Democrats for Demagoguery

I think it's time to start a new political party: Democrats for Demagoguery.

I'll give you three examples of why.

First there was the Dubai ports scandal. Sure, the uproar was bipartisan, but did any Democrat really believe that an Arab company couldn't run a US port as badly as an American one?

Then there was the furor over Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki offering so-called "amnesty" for insurgents who've killed American soldiers. It's a disgusting proposition, but bringing insurgents into the political process is a critical step towards ending the violence. Democrats who favor a speedy withdrawal from Iraq should've known that.

And finally Democrats went off the rocker this week about Maliki's denunciation of Israel's bombing of Lebanon. Howard Dean, the man who once rightly noted that the US should be more "evenhanded" in the Middle East, yesterday called Maliki an "anti-Semite." I'm sorry, but what do Democrats expect from a man whose government might get overthrown by Moqtada al-Sadr?

Our president is obtuse enough. He doesn't need an assist from the opposition.

Comments (50)

1. Ari,

   Well said.

   Our Congress reflects sophistry from Republicans and demagoguery from Democrats; but then that is what you get when you have dishonest and deceptive leadership by the Executive Branch.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/27/2006 @ 11:14am

2. Subtlety, nuance, carefully crafted rational - sorry but that just doesn't work anymore with the jaded American public. Don't you ever watch Faux news ? So why not take a page from Georgie and uncle Dickie's book and demagogue like crazy ? This is especially recommended to those who DON'T have the advantage of the "bully pulpit".

   Posted by Red Neckerson at 07/27/2006 @ 11:42am

3. C'mon, Red. Most of the time I hate quoting Gandhi cliches, but "be the change you want to see in the world." How else does the world get any better?

   Couldn't agree more, Ari. The Democratic Party really is a sorry mess, certainly for the reasons you cited, as well as others. Keep after 'em.

   B.

   Posted by Blinky at 07/27/2006 @ 12:28pm

4. Rio- People like yourself are so willfully ignorant and blind that they cannot see the truth that is right in front of them. You are on a slippery slope to oblivion and I'm going out to get more banana skins to put on the slope.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/27/2006 @ 1:25pm

5. Democrats should rightly condemn George Bushs disasters in Iraq and Lebannon, this thing in Lebannon is horrible, this isnt the same dazed world these Democrats were living in. The fullness of the disaster hasnt set in, it is foolish for some Democrats to buy stock in it now.

   Posted by LiberalPride at 07/27/2006 @ 1:59pm

6. Too many Democrats (and citizens, and media-types, and especially Nation bloggers) have fallen into the Republican trap of "you're either with us or against us"...false logic. There is no longer any such thing as a nuanced position in political dialogue. If you don't like what someone else has to say, COVER YOUR EARS TIGHTER AND SHOUT LOUDER!!! And please, whatever you do, don't EVER recognize that there may be even the TINIEST GRAIN OF TRUTH in any of your opponents' positions. Holy Crap...you may be accused of NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS.

   Posted by liveeasy at 07/27/2006 @ 2:57pm

7. Democrats attacking from the right is terrible, and should rightly be condemned by liberals and welcomed by conservatives.

   Ari is wrong to equate the United Emirates Port fiasco with this, the UAE has no reason to have to run any of our ports - its just tough that George Bush had to eat his UAE ports scheme.

   Demagoging George Bush over the Iraqi government amnesty proposal was fair game because it spotlighted what Conservatives would like to sweep under the rug.

   This Lebannon thing is different, this is an unfolding disaster that some Democrats still underestimate - it is going to get bad, they will have to hang this around George Bushs neck where it belongs, and the Democrats have no business buying stock in this latest disaster in Lebannon.

   Posted by LiberalPride at 07/27/2006 @ 6:29pm

8. Too many Democrats (and citizens, and media-types, and especially Nation bloggers) have fallen into the Republican trap of "you're either with us or against us"...false logic. There is no longer any such thing as a nuanced position in political dialogue. If you don't like what someone else has to say, COVER YOUR EARS TIGHTER AND SHOUT LOUDER!!! And please, whatever you do, don't EVER recognize that there may be even the TINIEST GRAIN OF TRUTH in any of your opponents' positions. Holy Crap...you may be accused of NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS.

   I think this is absolutely right, but with regard to political discussion on both sides of the aisle. Both Republicans and Democrats have become extremely polarized, even though the majority of their constituencies (thankfully) often don't share that kind of polarization. Democrats (and sometimes extreme liberals) often refuse to accept that anything a conservative might have to say could be intelligent, and vice versa. Rhetoric such as "hamster" and "traitor," of course, doesn't help at all. Believe it or not, both sides do have legitimate points of view to offer, and to simply reject the "other side" without even giving their viewpoint consideration is nothing short of arrogant presumption. Maybe it'll turn out that you're right, but that's something that you should have to argue for and discuss in a civilized manner, not just assert loudly. That's the only way a good democracy can work.

   Posted by Thrawn at 07/27/2006 @ 7:18pm

9. THRAWN

   Trying to find common ground??? Are you applying to the State Dept?

   God Bless

   Posted by CPT at 07/27/2006 @ 7:32pm

10. Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/27/2006 @ 7:35pm

    Hey, they had trapper john on as a commentator.

    All those years playing an army doctor on a television sitcom gave him a unique perspective into recent events in the Middle East

    Posted by Will C. at 07/27/2006 @ 9:05pm

11. This Lebannon thing is different, this is an unfolding disaster that some Democrats still underestimate - it is going to get bad, they will have to hang this around George Bushs neck where it belongs, and the Democrats have no business buying stock in this latest disaster in Lebannon.

    Lebanon is Bush's fault?? LOL

    I see the term "nuanced" used repeatedly here. Isn't that a French word for "Bullshit"? To see nuance in action...watch the UN. "peace deals", "Peace-keepers", "Humanitarian efforts", "Resolutions", etc... never solved a damn thing, yet we fund 25-30% of this elitist debating society.

    If the UN Security Council would have been unanimous in upholding their 18 resolutions against Saddam, we most likely would not be there today. Of course, there was money to be made by our "friends" once the UN got involved. "Nuance" wouldn't call a spade a spade and actually correct the situation, but would further enable the status quo.

    Posted by Sliver at 07/27/2006 @ 10:45pm

12. Frank...your hard-on for Fox News makes you appear as the bed-wetting kin of Keith Olbermann.

    Posted by Sliver at 07/27/2006 @ 10:46pm

13. less-than-zero again reveals the depth of his political knowledge and understanding with his analysis of john bolton's confirmation, which he first says has happened and a paragraph later merely predicts will happen, because democrats agree with bolton. once again ltz demonstrates he will not let facts get in the way of his making his ideologically driven points. democrats on the senate foreign relations committee were unanimous in their opposition to confirmation a year ago, and there's not one dem on the committee who has indicated publically a change of heart; the only reason he has come before the committee at this time is a change of heart among republicans, primarily voinovich. this is very much an inside baseball deal, and the strength of dem opposition relates far more to nsa surveillance and his long history of deceipt and ideological rigidity than it does with today's events. but don't let any of this get in the way of normal day-to-day blogging fun and games.

    Posted by nk at 07/28/2006 @ 12:03am

14. Posted by ORAIBI1952 07/27/2006 @ 11:14am Our Congress reflects sophistry from Republicans and demagoguery from Democrats; but then that is what you get when you have dishonest and deceptive leadership by the Executive Branch.

    There is also demagoguery from the Republicans. One reason that there is no effective opposition fight against grotesque gerrymandering (fueled in part by modern GIP systems and databases), is that the Party of the Incumbant is a beneficiary of gerrymandering.

    Another line of demagoguery from the Party of the Incumbent is "Gasoline Price Gouging." Gas prices are higher than previously (but lower than elsewhere in the developed world) because of simple demand and supply. Given the quite modest and expensive oil reserves within the US, the only bona fide policies that can help moderate the rise in gas prices is demand reduction.

    But its much easier to talk about price gouging.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 07/28/2006 @ 01:45am

15. Howard Dean vs FROMREDBIRD bloggers.

    That's some irony all right. Dean assaults Al Maliki as an "anti-Semite" for just mentioning Israel's culpability (if that) in the present crises, but not Hezbollah.

    Meanwhile on the Blogosphere (Dean's supposed base) they say MUCH worse, parroting Hamas and Hezbollah talking points.

    So....both with Israel and on other issues, the question becomes--who controls the agenda of the Democratic Party? The "old Democrats" (Hillary, Lieberman, Biden)....the "new Democrats" (Dean)...or the "Blogo Democrats"?

    Posted by Mask at 07/28/2006 @ 09:15am

16. from TNR

    Il.Duce.blogspot.com by Lee Siegel Post date: 07.28.06 Issue date: 08.07.06

    I violated Godwin's Law a few weeks ago. No, not William Godwin, Shelley's mentor and the proto-socialist husband of Mary Wollstonecraft. That's too old. I mean Mike Godwin, the American computer law attorney. He drew up his law in 1990. It states that the longer an online discussion, the more likely it is that someone will compare someone else to a Nazi or to Hitler. At that point, tradition commands that the thread shall be shut down. I ran afoul of the law in a very big way. On my own New Republic blog, I called the entire political blogosphere fascistic and coined the term "blogofascism." Everybody went nuts. I was a "douchebag." I was "mentally unbalanced." My writing was "spittle." According to one cognitively inclined blogger, "Lee Siegel has comprehension problems." One reply was especially hurtful: "I don't know what Lee Siegel looks like, but in my mind I picture a confused, angry Burt Reynolds."

    I don't blame people for getting upset. The word "fascist" summons up historical nightmares, yet it also puts you in mind of the infantile left's hotheaded invective. Both associations were, in fact, my hotheaded point. Godwin's Law didn't come out of nowhere. The left-liberal blogs have become a playground of reckless, bullying invective. (I expect it on the right.) The Iraq war fomented a polarized politics more antagonistic than at any time since the Vietnam war, and that condition crystallized the left-liberal blogosphere's obstreperousness. Like its right-wing counterpart, polarization and rage are its meat and drink. George W. Bush's criminal incompetence is the engine that drives it.

    But it's not exactly effectual to be sustained by what you hate. Politics is about persuading your adversary's supporters to come to your side. It's not about reassuring everyone on your side--under the guise of "thinking strategically"--that you and they are absolutely right. The Republican right wing pushed its party to an extremist fundamentalism. That, in turn, created its mirror image in the fevers of the left-liberal blogosphere, which is now trying to push the Democrats to an extremist fundamentalism. Fascism, having begun as a syncretic socialism, wasn't always evil. It started out in radically polarized circumstances and consisted of extremist and fundamentalist rhetoric. It was a style before it became a movement. I wasn't stigmatizing a politics. I was characterizing a mode of expression.

    A good fight is certainly not something I mind--if you dish it out, et cetera. Yet, having been stung by my charges of dictatorial bullying, the left-liberal blogs proceeded to prove my point. They bunched together in a corner of the schoolyard and solicited one another's approval by heaving bigger and sloppier mudpies. It wasn't a good intellectual and rhetorical fight at all. But, beyond the blogofascist aside, I had made an argument that I waited futilely for someone to address. I had questioned the effectiveness of blogospheric rage and suggested that blogger fanaticism had a lot to do with the inability of bloggers to apply themselves to serious reflection. All the bite-sized thoughts, rapid disses, and inanely meandering threads make it hard to concentrate on anything for very long. Linking is no substitute for thinking. So people scream because they can't focus. You have the impression of bloggers who are so pacified by shouting their rage--and so appeased by smugly shared sentiments--that they turn off their computers at night and go to sleep feeling empowered and relaxed. No wonder, several years after the blogosphere allegedly became a people powerhouse, the country is mired even deeper in Iraq and successfully distracted by one false public alarm after another. Catharsis is for art, not politics.

    All this is fairly tragic, because blogging is full of promise. Blogs--and I don't mean only political blogs--offer newer and wider opportunities to all sorts of people. We all know by now how they can shame the mainstream media for its uptight passivity, its infinite degrees of complicity with the status quo, its sight- and hearing-impaired hubris. But maybe blogs' brightest capacity is to create new inroads for gifted writers and thinkers excluded, by the whimsy of circumstance, from the established venues. Why did so many powerful mainstream editors finally bend both ears to the bloggers? Because, throughout their lives, their elite social reflexes had prompted them to avoid friction or antagonism at all costs. And here were these sudden antagonists, inhabiting an unfamiliar environment, loudly and publicly attacking them right where they lived. So the powerful, prestigious editors heeded their social reflexes, reached out to the bloggers, and opened a few doors for them.

    Yet the specter of the blogosphere's gradual assimilation into the mainstream is just as disheartening as the blogosphere's complacent groupthink and insular chitchat. It points to a certain buried diffidence, which you can see in the mask of anonymity so many bloggers hide behind. Is it too much to ask people to put their name where their mouth is? Even for bloggers who use their own names, all the compulsive linking--to a degree, linking is the new logrolling--is a way never to say anything provocative without nervously assuring the reader that someone else said it first. Maybe the blogosphere is in such danger of slipping into the status quo because a lot of bloggers have the mainstream editors' very same social reflexes, but in reverse.

    I would love to see a million blogs bloom with real idiosyncratic thinking, real provocation outside any group's agenda, real argument, real eloquence, and even real investigative reporting. "People power" doesn't have to be a synonym for "lack of daring and originality." The question the blogosphere has to ask itself is whether it truly has become a rejuvenating alternative to the status quo in journalism and politics or a dumping ground for the mainstream's worst aspects--political extremism, narcissistic fantasy, cowardly herding. Or, as Burt Reynolds put it in Sharky's Machine, "You know, Frisco, when we used to flush the toilet upstairs, we always wondered where it came to."

    Posted by nk at 07/28/2006 @ 09:16am

17. Al Maliki lived in Lebanon. Al Maliki is a Shia. Al Maliki lives in Iraq. The Dems are as dumb as the Republicans. A lot of those Dems voted for the tragedy in Iraq. They didn't even bother to find out if what Bush said, in his famous lead up to the war, if Bush was telling the truth. It is that old superior sense of themselves rearing it's ugly head. They all know so much. They are so smart. Can't you tell? Maude

    Posted by Maude at 07/28/2006 @ 09:16am

18. Posted by NK 07/28/2006 @ 09:16am | ignore this person

    Mr Siegal's experience isn't unique.

    Here, at the blogs of "The Nation", I have been put on "Ignore" by people because "I'm sick of reading his (MASK) right-wing drivel...who needs it?"

    No, I'm not whining about it. If ZERO and FROMREDBIRD don't want to read what I write, fine with me. But what's interesting is their REASON for doing it.

    I've put both left AND right wing posters on my "Ignore List", primarily (almost exclusively) due to their vitriolic statements and knee-jerk ad hominum attacks, but never for their opinions, even if I strenuously disagree with them.

    And I've seen that on other blogs, while the right wing blogs tend to mock (sometimes debate) the left wingers who appear there, but don't want them to go away....the LEFT wing blogs go into "Get off OUR blog, you evil neo-con", if you are anywhere but to the Left of Dennis Kucinich or Russ Feingold.

    Posted by Mask at 07/28/2006 @ 09:55am

19. btw, if folks think feingold occupies the same political space as kucinich, they are in for a big surprise. feingold is an independent thinker, not unhappy to be a loner, not overly eager to be accepted, not always playing to the crowd, though also not above playing politics (people are shocked, shocked!) and seeking attention. kucinich is far more predictable and not nearly as smart as feingold.

    Posted by nk at 07/28/2006 @ 10:40am

20. Posted by NK 07/28/2006 @ 10:40am | ignore this person

    YIKES! NK. Talk about "opening a can of worms the size of Saturn-V booster stage"....you dissing Dennis!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 07/28/2006 @ 10:47am

21. total lightweight, though i'm sure he would be a pleasant dinner companion

    Posted by nk at 07/28/2006 @ 11:52am

22. Bush's Legacy: Our macabre inheritance

    A little more than sixty-percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the Democratic and Republican parties. Americans overwhelmingly support the generic Democratic agenda of increasing the minimum wage, stem cell research, and national security policies. They will be this touting "message" as "A New Direction for America". Most Americans would like to elect a Democrat to congress in this year's midterm elections.

    The Democrats have many hurdles to overcome. Control of the House of Representatives rests for Democrats and Republicans on candidates in approximately thirty-five swing districts. Democratic voters in other districts are pretty much wasting their time voting for their party's congressional candidates.

    Gerrymandering has rendered voting for congressional representatives a nullity in nearly four-hundred house districts drawn to elect a Republican or a Democrat before one vote is cast. In many districts the Republican or Democratic incumbent will run unopposed. We call this democracy.

    This year look for Republicans to run district campaigns. Once identified Republican candidates will pound Democratic candidates into the ground early and often with character destructive messages . If Democrats could run with an overarching national message it's possible a House majority may be theirs. The real question rests on two factors, can the Democratic message hydra be tamed before Labor Day, and will domestic issues be on the minds of voters when they enter the polls? It seems until now getting the Democrats to articulate a consistent message has not happened since Bill Clinton left office. This relatively simple feat for Democrats is easier than herding cats, wrestling a greased pig....

    On the foreign policy front, if Democrats speak in vague "diplo-speak, which is their muddle-headed way, watch the Repubs again brand them as not only soft on terrorism, but question their loyal to Israel.

    On both the domestic and foreign policy issues if Democrats allow Republicans to draw them into a debate of nuisances--the proverbial how many angels can dance on the head a pin--they will lose.

    Will Democrats run such a straight forward campaign, probably not. Bush has left his legacy. We are committed to maintaining our military presence in Iraq until 2020-2025, possibly even longer if the county is partitioned. The horrible reality is some of our children who begin kindergarten this fall will die in Iraq.

    We will support Israel with military aid including American troops if hostilities continue and Iran and Syria become directly involved. Is our policy a strategy of "spheres of influence" with the U.S. staking-out the Mid-East?

    No matter what party wins or loses in '06 or '08, this war will skyrocket Federal deficit spending as far as the eye can see. Domestic spending increases will be pie-in-the-sky without tax hikes and means testing of all safety net programs, including Social Security. These domestic cuts do not include the back-door budget slashes Bush made in order to fund his tax cuts. Many of these cuts do not become effective until after he leaves office.

    This is the Bush legacy. It is the macabre inheritance both Republicans and Democrats will confront for generations. .

    Posted by joegarcia at 07/28/2006 @ 12:31pm

23. Posted by JOEGARCIA 07/28/2006 @ 12:31am | ignore this person

    A point I made earlier on the KVH post on "Iraq Reconstruction Costs"...

    the endless spending promises of the Democrats (from "universal health care" to "restoring GOP cuts") CANNOT occur....unless they take the suicidal approach of a massive tax hike...AND they keep their promise to be more fiscally responsible than the Republicans.

    Something HAS to give....either no new spending...new taxes...or no deficit reduction. Any of which costs them key voting blocs in 2008.

    Posted by Mask at 07/28/2006 @ 12:35pm

24. MASK:

    In response to your point that Right Wing blogs do not ignore liberal bloggers. I responded to an article on the "Red State" blog a few months ago, telling them I'm an ex-Republican who thinks Bush is a terrible President, and explaining why conservatives should agree. I made no accusations againt the author of the article or the blog, nor did I use foul language. The head of the blog sent me an e mail the next day saying I was banned. In short, I respectfully disagree with you.

    Posted by trabaris at 07/28/2006 @ 1:13pm

25. Posted by JOEGARCIA 07/28/2006 @ 12:31am

    Posted by MASK 07/28/2006 @ 12:35am

    In '88, the first election I really paid close attention to as a young voter, I was working for the Nat. Park Service, surrounded by eager, excited Democrats who were counting down the days to the Dukakis innauguration. "Wait a second," I would say. "Is he the guy you want to restart the Democratic residency in the White House? And is any Democrat going to be fortunate to inherit the mess that kindly ol' Mr. Reagan is leaving behind?" The economy barely made it through Reagan's last years after the Wall Street near-collapse in fall '86, leaving little doubt that a tax hike would be required. Why make a Democrat the bad guy, I wondered.

    This is a different time and '08 is still really a long way off. But the list of viable candidates from both parties is rather uninspiring. As difficult a challenge as will be faced by the next president, the Dems might be wise to send in a patsy candidate in '08 and start planning now for '12; in a sense, take a knee and head into halftime losing, but come out of halftime with a new QB and gameplan. Sorry for the football analogy, but this time of the year sucks for sports fans, so I'm getting a little antsy.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/28/2006 @ 1:55pm

26. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 07/28/2006 @ 1:55pm | ignore this person

    The Blogosphere Left would never stand for that kind of move...and I'd think they'd be right.

    "Losing to win" was an old GOP/conservative idea. "Let things get SO bad under the liberals, that they'll be discredited for 30 years and we'll win every election."

    Fortunately (or unfortunately) no politician or group wants to wait the obligatory 10-15 years for "things to collapse" to take power.

    What will happen under a Dem Presidency in 2008 is...either (A) spending inertia, but no tax hikes and reductions in the deficit, or (B) an attempt to press through "secret" tax hikes and claim a "universal health care" program is VITAL due to a "health crises".

    "A" is Bill Clinton post 1994.

    "B" is Clinton and the Democrats in 1993-1994 and we saw what THAT did to the Democrats.

    Posted by Mask at 07/28/2006 @ 2:38pm

27. Posted by MASK 07/28/2006 @ 2:38pm

    Every Dem out there looks like Dukakis to me: stiff and staged, argumentative about trivia and silent on matters of grave importance, supportive of obviously flawed measures and then critical once those measures are enacted and the flaws slap them on their faces. Even St. Russ tucks in his tail when pressed to elaborate on his "maverick" votes or opinions. Until a member of the party can speak clearly and forcefully for longer than 5 minutes, the party will be unwelcome in the White House. Deservedly so.

    I see people here and elsewhere who continue to sing Bush's praises for his swagger, focus, clarity of purpose. Generally I avoid having a beverage when encountering suck tripe for fear that it will end up coming out of my nose. However, I can't deny that a large minority of people do view him as a great leader. And that's all it takes: it matters little what he does or says; but he seems like a leader. I just can't believe that a liberal candidate can't have his "skills" and also the burden of a more comprehensive plan and vision for this country.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/28/2006 @ 3:09pm

28. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 07/28/2006 @ 3:09pm | ignore this person

    Dems in a trap the Republicans aren't.

    Right now, polling shows that RUDY GUILIANI leads the GOP front runners for 2008. Now there's a pro-choice, pro-gun control guy leading the Repub polliing. Primarily, because even the Religious Righties realize that if they don't "move back to the center", they can get stomped in 2008.

    On the Democratic side....(sigh)...we've got an omerta attack on Joe Lieberman for not toeing the line on Iraq (despite a 90% vote record with the Dem leadership; pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-environment)....Howard Dean attacking Al Maliki as an "anti-Semite", while Dean's bloggers attack Israel worse than the Iraqi PM did.....and "The Nation" semi-seriously pushing for Bill Moyers to run so that a "true progressive voice will be heard in the race" (meaning that Russ Feingold is now a "moderate" to them).

    The smart party will be the one that re-captured that much-maligned and abused "center" and pushes a moderate package of deficit control and some "trimming around the edges" on health care, education, infrastructure, energy alternatives.

    But if the "fundamentalists" (as Charlie Cook called them on NPR this morning) of one party take over (or keep control)...the other party wins.

    Posted by Mask at 07/28/2006 @ 3:32pm

29. There is no "smart party" between the two, as Mr. Berman has suggested, and it is dogged adherence to either course that guarantees the further decline and collapse of U.S. "culture" on the world scene in anything but the most petty and militarist sense. It's sad, really. But if this is the way the United States goes out, this is the way it goes out.

    Posted by MyCrow at 07/28/2006 @ 4:38pm

30. Interesting points, MASK, yet I wonder at this moment how much about Giuliani most people know beyond the impression that he was a rock of calm and stability in the face of disaster. You could just as easily point to HRC as the Dems' #1 and find "centrist" written all over her forced smile. What should make '08 a most interesting election season is that both major parties are without clear direction: will the GOP as a whole move to the shmarmy right with the puffy George Allen, to the faux middle with McCain, or closer to the real middle with Giuliani? will the Dems move to the puffy, inconsistent left with Feingold, to the faux, loudmouthed left with Biden, or to the hard-to-believe middle with Hillary?

    My money's on...Pat Paulson.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/28/2006 @ 4:55pm

31. Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/28/2006 @ 08:59am: Want even higher gas prices, support Demoncrat party continuing obstructionism!

    The Senate plans to vote on an offshore drilling bill next week that would open more than 8 million acres to energy development in the Gulf of Mexico. Although the bill's passage appears to be safe, Democrats are already lining up to oppose it.

    I was talking about Democratic grandstanding and band-aid solutions like price gouging legislation, so I am happy that you present another version of grandstanding band-aid solutions. The US does not have enough untapped oil reserves to have a noticable impact on world supply. However it does have enough demand to have a noticeable impact on world demand.

    And of course, tapping it now does nothing to help out 20 years from now. Meanwhile, measures to reduce demand that have a noticable impact in the next five years will have an even bigger impact 20 years from now.

    And even though the facts are simple enough that an eight year old could understand them, Congress continues to grandstand, precisely in support of simple minded sloganeering.

    The thing is that demand restraint does not lead to oil company profits. It certainly defends a lot of profit, especially among small businessmen, but the oil companies are prepared to pay on the barrel head for the policy they want, while the small businessment are all too easily diverted.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 07/28/2006 @ 5:40pm

32. If we are to believe the recent Harris poll which says over 50% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein had and used W.M.D. during the March 2003 invasion then the November election will remain in Republican control. Will the White House liars prevail or will those who still honor freedom and our democracy finally show up at the polls and relegate the tinhorn dictator, G. W. Bush, to his richly deserved lame duck standing?

    Ignorance is bliss as we have seen over and over while the Bush mob continues to control the media with lie after lie in selling the catastrophic Iraq War as a "just and noble" enterprise.

    Too bad for the U.S. military now that they are placed in the role that G. W. Bush denounced during the 2000 presidential campaign when he said that American soldiers should not be put in harm's way and that the U.S. should not be the world's policemen or nation builders.

    Those, of course, are just more lies which G. W. Bush and his corrupt, corrosive, gutless Republican-controlled U.S. Congress expect voters to forget because that's exactly what the corrupt Republican-controlled government is doing under the autocracy of G. W. Bush.

    G. W. Bush continues to dole out charity in the way of sops to Afghanistan, once again controlled by drug and war lords while it leads the world in opium production, rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq, most of which has gone to providing security and whopping, no-accountability, no-bid contracts to Halliburton and huge $3 to $5 billion bribes to dictators like Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf to remain part of the comical coalition of the willing which still includes the Kingdom of Tonga and their Tongalese Vanilla Bean Brigade.

    Now, 20-year-old grunts who were trained to find and kill the enemy are being used as social workers and nation rebuilders in a Shiite-dominated government that hates the U.S. military which has occupied their country for the past three years. Now, we see that Bush's Iraqi puppet leader, Nouri al-Maliki, is denouncing Israel and supporting the Hezbollah terrorists who have declared they want to wipe Israel off the map. Not only has Bush put our U.S. military in harm's way, but he demands that they support an Iraqi Islamist Shiite government that represents everything contradictory to liberty and freedom from oppression.

    With over 2,550 U.S. military having now come home in body bags and flag-draped coffins, over 18,500 wounded and the deaths of over 50,000 Iraqi men, women and children, G. W. Bush presumes that his unchecked powers permit him to break the laws of the U.S. Constitution and trash our freedoms and liberties.

    To the class of 2007: get ready, because the draft is about to be reinstated. Mr. Bush's legacy, not your lives or America's security, is at stake for the final two years of his tyranny and totalitarian rule.

    But that could all change overnight if the two-thirds majority of Americans who oppose almost all of Bush's policies put the brakes on this runaway autocracy in November.

    Posted by richard38 at 07/28/2006 @ 6:33pm

33. Zero is right. We have a one-party system when it comes to Israel, who act out with psychotic impunity like the bullying sons of....a bullying son. (I would love to see the mainstream media cover some of the shit that's going down, the direct specific attacks on U.N. observers and Red Cross...hell, where is the Nation's coverage of this stuff???) And when I hear that the Democratic Party's big plan for victory this year is to avoid mentioning Iraq, I want to scream. All Progressives who go along for the ride will find themselves stuck at the bus stop in Stinkytown with no return ticket. Don't go.

    Posted by Vic Perry at 07/28/2006 @ 10:07pm

34. RICHARD38--- No, no draft. Repubs don't want it, and given Dems have promised to get us out of Iraq, they can't sell a draft when there'll be no war, can they?

    RIO--- Just a slight correction...Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is a House Rep, not a Senator.

    Posted by Mask at 07/29/2006 @ 08:53am

35. Re Bush's Legacy: Our macabre inheritance from JOEGARCIA 07/28/2006 @ 12:31am, and the response from MASK 07/28/2006 @ 12:35am ...

    I completely agree that the Bush presidency has been all about committing the nation to long term obligations that serve Republican interests, mainly having to do with borrowed money and foreign entanglements. And they have done it generally with minimal justification and often with outright dishonesty, sometimes crossing the line into criminality and possibly into treason.

    But I stopped crying about a while ago.

    Americans do not like a loser. Ask any Vietnam vet. And when the media's interest in pretending their policies actually make sense is over, there is absolutely no question that this little window of Republican dominance will be seen as one of weakness and stupidity - a time when America was on the losing end. Anyone over the age of forty can see the stark difference between our situation now and what it was in the past.

    For better or worse, the Democrats will certainly get away with blaming all the trouble on the Republicans. And at least for a few years, they'll be able to carve out commitments to their help-the-people agenda and skate around the fact that the money will come out of what is now considered defense. As long as they don't blatantly appease a terror group, and manage a turn-and-walk instead of a cut-and-run, no one but the hard-core opposition is going to complain.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 07/29/2006 @ 09:21am

36. Of course, the big hole in my logic there is that they actually have to win some damned elections!

    Posted by MyParadigm at 07/29/2006 @ 09:23am

37. My money's on...Pat Paulson. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 07/28/2006 @ 4:55pm

    ---------------------------------

    We've upped our standards. Now up yours! -Pat Paulson

    Posted by mybrid at 07/29/2006 @ 1:05pm

38. Rio, I think you misunderstood what I'm saying when you responded, "Now, don't forget that it is a Democrat who has been advocating reinstating a national draft so you won't get confused and mislead someone to believe it is a Republican idea!!!!!!!"

    The truth is, Bush has sapped our military readiness at an unprecedented rate. At a cost of over $6 billion per month and loss of billions more in equipment and combat-ready strength, we will absolutely need a draft because there are literally dozens of other hot spots around the world which are challenging U.S. hegemony. When Democrats complain that we should pull out of Iraq and "redeploy" just where do they think the manpower is coming from?

    Let me put this straight right now. I don't have any use for either political party but the Republicans are in charge of everything, including keeping our military strong enough and prepared to protect our country. But, G.W. Bush and the current group of people in the U.S. Congress barely even mention the huge shortfall that the military is experiencing when, not if, our country will need to fight future wars with Iran, Syria or North Korea. Few care to even bring up the growing military might of China which now is challenging our hegemony both economically and militarily. How naive is it for anyone to suggest, as some of the Democrats are calling for, that we should redeploy our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan to other places in the world? It's just not possible given the finite number of combat-ready military we have today.

    In our own country we experienced the effects of Katrina where National Guard troops were needed to bring in supplies and establish rescue operations, yet many units do not have the helicopters and trucks to accomplish basic emergency relief.

    Bush will be out of office in January, 2009. What kind of military will we have then if he and his ruling party shortchange the American people by refusing to build up our military forces because they have seen it as politically unpopular? It only proves how little they really care about our national security when they have put our country at the brink of economic bankruptcy while simultaneously leaving our nation vulnerable to outside forces that know we have gambled away our military strength in order to preserve a megalomaniac's self-perceived legacy of the "great war president." But this administration has created a nightmare scenario if they think shock and awe bombing alone will defeat our enemies. We will need massive manpower with all the best equipment to prevail in a conflict against those who value neither human life nor freedom.

    Yes, I support a military draft because it is not only patriotic to serve in the U.S. military, but it is a necessity if we are to survive in the world of turmoil we are living in today.

    Posted by richard38 at 07/29/2006 @ 1:23pm

39. Does this mean that anyone calling for a cease fire is an anti semite? I f that's the Democratic parties position...then they're flat out insane. Not worthy of supporting in November. Or is this a case of the Democrats, especially Hillary , sucking up to the all powerful Jewish lobby in America.

    Posted by ronboe1 at 07/29/2006 @ 2:04pm

40. Posted by MASK 07/28/2006 @ 3:32pm says, The smart party will be the one that re-captured that much-maligned and abused "center" and pushes a moderate package of deficit control and some "trimming around the edges" on health care, education, infrastructure, energy alternatives.

    But if the "fundamentalists" (as Charlie Cook called them on NPR this morning) of one party take over (or keep control)...the other party wins.

    That would seem to put the Democrats on the inside track, since they are a lot better placed to trim around the edges on health, education, infrastructure and energy independence. Guliani may be leading polling in terms of first preference, first past the post, but he also seems to be among the front runners for disaprove among Republican voters.

    The Democrats main chance to lose the election would be nominating Saint Hillary and, of course, one should never write off the Democrats ability to decide to lose a Presidential election.

    While the Democrat's position on Israel will involve a massive amount of pandering to the position of Israel right wingers, so will the Republican's position, so that will cancel out. That tends to be foreordained by the winner-take-all electoral college system that replaced the original electoral college system early on in American history, given the size of the Jewish electorate in New York, Florida, California and Illinois.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 07/29/2006 @ 2:35pm

41. is there anyone, ANYONE, here capable of making a reasonable case for the palestinians -- that segment, supposedly well over 50%, that wishes to live in its own state side by side in peace with israel -- without resorting to calling israelis the new nazis, without saying that every american politician sympathetic to israel is a tool of the jewish lobby, without arguing that all the justice is on the palestinian side and all the evil on the israeli side?

    Posted by nk at 07/29/2006 @ 4:44pm

42. is there anyone, ANYONE, here capable of making a reasonable case for the palestinians --

    Posted by NK 07/29/2006 @ 4:44pm

    Yes

    for both justice and consistency... Israel should finally be required to fulfill every UN resolution relating to it, the Palestinians and the occupied territories.

    if it does this, the segment of Palestinians you mentioned above will get their dream, Israel will remain... Israel

    and Hezbollah will no longer have a reason to continue on its quest for regime change

    Posted by Will C. at 07/29/2006 @ 5:40pm

43. really? every u.n. resolution? so you are arguing to go back to the partition plan?

    Posted by nk at 07/29/2006 @ 7:15pm

44. really? every u.n. resolution? so you are arguing to go back to the partition plan?

    Posted by NK 07/29/2006 @ 7:15pm

    No, I'm not

    at the time of the partition plan... there was no state of Isreal

    but if you are now arguing that we should go back that far...

    Posted by Will C. at 07/29/2006 @ 7:43pm

45. wow ari - u are so right. what more need be said?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/29/2006 @ 10:04pm

46. Again, I just find it amazing that Howard Dean called Al Maliki an "anti-Semite" ....

    for saying things the average Hard Left blogger has said about Israel, even here on "The Nation"!

    Posted by Mask at 07/30/2006 @ 07:35am

47. or saying things the average Hard Left blogger has said about Israel, even here on "The Nation"!

    Posted by MASK 07/30/2006 @ 07:35am

    so true... the commies aways have had it in for israel

    luckily, the great liberal center of America has always supported israels right to exist

    Posted by Will C. at 07/30/2006 @ 09:20am

48. Posted by WILL C. 07/30/2006 @ 09:20am luckily, the great liberal center of America has always supported israels right to exist

    Sadly, this often extends to support for unsustainable and ultimately self-destructive policies like palestinian apartheid.

    Things would be so much simpler if people supported Israel's right to exist based on the principle of self-determination. The problem is that self-determination does not put Israel's right to exist in a special category over and above the right of any other nation to exist.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 07/30/2006 @ 1:47pm

49. Things would be so much simpler if people supported Israel's right to exist based on the principle of self-determination. The problem is that self-determination does not put Israel's right to exist in a special category over and above the right of any other nation to exist.

    Posted by BRUCEMCF 07/30/2006 @ 1:47pm

    Yes... that is the feeling I have been getting from Hamsterland for quite some time. Israel has a right to exist... but only Israel has a right to exist.

    one of the core components of the liberal agenda is establishing justice. This concept is one of our foundational building blocks.

    Justice... and liberty for all

    We just went to war in Iraq to hold that nation to account for demands the world placed in it through the United Nations.

    We must now hold Israel to the same account

    We must do this thing or we must call a constitutional convention to lay out in plain English the new ideals we now stand for. Because the ideals we are practicing are not the same ideals that the great liberal center of America laid down on paper for all the world to see

    Liberty and justice... for all

    Was it just a dream?

    Or are we just lost in a nightmare?

    Posted by Will C. at 07/30/2006 @ 2:40pm

50. Posted by NK 07/29/2006 @ 4:44pm is there anyone, ANYONE, here capable of making a reasonable case for the palestinians -- that segment, supposedly well over 50%, that wishes to live in its own state side by side in peace with israel -- without resorting to calling israelis the new nazis, without saying that every american politician sympathetic to israel is a tool of the jewish lobby, without arguing that all the justice is on the palestinian side and all the evil on the israeli side?

    No worries mate. If the Israelis wish to maintain control of the outer boundaries of the occupied territories, then under the principle of self determination they should give all residents of the occupied territories the vote, and not just Jewish settlers.

    The Israelis as such are not the new Nazis. It is only the militarist hardliners among the Israelis who could be seriously described as Fascists. Like the Nazis, they don't receive the votes of a majority of Israelis, but then in the Israeli political climate under the present political system, they don't need majority support to have political impact.

    A large number of American politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, are distinguished not in terms of whether they are for sale but simply in terms of whom they have sold out to, and pander to the domestic knee-jerk support Israel lobby because it is the easiest thing to do, but on the other hand, some may be genuinely sympathetic to Israel and may adopt the same positions simply from an inability to conceive of most of the policies pushed for by the hardline militants as unsustainable slow-motion suicide.

    The extremists on both sides feed off each other, and collectively help suppress the moderates on both sides.

    Setting aside pre-medieval fantasies in which Israel's right to exist is to be found in the bible, what's done is done. The Israelis have every bit the same right to self-determination as the Palestinians. Whether or not the founding of Israel was justified or not is a moot point ... that is the work of a previous generation and we get nowhere by trying to rewrite history.

    So there you go, how's that?

    Posted by BruceMcF at 07/30/2006 @ 10:07pm