Shame and (Self) Loathing in Politics

[Cool Hand]

I'm so ashamed. I'm not ashamed of myself; I'm ashamed of my party and to whom it panders. I'm doing some serious political existentialist thinking, and I'm considering abandoning any party affiliation altogether.

Allow me to explain. I grew up in a semi-affluent household headed by a professional. I was reared to enter a profession; it stuck. Both my siblings are professionals, as am I. My hometown, in which I have lived exclusively except for 7 years while I attended out of state schools, and for a 6 week period abroad, has played a large role in my political affiliation. My hometown is populated by an inordinate number of highly educated rocket scientists (literally--that's why it's called "The Rocket City"). Two or three generations after Dr. Werner von Braun's original rocket scientists arrived from Germany, we have their descendents, literally and figuratively, engaged in more of the same, and also in avionics, electronics in a broader sense, optics, and computer hardware and software. As one might guess, such demographics skews the city's politics to the right.

Thus, I was bound to become a ....a.....Republican. All snickering aside, I am very much a Republican of the P.J. O'Rourke libertarian stripe, not of the old-money fuck-anyone-without-a-trust-fund stripe. Remember that O'Rourke used to be a dope-smoking hippie journalist for Rolling Stone magazine. Now he writes for The Atlantic Monthly. Now he appears for the right on Bill Maher's show (whatever it's called this week).

(Irrelevant aside: I met O'Rourke on a plane about 4 years ago. As I was boarding, I noticed him seated and reading a paper just to my right. I tapped him lightly on the arm and said "Hey, I really like your books." He looked up from his paper, smiled, and said graciously, "Oh. Thank you.")

Back to the topic. I'm ashamed because my candidate is a poor speaker and thinker on his feet. He is no debater. After watching as much of the Friday night debate as I could stomach, I was ashamed again. It wasn't so much that Kerry beat Bush in the debate as much as it was that Bush beat himself. Bush is right about many of his criticisms of Kerry, and listening to Kerry makes me want to throw sharp pointed things at him, but damn it, W just sucks at public speaking (I didn't even vote for him in 2000. I voted for Harry Browne as a vote for the viability of third parties in general, and as a sort of no confidence vote against Bush. Let's be real; I'm not anti-conservative enough even to consider casting a vote for Gore/nostalgia vote for the Clintons).

I'm ashamed because W, like most politicians, panders to what his handlers tell him is his core constituency. In this case, apparently his handlers (OK, Karl Grove) tell him to pander to the religious right. Thus, we hear him drop certain key buzzwords into his speeches and debate "talking points." I offer as illustrations "Dred Scott decision," "sanctity of marriage," and "stem-cell research." These are all bullshit rhetorical devices designed to awaken strong, deep-seated fears and beliefs in the target audience. It's demagoguery. Ugh.

I'm ashamed because my political cherry has been burst this year with my agreeing to serve in my friend's campaign for local district attorney. He is running as a Republican against the two-term incumbent Democrat. My friend is a terrific guy; he also happens to be a poster child for local Republican Party politics. He's married to a full-time wife and mother of three young children, he attends local high school football games every Friday night, and he's active in his church and loves Jesus (never mind that he's from upstate New York and we live in Alabama).

This campaigning business caused me to find myself at a small chapter meeting of the Republican Party at 8 a.m. on Saturday. The speaker was my state's new attorney general. He is a professional colleague of my own age, give or take a year, from my own state, and he and I are members of the same party. Nevertheless, we could not be more different in our beliefs, or at least those that we profess. Although Troy King is a very skilled and engaging speaker, I cringed each time I heard him drop a political buzzword into one of his carefully crafted, down home stories. I cringed also because I disagree strongly with nearly every political point he made on Saturday, except for the non-partisan belief that our citizens shouldn't go around murdering (did he actually say "assassinating?") our local sheriffs (conveniently nodding to our own sheriff two feet away from him).

In particular, I cringed at King's boasting that The Washington Post noted in its pages that he was the first state attorney general to proclaim that he would advise his state not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states (Massachusetts for now of course, which plays well for the anti-Kennedy, anti-Kerry crowd, and is conveniently relevant and topical). I don't know when the Post mentioned him and his public stance, but this is essentially what he said at Saturday's breakfast meeting:

"We don't think that Alabama has any obligation to recognize homosexual marriages," King said in an interview. "State law would prevent us from doing that." If a same-sex couple married in another state moves to Alabama and then files a joint state tax return, that will be challenged, he said. "I would advise the Revenue Department they're not entitled to do that," King said. "Those marriages are not valid as marriages in the state of Alabama." Another issue that could arise is spousal benefits, in areas such as Social Security or worker's compensation. "Anywhere that a spouse attains benefits under state law could be impacted," King said. "They're not spouses. We will be there to defend state law."

The Birmingham News, May 18, 2004, online at Troy King article (http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1084871715225180.xml)

This struck me as nearly identical to what W said on Friday about same sex marriages. States are not required to recognize marriages from other states (Did W's people get this from King's people?). My jaw nearly hit the floor when I heard W say it on Friday, and again when I heard Mr. King say it on Saturday. Such a notion should be preposterous to any student of the Constitution, and particularly so to any 2nd-year law school student studying constitutional law. Here's why.

Article IV, Section 1, U.S. Constitution states in pertinent part:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State;"

This is widely-known as the "full faith and credit" clause. It means precisely the opposite of what W and Mr. King claim the law allows and/or requires states to do. It means that state-sanctioned marriages, which definitely fall under the category of public acts and records of states, must be recognized by all other states. I counted no less than 7 other lawyers that I know, besides Mr. King, in the room on Saturday. That he could make such a ridiculously and patently false claim while looking us directly in the eye was astonishing. It's astonishing to me not only that he could speak so insincerely while sounding so genuine and folksy, but also that I could find such remarks from a known politician to be remarkable. I was as astonished at my political naivete as I was at his ease with the insincere. I was astonished also that he would actually boast about arriving at such a conclusion, and about being derided for it in such a respected and renowned newspaper as The Washington Post.

I was also reminded of how repulsed I was upon hearing former Chief Justice Roy Moore (thank reason for his being "former") use the same tired and unsophisticated states' rights argument that didn't work when George Wallace used it in 1964.

Thus, against this backdrop, I find myself shaking my head in disgust. I'm disgusted not only by my party, but also because I have been fighting a losing battle. Because I was reared in a city that is quite anomalous within the state, in one that is actually very progressive not only technologically, but also socially--at least compared to other cities in the state and region--I found myself defending against the tired, old stereotypes so many people outside the Southern U.S. seem to harbor about Alabama. I believed the arguments I used in defense of my contention that Alabama is not quite as backwards as everyone seems to believe, that it has actually moved out of the 1930s and into the ....1970s.

While I was vigorously defending my state against such stereotypes, along came Roy Moore to play into every one of them, and now along comes Troy King to pick up that banner and do more of the same in Moore's absence. Enough, goddamn it!

Shit. Personal obligations require that I maintain the front and the good fight throughout this election. I must see that my friend gets elected. After that, however, I suspect I will find myself to be a Man Without a Party.

I can't stomach Republicans anymore. I can't stomach Democrats even more, so I'll content myself with remaining firmly on the sidelines from now on. I envy P.J. I want to be able to poke fun at the lot of them honestly and sincerely, while remaining true to my principles and beliefs. It would be gravy if I were paid as handsomely for doing so as he is. I have just experienced the very quick birth and death of myself as a politico. Hell, I've always poked fun at politicos of all stripes anyway, so it's really no big deal. In fact, I'm quite relieved, as I was never comfortable wearing those stripes.

Cool Hand

[Godless Dave]

Here's the thing. Bush doesn't pander to the religious right. He is the religious right. The Republican Party you and P.J. O'Rourke want to belong to doesn't exist, and hasn't existed for 30 years (if it ever really did).

The modern GOP hates civil liberties, you got that? It doesn't support free enterprise either. It supports giant monopolies run by billionaires who trade favors with powerful political bosses.

The modern GOP is not for small government. They are for taking taxpayer money to give to billionaire corporations.

The modern GOP is not strong on national security. They are strong on giving taxpayer money to giant corporations in exchange for expensive weapons systems that don't work.

The modern GOP is the party of the Christian right. If you are a non-Christian and you vote Republican, you may as well lock yourself in a room and open a cylinder of Zyklone gas, because that is exactly what you are voting for.

[Farren]

I love PJ O Rourke. I have three of his books on my bookshelf, the most salient to this discussion being "Age and Wisdom Beat Youth and a Bad Haircut".

The thing is, I don't think his political thinking has evolved to something better. I think its devolved to something worse. The fact that I'm willing to give him a pass for his wit doesn't skew my feelings on that score.

Everything he's written "post conversion" is just justification for his own greed. His shift to the right seems entirely predicated on his own financial success, confirming my deeply held belief that a lot of libertarian economics is just unconscious self-vindication.

Rather than working from the premises to the conclusion, O'Rourke tries to find ways (humorously) to distort logic to make the premises fit the desired conclusion.

His motives are undisguised when he describes the joy of wrecking the environment in an SUV in the south of Wales, without apology and with the explicit concession that he is wrecking the environment, but so what? we need a bit of Bacchanalian release!

Its this "Fuck you I wanna so I'm gonna!" quality in O' Rourkes writing that appeals to the child in me, in the same way I delight in the brattish screeds of Hunter S. Thompson. Thank God for artists like them.

But good fiction and humour is not necessarily good politics. The very fact that much of O' Rourkes humour relies on self-satirisation bears witness to the fundamental failure of the political ideology to which he subscribes.

[Kamen]

Both parties are steeped in corruption and pandering. Religious Right and big business for the Republicans, unions and minorities for the Democrats.

I suspect that due to the way elections are now financed, that will not change without significant reform. If candidates were prohibited to accept money for their campaigns, and instead were granted weekly television airtime, then perhaps influence of these groups would be minimized. However both parties must support candidates that will appeal to their respective platforms if they are to survive. Witness the success of Kucinich, Gephardt and other candidates that have stellar records and good ideas, but alienated some of the party core.

I keep hoping for a Sister Souljah moment from anyone, anyone at all. It is impossible, the party machines are too successful.

I know many very reasonable people who are passionate in their party affiliations, even though they disagree with some features of the platforms. One of the reasons they do it is loathing of the other party's position. We became a nation of "at least he is not as bad as the other guy" voters.

I do not know if there is a way out. I am a registered Independent, and vote based on specific election issues, not along party lines. I do not think third parties are currently viable with the current structure heavily favoring both major parties.

One day I thought McCain and Lieberman might form a "Common Sense" party, but it has not yet happened. What we really need is a new Teddy Roosevelt.

Cool Hand, good luck to your friend.

Godless Dave, I think the Zyklon gas rhetoric is unwarranted, just as I think it is unwarranted to say if you vote for Democrats, the terrorists will strike again. It is this kind of rhetoric that alienates reasonable people from productive communication and common ground.

[dave_a]

I used to be a republican as well. I was the republican that exists only on paper and once I realized the actual party didn't bear any actual resemblance to the theoretical party I stopped being a republican.

Being libertarian is about the best I can do at this point because I am definitely rightist/centrist on economic issues although my labelling myself libertarian probably is only possible because they don't hold any major offices. If they did and they actually tried to advance some of their extremist stuff I would have to disown them too.

So, economically conservative/socially liberal is about the best I can come up with and there really isn't a good party in the US to represent that.

Anyway, I can relate to your disillusionment with the republican party. And I can't blame you for not finding the democratic party much better, I certainly don't. I will probably vote for Kerry this year, but it's definitely not a pro Kerry vote, it's more of an "uggghhh, why can't there be a better choice?" type vote.

[Kamen]

I used to be a republican as well. I was the republican that exists only on paper and once I realized the actual party didn't bear any actual resemblance to the theoretical party I stopped being a republican.


That is an excellent point. I relate to and respect the ideals of self determination, achievement, individual rights that Republican party stands for. It is when Santorum claims gay marriage is terrorism, when they try to amend the Constitution on that issue, when they vote for the Patriot Act, and so on and so forth that I realize the dreadful state of the party.

I believe that power corrupts, and is self perpetuating. Witness the multitude of Gingrich Republicans who ran on term limits in 1994, and then recanted because they now claimed they were experts in their individual fields and could do a better jon than newcomers. No matter which party stays in power, they will take measures to keep themselves there, even if it violates the basic premises of that party's platform.

[Socratoad]

I love PJ O Rourke. I have three of his books on my bookshelf, the most salient to this discussion being "Age and Wisdom Beat Youth and a Bad Haircut".

The thing is, I don't think his political thinking has evolved to something better. I think its devolved to something worse. The fact that I'm willing to give him a pass for his wit doesn't skew my feelings on that score.

Everything he's written "post conversion" is just justification for his own greed. His shift to the right seems entirely predicated on his own financial success, confirming my deeply held belief that a lot of libertarian economics is just unconscious self-vindication.

Rather than working from the premises to the conclusion, O'Rourke tries to find ways (humorously) to distort logic to make the premises fit the desired conclusion.

His motives are undisguised when he describes the joy of wrecking the environment in an SUV in the south of Wales, without apology and with the explicit concession that he is wrecking the environment, but so what? we need a bit of Bacchanalian release!

Its this "Fuck you I wanna so I'm gonna!" quality in O' Rourke's writing that appeals to the child in me, in the same way I delight in the brattish screeds of Hunter S. Thompson. Thank God for artists like them.

But good fiction and humour is not necessarily good politics. The very fact that much of O' Rourkes humour relies on self-satirisation bears witness to the fundamental failure of the political ideology to which he subscribes.

I'll make this short: O' Rourke is one self-aggrandizing sick fuck. The fact that he has a certain facility for "seemingly" self-deprecating humour does not change this one iota.

[Dingfod]

I tossed my vote away in 2000 to Harry Browne myself, not so much because I'm a Libertarian, but in protest over the seriously disappointing choices the two parties had given us. I mean, really; Gore and Bush are the very best these two parties could do? I haven't voted for a winning President since my dope-smoking long-haired hippie days when I voted for Jimmy Carter. In fact, I haven't voted for a Democrat or a Republican for President since then.

I am not a Libertarian, but I am a libertarian. The difference between my views and a big-L Libertarian is only incremental. I am very much a social libertarian and all the freedoms that entails. However, I think there is a responsibility we have as a society, whether it is spelled out in the almighty Constitution or not, a responsibility to care for our fellow man and to make policy that advances society as a whole. It takes money to pay for that, tax money, which seems to be abhorent to the average Libertarian.

[livius drusus]

Thank you for a really great OP, Cool Hand.

Your reaction to King's speech reminds of my own to Bill Maher's show last week. The Republican lieutenant governor of Maryland (I think) was on, and all he did was drone eternally hitting every possible cliche and talking point they taught him in Be A Good Company Man Shill school. It was unbearable; even Bill had a hard time breaking through the wall of meaningless sound.

I've tended to vote Democrat (voted for Nader in 2000) but I don't buy their crap either. Not because of the constituencies they are putatively beholden to - thanks to the sliver of a political spectrum we're left with in this country they're just as much corporate shills as anyone else - but because it's all sound and fury signifying nothing as well.

Oh for the days when a Gore Vidal could run for Congress and almost win.... Quoth the livius: nevermore.

I agree with Kamen, btw, about the damage to discourse done by Zyklon B rhetoric or even the O'Rourke is a self-aggrandizing sick fuck rhetoric. Republicans are not Nazis and O'Rourke is as human and therefore nuanced as anyone else.

I think we should leave the degradation of discourse to the politicians. It's all they have, after all.

[wildernesse]

From the OP:
This struck me as nearly identical to what W said on Friday about same sex marriages. States are not required to recognize marriages from other states (Did W's people get this from King's people?). My jaw nearly hit the floor when I heard W say it on Friday, and again when I heard Mr. King say it on Saturday. Such a notion should be preposterous to any student of the Constitution, and particularly so to any 2nd-year law school student studying constitutional law.


No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state's marriage.
[snip]
Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage.
[snip]
Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage.
[snip]
My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about.

The quoted material in the second text box is from Sen. Edwards in the VP Debate (http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html) last week. So it's a common delusion.

Wow, I suddenly made myself feel really bad.

[Kamen]

I agree with Kamen, btw, about the damage to discourse done by Zyklon B rhetoric or even the O'Rourke is a self-aggrandizing sick fuck rhetoric. Republicans are not Nazis and O'Rourke is as human and therefore nuanced as anyone else.

I think we should leave the degradation of discourse to the politicians. It's all they have, after all.

But you phrase it so much nicer :bow: :D



The quoted material in the second text box is from Sen. Edwards in the VP Debate last week. So it's a common delusion.

Wow, I suddenly made myself feel really bad.

John Edwards is relatively conservative for a Democrat, and neither he nor Kerry will stick their necks out for this unpopular issue.

However, I am intrigued by the idea that all states are required to recognize public records from other states. I am trying to think of matters where that does not seem to apply. When I moved state to state, I had to retake my driver's license test to get issued a state specific license. If a public act is against the law in a certain state, does it still have to recognize it? The issue that comes to mind immediately is ownership of runaway slaves in Northern States. Ah, Dredd Scott makes its appearance once again in this thread. Of course that decision was decided on different grounds, as I recall from my history course. It seems that by rush to outlaw gay marriages, states may be shielding themselves from that clause.

[Dingfod]

However, I am intrigued by the idea that all states are required to recognize public records from other states. I am trying to think of matters where that does not seem to apply. When I moved state to state, I had to retake my driver's license test to get issued a state specific license.Yes, but if you are driving in another state, that state recognizes the legality of your driver's license.If a public act is against the law in a certain state, does it still have to recognize it?Not unless you are in that state. Believe me, you can be detained on a warrant from another state even though the offense is perfectly legal in the state you are in. However, whether or not they would be willing to extradite is questionable.The issue that comes to mind immediately is ownership of runaway slaves in Northern States. Ah, Dredd Scott makes its appearance once again in this thread. Of course that decision was decided on different grounds, as I recall from my history course. It seems that by rush to outlaw gay marriages, states may be shielding themselves from that clause.But, didn't the Dred Scott decision reinforce exactly what we are talking about now, other states recognizing rights granted in other states? I don't know, maybe it was merely property rights over rights of blacks to have freedom granted by the state they were in.

[Kamen]

Yes, but if you are driving in another state, that state recognizes the legality of your driver's license.
:doh: You are right, of course. Silly me. :blush:


Not unless you are in that state. Believe me, you can be detained on a warrant from another state even though the offense is perfectly legal in the state you are in. However, whether or not they would be willing to extradite is questionable.
But what about other way around? I can't think of a good scenario, other than gay marriage.


But, didn't the Dred Scott decision reinforce exactly what we are talking about now, other states recognizing rights granted in other states? I don't know, maybe it was merely property rights over rights of blacks to have freedom granted by the state they were in.

Yes, the effect of the Dredd Scott decision was as you state. However I believe it was decided on different grounds, ones of property and individual standing.

Here is a link about some info on the case. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/21.htm

I have a very superficial familiarity with the issues in it, and so do not want to speak out of turn.

I also see I hijacked a perfectly good thread. Sorry, all.

[Socratoad]

O'Rourke is as human and therefore nuanced as anyone else.



Liv, its your board and I shall try to follow the proper etiquette here, although I must admit as too not quite understanding just what this might be.

It may just be me however I cannot see where O Rourke and nuance or nuanced fit into the same sentence.

[livius drusus]

O'Rourke is as human and therefore nuanced as anyone else.

Liv, its your board and I shall try to follow the proper etiquette here, although I must admit as too not quite understanding just what this might be.

I find dehumanizing rhetoric of any kind personally disasteful and ultimately highly damaging to any cause it is used in aid of. You can use such rhetoric as much as you'd like on this board, Socratoad - there are no rules against it; just don't expect me not to call you on it.

It may just be me however I cannot see where O Rourke and nuance or nuanced fit into the same sentence.

He's a person. He eats, shits, fucks like everyone else, and like everyone else, he's an asshole in some ways and a cool guy in others. When you put a black hat on him and paint him with one big, unweildy brush, you reduce his humanity. I could understand that if he had murdered millions in the name of Republicanism or something, but he's just a writer talking shit - sometimes more wittily than others - and that's all.

[wade-w]

However, I am intrigued by the idea that all states are required to recognize public records from other states. I am trying to think of matters where that does not seem to apply. When I moved state to state, I had to retake my driver's license test to get issued a state specific license.
Yes, but if you are driving in another state, that state recognizes the legality of your driver's license.

Actually, not all states require you to retake a driver's license test when you move. When I moved to New Mexico, I went to the DMV, presented my current, valid Georgia license, and was issued a New Mexico license.

[wade-w]

I am not a Libertarian, but I am a libertarian. The difference between my views and a big-L Libertarian is only incremental. I am very much a social libertarian and all the freedoms that entails. However, I think there is a responsibility we have as a society, whether it is spelled out in the almighty Constitution or not, a responsibility to care for our fellow man and to make policy that advances society as a whole. It takes money to pay for that, tax money, which seems to be abhorent to the average Libertarian.

That pretty much sums it up for me as well, warrenly.

[Socratoad]

O'Rourke is as human and therefore nuanced as anyone else.

Liv, its your board and I shall try to follow the proper etiquette here, although I must admit as too not quite understanding just what this might be.

I find dehumanizing rhetoric of any kind personally disasteful and ultimately highly damaging to any cause it is used in aid of. You can use such rhetoric as much as you'd like on this board, Socratoad - there are no rules against it; just don't expect me not to call you on it.

It may just be me however I cannot see where O Rourke and nuance or nuanced fit into the same sentence.

He's a person. He eats, shits, fucks like everyone else, and like everyone else, he's an asshole in some ways and a cool guy in others. When you put a black hat on him and paint him with one big, unweildy brush, you reduce his humanity. I could understand that if he had murdered millions in the name of Republicanism or something, but he's just a writer talking shit - sometimes more wittily than others - and that's all.

Sorry Liv, you're right of course. :blush:

[Godless Dave]

Both parties are steeped in corruption and pandering. Religious Right and big business for the Republicans, unions and minorities for the Democrats.

In other words, the bad guys for the Republicans and the good guys for the Democrats.

Of course there are labor unions and civil rights organizations that scam money from the government and businesses. But even the Teamsters at their worst cannot compare with the graft, theft, and, worst and most important, influence in the process of making and enforcing laws as a single company like Monsanto, General Motors, or Halliburton.

I don't deny there are corrupt and/or power-mad Democratic politicians, and lots of them. But if you think there is some equivalence between Republican corruption and Democratic corruption you need to look again.

Examples:

Telecommunications Act of 1996
Raising of media ownership limits by the FCC
Medicare Reform Act
Bush's environmental laws
Every defense appropriations bill

Godless Dave, I think the Zyklon gas rhetoric is unwarranted, just as I think it is unwarranted to say if you vote for Democrats, the terrorists will strike again. It is this kind of rhetoric that alienates reasonable people from productive communication and common ground.

Any truly reasonable person who has read the Texas State Republican Party platform, which among other things explicitly states that the US is a Christian nation, the national party platform, and read or listened to statements by people like Bush, DeLay, Lott, Inhofe, Santorum, and many others, knows exactly what I'm talking about.

That's even if you aren't familiar with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell.

I am really frustrated with Goldwater-style Republicans who do not realize that their party abandoned them in 1980 if not earlier. I can understand your kind of Republican voting for Bush in 2000 if you were only getting your news from mainstream commercial media and paid only superficial attention. But this year is different. You would have to have been hiding under a rock in a remote desert not to know what Bush and his gang are up to by now.

If you want Goldwater-style candidates you will have to vote Libertarian or Independence.

Was the man who blamed 9/11 on "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way" giving the invocation at the RNC not enough of a wakeup call for you?

[Cool Hand]

Kamen,

Thanks for the kind words for my friend. I hope he wins too. If not, he and his team of close supporters have gotten a great education in running a solid, grass-roots local campaign. I'm not as concerned about the practical application of the knowledge as I am about the insight it has provided me.

I love your term "Sister Souljah moment." I used to refer to her a lot in political discussions, but unfortunately too many persons seem to have forgotten her 15 minutes of infamy.

I agree that we are probably stuck with a two-party system for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the vast middle of the electorate votes against the other guy as often as, if not more often than, it votes for a candidate.

dantonec and Warren,

Yeah, me too.

Liv,

Thanks. I saw some of last week's Real Time with Bill Maher too. I agree that Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland was repetitive and rhetorical. I watched it merely because David Cross was on. I think he is one funny motherfucker, but his political rhetoric from the left is just as tired and worn out as Steele's is from the right.

I agree with you and Kamen about political rhetoric's damaging effect on reasoned discourse.

Wildernesse,

Don't feel so bad. It is amazing how the parties and their candidates can take identical positions on some issues, but spin them in such a way as to look like they are being distinguishable.

On this particular issue, it's not a delusion. It's a deception, plain and simple. No one will speak the truth about the issue--that it is absolutely contrary to the clear, fundamental constitutional principle of full faith and credit. Actually, that principle is essential to conducting interstate commerce and to engaging in interstate travel. Without it, there would be little point in having a "United" States.



Thanks, everyone, for making this thread interesting.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

I don't deny there are corrupt and/or power-mad Democratic politicians, and lots of them. But if you think there is some equivalence between Republican corruption and Democratic corruption you need to look again.


I suggest you examine your own possible biases before declaring that there is no equivalence between Republican and Democratic corruption. Corruption in politics is corruption. It does not bear a party name.



Any truly reasonable person who has read the Texas State Republican Party platform, which among other things explicitly states that the US is a Christian nation, the national party platform, and read or listened to statements by people like Bush, DeLay, Lott, Inhofe, Santorum, and many others, knows exactly what I'm talking about.


I suspect that anyone who knows exactly what you are talking about shares the same prejudices against Republicans and the same biases in favor of Democrats that you apparently do. Come on now, "any truly reasonable person?" You don't see this as a rhetorical device?



I am really frustrated with Goldwater-style Republicans who do not realize that their party abandoned them in 1980 if not earlier. I can understand your kind of Republican voting for Bush in 2000 if you were only getting your news from mainstream commercial media and paid only superficial attention. But this year is different. You would have to have been hiding under a rock in a remote desert not to know what Bush and his gang are up to by now.

If you want Goldwater-style candidates you will have to vote Libertarian or Independence.


I suspect that your larger point is something about which many of us can agree with respect to both parties. That point is that in the past few decades both parties have shifted to the center, so that the differences between them in practice is marginal.

I might point out to you that John F. Kennedy hasn't been a candidate in 44 years, but your party seems to keep trying to revive him. I would also note that JFK never presided over the Roundtable at Camelot, despite the party's and the press' imagining that he did, just as they imagined it more than 40 years ago.



Was the man who blamed 9/11 on "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way" giving the invocation at the RNC not enough of a wakeup call for you?

Did you see the same Republican Party convention that I did? I saw the one with Senator Zell Miller from Georgia, a Democrat, giving a short but moving speech about how his party had abandoned him and its ideals in favor of partisanship at a time when it desperately needed to rise about partisanship for the good of the country. I saw the one with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger speaking about growing up poor in Soviet-occupied, and then socialist, Austria, and dreaming about and later realizing everything that makes American great and strong--you know, opportunity and all that. I saw the one where the party was smart enough to put forth two terrific speakers who happen to be very much in the middle (hell, even both from the left more so than from the right) as cornerstones for the convention.

Cool Hand

[livius drusus]

Godless Dave, I think the Zyklon gas rhetoric is unwarranted, just as I think it is unwarranted to say if you vote for Democrats, the terrorists will strike again. It is this kind of rhetoric that alienates reasonable people from productive communication and common ground.

Any truly reasonable person ...

<snip rant>

Was the man who blamed 9/11 on "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way" giving the invocation at the RNC not enough of a wakeup call for you?

I vote for Democrats more often than not, and I thought your concentration camp rhetoric was nonsense too. Not only is it not going to happen, but it's divisive, attack-dog, button-pushing crap and all it can do is alienate people who might very well otherwise be allies against extremism of all kinds.

You know what frustrates me no end? Good people treating each other like they hate each other when they're far closer together than they are apart. That kind of polarization is exactly what the facile shibboleths of party rhetoric were designed to achieve. Why do their work for them?

[Kamen]

Both parties are steeped in corruption and pandering. Religious Right and big business for the Republicans, unions and minorities for the Democrats.

In other words, the bad guys for the Republicans and the good guys for the Democrats.

Of course there are labor unions and civil rights organizations that scam money from the government and businesses. But even the Teamsters at their worst cannot compare with the graft, theft, and, worst and most important, influence in the process of making and enforcing laws as a single company like Monsanto, General Motors, or Halliburton.

Are you familiar with connections between mobs and unions? Are you familiar with Tawana Brawley (sp?). Are you familiar with extortion practiced by the Rainbow Coalition? Either side can name hundreds of instances of corruption by the "other". In addition, big business provides jobs and supports our economy. Business bad unions good is a simplistic and ultimately incorrect mantra.

I dislike attempts to draw a bright line in these instances. Neither side has a monopoly on ethics or on corruption.



I don't deny there are corrupt and/or power-mad Democratic politicians, and lots of them. But if you think there is some equivalence between Republican corruption and Democratic corruption you need to look again.

Examples:

Telecommunications Act of 1996
Raising of media ownership limits by the FCC
Medicare Reform Act
Bush's environmental laws
Every defense appropriations bill

Nice cherrypicking. Are you saying corruption and pork barrelling came into existence in 1994? What about prior 40 years?



Any truly reasonable person who has read the Texas State Republican Party platform, which among other things explicitly states that the US is a Christian nation, the national party platform, and read or listened to statements by people like Bush, DeLay, Lott, Inhofe, Santorum, and many others, knows exactly what I'm talking about.

I should mention that to my Texas friends. There are as many idiot Democrats as are Republicans, and there many honorable Republicans. These people have passionate and interesting views. Perhaps if you stopped demonizing and discounting them en masse, you might find you have more in common with them than you think.



That's even if you aren't familiar with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell.

Of course rabid, unreasonable and incorrect rhetoric does not spread through party lines. Moore, Paul Krugman, the congresswoman who claimed Bush was behind 9/11, Al Franken, Moveon and many others. Most Republicans I know are quite embarrassed by the people you named. They are blowhards who scream the loudest. They are not the essence of the party.



I am really frustrated with Goldwater-style Republicans who do not realize that their party abandoned them in 1980 if not earlier. I can understand your kind of Republican voting for Bush in 2000 if you were only getting your news from mainstream commercial media and paid only superficial attention. But this year is different. You would have to have been hiding under a rock in a remote desert not to know what Bush and his gang are up to by now.

Well, you convinced me. Every Republican is a brain dead moron. Do you not see that moderate Republicans rightfully resent this patronizing statement? Patriots, intelligent people, people who follow the news can disagree about which direction is best for the country.

This kind of rabid rhetoric was appalling when some attacked Clinton, and it is appalling now. Appalling, divisive and ultimately counterproductive. If someone called you an ignorant idiot, how long would you be interested in a discussion? I find comparisons to Hitler and mentions of Zyklon B particularly repugnant, because that insults the memory of millions of victims of real fascism by making them into a rhetorical device.

If you are interested in progressive Republicans taking over their party, you should reach out to them and convince them of your opinions, not insult and denigrate them. If you continue, they will simply discount you as a hopeless liberal, and will disregard your opinions on any subject.



If you want Goldwater-style candidates you will have to vote Libertarian or Independence.

Actually, no I don't. I can vote for moderate Republicans and Democrats in the primaries. I can support them on a local level. I can organize grass root support to rival religious right. I can make sure they know that blowhards are a fringe, not the foundation of their party.

The current takeover of the Republican party by interests contrary to its history and platform happened because they were led to believe there is a majority that wants that. The only way to reverse it is to support moderate Republicans: Pataki, Guiliani, Schwartzenegger, Snowe, Nagel, McCain and many others.



Was the man who blamed 9/11 on "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way" giving the invocation at the RNC not enough of a wakeup call for you?

Was the Congresswoman who after 9/11 said Bush organized the attacks not enough of a wakeup call for you?

Radicals in politics are unproductive, in any party. Moderates should be reached out to and supported, to achieve a better system.

[Goliath]

One day I thought McCain and Lieberman might form a "Common Sense" party, but it has not yet happened.


:yikes: Are you talking about the same Joe Lieberman that said "Although we have freedom of religion, we do not have freedom from religion!"?! He's the single biggest reason that I couldn't vote for Gore in 2000 (I ended up voting for the libertarian guy, whatever his name was...he was the only person on the ticket who seemed to want to defend the Wall of Separation).



What we really need is a new Teddy Roosevelt.



Now, on that we agree.

[Kamen]

One day I thought McCain and Lieberman might form a "Common Sense" party, but it has not yet happened.


:yikes: Are you talking about the same Joe Lieberman that said "Although we have freedom of religion, we do not have freedom from religion!"?! He's the single biggest reason that I couldn't vote for Gore in 2000 (I ended up voting for the libertarian guy, whatever his name was...he was the only person on the ticket who seemed to want to defend the Wall of Separation).


One day I will devise a Frankenpolitician, who will be composed of only the qualities and views I approve of. :P Where is that shovel?

Yes, that Lieberman. I disagree with him on the religion matter, but I disagree with almost everyone in our government. I think Lieberman is better than many. I also think he has the capacity to appeal across party lines, as does McCain, and that is a very valuable quality.




What we really need is a new Teddy Roosevelt.



Now, on that we agree.

:D And stage one of my Frankenpolitician plan is coming to fruition.

[Kamen]

Godless Dave, on review it seems my reply was unneccessarily harsh, bordering on personal. I apologize for any excesses on my part.

[livius drusus]

Did you see the same Republican Party convention that I did? I saw the one with Senator Zell Miller from Georgia, a Democrat, giving a short but moving speech about how his party had abandoned him and its ideals in favor of partisanship at a time when it desperately needed to rise about partisanship for the good of the country.

Okay well, we definitely didn't see the same convention, because I saw a political opportunist who has shifted with the wind more times than is seemly repeat talking points so easily countered that Chris Matthews drove him to blithering idiocy in less than 5 minutes by asking the mildest of questions.

I saw the one with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger speaking about growing up poor in Soviet-occupied, and then socialist, Austria, and dreaming about and later realizing everything that makes American great and strong--you know, opportunity and all that.

He skipped a few things, iirc. Tight-knit communities characterized more by cooperation than competition, collective bargaining, workplace loyalty: we would not have the quality of life we have today without them, and as they steadily erode, so does it. The fact is that socialist principles played a large part in creating that privileged American lifestyle.

I saw the one where the party was smart enough to put forth two terrific speakers who happen to be very much in the middle (hell, even both from the left more so than from the right) as cornerstones for the convention.

In order to mask its actual extremist, big money, religious right agenda, sure, but that's nothing new. That's what conventions are for.

[Goliath]

One day I will devise a Frankenpolitician, who will be composed of only the qualities and views I approve of. :P Where is that shovel?


Yes, Master...here is the shovel, Master....Master want Igor to dig?

(liv, we could use an Igor smiley here...:wink:)



I think Lieberman is better than many.



I disagree. His sheer disregard and emnity for the Wall of Separation make him at least as dangerous as Dubya, IMO (probably more dangerous, considering that Lieberman is far more intelligent than Bush).



I also think he has the capacity to appeal across party lines, as does McCain, and that is a very valuable quality.



Really? I certainly agree that McCain is popular amongst both parties, but I never had the impression that Lieberman had that same kind of popularity, or could easily gain it.


:D And stage one of my Frankenpolitician plan is coming to fruition.

Yes, Master...we go to Teddy Roosevelt's grave, Master....he, he, *snort* he, he

[dave_a]

Was the man who blamed 9/11 on "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way" giving the invocation at the RNC not enough of a wakeup call for you?

From what I have read here and elsewhere as well as my own experience in the matter I would say 2000-2004 was a turning (away) point for many of us former repubs.

It's not that Bush is such an ass, it is that the repubs are supporting him instead of calling him out for what he is.

[Godless Dave]

That point is that in the past few decades both parties have shifted to the center, so that the differences between them in practice is marginal.

That was true five or six years ago. But now the Republicans have moved to the right and left the Democrats in the middle.

I might point out to you that John F. Kennedy hasn't been a candidate in 44 years, but your party seems to keep trying to revive him.

I must have missed that memo. He's ancient history as far as I'm concerned.

Did you see the same Republican Party convention that I did? I saw the one with Senator Zell Miller from Georgia, a Democrat, giving a short but moving speech about how his party had abandoned him and its ideals in favor of partisanship at a time when it desperately needed to rise about partisanship for the good of the country.

Sure, if you consider foaming at the mouth "moving". He abandoned his party because he opposes gay rights and affirmative action. The party didn't abandon him until he started speaking against Democratic candidates and supporting Republican ones.

I saw Zell Miller expressing outrage that any American would dare to speak out against the Iraq war and call the current situation an occupation.

Excuse me for telling the truth, Zell.

I saw the one with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger speaking about growing up poor in Soviet-occupied, and then socialist, Austria

Austria, socialist?

and dreaming about and later realizing everything that makes American great and strong--you know, opportunity and all that.

Are you aware that Schwarzenegger supports a law making it illegal to sue the companies that engineered the power shortage and price increases?

I saw the one where the party was smart enough to put forth two terrific speakers who happen to be very much in the middle (hell, even both from the left more so than from the right) as cornerstones for the convention.

Schwarzenegger and Miller from the left?

Yes, they espouse more centrist views than others in the Republican party. Now, how much influence do you think they really have?

*************************

I thought your concentration camp rhetoric was nonsense too. Not only is it not going to happen...

I sincerely never hope I am never in a position to say I told you so. But do you really not see a connection between the men who killed Matthew Shepard and Jerry Falwell and Rick Santorum's rhetoric?

*************************

Are you familiar with connections between mobs and unions? Are you familiar with Tawana Brawley (sp?). Are you familiar with extortion practiced by the Rainbow Coalition?

Were any of those crimes instrumental in starting a war?

In addition, big business provides jobs

In India, Panama, and Mexico

and supports our economy.

If by "economy" you mean the richest 1% of the population with a few crumbs thrown down to the rest of us. Or that's what it was like less than 100 years ago. If it weren't for labor unions, a large part of the American workforce would be working 12 hour days, seven days a week with minimal pay and no health insurance.

You don't really buy that Reagonomics trickle-down bullshit do you?

Business bad unions good is a simplistic and ultimately incorrect mantra.

Of course I was oversimplifying there, to illustrate the huge difference in degree between the corrupting influences on both sides.

Nice cherrypicking. Are you saying corruption and pork barrelling came into existence in 1994? What about prior 40 years?

No, but it became much worse and much more blatant around that time.



That's even if you aren't familiar with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell.

Of course rabid, unreasonable and incorrect rhetoric does not spread through party lines. Moore, Paul Krugman, the congresswoman who claimed Bush was behind 9/11, Al Franken, Moveon and many others.

Neither Moore, Krugman, Franken, or MoveOn are rabid or unreasonable. Yes, they spin a point of view. But in contrast to the people I mentioned they never lie.

Most Republicans I know are quite embarrassed by the people you named.

Are they embarassed that they get their talking points directly from the RNC and the White House?

They are blowhards who scream the loudest. They are not the essence of the party.

I know a lot of Republican voters who espouse the same views as those blowhards.


I am really frustrated with Goldwater-style Republicans who do not realize that their party abandoned them in 1980 if not earlier. I can understand your kind of Republican voting for Bush in 2000 if you were only getting your news from mainstream commercial media and paid only superficial attention. But this year is different. You would have to have been hiding under a rock in a remote desert not to know what Bush and his gang are up to by now.
Well, you convinced me. Every Republican is a brain dead moron.

I did not call you a brain dead moron, and I certainly wasn't talking about all Republicans - I was only talking about the minority that share your views.


Do you not see that moderate Republicans rightfully resent this patronizing statement? Patriots, intelligent people, people who follow the news can disagree about which direction is best for the country.

I'm not talking about which direction is best for the country. I'm talking about lying about Iraq, incompetent military planning, spying on American citizens without due process, intimidating the media, gay-bashing, and religious bigotry.

But mostly I'm talking about lying us into a war that is contrary to our strategic interests.

This kind of rabid rhetoric was appalling when some attacked Clinton, and it is appalling now.

The difference being that most of the attacks on Clinton weren't true. Whitewater wasn't a big deal. He didn't technically commit perjury but he did lie to the American people on TV. Travelgate was a non-issue.

Compare that with the manufactured intelligence on Iraq's WMDs, lies about ties with Al Qaeda, no-bid contracts to Halliburton, mistated earnings at Halliburton while Cheney was CEO, the year before he became Vice President, ordering the EPA to withhold and distort reports, and ignoring a memo that said "Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States", and staring into space for 7 minutes while the United States was under attack.

I find comparisons to Hitler and mentions of Zyklon B particularly repugnant, because that insults the memory of millions of victims of real fascism by making them into a rhetorical device.

If the jackboot fits...

Look, I'm not talking about you being a fascist, or even most Republican voters. I'm talking about the party being taken over by an authoritarian, bigoted movement.

If you are interested in progressive Republicans taking over their party, you should reach out to them and convince them of your opinions, not insult and denigrate them.

I played nice for four years. I am not going to mollycoddle people who are not paying attention to what is right in front of their eyes.



If you want Goldwater-style candidates you will have to vote Libertarian or Independence.

Actually, no I don't. I can vote for moderate Republicans and Democrats in the primaries. I can support them on a local level. I can organize grass root support to rival religious right. I can make sure they know that blowhards are a fringe, not the foundation of their party. [/quote]

Yes, but we were talking about national politics. I still hold out hope for gradual internal change within the GOP and within the Democrats. I'll vote Green locally. But on the national level, save for a handful of Senators and representatives, a vote for George W. Bush or the Republican leadership is a vote for unnecessary military aggression, dishonest government, and policies that favor the extremely rich.

The current takeover of the Republican party by interests contrary to its history and platform happened because they were led to believe there is a majority that wants that.

And they did a good job whipping up people to agree with them by funding, bribing, and intimidating the media to broadcast their message.


Was the man who blamed 9/11 on "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way" giving the invocation at the RNC not enough of a wakeup call for you?

Was the Congresswoman who after 9/11 said Bush organized the attacks not enough of a wakeup call for you?

Did she speak at the DNC? How much influence do you think she has compared to Falwell?

Look, I didn't mean to wish that the OP or anyone else would do themselves violence with cyanide gas or anything else. I was trying to warn them what people who vote for Bush and his supporters are voting for.

[Blake]

Quite a few things in this thread annoy me, but I only have time for a couple.

First off: Godless Dave, please climb down from your rhetoric. I can't believe you haven't backed off this yet:

If you are a non-Christian and you vote Republican, you may as well lock yourself in a room and open a cylinder of Zyklone gas, because that is exactly what you are voting for.
This is of course not exactly or inexactly what an atheist voting Republican is voting for. The truth is powerful enough not to require rhetorical inflammation that defeats the purpose you're working for. Speaking the bare truth is not "mollycoddling." I don't have a job, I've read huge amounts of the alternative as well as the mainstream press, and even I have huge problems keeping the details straight and penetrating the media fog. Just because it's right in front of your face doesn't mean it's right in front of anyone else's, especially if they have a different set of assumptions and principles that make them see things in another light than you.

Second:

Was the Congresswoman who after 9/11 said Bush organized the attacks not enough of a wakeup call for you?
Cynthia McKinney never said this (http://www.alternet.org/story/16172). In fact, that's not even what the common distortion of what she actually said was held to be.

In general, the rhetoric of Democratic so-called extremists cannot compare with Republican extremists. Michael Moore, Cynthia McKinney, Paul Krugman, and the folks at MoveOn have never said anything remotely close to Ann Coulter's "we should bomb all the Muslims and convert them to Christianity" or "Timothy McVeigh should have blown up the New York Times, not the Murrah Federal Building." MoveOn did *not* sponsor the Hitler ad; it was one entry out of thousands in their contest which did not so much as make the semifinals. These people only sound extreme because the reality they talk about is so remote from the fabricated rightwing consensus the Democrats and Republicans both sustain.

Finally, Lieberman is unbelievably conservative, appealing to almost no one, and McCain isn't a moderate, he's a maverick. He's an anti-establishment Republican, but he has plenty of scary rightwing positions. As usual, by voting for the lesser of the two evils, all one can hope to do is staunch the bleeding, not actually start healing and thriving.

[Kamen]

Second:

Was the Congresswoman who after 9/11 said Bush organized the attacks not enough of a wakeup call for you?
Cynthia McKinney never said this (http://www.alternet.org/story/16172). In fact, that's not even what the common distortion of what she actually said was held to be.


Ah, my memory was faulty and it never happened. Thank you for the correction and the link, I will read it and try to remember why I thought what I did. :)


In general, the rhetoric of Democratic so-called extremists cannot compare with Republican extremists. Michael Moore, Cynthia McKinney, Paul Krugman, and the folks at MoveOn have never said anything remotely close to Ann Coulter's "we should bomb all the Muslims and convert them to Christianity" or "Timothy McVeigh should have blown up the New York Times, not the Murrah Federal Building." MoveOn did *not* sponsor the Hitler ad; it was one entry out of thousands in their contest which did not so much as make the semifinals. These people only sound extreme because the reality they talk about is so remote from the fabricated rightwing consensus the Democrats and Republicans both sustain.

True, but I heard plenty of us vs them, and conspiracy theories. I suspect Republican rhetoric appears to be more strident because they have a better speaking perch. In other words, I do believe there are liberal Ann Coulters, but they are not as photogenic/powerful/likely to generate ratings. I think Bush as Hitler comparisons are too rampant to be an accident.


Finally, Lieberman is unbelievably conservative, appealing to almost no one, and McCain isn't a moderate, he's a maverick. He's an anti-establishment Republican, but he has plenty of scary rightwing positions.

I think it is a mistake to encapsule two long term careers in one sentence soundbites. Lieberman is a conservative Democrat. I do not necessarily think it is a bad thing. Many believe if Lieberman was the Democratic nominee, more moderate swing voters would vote for him than for Kerry. McCain holds a lot of right wing positions, and of course has the stain of the Keating Five. However, I have been following his career very carefully and I noticed he seems to advocate many worthwhile programs. For one, he was one of the few Republicans to speak very forcefully against Santorum during the discussion on gay marriages. He also spoke against the Swift smears. Did he do that to mess with the establishment? Perhaps. But I guess I have some fondness for someone who does not follow the party line. It is that kind of courage or hot headedness that lets people shake up their belief systems. I am also aware that he was in favor of a full scale Iraq invasion and so on and so forth. I think people who poke sticks in the party machinery are intriguing and worthy of support.

Once again, there is no perfect candidate. Given political realities, there can't be one, so we make do with what we got.



I will address Godless Dave's post a little later. I want to be thorough, but I have to run right now. :)

[Godless Dave]

I think Bush as Hitler comparisons are too rampant to be an accident.

They are rampant because of their accuracy.

Consider:

Widespread use of propaganda.
Starting a war in order to seize territory and secure access to natural resources.
Religious and mythic rhetoric designed to demonize an ill-defined enemy and imbue supporters with a sense of righteousness and moral infallibility.


Is Bush exactly like Hitler? Of course not.

Is Bush's strategy similar to Hitler's in many ways? Yes.

Is Bush as bad as Hitler? Time will tell.

[Godless Dave]

Godless Dave, please climb down from your rhetoric. I can't believe you haven't backed off this yet:

If you are a non-Christian and you vote Republican, you may as well lock yourself in a room and open a cylinder of Zyklone gas, because that is exactly what you are voting for.
Not gonna happen. I still think I'm right.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe a second Bush administration won't be much worse than the Reagan or George H.W. Bush administrations. Maybe we'll just support a few third world dictators, pressure third world democracies like Venesvuela to play ball with our corporations, help Israel annex the occupied territories, get the American middle class used to a lower standard of living, and dirty up the air, water, and soil a little more. I could live with that; I've lived with it for half my life.

Believe me, I'd love to be wrong. But I don't think I am.

I hope never to find out.

[Blake]

Yes, well, we'll know in three weeks. In the meantime, how about scaling down the Nazi rhetoric, since it doesn't help your (our) cause at all?

[Godless Dave]

I will stop comparing the GOP leadership to Nazis when they stop acting like Nazis.

[Adam]

So, economically conservative/socially liberal is about the best I can come up with and there really isn't a good party in the US to represent that.

Sure there is...they're called the Democrats. :)

[Blake]

I will stop comparing the GOP leadership to Nazis when they stop acting like Nazis.
Dave, the GOP hasn't invaded all the other countries on the continent and created death camps. Your hyperbole defeats your reasonable arguments.

[Godless Dave]

The Nazis didn't start doing that until 1938; they came to power in 1933.

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib2.jpg

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib3.jpg

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/new-toture3.jpg

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/dead-iraqi2.jpg

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/dogs2.jpg

[Cool Hand]

Nice inflammatory pictorial rhetoric, Dave. Your assertions are getting more and more absurd. You imply that the GOP ordered the soldiers at the prison to abuse prisoners and to commit war crimes. That's patently false and grossly irresponsible.

Those soldiers clearly acted far outside the law of war and outside the scope of their orders and duties. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the administration or the party (the party doesn't run the government) ordered the soldiers to torture or abuse prisoners. Their acts of abuse apparently came from a lower level commander or NCO, including someone actually there on the scene. It is most likely that they got carried away and were not closely supervised by any officer beyond company grade. Yes, that indicates a breakdown in command and control. It does not indicate a high level military or administration order, however. You imply that it does, and you also imply that the Republican Party is behind it. Are you going to imply next that the party murdered JFK, RFK, and MLK?

Cool Hand

[Godless Dave]

Nice inflammatory pictorial rhetoric, Dave. Your assertions are getting more and more absurd. You imply that the GOP ordered the soldiers at the prison to abuse prisoners and to commit war crimes. That's patently false and grossly irresponsible.
Not the GOP. GOP politicians and appointees.

Those soldiers clearly acted far outside the law of war
In which they were not instructed prior to being assigned to prison duty.

and outside the scope of their orders and duties. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the administration or the party (the party doesn't run the government) ordered the soldiers to torture or abuse prisoners.
Except that General Sanchez signed off on the orders.

Their acts of abuse apparently came from a lower level commander or NCO, including someone actually there on the scene. It is most likely that they got carried away and were not closely supervised by any officer beyond company grade.
Do you really believe that? Despite the fact that the general in charge of the prison says otherwise?

[viscousmemories]

I agree with Cool Hand, Dave. I don't find that pictorial any more convincing than photos of dead fetuses on the abortion issue. It's an overblown appeal to emotion, and totally irrelevant to the point of this thread. I think it's really unfortunate that Cool Hand could write an OP about a single issue that could be a point of agreement for everyone who values constitutional protections and it could turn into accusations that he and others who share some of his views are potentially latent genocidal maniacs. Blake is right, it's completely counterproductive.

[Godless Dave]

I am not, and never have, accused Cool Hand of being a genocidal maniac. I am accusing him and people who share his views of being blind to the fact that their party is run by, not just pandering to, genocidal maniacs. His parroting the administration's laughable excuses for the Abu Ghraib abuse just lends credence to that.

CBS story on Abu Ghraib (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/05/60II/main615781.shtml)

General Karpinski Blames Intel For Abuse (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/03/iraq/main615133.shtml)


A few out of control soldiers my ass.

[Godless Dave]

Those soldiers clearly acted far outside the law of war and outside the scope of their orders and duties. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the administration or the party (the party doesn't run the government) ordered the soldiers to torture or abuse prisoners. Their acts of abuse apparently came from a lower level commander or NCO, including someone actually there on the scene. It is most likely that they got carried away and were not closely supervised by any officer beyond company grade.
Cool Hand, I gave you the benefit of the doubt at first, even when you called Zell Miller's hateful tirade "moving". But after reading the above I have a hard time thinking you're not a troll. No one as articulate as you could be naive enough to believe that bullshit.

[viscousmemories]

I am not, and never have, accused Cool Hand of being a genocidal maniac. I am accusing him and people who share his views of being blind to the fact that their party is run by, not just pandering to, genocidal maniacs. His parroting the administration's laughable excuses for the Abu Ghraib abuse just lends credence to that.

CBS story on Abu Ghraib (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/05/60II/main615781.shtml)

General Karpinski Blames Intel For Abuse (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/03/iraq/main615133.shtml)

A few out of control soldiers my ass.
Okay well your point is well made that there does appear to be evidence that the abuse was directed by Military Intelligence, thereby rebutting Cool Hand's claim that the soldiers acted "outside the scope of their orders". However I still found no evidence in those articles that it was done with the knowledge or consent of the leaders of the GOP, which makes the second part of his comment accurate.

In any case my main point was that I think Cool Hand's intention for this thread was to talk about a serious failing of the GOP that you presumably agree with, so what sense does it make to turn away from that issue and make it about other issues where agreement is less guaranteed? You'll never win the cooperation of someone by demanding that they accept all of your positions at the outset.

All I'm saying is that if your intention is to persuade, your approach in this case is counterproductive. Cool Hand is clearly a potential ally on some issues, but the comparisons to Hitler and the Nazi's are more likely than not only going to drive him to not listen to anything you have to say.

Edit to add: Oops, cross-posted. Well I guess now that you've stepped it up to calling him a troll you're clearly not interested in having him as an ally, so no need to answer the rest of my post I guess.

[livius drusus]

Cool Hand, I gave you the benefit of the doubt at first, even when you called Zell Miller's hateful tirade "moving". But after reading the above I have a hard time thinking you're not a troll. No one as articulate as you could be naive enough to believe that bullshit.

Why not? I was naive enough to believe you and everyone else would appreciate a great OP and respond to it in a positive, productive manner. You've proven me the fool many times over now.

[Godless Dave]

However I still found no evidence in those articles that it was done with the knowledge or consent of the leaders of the GOP, which makes the second part of his comment accurate.
I made no such implication. I was implicating Bush and Cheney, who were selected by the GOP leadership to run for office in 2000.

[Godless Dave]

Why not? I was naive enough to believe you and everyone else would appreciate a great OP and respond to it in a positive, productive manner. You've proven me the fool many times over now.I didn't find the OP "great". The OP seemed to be saying that Bush is a well-meaing compassionate conservative who has been taken in by Karl Rove and made to pander to the religious right. The OP seemed to express surprise and dismay that a Republican candidate for state attorney general would be hostile to gay marriage. Get real. In 2000 those might have been plausible things to think. But now? Bush and his backers showed their true colors a long time ago. Bush is an arrogant Jesus-freak with plans for world domination who ignores anyone who disagrees with him, even after they have been proven right.

And then there's this:
Bush is right about many of his criticisms of Kerry
Like what? That Kerry is a "flip-flopper"? Clearly false. That Kerry dares to tell the truth about the Iraq war, that it was the wrong war at the wrong time and Bush's coalition is fake? That Kerry would raise taxes? Also false - at least for 98% of Americans.

I understand real moderate, socially libertarian Republicans who are disillusioned with Bush. But they woke up in 2001, not 2004, and they have no illusions that Bush is "pandering" to anyone. They know Bush is acting on his own warped, childish ideas.

[Blake]

Cool Hand, I gave you the benefit of the doubt at first, even when you called Zell Miller's hateful tirade "moving". But after reading the above I have a hard time thinking you're not a troll. No one as articulate as you could be naive enough to believe that bullshit.
Except that he's already given us evidence of naivete: his shock and surprise at his state attorney-general's comments in the OP. It's terribly easy to be articulate and naive. I could have been fairly described that way before the beginning of my political awakening seven or eight years ago.

Moreover, my belief is that the truth of Abu Ghraib is rather difficult to piece out, much like the precise mechanism of rule in our peculiar nation. From what I've read, it sounds as though high-level administration figures, such as Bush, Cheney, and especially Rumsfeld, told high-level commanders (such as Sanchez) to "relax" the guidelines they had been operating under, especially after the White House received legal counsel that they shouldn't worry too much about the Geneva Conventions. In turn, those generals turned around and told their staff to get harsh, which eventually evolved into the specific tortures and humilations on site in Iraq. That is, it sounds just like the process of "plausible deniability" many administrations have fine-tuned over the years, such as giving general, vague-sounding orders to the CIA to "take care of" such-and-such a foreign government, which the CIA perfectly understands means assassination, disappearing of leftist opponents, etc. The administration set the overall conditions to allow and ensure that this behavior would take place, while never actually ordering anyone to attach electrodes to genitals, attack with dogs, or pile naked prisoners into pyramids.

It took me years of fairly intensive research, allowing for working a full-time job, to figure out how to discern alternative explanations such as the above from the "party line" explanation Cool Hand repeated. Please, Dave, allow him the benefit of the doubt, since he appears to be near the beginning of such a process of political discovery.

[Godless Dave]

Except that he's already given us evidence of naivete: his shock and surprise at his state attorney-general's comments in the OP.
I just don't understand how anyone could be shocked and surprised this late in the game.

[Blake]

I just don't understand how anyone could be shocked this late in the game.
Because TV news reeks, newspapers aren't much better, and most people spend their time lost in the entertainment multisphere of gaming and movies in any case, never even getting as far as the above-mentioned crappy news sources.

[Cool Hand]

I am not, and never have, accused Cool Hand of being a genocidal maniac. I am accusing him and people who share his views of being blind to the fact that their party is run by, not just pandering to, genocidal maniacs. His parroting the administration's laughable excuses for the Abu Ghraib abuse just lends credence to that.

CBS story on Abu Ghraib (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/05/60II/main615781.shtml)

General Karpinski Blames Intel For Abuse (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/03/iraq/main615133.shtml)


A few out of control soldiers my ass.

Godless Dave,

I'm calling bullshit on you.

Allow me to refute, point by point, the nonsense you continue to spout in this thread, which you have attempted to hijack to somewhere far beyond its original intent.

1) You say above,

I am accusing him and people who share his views of being blind to the fact that their party is run by, not just pandering to, genocidal maniacs.

It is a fact that the GOP is run by genocidal maniacs? Good grief, man. Do you care to support such an absurd assertion with actual, hard, cold facts, rather than naked partisan rhetoric? I want facts, not out of this world partisan mud-slinging nonsense. Name me the leaders of the Republican Party--and I want names, dates, places, persons murdered, body counts, means of killing, and all other relevant details--who are genocidal killers. Put up or shut up. You are not getting away with making any more scurrilous and inflammatory comments in this thread.

2) You comment,

His parroting the administration's laughable excuses for the Abu Ghraib abuse just lends credence to that.

First, I'm not parroting anything. I would appreciate your granting me a little credit for being able to think for myself. Second, the administration has made no attempt whatsoever to excuse or justify the atrocities some U.S. Army Reservists committed at the Adu Graib prison. Show me any quote, any statement, any press release at all in which the President or anyone at the Cabinet level has attempted to excuse or justify the tortures and abuses committed against the Iraqi prisoners. Give me one, just one.

What you actually have is the administration and Army generals universally condemning what the handful of soldiers at the prison did. Read your own links. I'm familiar with the same news accounts you are. Nowhere in them will you find any evidence that the President or his aides or any high level military officer ordered anyone to torture, abuse, or murder Iraqi prisoners of war. Nowhere.

What you find in the news accounts you linked to are statements from regular army generals, some of the accused soldiers and their attorneys, and from reporters. The generals condemn and denounce the abuses. The accused soldiers and their lawyers blame their conduct on a lack of training and supervision, and also on the prison's being under-staffed. Some of them claim that military intelligence officers--without naming anyone or specifying a unit or anything else about them--instructed them on how to interrogate POWs. If they are claiming that the MI soldiers instructed them to abuse and torture prisoners as a lawful and effective means of gaining valuable intelligence, then I find such a claim to be self-serving and incredible. I am not a stranger to what is lawful treatment of POWs, nor am I a stranger to military intelligence and effective interrogation techniques.

I served almost 4 years on active duty as a U.S. Army judge advocate before and during the first Gulf War. Before I completed law school and was admitted to my state's bar, I was assigned to the military intelligence branch of the U.S. Army. I was an instructor in the law of war, including the code of conduct allowed towards POWs under the UCMJ and in accordance with international law, for hundreds of soldiers at my post. I am familiar with what is prohibited by, what is allowed pursuant to, and what is considered a crime under the UCMJ with respect to treatment of POWs. Furthermore, I am familiar with the training all U.S. soldiers on active duty receive with respect to the lawful treatment of POWs.

I am confident that there was no systemic order to abuse prisoners. No one has produced a shred of evidence to the contrary. What should be abundantly clear is that the reservist MPs who were given prison duty at Abu Ghraib were: 1) poorly trained in the law of war; 2) poorly supervised; 3) under-staffed; and 4) not the best choice of personnel for overseeing the prison and conducting interrogations.

What is not supported by any credible evidence is any assertion or claim that anyone other than the American soldiers at Abu Ghraib made a decision to visit torture and abuse upon the Iraqi prisoners of war there. There was no one there above the rank of staff sergeant. Their commanding officers, presumably those at the company level and possibly at the battalion or even brigade levels, have been disciplined for improper supervision (dereliction of duty under the UCMJ), not for ordering the commission of war crimes.

3) You comment in closing,

A few out of control soldiers my ass.

Six soldiers were to stand trial by court-martial as of the writing of the news accounts you linked to. Six. Their commanding officers were reprimanded, presumably for dereliction of duty in failing to supervise them. The reserve general charged with overseeing the prisons in Iraq was relieved of her duty. That's it. Yes, I would call that a few soldiers. Out of control? Yes.

None of the above supports your outrageous allegations that the Republican Party and/or the Bush administration had anything to do with ordering, soliciting, or condoning the war crimes the handful of soldiers committed at Adu Ghraib.

If you want to debate this subject further, I suggest you start your own thread devoted to the same. If you do, I will be happy to debate you and provide actual facts to support my position. I will expect and demand that you do the same. If you are unable or unwilling to provide factual support for your outrageous claims, then I will call you on it and end my further participation, as I will not debate someone who refuses to put up when asked.

I'm not interested in an insult contest. You called me a troll. Fine--you believe what you want. I will not stand for you to hijack this thread with blowhard demagoguery, however.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

It took me years of fairly intensive research, allowing for working a full-time job, to figure out how to discern alternative explanations such as the above from the "party line" explanation Cool Hand repeated. Please, Dave, allow him the benefit of the doubt, since he appears to be near the beginning of such a process of political discovery.

Blake,

I appreciate your stance on this matter and I appreciate your giving me the benefit of the doubt. I believe that your intentions are honorable and friendly. Nevertheless, I have to comment that I am a little uncomfortable with how you seem to be portraying me.

Please do not misunderstand. I mean no offense to you. I ask you, however, to look at your words above, place them in context, and then try to imagine that someone else is speaking about you. Now, if you do that, can you see that I might find your words to be at least somewhat patronizing? I do not really believe that you intend them to be insulting or belittling to me.

I am not a political babe in the woods. I am well educated, I try to stay informed, and I studied for a political science undergraduate degree for two years at a respectable private university before having to abandon that pursuit in favor of a degree in mathematics. Furthermore, I participated in my university's mock presidential convention when it was held, and it is a very realistic facsimile of the actual convention for the party out of power at the time. It happens to be a highly accurate predictor of the nominee selected before the actual convention, with a successful track record spanning nearly the entire 20th Century. Furthermore, I led a team in a political research seminar that conducted a university-wide scientific survey of the students and the faculty members. We had a participation rate greater than 85% of the population.

My shame and disgust I express in my OP is from the perspective of a disillusioned Republican. I am disillusioned not only by the President's stances on several social issues, but also by the ease with which real party politicians at the state and local level co-op straight party issues and positions, without dissent or actual personal input. I am witnessing that first hand and up close for the first time. I fully expected to see more disagreement and debate within the party. I did not anticipate so much pressure within the local party to conform and to adhere to a narrow band of core beliefs. Simply put, my local party does not leave any room for individual thought. It prefers to be a rallying place for right-wing ideologues, without leaving room for moderates to feel included.

Heh. Now that I have written all this, I sense that I am reacting too harshly to your remarks. You apparently meant no offense at all, and in retrospect are quite sympathetic to me. Well, I'm sorry now, Blake. I've gone from being very mildly offended due to feeling patronized to being contrite.

Oh well, perhaps you are right. Perhaps I am on a road to political discovery. Perhaps I have been on it for many years, but I am just now reaching a satisfactory point at which I can look back and appreciate where I have been, where I am, and where I might be heading in the future.

Take it easy.

Cool Hand

[Blake]

Thanks, Cool Hand; for the second time in my life, I find myself saying "you're too kind" and really meaning it. I did not intend to be insulting, belittling or patronizing, but that's entirely what my words mean. I apologize. I'd like to reply at much greater length, but that will take me a while, so I wanted to post this for the time being.

[Cool Hand]

Blake,

No apology is necessary. You didn't mean any insult. Thanks for being kind enough to respond, but please do not spend any more time or effort addressing or pondering it. I'm not offended or insulted. I over-reacted and saw a slight where none was intended. For that I should be apologizing to you. I'm sorry I over-reacted and mentioned it at all.

Cool Hand

[Blake]

No, I should. You da man. ;)

It was patronizing, and you're only not feeling insulted because you think I might be right. Anyway, make you a deal? We stop apologizing to each other, and go back to an actual political discussion. :)

[Godless Dave]

It is a fact that the GOP is run by genocidal maniacs? Good grief, man. Do you care to support such an absurd assertion with actual, hard, cold facts, rather than naked partisan rhetoric? I want facts, not out of this world partisan mud-slinging nonsense. Name me the leaders of the Republican Party--and I want names, dates, places, persons murdered, body counts, means of killing, and all other relevant details--who are genocidal killers.
George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld

Dead: tens of thousands of Iraqis
method of killing: bombs, missiles, artillery, tanks. Some small arms.

the administration has made no attempt whatsoever to excuse or justify the atrocities some U.S. Army Reservists committed at the Adu Graib prison.
But they have made every attempt to deny their own responsibility in the matter.


What you actually have is the administration and Army generals universally condemning what the handful of soldiers at the prison did. Read your own links.
And covering up the fact that their orders came from intelligence officers and civilian interrogators who have yet to be indicted.


I'm familiar with the same news accounts you are. Nowhere in them will you find any evidence that the President or his aides or any high level military officer ordered anyone to torture, abuse, or murder Iraqi prisoners of war. Nowhere.
Of course they didn't order them directly. They are too smart for that. But the White House did communicate a policy that Iraqi resistance fighters were to be considered "enemy combatants", not enemy soldiers. The White House sent the person in charge of Gunatanamo Bay to oversee interrorgations in Iraq. And they put General Boykin in an intelligence gathering role at Abu Ghraib, after he had made anti-Islamic remarks in public, in uniform.

Maybe I will start another thread about this. I can't believe you're falling for this obvious cover up.

[wade-w]

Godless Dave;

Have you ever served in the military? I suspect the answer to that question is "no."

One of the things that is stressed in the Navy, and I have no reason to think it's any different in the other branches of the service, is the difference between a lawful and an unlawful order. You are required to obey the lawful orders of all superior officers and petty officers. You are, however, required to disobey all unlawful orders. It is the sailor or soldier's responsibility to determine if a particular order is lawful or not. This is made clear from day one of boot camp. These violations, if they were ordered from above, would be clear, indeed textbook, cases of unlawful orders.

Given the above policy, I can't see how the entire chain of command all the way down to squad level could reasonably be expected to en masse obey what are clearly unlawful orders.

[Dingfod]

How does the grunt in the field determine what is a lawful or unlawful order? I mean, murder should be obvious, but what else would there be to tell? It's not like they can call the legal department and say "Sarge says shoot the sumbitch, the sumbitch is unarmed and holding a white flag, can I go ahead and shoot the sumbitch?" Sarge may not like that much.

I understand that during the Vietnam war and even in Desert Storm, the soldiers were given cards with Geneva Convention rules for treatment of enemy prisoners, but this time they were not. In fact, the administration made quite a big deal out of saying the Geneva Convention didn't apply. If the administration sets the tone by implying that international law is to be ignored, how can someone at the field level make a determination of what is legal or not? You'd think it would be obvious, but I bet it's not.

If, by international law, the entire pretext for attacking Iraq was unlawful, is everyone in the military culpable for obeying that unlawful order? Remember, Iraq had not attacked anyone since they invaded Kuwait. Attacking another country because they merely might be capable of being a threat is a rather new tactic, gunboat diplomacy without the diplomacy.

Miscellaneous curious ramblings by a guy that never served in the military either.

[Godless Dave]

I believe that's why they purposefully assinged undertrained reserve troops to that duty, and excluded General Karpinski and her people from the interrogation part of the prison. I don't think it went all the way down the chain of command. I think it went Rumsfeld -> intelligence contractors -> MPs.

[Blake]

I've started a new thread on the Abu Ghraib scandal and the Administration's culpability therein over here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=13672#post13672). Warren has also started a subject specifically on the topic of whether soldiers are capable of distinguishing lawful from unlawful orders here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=744).

Incidentally, Dave, CBS News is a totally inadequate source to buttress as strong an argument as you advanced here. There were at most a couple of sentences in both the articles you cited that even pointed to the argument you were trying to make, and a reader would have had to extrapolate further from those sentences on faith without access to other material.

[Clutch Munny]

I am not a Libertarian, but I am a libertarian. The difference between my views and a big-L Libertarian is only incremental. I am very much a social libertarian and all the freedoms that entails. However, I think there is a responsibility we have as a society, whether it is spelled out in the almighty Constitution or not, a responsibility to care for our fellow man and to make policy that advances society as a whole. It takes money to pay for that, tax money, which seems to be abhorent to the average Libertarian.

I quite agree, though I would extend your remark about "society as a whole" to mean having a state that safeguards the right and the good for all citizens, even when it is in the short-term economic interests of no single private entity to do so.

But I think this notion of small-l libertarianism is not very useful, since the term connotes primarily the economic policy you reject, and not the social policy you endorse. [l]ibertarianism in your sense seems consistent with the motivations for virtually any extent of leftist politics.

For a position much like the one you describe, Warren, I think of myself as a classical liberal in the mould of JS Mill: The greatest liberty and privacy consistent with the liberty and privacy of others, plus a full-blooded conception of the state's role in securing the public good.

Were I an American I too would despair. But I'd vote Democrat as the horrible corporatist party that is -- astonishingly -- by far the least opposed to my idea of a just and thriving polity.

[Dingfod]

"Classical liberal". I like that.