hop aboard the Tea Party wagon?

    ... and from this you make the leap that TPers are motivated primarily by their religious beliefs and have successfully managed to keep their secret theocratic agenda a secret from "outsiders"?

    Heh.

    Parent

    Acid test (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:18:52 PM EST
    Assuming the Republicans take the House, will  conservative social items go forward?

    And there is Michelle Bachmann....Tea Partier....And Gingrich talking about Obama being a "secular" something or rather....He has a lot of ground to make up with social conservatives, so he is more and more angry and shrill.

    After the election, will conservatives and the Tea Party folks say, heh, America voted for our socially conservative platform too?

    How much more Muslim freakout will we have?

    Let's dicuss how socially conservative the tea partiers are in 6 months after Palin declares she is running....

    How did Alito and Roberts get confirmed.  Ever hear of the stealth strategy....The conservatives do not make a secret of their views but just won't discuss them right now....That is why they run away from reporters....

    Heh, if you want to think that the Tea Party can include social liberals, knock your self out....Most would find that hilarious....

    How many tea partiers are for Civil Unions?  Gay Marriage?....


    Parent

    You want to point out ... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 06:39:00 PM EST
    Heh, if you want to think that the Tea Party can include social liberals, knock your self out....Most would find that hilarious....

    How many tea partiers are for Civil Unions?  Gay Marriage?....

    ... where I said that, or even suggested it?  Did I use another "dated" term that you "interpreted"?

    Let's dicuss how socially conservative the tea partiers are in 6 months after Palin declares she is running....

    Seriously?  Now you want to debate how socially conservative the TP will be at some point in a hypothetical future (ignoring the fact that that has nothing to do with my original point)?

    Good one.

    Parent

    See the article you cite from HuffPo (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:33:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Already ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:39:54 PM EST
    ... read it.

    Parent
    BTW - October 18th is "dated"? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:15:09 PM EST
    That would be the poll that showed that 22.5% of TPers were devoutly religious conservatives.

    Wow.

    So much changes in 10 days.

    Parent

    You're being deliberately obtuse (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:20:41 PM EST
    I wasn't talking about that poll....

    If you want to believe that social liberals can co-exist, charge on.  But it is silly to not understand that these are conservatives across the board....

    Parent

    paraphrase (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:22:28 PM EST
    never try to convince someone of something their opinion depends on not believing.

    Parent
    Where do you come up with ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:32:59 PM EST
    If you want to believe that social liberals can co-exist, charge on.  But it is silly to not understand that these are conservatives across the board ....

    ... this stuff?  The first sentence makes no sense.  The second is just silly.  Yes, most TPers are conservative, but that's not the same thing as claiming that the TP = the religious right.  Personally, I can't stand the TP or their agenda, but I'd rather have my information about them be based on facts, rather than amateur psychoanalysis or conspiracy theories.

    BTW - My point re: the latest poll is that the data showing that TPers are not monolithically religious fundamentalist is only 10 days old, despite your claims that "the polls are dated".

    Parent

    Okay, the first sentence (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:37:22 PM EST
    did contain a fragment.  I should have said I doubt that social liberals can co-exist with the Tea Party conservatives....

    So, you win points for that syntactical error....

    You still miss the broader point.....

    Read the HuffPo article you cite....The direction is clear....

    Parent

    I actually read it first, ... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:50:04 PM EST
    ... before commenting on it.

    I should have said I doubt that social liberals can co-exist with the Tea Party conservatives

    Uhhhm ... yeah.  So do I.  So what?  That wasn't my point.


    You still miss the broader point.....

    No, I didn't.  My point was (and is) that the TP is not made up (and motivated by) a monolith of religious fundamentalists, as you claimed.  Not sure how I can spell it out any clearer than that.

    It's really not a difficult concept.

    Parent

    You're not one of those (none / 0) (#113)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:23:09 PM EST
    disaffected Democrats who were saying back in 2008 that Palin really was pro-choice, are you?

    Parent
    Uh ..... no (none / 0) (#114)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:25:28 PM EST
    ... but nice try.

    Parent
    Did you read this from the article (none / 0) (#115)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:26:25 PM EST
    you link to:

    Devoutly religious conservatives comprise 22.5% of the Tea Party and are its fastest growing segment.

    The Tea Party is not static....Bury your head if you wish.....

    Parent

    Or this: (none / 0) (#116)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:29:08 PM EST

    The rising prominence of religious conservatives within the movement, highlighted by recent religious right rhetoric from several prominent figures affiliated with the Tea Party, appears to be driving away libertarians and others.

    What I said....

    Parent

    Dude, the article (none / 0) (#117)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:32:46 PM EST
    supports my theory.....Leaders taking it in a socially conservative direction....

    And, I did not read the article until after my posts above....

    I am up on my social conservatism.......

    Parent

    "Dude" - I know (none / 0) (#121)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:38:54 PM EST
    I actually read the article, before commenting on it.

    My point was that the TP is not (contrary to your claims) monolithically motivated by a fundamental religious agenda, and that social issues take a distant back seat with most TPers when compared to economic issues.  Yes, fundies have been moving over to the TP, but they make up only 22.5% of the party, as opposed to the 17% who are Libertarians, or the 50.5% who are neither.

    Parent

    economic issues.. (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 04:44:04 PM EST
    where are the indications, other than a poll result, that show that any of these people spend a lot of time passionately engaged with economic issues?

    Parent
    Who said that they ... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 09:20:32 PM EST
    " ... spent a lot of time passionately engaged with economic issues"?  My point was that the TPers are not (as a whole) motivated by a religious agenda, as MKS was claiming.  The polls clearly show they are united on economic issues (i.e. conservative), but split on social issues, and that the economy and jobs far outweigh any social issues on their list of priorities.  If you want to know what issues are most important to people, you have to ask them, so I'm not sure what other evidence you're looking for.

    Parent
    "Fundies" (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:58:58 PM EST
    That term can miss the point.  It is not just fundamentalist Evangelicals....

    It is a cultural, reactionary force that cloaks its discomfort with modernity in religious terms....

    I would not call Gingrich a "Fundie" but there he goes today....talking about Obama's "secular" agenda.

    I have spent a lot of time on this issue and would be happy to discuss it a non-competitive format...where one is not trying to "win" an argument....

    This is a very important aspect of our politics....I disagree that the religious conservatives are not driving the Republican Party, and its wholly owned subsidiary the Tea Party.  Many seem to think that the time of the religious conservatives has passed--as would be indicated by use of the term "fundie," which is a bit dated.

    The religious conservatives are being passed by and they know it...but that does not mean they will not put up one heck of a fight....And Sarah Palin represents them....and she is by many accounts the de facto leader of the Tea Party....

    Parent

    Yeah .... "fundies" (none / 0) (#125)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 06:18:51 PM EST
    I have spent a lot of time on this issue and would be happy to discuss it a non-competitive format...where one is not trying to "win" an argument....

    Congrats.

    This is a very important aspect of our politics....I disagree that the religious conservatives are not driving the Republican Party, and its wholly owned subsidiary the Tea Party.

    You're disagreeing with someone else.  "Driving the Republican/TP" is a whole different claim than stating that the TP as a whole is "all about religion--as framed by social conservatives....The Tea Baggers are religious conservatives.....The economy is the thing they are talking about--but what motivates them, and their goals, are conservative religious issues....."

    Many seem to think that the time of the religious conservatives has passed--as would be indicated by use of the term "fundie," which is a bit dated.

    Using the word "fundie" is "dated" and suggests I think that the time of the social conservative has passed?  Pffffftt ... thanks for the creative interpretation, "Doc".  I think I'm starting to understand where all those "theories" are coming from.  Sorry, "dude", but "Cloaked Cultural Reactionary Force" is too much typing.  Plus, ...

    ... I can't say it without laughing.

    Parent

    Well, I tried to make nice (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 06:22:32 PM EST


    Parent
    The problem isn't (none / 0) (#69)
    by TomStewart on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:54:27 PM EST
    that people don't care were relief comes from, the problem is voting for the Republicans and thinking they'll get relief there. Won't happen. The republicans will do what they always do: stall reform, cut taxes for the rich and business, and tell people how they should be thanking them for the misery they cause.

    Parent
    But they won't get relief voting for (none / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 08:13:01 PM EST
    the Democrats either they have learned, at least the swing voters have learned that.  And the swing and the indies for the most part decide most elections in this country.

    Parent
    Easy now Tracy... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:08:05 AM EST
    squeaky has a good point...when people are struggling they aren't thinking straight...the temptation is never greater to sign their life and liberty away for temporary relief.

    Parent
    Or (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:10:03 AM EST
    People are feeling like that guy in Network, and are very clear on what they feel - they're "as mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore."

    I may not agree with everyone who is going to vote for a Republican candidate this year, but to classify them all as children taking a temper tantrum is positively ridiculous.

    Parent

    ... and they're not looking for "candy" (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:20:19 AM EST
    ... they're looking for basics - jobs, food, healthcare, homes, etc.  I'm not talking about the teapartiers - who would be unhappy no matter what this administration did/did not do.  There are a lot of reasonable people who are looking at what this administration promised and comparing it to the results and deciding to stay home.

    To compare them to "children" whining for a superfluous treat or waiting for "mommy and daddy to fix things" bespeaks a certain level of arrogance.

    Parent

    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by CST on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:06:17 PM EST
    If you want a job, and food, and healthcare, and a home - and the way you think to get that is by cutting funding for jobs, food, healthcare, and housing - how exactly does that make you a "reasonable person"?

    If you're sitting at home, then you're waiting for someone else to fix things.

    Parent

    Easy (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:21:04 PM EST
    The same reason you wouldn't stay with a doctor that lies and mistreats you.  The quack down the hall may be worse, but a reasonable person may just decide to skip their appointment, or find a new doctor.

    Parent
    What should be happening is for (5.00 / 8) (#68)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:29:07 PM EST
    someone in a leadership capacity to look at the clamoring of the people for relief from economic hardship juxtaposed against the on-going foot-stomping and blackmailing by the already-taxpayer-assisted-and-bloated corporatocracy for preservation of their extremely financially rewarding racket, and decide that it's the people's turn.

    When someone hasn't worked in several years, has lost or is losing his or her home, has had no relief from skyrocketing health insurance costs, has seen wages stagnate, lost value in their retirement, wanting help is not the equivalent of demanding candy or a second-helping of dessert, but is about staying alive with some reasonable quality of life.

    Honestly, sometimes I think people say the things they do just for the fun of stirring things up.


    Parent

    yeah (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:21:07 AM EST
    and an end to voter intimidation by black panthers

    Parent
    The teapartiers? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:32:59 AM EST
    They're conservatives who would demagogue and vote R no matter what.

    There's a reason that Democratic participation in this year's primaries is at a record low, and it's not the wingers and their racist fairy tales.

    Parent

    of course there is (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:34:40 AM EST
    that is not what I was talking about.  I was talking about those people walking around with signs who are serious and informed and know exactly what they want.


    Parent
    Read it again (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:43:36 AM EST
    I specifically said I wasn't talking about the wingers/teapartiers, but the Independants/Dems who are angry about what this administration has/hasn't done, yet you feel justified in comparing them to ignorant teapartiers with Black Panther fairy tales, as if those people are representative of the whole.

    There's a reason Dems are staying home, and it's not the Tea Party fairy tales.

    Parent

    People know they are angry... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:23:04 AM EST
    I'm not so sure they know what they are angry about.

    Sh*t, if all the anger brings about is a brand switch at the polls this year, that pretty much proves they don't know what they are angry about and are having a child-like temper tantrum...they're voting for the same sh&t or worse, at least on economic issues.

    Parent

    Our President is a liar too (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    about all the facts that are shaping what is economically going on.  Lately he has been a bald faced liar.  Journalists have to drag the facts out from under the fangs of snarling animals right now.  Nobody wants the people to know the facts, not the Republicans and not the Democrats.  If my son wasn't disabled kdog I wouldn't know what I know.  They have made it impossible for citizens to REALLY understand and they are fighting to keep it that way and I'm not going to go around busting the heads of the people because I don't have the time and they don't deserve it.  It takes everything I have left over everyday just to try to find out the facts surrounding our current economic situation.

    Parent
    yeah? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:18:11 AM EST
    watch this clip and then tell me that.

    Parent
    There's wingers in every election (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:28:11 AM EST
    A few, ignorant teapartiers are hardly representative of all those who will be sitting out or voting Republican this election.  A lot of Independant/Democratic voters will not be turning out (or will be voting R) specifically because of what this administration and Congress failed to do, on a wide number of issues, including the economy.

    Parent
    you know (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:30:30 AM EST
    I keep hearing that.  but I have yet to actually see one of these mythical creatures.  the only ones that ever turn up to be caught on tape are the whack jobs.

    Parent
    "Mythical"? (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    The record number of Dems who aren't voting aren't on tape because they're sitting at home.

    Parent
    See (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:30:35 AM EST
    That point gets lost around here sometimes.  If you don't automatically agree with the "correct" pundits and journalists, or take everything they report or show as gospel, you are labeled "Republican" by some.

    Hackery is hackery, no matter who it is.  If it's not acceptable for the Becks and O'Reillys of the world, then it's not acceptable for the Maddows and Olbermanns either.

    Parent

    Snort! (2.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:24:27 AM EST
    Rachel Maddow!

    Ha!

    Of course, you can always find people to get in front of a camera and say stupid things.

    Parent

    how very republican of you (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:25:28 AM EST
    to attack the messenger

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    Just like you automatically attack a Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck.

    Maddow is a hack who likes her junior high humor. She may have a PhD, but her show is dumb.

    And I notice you can't disagree with people of all persuasions saying stupid stuff (or believing it).

    Parent

    Maddow, tho you and your ilk (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:28:53 AM EST
    hate it, is a journalist.  she is doing the best work being broadcast and called news.

    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:31:15 AM EST
    The that's the low bar you want to set for your world as "journalism", so be it.

    Parent
    show me (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:32:10 AM EST
    better

    Parent
    That's the problem (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:33:32 AM EST
    Everyone on cable "news" is a hack.  That's why you need to read a variety of sources and get lots of different points of view, and think for yourself.

    I don't need Rachel Maddow to tell me her pronouncements.

    Parent

    actually (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:35:28 AM EST
    that clip was 100% pronouncement free.  she let them talk.


    Parent
    a variety (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:42:17 AM EST
    unless that includes rachel maddow i guess...

    You don't need to watch to make pronouncements about her show apparently.

    Parent

    I've watched (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:43:17 AM EST
    But apparently you too can make pronouncements without knowing me or what you're talking about.

    Parent
    And I'm not sure (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:31:47 AM EST
    what "my ilk" is?  Someone who thinks for themselves and doesn't follow MSNBC like sheep?

    Parent
    your ilk (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:33:08 AM EST
    is people who say stuff like this:

    Someone who thinks for themselves and doesn't follow MSNBC like sheep?


    Parent
    Ah (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:33:54 AM EST
    You don't like independent thinkers.

    Got it.

    Parent

    also (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:31:46 AM EST
    ftr she did not really seem to be cherry picking did she.  she just walked into a crowd of them and started asking questions.


    Parent
    Really? You are clearly coming at this (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 01:39:06 PM EST
    from a moderate or conservative tack, then.  

    Maddow is rasing a lot of issues that no one else rasises...

    But, perhaps it is the old score card.  Those who opposed a certain someone in the Primary are on the list....

     

    Parent

    So, does that mean you are supporting (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    the Republicans this time around?

    Parent
    I'm easy (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:12:50 AM EST
    squeaky only needs to run if we are in the same room together, whew....that didn't happen :)

    People don't think straight when they are suffering and they told too bad, and when your own President won't even fight for you and for what is just and the right thing and what is humane....I think that President invites organized insanity like we are seeing.  I know that all human beings aren't dreamy loving beings once their needs are met, but people are in crisis right now and nobody who is a leader gives a $hit.  This is a horrible thing to witness.

    Parent

    Wow (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:44:06 AM EST
    A blow hard to boot. Pumped up and full of it.

    Better bring your guns, you will need them.... lol

    Parent

    I don't own a gun (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:46:22 AM EST
    So feel free to bring your backstabbing knife with you. You won't be bringing a knife to gun fight :)

    Parent
    Backstabbing? (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:50:50 AM EST
    You are the backstabber. I have only been direct with you, apparently you need to talk trash indirectly.

    You are really puffing yourself up, not scary to me at all, sad though.

    Parent

    Site violator (none / 0) (#127)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 06:29:08 PM EST
    First and foremost, you may not post material that:
        * violates any local, state, national, or international law
        * contains or advocates illegal or violent acts
        * is predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass

    By commenting here, you understand and agree that we are not responsible for any user submitted content. You further understand that we have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor submissions and we may remove content that we deem inappropriate for any reason whatsoever without consent. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site.  More details:
        * Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments.



    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by waldenpond on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 07:49:30 PM EST
    Dont' bother.  Squeaky is considered a long-timer and allowed to abuse at will and though forced to take a break with the elections will never be banned.  Squeaks is the only person free to use the n-word.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 08:04:02 PM EST
    Looks like your moderation skills are back to the level they were during the primary. MT gets a pass with threats and name calling, and I am the site violator?  lol

    Nostalgic.

    Parent

    Know nothing (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by waldenpond on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 08:25:22 PM EST
    What moderation are you talking about?  I don't moderate.  If someone writes site violator and it is I will delete it, but I no longer moderate.

    Your know nothing skills are at peak after a brief respite and your lols are, as always, misplaced.

    Resume your stalking.

    Parent

    Stalking? (none / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 08:29:35 PM EST
    If you want a private conversation take it to email, please.

    As for moderation, your ability to delete comments makes you a moderator. If you do not like having that power, give it up.

    Parent

    "Bring a gun" to THIS blog (none / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 12:13:31 AM EST
    is particularly appalling, isn't it?  

    I must have missed the "abuse at will" exception in the comment policy -- or it must need revising for inclusion of this clause that . . . well, makes the entire policy moot.    

    Parent

    Threat (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 12:37:45 AM EST
    squeaky only needs to run if we are in the same room together

    And this blog happens to be pro gun rights...  

    Parent

    Fainting Couch Again? (none / 0) (#129)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 07:40:59 PM EST
    Don't worry Cream City, MilitaryTracy's threats don't scare me, nor do your silly games.

    Nice try though.....  lol

    Parent

    Ignoring (none / 0) (#158)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 08:14:12 PM EST
    When you're powerless to actually stop the childish behavior, the best idea is probably to ignore it.

    The reaction is what the child is working for.  If they don't get it, they'll soon get bored and go away.

    Just ignore....or laugh.  Because I'm sitting here and watching it, and on some level it's quite funny...and very much like many of the spoiled brats I've experienced.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#159)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 08:56:37 PM EST
    Looks like your hypocrisy has not gone into remission. It is hilarious to watch you making personal attacks on me while jumping on the pile of those who say that I do not have to follow site rules.

    I guess we go way back, and you need to get your licks in...  bet it makes you feel good.

    Parent

    Your energy would've been better spent (none / 0) (#174)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 09:22:01 AM EST
    composing and sending an e-mail to Ms. Merritt if you truly believe that the policies you quote were violated by anyone on this thread.

    Parent
    Cream City (none / 0) (#175)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Oct 31, 2010 at 09:22:26 AM EST


    Parent
    I think you are absolutley correct (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:56:16 AM EST
    all the tea party lacks so far is a Fuhrer

    Parent
    True, and (none / 0) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:58:29 AM EST
    to carry out the example making it comparable to the economy, the parent would slit the child's throat to get silence.

    Parent
    the only people in the entire (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:41:51 AM EST
    country who think compromise is a good thing seem to be in the white house.
    I think the paralysis (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:49:17 AM EST
    will get old for people.  But who in the end gets blamed for that is up to the participants.  

    But this from yesterday's conversation does not inspire me:

    Q    Mr. President, you've said that you want to work with Republicans after the election, but there's probably a pretty good chance that they're not going to advance with you.  Is there sort of a breaking point you have of where you try to work with them and they just refuse to budge, which they've indicated so far?  Is there a breaking point for you just like you're going to have to go off on your own and find a way around them?

        THE PRESIDENT:  Look, the -- I'm a pretty stubborn guy when it comes to, on the one hand, trying to get cooperation.  I don't give up just because I didn't get cooperation on this issue; I'll try the next issue.  If the Republicans don't agree with me on fiscal policy, maybe they'll agree with me on infrastructure.  If they don't agree with me on infrastructure, I'll try to see if they agree with me on education.

        So I'm just going to keep on trying to see where they want to move the country forward.

    We're just going to flip through the issues until we find one that the Republicans want to work on?  Yeah...that'll happen...

    please sir (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:52:23 AM EST
    may I have some more?

    Parent
    I'm stuborn when it comes to trying to (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:56:14 AM EST
    find a way to compromise. Does he even listen to himself?

    Parent
    No kidding (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:58:44 AM EST
    a 12 step group or something, his addiction to compromise is destroying people's lives and the things they have spent a lifetime working for.  He sounds like he has lost his mind talking like that at this time with unemployment where it is and no extension in sight now.  We haven't even talked about foreclosures yet.

    Parent
    seriously (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:57:05 AM EST


    Parent
    It may happen (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by cal1942 on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:22:05 AM EST
    on Social Security.

    That's what sends chills up my spine.

    The GOP may well take up the destruction of Social Security and I fear Obama will go along with them and label it a bi-partisan compromise to "save" Social Security.

    Content appears to have little meaning to him.  It's all about getting an assignment done.

    He got healthcare done; never mind that it was the Bob Dole plan.

    He was the worst possible Democratic candidate.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:52:35 AM EST
    Everything is in place to allow dismantling programs like Social Security. Think it will be not be a quick dismantling of the programs but "fixing" them so that they don't work for the majority of people and they eventually become highly unpopular.

    Parent
    stunning (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:51:16 AM EST
    and completely unbelievable.


    Parent
    I'm starting to despair that so many (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:58:09 AM EST
    reasonably intelligent and influential people seem to have been watching an entirely different world from me over the last 30 years.

    You are just ahead of the curve (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:01:05 AM EST
    I doubt many curves sneak up on you.  I feel sorry for those who are refusing to see the baseball bat swinging directly for us.  They aren't going to take the future very well.  They are not prepared and there aren't many more bubbles to float around on, not for all of us or even a significant portion of us.

    Parent
    thats the really frightening part (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:02:55 AM EST
    They aren't going to take the future very well.

    no, they are not.


    Parent

    thanks! I do have my blind spots (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 01:55:02 PM EST
    but they do not include the effectiveness of the Republicans' 'don't back down' approach.

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#34)
    by cal1942 on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:27:13 AM EST
    I have the same feeling but then I remember that for the nation's elites (the influential - let's leave reasonably intelligent out of this)everything has been just peachy dandy for the last 30 years.

    Parent
    Fantasy Politics (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:11:22 AM EST
    There is a fantasy of the moderate, balanced, independent voter who wants to see this compromise.  We constantly play to this voter, who in truth is a construct of the pundits.  It rivals the online fantasy sports.  

    Bob Dylan said it, you have to serve somebody.  The voters wanted a nice tidy story of who makes them suffer and a quick idea how you gonna fix it.  We had the story and we did not even have to lie about it, yet, they got sold a twisted tale by the right wing.  

    We, the Dems, want to appeal to reason and think that telling stories is beneath us.  Bunk.  Weave a great story of who the bad guys are and they will follow.  We have focused on the Independent voters and the moderates.  

    Good guys and bad guys.  Now, the bad guys are us, how did that happen?   Well, we sat around and confused everyone with nuance, focus groups and fear of being populist (starting a class war), so instead we let them do it the old way: Race, xenophobia and nationalism.  

    When will our side get it?  

    You're too smart to be that good looking ... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Ellie on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:49:16 AM EST
    This is so spot on.

    I had to laugh last night during a "serious" note on the Daily Show, when Obama's and Jon Stewart's mutual reach-around lamented about how Washington -- the world of politics generally -- was "broken" and "how do we fix it."

    Oh come on.

    There was self-preciousing Stewart, presenting himself as the restorer of sanity, taking yet another unfair whack at Code Pink.

    And a whiny-sounding Obama complaining about obstructionist a$$h0le Repugs and the filibuster -- but neglecting to account for why Dems who got elected with Dem bux couldn't overcome that "obstructionism", nor the fabled current CinC Whatzizname, whose unparalleled Exec Power during 2x-wartimes required no explanation.

    It was just infantile.

    Parent

    Stewart is being a dope (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 01:19:20 PM EST
    it's as if the left got anything out of anything.  All we did is give it all to the Obama guys on the first date and then we got whiny cause he did not call the day after.  

    Honestly, if we only had a real left with a nice populist angry voice we would have gotten somewhere.  

    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#72)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 01:37:40 PM EST
    there is one, Russ Feingold. His chances at staying in office are dwindling fast.

    Parent
    if he loses (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 02:10:54 PM EST
    I could totally see a primary in 12

    Parent
    If he (none / 0) (#131)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 07:54:19 PM EST
    loses Tuesday, he better move move to New York or California if he wants to hold a statewide office. Nationwide? No chance.

    Parent
    he might just be (none / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 08:08:10 AM EST
    the lefty guy to threaten O with to entice him to come back to the light.

    Parent
    Nice thought (none / 0) (#133)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 08:06:42 PM EST
    Don't think there is even the slightest chance that Obama will receive a Democratic primary challenge.

    Parent
    Nope, he'll be at a think tank (none / 0) (#163)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 11:16:08 PM EST
    or in academe or nicely encsconced back in law practice by then.  And when people of sound, good minds get away from politics for a while, they often realize its addictive nature -- and the rest-and-recovery is so welcome that they don't go back.

    Parent
    Omg yes (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:05:54 PM EST
    Afraid to be populist in these times- no better example of political ineptitude.

    Parent
    We're partly to blame... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 02:19:52 PM EST
    it's our job to make them afraid...judging by the policy we got, the only people scaring Brand D the last two years were masters of the universe and tea-partiers.  

    We needed to be in the streets like the French, or rallying like the Tea Party...Obama and Congress ain't the only ones sleeping on the job...if citizens could be fired, by all rights many of us here on the left-leaning side deserve pink slips too.

    Parent

    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 03:55:05 PM EST
    If we are only "whining" on blogs and TV it is easier to be written off.

    Parent
    Blogging Broders | 178 comments (178 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment