Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditPress reports on the primary victory of Minnesota Democratic U.S. House candidate Keith Ellison make note of the fact that he is now likely to become the first Muslim elected to Congress. But Ellison is also likely to become one of the most left-leaning members of the next House.
The Ellison victory was one of several for anti-war Democrats seeking open seats. Others came in in New York, where City Council member Yvette Clarke won a fierce fight for a Brooklyn seat once held by Shirley Chisholm, and in Maryland, where John Sarbanes, the son of retiring Senator Paul Sarbanes, led in a crowded House race. In Maryland's highest-profile race, however, former NAACP head Kweisi Mfume, who was outspoken in his opposition to the war, lost to the decidely more cautious Representative Ben Cardin by a 46-38 margin.
In another Maryland race, activist Donna Edwards was in a virtual tie this morning with Representative Al Wynn, with a substantial number of votes still to be counted. During the campaign Edwards billed Wynn "the Joe Lieberman of Maryland" because of the Democratic incumbent's many votes in favor of Bush administration initiatives.
If Edwards pulls out a victory, it will be a very big deal.
But Ellison's win is nothing to sneeze at.
What the Minnesota Democrat did right is instructive.
Running against a crowded field for the nomination to replace retiring Representative Martin Sabo, Ellison distinguished himself as a passionate progressive who, in the words of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, mounted a campaign that was "reminiscent of the late U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone."
Ellison featured a photo of himself with Wellstone, the late senator from Minnesota who has become a national progressive icon, in his campaign mailings. He even borrowed the color green, which was used in Wellstone's three Senate campaigns, as the background for "Ellison for Congress" signs and shirts.
It was Ellison's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq -- which Wellstone also opposed in a critical Senate vote shortly before his death in a 2002 plane crash -- that helped him to win the pre-primary endorsenment of the state's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, and the enthusiastic support of grassroots activists during a fast-paced campaign that began only after Sabo unexpectedly announced in March that he would not seek a new term.
"Nearly 2,600 Americans have been killed since the war began on March 19, 2003, and an the estimated 15,800 have been wounded. President Bush recently admitted to 30,000 Iraqi dead, but other estimates put the toll as high as 100,000," argued Ellison. "It is time to admit this war was a terrible mistake and bring our troops home as soon as possible."
The DFL candidate's supporters distributed "Bring Our Troops Home Now" literature throughout the Minneapolis-based district prior to the primary. In the leaflets, Ellison complained that Democrats had "allowed the Republicans to control the dialogue," and promised to "advocate for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq!"
Ellison's leading primary opponents took softer stands on the war issue, just as they did on domestic policy concerns. That allowed Ellison, a state representative, to stand out as not just as a Muslim but as a serious challenger to the status quo on health care -- he's a supporter of single-payer universal coverage -- and a host of other issues.
Ellison also departed from the political norm by targeting what his campaign referred to as "unlikely" primary voters, placing special emphasis on drawing people of color, gays and lesbians and war foes to the polls. In particular, the Ellison campaign focused on getting members of the burgeoning Somali community to vote -- a project to which Wellstone also devoted a great deal of time.
The ideas and the strategies worked. On a primary day that saw mixed results for anti-war candidates, Ellison easily beat a former DFL party chair backed by Sabo, a well-known former state senator and a member of the Minneapolis city council.
Ellison should have an even easier time in November in the overwhelmingly Democratic district. That puts Ellison, a convert to Islam, on track to become the first Muslim member of the Congress and the first African-American representative from Minnesota. It also suggests that Congress well hear an important new progressive voice come January.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Another millstone tied around the neck of the Demoncrat party. Well done Mindlessota!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/13/2006 @ 02:45am
Is anyone in Rioblottostan good for anything besides field manure? If you keep interbreeding with your siblings your average IQ is going to drop so low that someone will have to start watering you once a week.
Posted by fromredbird at 09/13/2006 @ 03:13am
"On a primary day that saw mixed results for anti-war candidates.."
It's called "burying the lead" in journalism.
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2006 @ 07:24am
The Dems are planning a celebration that will rival Wellstone's memorial party. Kick out the jams! Pass the kool-aide! Woo! Party!!
Posted by woodyee at 09/13/2006 @ 10:27am
Ah yes...and we see Rio Loco and his brethren singing that tired old "...and never is heard, a discouraging word. And the skies are not cloudy all day." Cause goodness knows in their la-la land, everything is quite rosy. Just look at Iraq, Afghanistan, corruption and immigration. Why everything thing's just peachy-keen!
No room at his table for anything but "yes men" I suppose. But that in itself is unsurprising. At any rate, it will be a good thing to get a more diverse group of thoughts and opinions, right? Isn't that what America is supposed to be about? Or is that just on paper?
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/13/2006 @ 10:36am
"At any rate, it will be a good thing to get a more diverse group of thoughts and opinions, right? Isn't that what America is supposed to be about? Or is that just on paper?"
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/13/2006 @ 10:36am
LOC....cut & paste this statement...and put in the comments under Adam Howard's latest on "Harold Ford, Jr".
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2006 @ 12:15pm
I truly think that people like Rio, Woodyee and Mask are actually afraid of what might happen if the Dems get up off their asses and actually become an opposition party instead of this triangulating bunch of me-tooers. Then the Dems would regain power (especially if they start emphasizing economic justice for a change) and poor Ol' Rio and his ilk would have to live in a better world for everyone, not just the top 10%
Posted by The Goods at 09/13/2006 @ 12:19pm
Posted by MASK 09/13/2006 @ 12:15am
But I think we have already reached our quota of GOP-ish pseudocrats..... What we don't have is diversity of thought. But if he does get elected his opinions are still there to be heard.
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/13/2006 @ 12:43pm
Posted by THE GOODS 09/13/2006 @ 12:19am
More like the top 2% and the 20% made up of the Rio Blotto saps who serve the function of useful idiots.
You're right, though, about what the power structure fears hysterically- a political party that focuses on the red meat issues that can change American society for the better. Issues like healthcare, job security, retirement, and an America that seeks to live at peace in the world and promote relationships that are mutually beneficial rather than a policy of domination and endless conflict. They know that the last is the surest guarantee against all the others.
Posted by fromredbird at 09/13/2006 @ 12:47pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/13/2006 @ 12:43am
I just thought it was an interesting dichotomy....you praising diversity of thought and opinion.
And Adam Howard bemoning Harold Ford for injecting philosophical diversity as a Democrat.
Actually Mr Howard has little to worry about if Harold Ford seeks a move to the Presidential or Vice-Presidential level....like atleast ONE other conservative Democratic US Senator from Tennessee I can recall, he'll suddenly "grow" and move to the Left.
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2006 @ 1:04pm
It's very interesting that we Dems are NOT duped by the criminals in our party, in government or not, while Repubs are CONTINUALLY duped by theirs. Is this blind loyalty? Or is it just plain stupidity?
If any Repubs on this site can answer either question, or perhaps explain this phenomenon, we'd appreciate it.
Posted by felicity at 09/13/2006 @ 1:56pm
"It's very interesting that we Dems are NOT duped by the criminals in our party, in government or not"
Posted by FELICITY 09/13/2006 @ 1:56pm
FELICITY, just curious....can you name 5-6 criminals in the Democratic Party, that Democrats weren't duped by?
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2006 @ 2:04pm
Posted by MASK 09/13/2006 @ 1:04pm
No dichotomy at all....I am all for freedom of thought/expression. However, I also have the right to decry stupidity, innanity, etc (IMHO) as do you. The thing with Ford is he says "I am a Democrat" and then toes the GOP line. It appears there is enough latitude in the Dem Party to allow "non-believers" in the door. Not so much on the other side of the aisle as I understand it.
But with a grand majority of GOP in charge, I think we are flush at this time with GOP and pseudoDems. But again, if indeed he is voted in, he has the right to be heard.
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/13/2006 @ 2:07pm
Not so much on the other side of the aisle as I understand it.
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/13/2006 @ 2:07pm
Not so sure about that, as I noted....how about a governor of California?...or a former mayor of New York...or a few US Senators, all pro-choice. Meanwhile, where are the "pro-life" national Democrats?
Well, aside from Bob Casey, who's been given a pass because he's the only thing that could take on Santorum (apparently)...they don't get to speak much (ref: Mr Casey's dad in 1992).
While the GOP HQ helps Chaffee (lib Repub) defeat a "pure con" candidate (Laffey) in Rhode Island....the DNC tries to save a 90% lib Dem who's "pro war" in Connecticut and flops miserably. Both showing they can't keep moderates of ANY sort in their party...and that they're toothless versus their rabid purity-demanding base.
Last time I read a poll on GOP candidates for 2008...it included Guiliani at the top of the list. Repubs fail with Bush, get panicky, and see disaster in 2008... they'll even run a pro-choicer. Dems? Took 12 years of Reagan-Bush for them to finally get a centerist with a "Third Way"
BTW, don't you love the fact that ZERO can't get anybody to join him in his "fingers in ears...Nyah,Nyah, I'm not listening! I'm not listening" routine of Ignoring everybody who doesn't fit HIS standard of "right thinking"?
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2006 @ 2:46pm
It's really not a joke - the way readers of these web log entries respond to the brainless troll "conservatives", the end result is that the web logs serve more as a forum for the trolls to air their brainless blather and get responses (ie, attention) than the web logs serve as some sort of channel of communication between their journalist authors and their very interested readers.
Posted by ZERO 09/13/2006 @ 2:24pm
You're right. I've ignore listed about 1/3 of the posts on some threads but I slip back into ridiculing them when I see their posts through someone else's response. There's an inclination to rub it in but they're better left forgotten. They've lost any relevance that they one time had due to the previously underinformed state of the general public. If they spewed this idiocy in public the general public would just ignore them so there's no reason to treat them otherwise here. We may be the only thing keeping them alive at this point.
Posted by fromredbird at 09/13/2006 @ 2:46pm
Posted by ZERO 09/13/2006 @ 2:22pm
Many of the Demo elite will be engaging in pure deception as we approach 2008. If they were sellouts in 2003 they will be sellouts in 2009.
Particularly misguided is the idea that H. Clinton is just deceiving the middle-right part of the political spectrum. No one can convince me that she wouldn't have invaded Iraq just as Bush did and been supported by a majority of the Democratic Party just as Bush was. Chuck Hagel has been more populist on Iraq than H. Clinton.
The ones like this won't get in with my help but let them ascend so we can focus on why they're equally as bad fundamentally.
Posted by fromredbird at 09/13/2006 @ 2:57pm
Red,
" the function of useful idiots. ..."
This term derives from the source of your name(RED)...namely, useful idiots who help the communists and the socialists take over by having people like you sing their tune, and then once in power, you are the ones first to go....
and you are left dumbfounded in front of the firing squads....
The point here is Wellstone could not be reelected in Minnesota today, and if not there, then the prospects are grim at best.
The dems will not take the house in 06...because of who they are and America is starting to take notice.
Posted by john maasch at 09/13/2006 @ 2:59pm
BTW, Minnesota has been turning RED for years..county by county.
Posted by john maasch at 09/13/2006 @ 3:00pm
MASK,
"It's called "burying the lead" in journalism.
Posted by MASK 09/13/2006 @ 07:24a"
It is called "burying the dead"...
Posted by john maasch at 09/13/2006 @ 3:41pm
"Posted by ZERO 09/13/2006 @ 3:37pm "
Thats 3 times I agree with the Zip boy!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by john maasch at 09/13/2006 @ 3:42pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/13/2006 @ 3:41pm |
Mr Nichols is really trying to turn the poultry excrement into poultry meat combined with mayo and celery sandwich spread here (how's that for obtuse?...hehe)
A HOUSE member wins a primary and likely seat in MN, and suddenly "Paul Wellstone and his spirit have returned to the SENATE"!??!?!?
He ignored what Adam Howard wrote just hours later about Harold Ford Jr....who actually WILL BE in the US Senate (all things unchanged) and is Right of Lincoln Chaffee!
And I think it's more likely that the "important voice" in the Congress that's African-American will be the conservative US SENATOR from Tennessee who's the 2nd African-American Senator in a century...
than a freshman Rep from St. Paul, who's still trying to live down comments praising Louis Farrakhan, calling for a separate state for blacks, and who loses his drivers license for un-paid tickets.
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2006 @ 3:55pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/13/2006 @ 4:41pm
RIO...the man's religion doesn't enter into it. He's made a lot of dopey comments, and regardless, isn't going to be the "major player" that John Nichols thinks he is.
And frankly, if you expect "All Muslims to be jihadists", then we should expect "All Christians to be pacifists". And the history just doesn't show that. The Moors who ran Spain and the Turks who ran Byzantium were more accepting and multi-cultural than the Christians. And aside from some Mennonites, Quakers, and Anabaptists, most Christians aren't pacifists (though Jesus clearly was..."turning the other cheek"?), finding their excuse in St. Augustine and "just war".
I'm not a pacifist, pretty hawkish...but not a Christian either. And I'd be a hypocrite if I was, because (as those who love to quote Scripture can no doubt point out) there is no evidence for Jesus supporting any warfare or killing of other humans.
Last truly Christian leaders I've read about, one was Dr. King, the other was a Hindu named Gandhi.
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2006 @ 4:59pm
What about Steele in Maryland? They will kill(lynch)him on this blog...
Posted by john maasch at 09/13/2006 @ 5:14pm
Rio,
Figures.
Posted by john maasch at 09/13/2006 @ 9:00pm
can we please stop with the pointless responses to the brainless "conservatives" already? as it stands, "mask" gets more response from web log readers than nichols, rothberg, or even KVH, the editor. what is more useful to talk about? what the editor of the magazine puts in her web log? or what "mask" and john maasch bubble up in response?
can we please grow up around here? just ignore list the dufus, attention-whore troll "conservatives" and let's get on with using our brains.
Posted by ZERO 09/13/2006 @ 2:15pm |
Friend Zero -
Some good points here, some I'd debate.
I simply cannot support an echo chamber. I've tried here, many many times, to "tune out" the radicalism on both sides (and at other blog boards, right and left), tried to just come and have discourse with my political "friends", but I've come to believe, over the last five years, that one, that's impossible, and two, that it's more important than ever, in this age of instantaneous information transfer, we must not only hear, but truly listen to every representative voice we can. Fruits, nuts, freaks, and killers included. See my article on Sun Tzu in another thread and consider our (I believe) shared viewpoint that we must know and understand our enemies in order to ever "conquer" them.
And I think we would agree on how important it is to remember that those whose views we do not agree with can be guaranteed to never know or understand us (or ever treat as anything but enemies) unless we voice those views.
Even here, on a blog board, with a cast of fifty regulars who (even as they remain solidly opposed and rarely waver), continue to compose, after all, only another kind of echo chamber.
Am I wrong for pointing out fallacies and expressing my opinions about the "dufus, attention-whore troll [conservatives]" like you just did, only whenever I choose to engage the ugly rearing of their ugly heads? Isn't that up to me when I do that?
Granted, I acknowledge their existence (and thereby lend them legitimacy) far more often than I should, but if they choose not to shut up, I can't make them. Notice, I don't tell people to go sit down and have a nice hot cup of "shut the fuck up". I offer them one. If they decline, that's their right, even the "right".
I do have the option of not listening at all, and that is why the Nation has been gracious enough not to censor us directly (has that happened here yet?) and grace us with an "ignore" button. That way, should something offend one of us, we have the ready option to choose to personally ignore it, rather than forcing all of the participants to comply with the demands of one. I think we would both agree that anything less would be heinous.
To me, it also seems enormously passive-agressive (and rather small - most are easy rebuttals) to let some things just slide. Some things Liberty and John M. and Len M. and Mask and CPT and Todd and Rio say are only said to enrage, to detract, to belittle, to demonize, to divide, and they simply must be rebutted. It's a moral imperative. To stand silent allows them, however hollow, a sense of accomplishment, that they have silenced those here who oppose them and have been proven right by that silence. That would be wrong.
When I vehemently disagree, I'm not afraid to say so. And again, I believe that the other "side" has that same right.
(Now, wingnuts, before you start feeling puffy because I say both sides should be able to speak and then throw out some example of an idiot Democrat let me warn you - I may just call the fellow an idiot and deflate your argument - don't set yourself up for the disappointment)
For instance, Zero, there's a guy I don't bother retorting to anymore , the dancing monkey and court jester to both sides here (and the most "outspoken" representative of only one), Barry25. I don't bother with him, Zero, and he is the epitome of your point. I get it.
I also think I speak for many on the nebulous "left" when I say that we will take the harmless nuts of a Rese and Plunger (the only guests on my ignore list, for the record) over the rantings of a surfing-sunburnt, brain-baked, ranting-lunatic exclamation-point-AND-ALL-CAP abusing, hate-and-homophobia partisan hack like ol' Barry... six days a week and twice on Sunday.
But when one of these folks you think we should ignore (even if vehemently opposed to your politics, and you to his) seems like the sort of man-on-the-street you could meet across the land and not an outright ecapee from a nearby facility, you mustn't forget that he is a man-on-the-street, on some street, somewhere, and that you likely wouldn't recognize his politics if you passed him on a sidewalk and looked him in the face.
So, it's important to know what he thinks, what he says to his family and friends, what he believes, because he's out there and he votes, too. And your vote cancels his, and vice versa.
Everyone should be heard. Not responded to, per se (I concede, again, that point), not all... But you get my point, too, I hope.
If someone here says something that's simply untrue, Zero, why not call them on it? They certainly call back if they think we're wrong. And that back-and-forth, that's the definition of dialogue, right or wrong. I have to admit that however ugly some of our conversations may become, we each remain representatives of each of our "sides", and also, dare I say it, share the exercise of free speech.
I'll even be the first to admit to, on occasion, stooping to bald-faced character attacks that are inherently personal (and intended as such), though never intended as a wholesale party-, affiliation-, or religious slur (look at my posts). If one asshole idiot here says something so egregious that I feel compelled to respond (even in kind), well, that's my right. He can personally iggy if he doesn't want to be exposed to my opinion or the way I express it. And the same goes for me if I don't like his opinions. And the same goes for you.
Which brings me to this. Now, I'm genuinely curious: Have I been typing to myself throughout this post? Am I on your iggy list?
If so, why?
If not, in light of all I just said, please answer this:
Zero, am I friend or foe?
Posted by New Dawn at 09/13/2006 @ 9:45pm
Rio and John -
Are you two enjoying one another's company?
Rio, I bet if you swing it right, you can get a free lunch out of John. ;) And John, maybe Rio can teach you how to tie a fly.
You two good ol' boys keep saying "liberals" like it's a curse word, and sputtering "Demoncrats" like a schoolyard taunt (sounds exactly like something a child would say, like calling someone named "Rudy", "Doody"), and talking about how your nebulous "they" will never be in power.
You're both wrong. Things change. They always have and they always will - check a history book - your side won't rule unchallenged forever.
Night, boys.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/13/2006 @ 9:55pm
Though this doesn't necessarily happen all that often, I think New Dawn is absolutely right, but I would actually go even further than he does. Not only is full discourse important in order to really understand one's opposition, but it's also valuable in determining truth. Call me an idealist, but I happen to believe that truth (or at least, something approaching it) can emerge from discourse on important issues. At the very least, being forced to engage those we disagree with forces us to at least consider that we could be wrong, and to at least be open to the idea that someone we disagree with might be right. Since we are, and always will be fallible, we have no justification for ignoring alternative points of view simply because we disagree with them. We can challenge them analytically, can be offended by them, but can never simply assume that they're wrong. Of course, assertions deserve less credibility than actual arguments, but neither can be dismissed off-hand.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/13/2006 @ 11:57pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/14/2006 @ 12:16am
Wow. How do you get the letters to splatter out in order like that, when you verbally vomit into this blog?
Apparently, you are insane and paranoid. Jesus christ, another "persecuted" christian...at least you are funny. (Albeit, unintentionally).
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 09/14/2006 @ 12:46am
That two posts about the value of discourse should be followed by a string of assertions and outrageous strawmen, seems kind of ironic, and not so much hilarious as just sad.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/14/2006 @ 12:46am
And just to be clear, my last post was referencing only the post by Rio.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/14/2006 @ 12:47am
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 09/13/2006 @ 2:57pm
Particularly misguided is the idea that H. Clinton is just deceiving the middle-right part of the political spectrum. No one can convince me that she wouldn't have invaded Iraq just as Bush did and been supported by a majority of the Democratic Party just as Bush was.
That's really a fasciniating comment, and ironic too. As someone on the 'radical right' (about 5/6 of the country in your view, near as I can tell), I have absolutely no doubt that the only conviction that HRC is expressing with her 'support' for the invasion of Iraq is the conviction that she wants, nay, deserves to be President. She's got the money and the organization and therefore the Party in her hand at this point, and her presumption is that the radical left will 'get it' at some point and fall into line when they're told to, i.e., during the Democratic Presidential convention in 2008, and her 'support' for the War on Terrorism will win her enough gullible voters to flip a red state in 2008. Then it's be back to the agenda that warms you liberals hearts: big government, big taxes, and big spending, leading ultimately to the European/New England model: failing economies, falling populations, and massive unemployment.
What's ironic is that people like yourself don't realize that's she's lying through her teeth, and she's really the best you can hope for. It's possible, though, that with enough like yourself, you just may sink her nomination. Ironic in the same sense that the Elian Gonzalez issue (so called 'liberals' sending a child back to slavery in a Communist state) is what flipped Florida into the red column in 2000. You guys just keep screwing yourselves over, and it's not only great entertainment, it's great for the country too.
Posted by pontificus at 09/14/2006 @ 12:49am
Can anyone here observe your posts and then mine, Rio, and honestly argue that between us, I am the man in need of "help"?
Your rhetoric yet again dismisses and mocks, blankets and demonizes (literally) all the world that is not Bush, your church, or your political party. "Us" and "them" taken to the Nth degree? For one whose long life and experiences should have created a wise old man, you seem to be entering your golden years as an alarming simplistic (and simple, but not in a nice way) fellow.
As I asked you earlier, who is not your enemy?
And to any honest Republican conservative here, do you claim this man as your own? Is Rio Bravo your mainstream, or just someone your party is content to sleep with for the votes?
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 12:59am
Posted by THRAWN 09/13/2006 @ 11:57pm Posted by THRAWN 09/14/2006 @ 12:46am Posted by THRAWN 09/14/2006 @ 12:47am
Common ground.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 01:01am
Posted by THRAWN 09/13/2006 @ 11:57pm Posted by THRAWN 09/14/2006 @ 12:46am Posted by THRAWN 09/14/2006 @ 12:47am
Common ground.
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/14/2006 @ 01:01am
Hear hear. I'm glad that we can discover common ground like this, even though we tend to be on somewhat opposite sides of the aisle.
As a sidenote, even those who are a bit more...radical can make solid points every now and then. I tend to side with Fromredbird when it comes to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and I think that occasionally even Rio will make decent points (like the one he kind of made under Katrina's article about how judges shouldn't try to be political activists).
Posted by Thrawn at 09/14/2006 @ 02:33am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/14/2006 @ 02:52am |
"Somehow, I feel the case is that actually the Nation Mag. and its website and blog actually stand in diametric opposition to our national intrest and the best intrest of the world!"
Just reading from the "best newspapers in the world" in London. (Aussie papers of course :-)) Liked this one from the foreign editor of the Australian. Should be enjoyed by all you progressives. Think he is right about Bush's place in history. Not bad for an American chimp:
A GREAT PRESIDENT FOR THESE TERRIBLE TIMES
History will vindicate George W. Bush, just as history vindicated Harry Truman, writes foreign editor Greg Sheridan September 14, 2006
Let me be the first to offer a bold, revisionist view. George W. Bush may well be judged, ultimately, a great president, especially in foreign policy, especially in the war on terror. This consensus won't form for 20 or perhaps 30 years.
Bush resembles Harry Truman. This is not an original observation on my part. Bush himself sometimes makes the comparison. Truman as president understood the Cold War, which broke out on his watch. He set the policies in place, which became known as containment, which led to the defeat of the Soviet Union more than 40 years later.
Bush understands much better than his critics the war on terror and the way the world works more broadly. Above all, he has had the courage to confront reality. The key planks of the Bush doctrine - regarding terrorists not as criminals but as a force at war with the US and its allies; holding state sponsors of terror responsible for the actions of their terrorist surrogates; seeing the root of terror in the profoundly dysfunctional political culture of the Middle East and fighting the ideas behind terror with an agenda of democracy and human rights; reserving the right to take pre-emptive military action against threats that could involve weapons of mass destruction - all these will be maintained by Bush's presidential successors.
Bush, like Truman, has delineated the outlines of the strategy for the war of his time, a war that will last, as Kim Beazley (Australian Opposition Leader) has lately pointed out, for generations.
Truman, you will recall, was an accidental president, much more accidental than Bush. He was a machine senator whom the Democratic Party foisted on Franklin Roosevelt as vice-president because they thought Roosevelt's previous vice-president, Henry Wallace, was, not to put too fine a point on it, a nut.
FDR never liked Truman and rarely consulted him, indeed rarely talked to him. So when FDR died near the end of World War II Truman was seemingly unprepared for foreign policy and national security. Truman never enjoyed a high reputation in office. By the time of the 1952 election, Truman was so discredited that he did not even run for re-election.
Just as Bush's war is Iraq, Truman's war was Korea. As quagmires go, Korea was an infinitely bigger show than Iraq. The US lost more than 50,000 soldiers there and Australia several hundred. Truman failed to win a total victory and fell out spectacularly with his military commander, General Douglas MacArthur, whom he sacked.
The parallels are striking. Bush has not fallen out with his generals but he has faced a continuing insurrection by the CIA. The CIA contains many dedicated folks who do a fine job. But it has a poor record on Iraq and many of its leaders have been consistently disloyal to Bush.
In a democracy, it seems to me, you have a pretty clear choice. You can campaign against government policy, or you can work for an intelligence agency. Many CIA folks have done both. Bush should have fired more of them, as Truman fired MacArthur.
The latest CIA conclusion, that Saddam Hussein had no connections with al-Qa'ida, has to be viewed against the CIA's record of getting everything wrong about Iraq. It was CIA director George Tenet after all, who assured Bush that the case that Saddam had WMDs was a "slam dunk". It also should be noted that saying Saddam had no connections to al-Qa'ida covers the CIA's bureaucratic posterior and lets them off for their flawed assessments of terrorism all through the 1990s. There is substantial evidence of Saddam-al-Qa'ida connections, but that's another column.
The broader political point is that Bush, like Truman, has pursued his policy against the tenacious opposition of some large measure of the US national security establishment.
One of the many failures of the feckless Clinton administration was its inability to take terrorism seriously. Despite the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre, which could so easily have done what 9/11 did, Clinton oversaw extensive reductions in US intelligence in the mid-'90s.
The Clinton administration saw terrorism as a law and order problem and prevented even those few officials who recognised its gravity from taking effective action.
Bush's central insight was to understand, from 9/11, that the terrorists are at war with civilisation, that there is a specific enemy, the ideology of fundamentalist, extremist Islamism represented by al-Qa'ida. Because this terrorist movement is large and has some measure of support from elements of some state apparatuses, and is clever about making alliances, and because it has no moral scruple or restraint and seeks to acquire and use nuclear weapons, it represents a fundamental threat, as great as that of the Soviet Union, though different in character.
One of Bush's key decisions, and this was truly the insight of the much derided neo-conservatives, was that the status quo ante in the Middle East did not produce stability but produced growing terrorism. I believe Bush was right to take action against Iraq and Australia was right to join this action, in part because everyone believed that Iraq possessed WMDs, but also because Saddam was the most prolific state murderer of the second half of the 20th century and threatened his neighbours. He also supported much international terrorism and rejoiced in the al-Qa'ida attacks of 9/11. The danger of his co-operating in WMDs with terrorists was great.
The people of Iraq apparently do want democracy. Whenever they are given the chance, they vote in huge numbers. Most of the killing in Iraq has not been done by Americans or their allies but by Iraqi and foreign enemies of democracy because absolutely everything bad in the Middle East understands that it will be hurt by democracy in Iraq. What is perhaps most fascinating lately is the lack of support among Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians for the al-Qa'ida agenda.
None of this is to diminish the Bush mistakes: the fatal disunity between the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department in the first administration, the lack of post-conflict planning and many other errors in Iraq.
But any strategy by any president in the Middle East would look messy. Much of the judgment on Bush is absurdly unrealistic in its failure to acknowledge that the enemy gets a say in what the battlefield looks like. The war on terror is an epic struggle. Any epic struggle you care to think of - the US Civil War, World War II, the Cold War - involved many mistakes and many lost battles. All war, including the war on terror, is very, very messy. It is not conducted in bow ties by well-mannered air forces, shaking hands first and then meeting for well-ordered battles off shore and far up in the sky.
Bush has made many blunders but he has never shirked the most important tasks of the age. Give 'em hell Harry Truman, the plain man from Missouri, would be proud of him.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/14/2006 @ 06:12am
Now the Demoncrat party also includes a follower of the same religion that spawns Islamic Terrorists as one of their political representatives!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/13/2006 @ 6:41pm
And the Republican Party include MANY followers of the same religion that spawned....Jim Jones, Torquemada, the Salem Witch Trial judges, the Crusaders, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker....dare I go on?
Wait...let me guess..."those weren't REAL Christians"....okay, so why can't a Muslim say that Al Queda, etc. aren't "real Muslims"?
Answer....because you're a dogmatist and religious bigot, and not only do you think YOUR religion is right, you think all others are evil.
And as much as the wacky neo-Marxists drive me from the Democrats....neo-Puritans such as yourself drive me from the GOP.
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 09:07am
And as much as the wacky neo-Marxists drive me from the Democrats....neo-Puritans such as yourself drive me from the GOP.
Posted by MASK 09/14/2006 @ 09:07am
no wonder you have no friends
Posted by Will C. at 09/14/2006 @ 09:10am
Posted by MASK 09/14/2006 @ 09:07am
got some good point there....better watch out, Rio Loco & co might come to see if you're a witch or something...
Followed a "Jesus Camp - The Movie" link off this site someplace the other day. Fucking scary my friend....like a "Li'l Christian al Qaida for Kids" kinda thing. Training baby neo-Puritan terrorists...Ah, feel the love!
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/14/2006 @ 10:26am
no wonder you have no friends
Posted by WILL C. 09/14/2006 @ 09:10am
I have YOU, WILL....can't make a post in the a.m., without SOME response from ya. Thanks, pal!
hehe
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 10:29am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/14/2006 @ 10:26am
Well, I'll turn him into a newt!....but he'll get better!
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 10:30am
The people of Iraq apparently do want democracy. Whenever they are given the chance, they KILL in huge numbers.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/14/2006 @ 10:44am
C'mon everybody. Stop picking on rio. He is, after all, part of the persecuted majority.
Imagine if you belonged to a group, with way too much influence over everything in this country...but everyone refuse to see the wolrd through your little filter of hate? It would be sooo hard.
An infidel friendly version of the koran? You mean like a non-hate filled bible? How can you as a brainwashed christian, understand the rhetoric of brainwashed muslims? I don't know...you all are lost...and dying to take the rest of the world down the path to your personal hells.
C'mon..let's all be the same form of insanity. Everybody sing!!
God is good,
God is great.
Read the Book,
And it told me who to hate.
Posted by Malcontent at 09/14/2006 @ 1:47pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/14/2006 @ 10:26am
Well, I'll turn him into a newt!....but he'll get better!
Posted by MASK 09/14/2006 @ 10:30am
Lots of complaining by extreme liberals= $20 Lots of assertions by extreme conservatives= $30 Monty Python reference= priceless
Posted by Thrawn at 09/14/2006 @ 1:55pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/14/2006 @ 1:19pm
RIO....what specifically did I say, that indicated my "hatred of Christianity"?
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 2:06pm
Posted by THRAWN 09/14/2006 @ 1:55pm
"I think it was 'Blessed are the cheesemakers'"
"Not to be taken literally...but to all manufactuerers of dairy products!"
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 2:10pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/14/2006 @ 2:38pm]
You're right...there are no passages in the NT where Jesus tells his followers to kill people....exactly the opposite. So, why aren't "real" Christians ...pacifists?
Answer....because they're not real Christians. How do I know? Same way you know that "real" Muslims are all murderous monsters who want to kill all those who don't believe as they do....the writings in their books.
Oh, wait....St. Augustine?..."just war"?...Okay. Was Augustine one of the Apostles? He must be, for his INTERPRETATIONS to be used as a basis for rejecting Jesus' admonition against murder of ANY kind.....but wait, that means POST-"Revelations" additional "Scripture"?
2. Why didn't the Turks or Moors kill EVERYBODY Non-Muslim in Spain and Byzantium? Why did they even INVITE in Christians and Jews to live among them? (called "history"...check it out)
3. Why won't you answer my question? What SPECIFICALLY did I say that showed I "hated Christianity"? If anything, I'm arguing FOR what Jesus said about war and killing people, while I assume you are arguing against that, unless you're a pacifist?
or is mentioning Jim Jones, the Salem witch trials, and the Crusaders...."hating" Christianity?.....Hmmm? I thought those weren't "real" Christians?!??!?!
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 2:59pm
Again, I have no affiliation with any political party!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/14/2006 @ 2:38pm
Aside from voting Republican-only for decades, of course...
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 3:03pm
Where did you find in the New Testament that God through his son Jesus the Christ tells anyone to hate anything or anyone other than SIN? If you can ridicule christianity you must surely know that!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/14/2006 @ 2:56pm
So, the Old Testament is irrelevant. Good to know.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 3:04pm
Enough.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 3:04pm
LR
That argument has several holes in it. The first is to compare Korea to Iraq. The Korean War started out with an act of aggression by North Korea. No one had to lie or exaggerate about what North Korea was doing. In the case of Iraq, it was the US that initiated hostilities on the basis of trumped-up arguments regarding WMD and links to al-Qaida.
The latest CIA conclusion, that Saddam Hussein had no connections with al-Qa'ida, has to be viewed against the CIA's record of getting everything wrong about Iraq. It was CIA director George Tenet after all, who assured Bush that the case that Saddam had WMDs was a "slam dunk". It also should be noted that saying Saddam had no connections to al-Qa'ida covers the CIA's bureaucratic posterior and lets them off for their flawed assessments of terrorism all through the 1990s. There is substantial evidence of Saddam-al-Qa'ida connections, but that's another column.
Actually, there's isn't substantial evidence at all. Things like the Atta-Prague story have been continually debunked. I would also point out that Tenet's "slam-dunk" has less to do with a CIA judgement then a careerist who was giving the answer his masters wanted to hear. The actual CIA work into Iraq-WMDs was headed by Valerie Plame, and that department found no evidence.
One of the many failures of the feckless Clinton administration was its inability to take terrorism seriously. Despite the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre, which could so easily have done what 9/11 did, Clinton oversaw extensive reductions in US intelligence in the mid-'90s.
It also saw an increased focus on the terror threat. It was the Clinton Administration that was involved in the capture of the WTC '93 bombers and the guy who did the shootings at Langley. If they didn't go after bin-Laden that early it was because he didn't become prominent until about '95-'96.
I believe Bush was right to take action against Iraq and Australia was right to join this action, in part because everyone believed that Iraq possessed WMDs, but also because Saddam was the most prolific state murderer of the second half of the 20th century and threatened his neighbours. He also supported much international terrorism and rejoiced in the al-Qa'ida attacks of 9/11. The danger of his co-operating in WMDs with terrorists was great.
Since the chances of Iraq actually having any WMDs was virtually null, the danger of his co-operating in WMDs was also virtually null. Many countries have killed wholesale, that by itself doesn't make them threats to US interests. Some of the US's best friends have had blood on their hands. Further, Iraq could hardly be considered a threat after a lost war and over a decade of sanctions.
Finally, Iraq was a disastrous strategic detour from the struggle to suppress Islamist militants. It took resources out of Afghanistan, created sufficient outrage in the Muslim world as to enhance the recruiting capabilities of these groups and got us bogged down against insurgencies that, since they are composed primarily of Iraqis, we wouldn't have had to contend with at all if we hadn't invaded.
The broader political point is that Bush, like Truman, has pursued his policy against the tenacious opposition of some large measure of the US national security establishment.
Really, was the national security establishment against NATO, the Marshall Plan and the creation of the CIA and the NSC?
Posted by brunowe at 09/14/2006 @ 3:25pm
Rio says, the new testament contains nothing instructing to" hate anything or anyone other than SIN".
Oh...I see. I cannot kill or condemn you, w/o labling you, based on my arbitrary and insane definitions?
I love how the old testament is not irrelevant and "it is the old covenant that points to the new covenant and does much to reveal the nature of God"...but it is to be avoided when discussing the nature of the bible. Why don't christians just remove it from the bible then?
Where does the new testament reveal the origins of earth or mankind? either the old testament is the basis of your beleif or it is not. Which is it?
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 09/14/2006 @ 3:35pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/14/2006 @ 3:17pm
RIO,as a veteran of many discussions on religious blogs, I always find it telling that my opponent's views have "dried up", when he starts quoting non-relevant lines of Scripture....instead of just saying what he or she thinks themselves.
Does ANY of what you posted have anything to do with my question about Christians and pacifism? Does it answer your PERSONAL views as a "real Christian" and if you are a pacifist or not?
The point is...as the NT taken literally (which I'm sure you do) says that all Christians should be pacifists (which I assume you DON'T agree with)...
then why can't the literal Qu'ran be interpreted with the same latitude?
You want it BOTH ways....Christians can be "real Christians" and not pacifists despite Jesus' obvious teachings on non-violence, but "real Muslims" are ALWAYS bloodthirsty monsters due to a few lines in the Qu'ran.
You can't....if you are a REAL Christian, you follow Jesus' teachings without "excuses" and therefore allow yourself to be struck seven times seven times, and still turn the other cheek.
That would be 49 times...so would "President RIO" tell the American people they need to turn the other cheek to FORTY-NINE 9/11s?
I wouldn't...but then again....I'm not a Christian.
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 3:50pm
MASK 9/13 @2:04
I can't speak for ALL Democrats, only this one and off the top of my head Bill Clinton and Hillary and Mayor Daly (pere) of Chicago and Dan Rostenkowski and who knows how many others who vote in Congress the way they're paid to vote. Then there's "street money" which is self-explanatory. I wonder if C. Hitchens is a Dem - I think he is - so is Bob Novak, surprise, surprise. And then there must be a bunch of "news" stenographers who probably are Dems like Matthews, Russert...you can fill in the rest.
Posted by felicity at 09/14/2006 @ 4:02pm
Posted by FELICITY 09/14/2006 @ 4:02pm
FELICITY, what criminality were Bill and Hillary Clinton guilty of?(no right wingers please on this one....want to hear FEL's answer!)
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 4:25pm
NEW DAWN;
So, just what is the sourse of your standard for "moral imperatives" as you pontificate you possess. At least you do not flee to the myopic safety of ignore as pseudo intellectual cowards like Zero choose to do!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/14/2006 @ 03:41am
------------------------
So, just what was your answer New Dawn. I must have missed it!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/14/2006 @ 2:58pm
An innate sense of good and evil that requires no man's written word to define it for me, even if they claim those written words were sent to them by any "God".
That answer your question, fundamentalist wackjob?
I see little difference between your explanations for your own motivations and those of the Islamist extremists you so despise.
"It's in the Book, it's in the Book, it's in the Book".
Yep, very similar.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 4:33pm
So, the Old Testament is irrelevant. Good to know.
Posted by NEW DAWN 09/14/2006 @ 3:04pm
--------------------
No not irrelevant it is the old covenant that points to the new covenant and does much to reveal the nature of God and his sovereignty over all the world and all of mankind.
Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/14/2006 @ 3:06pm
No, the Old Testament reveals a spiteful, vengeful, jealous, and petty "God", and you don't like it.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 4:35pm
You can't....if you are a REAL Christian, you follow Jesus' teachings without "excuses" and therefore allow yourself to be struck seven times seven times, and still turn the other cheek.
I don't this is really true. One other thing that Jesus spent a lot of time on was concrete action, namely that you love your neighbor by actually doing things to help them out and making sure they don't come to harm. So, consider the following situation:
You're walking alone down the street when you see a guy with a gun threatening the life of an innocent old man. You're fully capable of knocking the guy out and calling the police. Are you justified in doing so? What if the only way you can stop him from murdering the old man in cold blood is to kill him? Is that justified?
Peace is a great thing; I don't think any Christian could genuinely argue otherwise. That's not to say, though, that it outweighs all other things (including other commands that Jesus gave), especially given that the world is certainly not a perfect place. Should the US have "loved its neighbor" by refusing to participate in the Second World War? The belief that we aren't tainted by bad things simply because we don't directly participate in them is both silly and antithetical to Jesus' core message, which is why a categorical pacifism runs counter to the very foundation of Jesus' teachings.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/14/2006 @ 4:48pm
No, the Old Testament reveals a spiteful, vengeful, jealous, and petty "God", and you don't like it.
There's actually a fair amount of conflict here; some parts depict God as infinitely loving and merciful, other parts, well...don't. What's often been argued, though, is that much of the Old Testament demonstrates a progression towards greater inclusiveness and concern for one another, and a diminishing significance of boundaries between people. Over time, community boundaries become less and less significant, and the revelation of God becomes closer and closer to the loving deity that the New Testament clearly shows him to be. It's not that we just altered our fictional god over time, or that God changed his character, it's that he revealed more of his character in a way that allowed societies to progressively improve themselves. It's important to keep in mind that, in many ways, Israel was far more humane and just than the other societies of its time, even though many of its actions and policies would be seen by us as barbaric; the "eye for an eye" rule, for example, was a provision to limit vengeance, not to sanction it.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/14/2006 @ 4:53pm
No, the Old Testament reveals a spiteful, vengeful, jealous, and petty "God", and you don't like it.
There's actually a fair amount of conflict here; some parts depict God as infinitely loving and merciful, other parts, well...don't. What's often been argued, though, is that much of the Old Testament demonstrates a progression towards greater inclusiveness and concern for one another, and a diminishing significance of boundaries between people. Over time, community boundaries become less and less significant, and the revelation of God becomes closer and closer to the loving deity that the New Testament clearly shows him to be. It's not that we just altered our fictional god over time, or that God changed his character, it's that he revealed more of his character in a way that allowed societies to progressively improve themselves. It's important to keep in mind that, in many ways, Israel was far more humane and just than the other societies of its time, even though many of its actions and policies would be seen by us as barbaric; the "eye for an eye" rule, for example, was a provision to limit vengeance, not to sanction it.
Posted by THRAWN 09/14/2006 @ 4:53pm
For the purposes of Rio's arguments, Thrawn (not necessarily yours), what I said stands.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 5:06pm
Thank you, Liberty.
For what it's worth, I would rather argue the Bible all day long with you than with Rio.
Posted by New Dawn at 09/14/2006 @ 6:08pm
I have YOU, WILL....can't make a post in the a.m., without SOME response from ya. Thanks, pal!
hehe
Posted by MASK 09/14/2006 @ 10:29am
You're welcome.
You are one sad and lonely dude if my posts are what you have to look forward too each morning
Posted by Will C. at 09/14/2006 @ 8:02pm
LeftoCenter
I saw Jesus Camp at Tribeca. It IS scary. Scenes of pre-teens talking in tongues and being driven to the point of tears praying. The scene of a little girl going up to strangers in a bowling alley and telling them "Jesus has a plan for you" made me think of cultists.
Posted by brunowe at 09/14/2006 @ 9:04pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/14/2006 @ 6:14pm
But usually they are RELEVANT to the point, RIO.
Again...are you a pacifist, and are their Scriptural references to Jesus being for "just wars", carpet bombing Tokyo, or even musket firing at Redcoats.
Again, I'm not a pacifist...but I don't claim to follow the teachings of Jesus either.
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 10:30pm
Posted by WILL C. 09/14/2006 @ 8:02pm
Not "look forward to"...just come to expect...hehe
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 10:31pm
Not "look forward to"...just come to expect...hehe
Posted by MASK 09/14/2006 @ 10:31pm
Then there was really no reason to thank me.
I'll rescind the you're welcome
Posted by Will C. at 09/14/2006 @ 10:48pm
Again, I'm not a pacifist...but I don't claim to follow the teachings of Jesus either.
Again, all the analysis about why Christianity doesn't mandate pacifism applies.
Of course, if this is directed purely towards Rio's own position, then I have no real objection.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/15/2006 @ 12:53am
all the analysis about why Christianity doesn't mandate pacifism applies.
what analysis?
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/15/2006 @ 08:39am