Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Cokie Roberts: A Lamont win wll be a disaster for Democrats
Posted by: McQ on Monday, August 07, 2006

Interesting exchange on ABC's "This Week" between Cokie Roberts and George Stephanopoulos about the Lamont/Lieberman race.

You can read the whole exchange here (and they have a video link). It is something many of us have been saying for a while. Key point - when asked by Stephanopoulos if she really thought it would be a disaster, Roberts answered:
Yes, I do because I think, first of all, that pushing the party to the left, which is what's likely to happen, is pushing the party to the position from which it traditionally loses, and…in presidential elections but also it will send a signal to everybody in the Senate, watch out, the only smart thing to do here is play to your base, and then what that means is that your legislation becomes a mess, which it already is but even more of a mess, and you get…So you get just a total chaos.
Go left and lose, says Roberts. You may win Lamont, but the rest goes south. To which George Will added:
It will terrify Republicans for 2006 but 2008 I think Cokie may be right. Between 1968 and 1972 the Democratic Party went into stark, hard and nearly unanimous opposition to an unpopular war in Vietnam but they did so in a way that made them unpopular…in the process, so if the blogosphere and Moveon.Org dragged the party to the left it will be a disaster.
Now to the true believers, this will all be hogwash. They want to feel that, in fact, the voting public really wants a move to the left and Lamont proves the point. But I line up with Roberts here. I and others have been talking about the potential disaster of this sort of perceived idelogical move for quite some time. While on a short-term basis it may pay off policially in '06 while whatever anger at Republicans exists, that anger will eventually cool and a nation which has been documented as moving more to the right in its political views will reassess the situation and vote accordingly. That most likely would be in '08.

Seemingly then, given that line of thought, if the netroots campaign is successful for Lamont (and others) and if Democrats are successful in wresting control of the House away from Repubicans in '06 by appealing to the vocal base and other angry Americans - thereby pushing it further to the left - it might only take 2 years for most voters to get very tired of Democrats. It is that to which Roberts and Will are alluding.

Roberts is right when she says the direction in which the party is now headed is to a position from which it traditionally loses. But apparently political memories are short, and like those who still think the only reason socialism hasn't worked is because they aren't in charge of the effort, Democratic leadership feels it can handle the politics of the lefward move successfully. Instead, they may have jumped the shark.

We'll see.

UPDATE: As if to underscore the point, Democratic Rep. John Conyers has released a 350 page report entitled, “The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance.” Should the Democrats win, Conyers would be the chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

As Byron York notes:
While it’s absent in the body of the report, the I-word does appear a few times in Conyers’s 1,401 footnotes, which include citations of authorities ranging from the left-wing conspiracy website rawstory.com to the left-wing antiwar sites democracyrising.us and afterdowningstreet.org to the left-wing British newspaper the Guardian to the left-wing magazines The Nation and Mother Jones to the left-wing blogosphere favorite Murray Waas to the New York Times columnists Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, and Frank Rich to former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal to the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh.
So while Nancy Peolosi claims “impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it”, if the Dems take the House she'll have to reckon with a Conyers who seems hell bent on pursuing it and will be in the position to do so.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
... a nation which has been documented as moving more to the right in its political views will reassess the situation and vote accordingly.
Which nation is that, McQ?

Or, to be more precise: what does it mean when you say they’ve been moving more to the "right"?
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
In their voting habits. As Roberts points out, the only Democrat to win the presidency in years ran to the center, not to the left. Those that have run more to the left end up in the "position" Roberts notes. Losing.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
... a nation which has been documented as moving more to the right in its political views will reassess the situation and vote accordingly.
Yup. I remember when Alito was going through the confirmation. Someone took a poll on the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court. Turns out, way more people wanted the court to move right than move left. I’d imagine that recent attempts to legislate through the court system helped with that.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
I don’t see Iraq as the dominant 2008 issue. By then, we should long know for sure if Bush and the Neocons totally bungled it. And if so, taken corrective or extricatory actions or had Congress stifle any remaining "Stay the Course!" Bushies through the budget. If not, and the "noble purple-fingered freedom-lovers" show they are somehow NOT the absolute bloodthirsty anarchistic bigoted treacherous nitwits they seem to be so far, then Beloved All-Wise Bush and Allied politicans win outright. Either way, those Centrist Democrats who voted for it if they mutter suitable regrets remain positioned those Centrists as "strong" on National Security for the innumerable other unresolved threats and booted crises Bush will hand over to his sucessor.

But before then, 2006 elections happen and the Republicans learn what happens, like happened in 1994, to an arrogant, reckless spending, corrupted Party.

By becoming the Party that stands only by and for for the rich and to a lesser extent the Religious Right yokels, and wrapping themselves to a President with serious judgment & competency issues - it appears that the Reps are in for a just and proper beating.

Weep not for the fallen and departed, - as Frist, Burns, Pataki, Bob Ney, Santorum, Denny Hastert, Tom Delay simply all waddle off to the Corporate Lobbyist feeding trough Billy Tauzin now dines at in splendor (as still the most underpaid person in all of Washington, DC for the boon he gave Big Pharma.)

Bush stands to be rewarded even more than Tauzin after he steps down as the Republican LBJ. But not in reckless unrestrained spending and debt burdening on "solving poverty", but in solving dilemma of the wealthy wanting a 20,000 square foot oceanfront estate, but not having any shot at affording it prior to Bush II’s championing of their dreams. Every CEO or billionaire fatcat - even George Soros - should line up and say thanks and ask to kiss his ring and sign huge checks for his "Dubya library for book stuff and other things" —for all the good he did "his kinda folks".


Whether the Dems cripple themselves for 2008 is dependent on if they don’t have the extreme Left stop at Iraq but allow them to infect a variety of foreign policy, even domestic platforms with Leftist, multi-culti ideas.

They also appear to have some "Investigation-happy" members like Conyers, Hollywood bagman Waxman, Rangel, Feingold, Pelosi, Kerry, Schumer, Nadler, Franks, Alcee Hastings, Jesse Jackson Jr., Rahm Emmanuel - all poised for "investigatory Committee chairs" or Democratic leadership spots. If nothing is done between 2006 and 2008 but Inquisitions....that could badly hurt the Dems for a 2008 shot.
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
Okay, then what does it mean to be on "the right"?

Does it mean social conservatism and government promoting "social engineering" policies, or does it mean getting the government out of our lives?
Does it mean fiscal restraint? Really? Let’s look at the effective truth here. Is America voting more for cutting total spending?
Does it mean a particular kind of foreign policy? Because we’ve pretty much run the gamut of foreign policy under both Democrats and Republicans, with both sides switching up their rhetoric and practice.
What does it even mean to be "far right"? Can someone accurately describe all or even most of people who have been labelled into that category?

Even assuming "left" and "right" really apply to our political system — and I would contend that they don’t — what would it mean for more people to be "on the right" when the country is rapidly moving, one would have to admit, toward increased government spending and intervention in our lives while "the right" is in power and still managing to lose electoral ground to the "left" party?
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Apparantly being a "Centrist" means siding against the majority of voters, especially in regards to Iraq.

But keep repeating it over and over. What other choice does the minority have?
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
I most likely stand with the majority of people here who are dissatisfied with the Republicans but terrified of the Democrats. Supposing the Democrats do win a majority and further assuming that they can secure every vote in their caucus to go forward with impeachment, the Senate still has to vote to bring the charges forward.

Hoping the Senate remains in Republican hands, impeachment hearing will never go forward. Any number of Senators will place a hold on the measure because impeachment is more of a political proceeding than it is a legal one and Bush will be out of office before any subpoenas are issued.

Captain Ed seems a bit frightened by Yorks article as I’m sure many others are as well, however impeachment has zero traction among the majority of Americans, it is only popular among the moonbat left and a handful of Congresspeople.
 
Written By: josh
URL: http://
Okay, then what does it mean to be on "the right"?
Assume it is a sliding scale if you prefer. Where ever the ’right’ is, it isn’t where the left is positioning itself for this election. That’s Robert’s point.

Certainly we can argue all day about the exact placement of the right and attempt to list what that means, but what it doesn’t mean and how its changed, but essentially it isn’t what the left is selling (or at least not as much or as radical as the left is selling).

If I had to begin to categorize it, I’d suggest that a large part of it has to do with populist issues (usually identified on the right ... such as immigration) and those normally identified with the right (national defense) as well as a growing awareness that although in general they’re not that opposed to government programs, they are going to have to pay the piper at some point in the future and they want to delay that for the grandkids to deal with (or said another way, the sorta favor less spending in a general and theorhetical way which may influence them to go with the side which is more identified with that in principle (if not reality)).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
...however impeachment has zero traction among the majority of Americans, it is only popular among the moonbat left and a handful of Congresspeople.
Agreed, and if the cat ever gets out of the Congressional bag should the Dems take the House, they’d sign their own political death warrant should they attempt it ... but that doesn’t mean they won’t. And I think that is the unspoken fear Roberts is espousing here. Lamont, to her, represents a further radicalization of the Dems, and she sees that as counter-productive and likely to position them for another loss in ’08.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Ok, the impeachment thing is almost certainly a non-starter, so what’s with all the worry? Really, I am amused at all this hand-wringing from Roberts and others, that opposing the hugely expensive mess in Iraq is so very "left-wing." I am further bemused that libertarians would think many of the investigations Conyers proposes would be a bad thing. So I said that all more pointedly here.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
I’m bemused by those who don’t seem understand the point of the post, Mona. I’m addressing the politics of the subject and how it will play. That’s why under "category" it says "Politics". Cokie Roberst is addressing the politics as well. So is George Will.

Frankly, what the Dems do or don’t do if they manage to get the House doesn’t have me concerned in the least. If they want to impeach him, I hope they go for it. It’ll go nowhere, but politically, which again, is the point of the post, it may be enough to destroy their chances for more gains in ’08 ... that’s all.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I don’t think impeachment has the amount of traction it needs right now to be something worth talking loudly about, but who knows what some investigations might turn up? Unlike the Rethuglicans, we won’t be investigating a popular president for property purchases from decades ago or sexual relationships. We’ll be investigating an unpopular president for violations of federal law during office. I think the ground is more solid than it was in 1999, when Tom Delay mounted an unpopular impeachment on gimmick charges against a popular president, and the blowback did not exactly seem to wipe them out or anything, as you might have noticed. Why will the public use a different set of rules for Democrats?

Because the public doesn’t like Democrats more than it dislikes Republicans?

That’s the core assumption behind all of this thinking - including the basic premise that Americans only like Democrats as "centrists" who talk like Republicans. Unfortunately, it’s a convenient assumption for the people doing the thinking.

When you look at polling from the past several years, the issues America is most concerned about are - the economy - Iraq - health care - gas prices - education. Terrorism and immigration - the only strengths republicans have left- are in the bottom five. The Q and O regulars may be scared of socialism, but ordinary people are scared - and angry - about this economy and how it’s sucking their guts out. My Republican father is angry. Wall Street and Robert Zoellick can quote GNP numbers until they are blue in the face, but I don’t see a credible or convincing Republican plan for turning the situation around.

One thing I agree with is that you can use fear and hatred for short-term gains, but it will eventually bog you down. Ronald Reagan had some ideas, bad ones or not, in 1980 on things the voters wanted action on. In 2006, the issues are ones that Republicans ideologically refuse to address - and the field is open for the left to provide solutions. We have no historical experience with socialism in this country, so "Socialism" is an abstraction, and the average voter in the US doesn’t give a da*n. They want solutions, not to be told, hey, globalization happens.



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
We have no historical experience with socialism in this country, so "Socialism" is an abstraction, and the average voter in the US doesn’t give a da*n. They want solutions, not to be told, hey, globalization happens.
So socialism is country dependent now? It won’t work in Russia but it may work here? And what "solutions" will be found in socialism?

Thanks for making the point.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I’m not empirically arguing for or against socialism. It’s not a word I hear Democrats use much. Nor do I see any policies on the table that equal socialism. You may disagree, but politically, Americans care more about problems and solutions than about labels. The argument is that whether any given health-care solution, for example, is or is not socialism is an abstraction that ordinary people aren’t concerned about.

The argument is that data seems to suggest a list of problems that the American people want solved, and the Democrats are talking about solving them, and I don’t see a similar Republican interest, commitment, or credibility. It’s a historically dangerous situation to be in. Perhaps Republicans will find a clever way to address this. Who knows?
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Frankly, what the Dems do or don’t do if they manage to get the House doesn’t have me concerned in the least. If they want to impeach him, I hope they go for it. It’ll go nowhere . . .
McQ:

I think you may be mistaken that impeachment efforts will be ineffectual if the Democrats control the House. I believe it is highly likely that an impeachment effort will be launched very quickly. The Democrats are furious over many things and Bush is already very unpopular in the country at large. If, as is likely in my view, the situation continues to deteriorate in Iraq (and perhaps the Middle East more broadly), there may well be more traction to an impeachment effort than seems politically palatable today. And that is all before the inevitable avalanche of House investigations ensues into pre-war Iraq intelligence, Katrina. NSA spying, etc., etc., etc. My strong suspicion is that these investigations will depress Bush’s popularity even further. That, coupled with a newly-empowered opposition party eager to flex its muscle, makes impeachment a likely prospect.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
We have no historical experience with socialism in this country, so "Socialism" is an abstraction, and the average voter in the US doesn’t give a da*n. They want solutions, not to be told, hey, globalization happens.
We have no experience with socialism? I’m stunned. What exactly do you think the New Deal was? The Great Society? Medicare/Medicaid? Social Security? The National Labor Review Board? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration? I could go on with the administrative alphabets, but it would take entirely too long.

If that doesn’t equate to "experience with socialism", what is it you think the Progressive Movement was all about?

Far from not having experience with it, I think we are a socialist nation. Lucky for us that we are a constitutional republic with well-defined property rights and a strong rule of law. Else we would have become just another run-of-the-mill socialist country a long time ago.
The argument is that data seems to suggest a list of problems that the American people want solved, and the Democrats are talking about solving them, and I don’t see a similar Republican interest, commitment, or credibility.
Of course we want the problems solved. The argument is over who should be responsible for solving them: the government or the individual. Hell, I’d be happy with just devolving the issue to state governments. Instead, what the Democrats are talking about is how the wrong (i.e. Republican) government causes all our problems, and how the right (i.e. Democrat) government will solve them. Of course, that’s just same tired old song: ♫Meet the new boss? Same as the old boss.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Far from not having experience with it, I think we are a socialist nation.
Holy cow, is this ever not the case! I think this proves the point that the USA has no experience with real socialism if you think the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is socialism. Try living in Europe — even England — for a few years.
Of course we want the problems solved. The argument is over who should be responsible for solving them
But if we’re talking about the politics of the situation, I think it is more important to voters that problems are being addressed than who is solving the problems ... as long as it doesn’t actually cost them personally too much. "Socialism or not socialism" is a game that might scare off a few libertarian types, but appeals mostly to policy wonks.
 
Written By: Johnny Nemo
URL: http://www.independentvoice.ca/
We have no experience with socialism? I’m stunned. What exactly do you think the New Deal was? The Great Society? Medicare/Medicaid? Social Security? The National Labor Review Board? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration? I could go on with the administrative alphabets, but it would take entirely too long.
And if you did go on, you might actually come up with an example of socialism in America.

But so far.. No luck.


 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
Glasnost-

Really, using Rethuglicans?

Tsk tsk...I’m not sure what you wrote in that long post but I stopped reading it after that.

Did you actually have a point to make?

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Holy cow, is this ever not the case! I think this proves the point that the USA has no experience with real socialism if you think the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is socialism. Try living in Europe — even England — for a few years.
"Real socialism"? Re-read what I wrote, and then comment. Just because Europe is more socialist than we are doesn’t meant they we aren’t all. By that token, is Europe even socialist? Unquestionably, places such as Venezuela, China, North Korea, and Zimbabwe are more socialist. Does that make them "real" socialist countries?
But if we’re talking about the politics of the situation, I think it is more important to voters that problems are being addressed than who is solving the problems
Well since referenda are pretty rare in this country, the only thing we really ever vote on is "who" is going solve the problems.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Hey, The most socialist organization in the country is the Military

Free education, free medical care, and early retirement to mention a few socialst percs. Of course they also tell you where to live, what to do, and limit what you can say about those in charge. A lot of people think its a good way to live.

The military is a socialist paridise.
 
Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
Of course we want the problems solved. The argument is over who should be responsible for solving them: the government or the individual.

Who’s we? Libertarians? Well, I’m not sure, but I’ll take your word for it.

The Republican party? I don’t know. I read the newspapers, and listen to statements from Republican lawmakers, and read right-wing blogs, and I don’t see a lot of acknowledgement over what the polls say are the serious issues to voters. I don’t see a lot of Republicans trying to get out in front of these issues. I’m sure that there are token examples to the contrary - school vouchers, "health savings accounts", and so forth - but I don’t see voters deciding very soon that these ideas seem to be solving the problems I mentioned. That’s not my sense of the mood, that these examples or whatever other examples have really turned the American public around about education, health care, and the sucking economy. Maybe it’s just that the Republicans need to take a lot more aggressive action on their versions of solutions. Personally, I don’t believe in those solutions, but hey, if they worked, my opinions wouldn’t matter. I might even have to shut up about them.

What I see from the Republican party, besides immigration, are a reliance on terrorism. I don’t think that’s going to be enough in 2006, and I don’t think it’s going to be enough in 2008. Where does the party go?
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
It’s not a word I hear Democrats use much.
Of course you don’t. They use euphemisms and code words to refer too it.

"... for the children"

"It takes a village..."

Universal health care

For the greater good ...

For the good of society ...

Etc.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Just because Europe is more socialist than we are doesn’t meant they we aren’t all.
Whoops!

Should read: "Just because Europe is more socialist than we are doesn’t mean that we aren’t at all"

DaveBo:
And if you did go on, you might actually come up with an example of socialism in America.

But so far.. No luck.
Do you think political systems have big bright lines delineating them? One minute you’re a parliamentry system and one Bloshevik later you’re a communist?

Socialism is much more than simply an economic system where the means of production are owned by the State. And if not, can you explain the functional difference between what you think socialism is, and a system where nobody can perform any kind of work, nor sell any product, nor make any commerce related decision without government say-so?

 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: asecondhandconjecture.com
Hey, The most socialist organization in the country is the Military

Free education, free medical care, and early retirement to mention a few socialst percs. Of course they also tell you where to live, what to do, and limit what you can say about those in charge. A lot of people think its a good way to live.

The military is a socialist paridise.



There is no "free" anything, cindy. Soldiers, airmen, Marines and sailors are taxpayers, too. Retirement? Ask McQ what your average E-8 is making after getting out with 20 years in.

I lived off-post at every duty station I was assigned, except Korea. I was told what to do, by my immediate boss and by his boss. Anyone else outside the chain of command was not allowed to tell me what to do just because they outranked me. No one could tell me to do something unrelated to my duties. I could never be forced to do something illegal.

President Clinton was my boss during my service. Who is your boss, cindy? How vociferously do you attack your boss and not expect there to be consequences?

I signed a contract for my services that legally bound me and my employer. If they breached it, I had legal remedies. If I breached it, they had legal remedies. I got to pick my MOS (11M). They weren’t allowed to say "Nah, you’re going to be a Laundry and Bath Specialist instead. Twice I chose to renew my contract, and then I decided not to. Then I was free to go.
A lot of people think its a good way to live.


That part actually made sense. The rest of it was utter twaddle, as usual.

 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Free education, free medical care, and early retirement to mention a few socialst percs.
Yeah ... you don’t have to do anything for that, do you Cindy?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Do you think political systems have big bright lines delineating them? One minute you’re a parliamentry system and one Bloshevik later you’re a communist?
Sure, and of course we can blame the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration!

But seriously, don’t you find this just a little bit ludicrous? Socialism is a word, and words have real meanings.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
Sure, and of course we can blame the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration!
Who is "blaming" NHTSA? I pointed to a symptom, not a cause.
But seriously, don’t you find this just a little bit ludicrous? Socialism is a word, and words have real meanings.
No kidding, DaveBo. The word actually means a political philosophy that is antithetical to freedom. It really cannot be summed up as "state control of the means of production."
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: asecondhandconjecture.com
I think you may be mistaken that impeachment efforts will be ineffectual if the Democrats control the House. I believe it is highly likely that an impeachment effort will be launched very quickly.
That may be true, David, but unless they own a huge majority in the House, it’s not going to be easy going and then for any resolution, it has to be tried in the Senate, which, should Reps hold on to it, isn’t going to happen.

Again, I’m of the opinion (and with Pelosi’s statement that "impeachment is off the table", she is too) that the subject is one which will do more harm than good, at least in the short term.

A while back we talked about this and agreed the best strategy would be to avoid impeachment and concentrate on legislation for their first year. Then, after getting the public used to them and their agenda, if the want to branch out into some investigations, it might end up being politically useful, if they’re careful about picking their fights.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ:

My prediction is limited to impeachment by the House. I agree there will be no conviction in the Senate. (Our assumptions are that the Dems take the House but not the Senate.) As for Pelosi’s declaration that "impeachment is off the table," well, let’s just say that remark might be revised after election night. Something like this: "We intend to expeditiously conduct the investigations required by our oversight responsibilities and which have been neglected to date by our Republican colleagues. We will follow those invesitgations wherever they lead us." Let’s face it: the Democrats will not get any legislation passed controlling just one house of Congress. Investigations will be the order of the day; and impeachment articles will not be far behind. I am not suggesting this is good politics for the Democrats but I doubt they will be able to restrain themselves after the Clinton impeachment, the election frustrations, the humiliations, etc.

 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
But seriously, don’t you find this just a little bit ludicrous? Socialism is a word, and words have real meanings.
Yes, and as I’ve been told, the fall of the USSR doesn’t prove that communisim doesn’t work, because it wasn’t true communism. Of course, in the early ’20s Lenin was moving Russia towards true communism, but pulled back as it was proving to be a failure. The USSR was always awaiting the development of the true socialist man, so they could put communism into full force.

Kinda also reminds me of the minimum wage argument, where everyone with a clue knows it’s a bad idea based upon economic theory, but the min wage advocates argue back with junk science studies that rely upon statistical noise . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
As far as right vs left, at least from an economic perspective:

Far right: free markets.
Far left: socialism or communism.

In between there lies fascism, a system where there is still private property and some level of private trade, but the government controls trade and industry for the benifit of the whole. In facist Italy and nazi Germany this was done to support a military build up, while in modern Europe, Canada, and (to a lessor extend) the US, this was done to protect the poor, minorities, endangered species, etc.

I guess what I’m saying is that everything is fascism (even, in reality, the USSR), while the endpoints are free markets and socialism. Socialism simply doesn’t work, and politics tend to push societies away from free markets (pre 1900 the US was dang close to a true free market).
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Mike thinks socialism is defined as "a political philosophy antithetical to freedom", and also thinks that socialism = Medicare and social security. So I propose a deal, Mike - a one-of-a-kind opportunity to put me into slavery and vastly increase your own freedom - get yourself away from the freedom-killing effect of socialism and send me your social security checks when you turn 55.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
(pre 1900 the US was dang close to a true free market).
Well, not really, there were far more personal freedoms and a lot less restraint on business, but there were a huge number of government giveaways to business and various meddling. Practically our entire rail system west of the Mississippi was funded by the government. There were also many local and state laws that perverted
markets, anything from local monopolies to laws restricting business because of a person’s race.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Now to the true believers, this will all be hogwash. They want to feel that, in fact, the voting public really wants a move to the left and Lamont proves the point. But I line up with Roberts here. I and others have been talking about the potential disaster of this sort of perceived idelogical move for quite some time. While on a short-term basis it may pay off policially in ’06 while whatever anger at Republicans exists, that anger will eventually cool and a nation which has been documented as moving more to the right in its political views will reassess the situation and vote accordingly. That most likely would be in ’08.
Correct.

The Netroots are fools to think THEIR anger is going to push everyone ELSE the electorate... which is increasingly voting Republican... as evidenced by the last several election cycles... into going fully left as they are.

I have said it often enough before; The worst thing you can give a democrat is precisely what they ask for. They may actually managed to get low mind on the ballot. Or they may not based on the idea that Lieberman seems to be catching up. That issue aside, however even assuming that Lamont takes the seat... and that’s still an open question, it is going to label the democrats on a nationwide basis as moving too far to the left for most Americans.

If Lamont wins, the Democrats lose. It’s that simple.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Don -

So far right means "free market" (even just in an economic sense) then?
Then even assuming you’re correct in your description, the country isn’t moving to the right. The country still favors massive government programs in public education, government-subsidized health care, and public pensions (to name just a few). The public votes for pork and protectionism as soon as it has anything to do with their district, their hometown, their lives. The public keeps on voting in people who spend money and "balance the books" by borrowing the (13-figure) difference.
-=-=-=-=-
glasnost - You want to pay my payroll taxes, and my part of the debt incurred by Social Security, and I’ll gladly let you collect my Social Security checks. Sound like a deal?
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
"Dissatisfied with the Republicans but terrified of the Democrats"

That should be a bumper sticker.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
The post strikes me as pop-scholarship.

Consider that there is no difference between Joe Lieberman and his fellow Democrats in Washington. If you don’t believe me, look at Lieberman’s voting record. There’s no "pushing" to be done in either direction when you can’t tell the difference between Lieberman and other Democrats.
 
Written By: Nicolai Brown
URL: http://www.nicolaibrown.com
Kyle N. made comments in response to this quote:
"(pre 1900 the US was dang close to a true free market)."
And I must add that nevertheless, we had a much greater chance to evolve into the free market economy in the pre 1900’s than in the 2000’s.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
And to comment on the post, yes, a Lamont win would be a disaster for the Democrats, especially if Lieberman runs anyway and wins—’though it is much more likely he would be a spoiler throwing the seat to the Republican candidate.

The improvident enthusiasm for gridlock seen in many on this blog, has no respect for the overall thrust of history in this country for the last 111 years or so. Gridlock will at best change the throttle setting a few percent—for a short while—on the train we are all on while it heads off a collapsed bridge.

Support the Republicans, hope Lamont wins the primary.

See the fractures in the far weaker Democratic Party widely displayed and seen to gape further open.

The Democrats will fall apart when their constituent groups see they can have to spoils from their patronage party.

Genuinely politically productive developments are not plausible in this country while the current duopoly is intact.

I sincerely hope Lamont wins the primary.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider