Shame and (Self) Loathing in Politics

[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]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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]

Originally Posted by Kamen

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

[igor]Yes, Master...here is the shovel, Master....Master want Igor to dig?[/igor]

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

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.

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

[Igor]Yes, Master...we go to Teddy Roosevelt's grave, Master....he, he, *snort* he, he[/Igor]

[dave_a]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

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]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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

Austria, socialist?

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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?

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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?

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

Originally Posted by livius drusus

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?

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

Originally Posted by Kamen

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?

Originally Posted by Kamen

In addition, big business provides jobs

In India, Panama, and Mexico

Originally Posted by Kamen

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?

Originally Posted by Kamen

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.

Originally Posted by Kamen

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.

Originally Posted by Kamen

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.

Originally Posted by Kamen

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?

Originally Posted by Kamen

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.

Originally Posted by Kamen

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.

Originally Posted by Kamen

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.

Originally Posted by Kamen

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.

Originally Posted by Kamen

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.

Originally Posted by Kamen

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.

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

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.

Originally Posted by Kamen

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.

Originally Posted by Kamen

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:

Originally Posted by Kamen

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Blake

Second:

Cynthia McKinney never said this. 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]

Originally Posted by Kamen

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]

Originally Posted by Blake

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

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]

Originally Posted by dantonac

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]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Not the GOP. GOP politicians and appointees.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

Those soldiers clearly acted far outside the law of war

In which they were not instructed prior to being assigned to prison duty.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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.

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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

General Karpinski Blames Intel For Abuse


A few out of control soldiers my ass.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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]

Originally Posted by 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

General Karpinski Blames Intel For Abuse

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]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

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:

Originally Posted by Cool Hand

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]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

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]

Originally Posted by Blake

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.